by Leighton Flowers & Eric Kemp
Calvinists often argue that if we as Christians were free to suppress the truth or believe it then we could boast in our choice to believe the gospel.
In other words, if we are able to meet the condition of faith that is required for salvation, we can boast. They insist that boasting would only be eliminated if we agree with them that God effectually caused our belief in the gospel (by means of irresistible grace).
There are several blatant problems with this argument:
1) Is the Calvinist’s belief in Calvinism also effectually caused by God?
If so, then why hasn’t God given it to all His children so as to prevent this inevitable boasting?
If not, then why wouldn’t the Calvinist boast in their choice to accept Calvinism?
2) On our view, people who would have the audacity to boast in humbly believing in Christ didn’t really humbly believe in Christ. Their rotten fruit has revealed a fake root. True humility doesn’t boast in itself. It boasts in the One we place our trust. (1 Cor 1:21)
“Let him who boasts boast of this, that he understands and knows Me, that I am the LORD who exercises lovingkindness, justice and righteousness on earth; for I delight in these things,” declares the LORD. (Jer 9:24)
The condition of faith we assert mankind has the ability to meet is literal humility. Humbly confessing your sin, humbly recognizing your inability to save yourself, and humbling yourself before the Savior who sacrificed himself for you on the cross. How can a view which is based upon fulfilling a requirement of humility inevitably lead to boasting? Sure, people are capable of all kinds of evils, including boasting in being humble, but such boasting violates the principle of humility upon which our view is built.
3) Every honest Calvinist would admit they know at least one Calvinist who is proud and arrogant and one non-Calvinist who is humble and selfless. So why is one prideful and the other arrogant if the doctrine itself isn’t the ultimate cause of these characteristics?
On Calvinism, all things are in accordance with God’s sovereign decree, so those who act pridefully (regardless of their soteriological views) are ultimately doing so because that is how God decreed for them to behave. Why does the Calvinist lament God’s decree?
On our view, however, pride is not from the Father but from the world (1 John 2:16).
We believe because of sufficient yet resistible Grace. It is our choice the use the grace or receive it in vain. Romans 2:4. 2 Cor 6:1.
Hello dnjohn and welcome
Not long ago I was with a Calvinist who was “humble-bragging” that he was humble because of his view that God forced him to be saved rather than choosing to place his trust in the finished work of Christ.
He insisted my way was prideful and his way was humble and so continued on with his “humble-bragging” after awhile it got a bit much. I find “humble-bragging” is quite common amongst Calvinists. They insist they are humble and we are not.
So Calvinists don’t boast about “I CHOSE to trust Christ.” But, like Graceadict said, they do boast about other things. Such as “Look how humble I am to accept such difficult teachings without really understanding them, and to humble myself SO LOW before such a ‘sovereign’ God!” Or how about “I am one of the elect! ME! God loves ME! God chose ME! Jesus died for MY sins because God wanted ME with Him in heaven!” If they don’t boast like this in words, they do it in attitude. I’ve seen both these before. It’s nauseating.
They do boast about other things.
Such as:
“My system of CONTORTED-LOGIC and GLORIFIED-EVIL is scriptural – while your system is just humanistic philosophy” :-]
I know hundreds of “humble bragging Calvinists” these abound but actually humble Calvinist are very very hard to come by.
Their Theology does make it very hard for them to be humble…that is why they have to declare to everyone how humble they are.
When a person is feeling the need to declare how humble he is it is a sure sign that humility is actually absent and he feels this absence so he has to compensate by promoting himself as being humble. Convoluted but that is how it works.
– Bragging is humble
– Evil is good
– Divine interventions of what is infallibly decreed
– Divine unchangeable decrees can be divinely prevented.
– The outcome of infallible decrees can be the opposite of those infallible decrees.
– “Mere” permission doesn’t exist *AS-IF* it does
– Calvin’s god decrees what people *WOULD* do – and then uses that as his infinite understanding – to make decisions about what they *WILL* do.
Have you noticed how much DOUBLE-THINK there is in Calvinism? :-]
Humility by itself is not necessarily commendable. There is such a thing as false humility or ungodly humility. I could humbly claim that I am not worthy of being loved by others. Or that I did not deserve to win an award for which I trained very hard. Or a multitude of other things. The point isn’t that we swing to the opposite extreme and claim entitlement, superiority, etc. It is that the “humility” that you are one of the elect is rarely that. It is a sort-of reverse psychology of immense relief that you are “in” while others are “out”.
But here’s the catch: how can you be sure? What if it is all an elaborate ruse that God is conducting in his “secret counsel” to make you look like and feel like a Christian – only to find out that you were deceived in your heart? And that this will somehow bring glory to Him? After all, the Calvinist believes that having some destined for hell brings God glory more than a God that accepts anyone and allows them to choose (not earn) salvation? If a Calvinist is honest with himself, he cannot rule this out.
Now, Calvinists will argue that knowing who is elect is not secret (they will undoubtedly claim that they themselves are part of the elect – humbly, of course) and that the only thing secret is why God chooses to save some and not others. But I think we all understand that if it is truly outside of our hands to accept or reject Christ, then no true Calvinist can have any assurance of salvation. It becomes an endless loop of “but what if I only think I’m elect and really am not? If I’m told to examine myself to see if I be in the faith but cannot exercise my will to change the outcome, then isn’t this just a fool’s errand?”
Absolutely totally true!
When one reviews Calvin’s doctrine of the wheat and the chaff – one discovers that according to Calvin, the vast majority of the Calvinist fold are chaff. In his words “a few grains hidden under a pile of chaff”.
Here are some quotes:
-Whatever CONCEPTIONS we form in our minds, they were directed by the secret INSPIRATION of GOD .” (Institutes)
– Some are pre-ordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation, and accordingly as each has been created for one of these ends, we say he has been predestined to life or death.
– Yet sometimes he also causes those whom he illumines only for a time to partake of it; then he….forsakes them…..and strikes them with even greater blindness (Institutes)
– ….those to whom He holds it [salvation] out as a savor of death, and as the occasion for severer condemnation ( Institutes)
– But the Lord….. instills into their minds such a sense of his goodness as can be felt WITHOUT the Spirit of adoption. (Institutes)
– When he shows himself propitious to them, it is not as if he had truly rescued them from death, and taken them under his protection. He only gives them a MANIFESTATION of his present mercy. (Institutes pg 340)
————————————————————————————————————————————————
So Calvin’s god gives the vast majority of Calvinist’s a FALSE perception of faith, election, salvation – in order to magnify their torment int the lake of fire.
nrteebs writes, “the Calvinist believes that having some destined for hell brings God glory’
Calvinists believe that God works all events into His plan, so all events have a purpose in God’s plan. Thus, Paul can say, “we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.” and believers can know that even evil acts are part of God’s plan and God’s plan is to bring glory to Himself.
Then, “Calvinists will argue that knowing who is elect is not secret ”
No. Calvinist say that the identity of the elect is God’s secret. That is why we preach to all people, both elect and non-elect, and God will use that preaching to draw His elect out of the crowd. The problem, as Calvin explains, is that the gospel is attractive for many non-spiritual reasons meaning that the church becomes filled with both wheat and tares. Thus, Jude says, “…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….These are spots in your love feasts, while they feast with you without fear, serving only themselves. …These are grumblers, complainers, walking according to their own lusts; and they mouth great swelling words, flattering people to gain advantage. But you, beloved, remember the words which were spoken before by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ: how they told you that there would be mockers in the last time who would walk according to their own ungodly lusts.”
Then, ‘I think we all understand that if it is truly outside of our hands to accept or reject Christ, then no true Calvinist can have any assurance of salvation.”
On the contrary, for John writes, “these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.” and “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” If anyone doubts his salvation, he need only seek forgiveness from God. To many, Calvinists and non-Calvinists, this is an ongoing activity as the Holy Spirit continuously convicts the believer of sin.
Then, ” If I’m told to examine myself to see if I be in the faith but cannot exercise my will to change the outcome, then isn’t this just a fool’s errand?””
The believer is told to examine himself and then prays, “Search me, O God, and know my heart; Try me, and know my anxieties; And see if there is any wicked way in me, And lead me in the way everlasting.” The believer knows that he cannot change himself (as a leopard cannot change its spots) and that only God can change him.
rhutchin
Calvinists believe that God works all events into His plan,
br.d
Here is wisdom – never hold your breath waiting for a Calvinist to tell the WHOLE truth.
Calvin’s god is the EXCLUSIVE conceiver and determiner of 100% of whatsoever comes to pass.
1) Man cannot be/do otherwise than what is infallibly decreed
2) Man cannot be/do what is not infallibly decreed
Nothing more and nothing less is permitted or made available to the creature.
Welcome to Hotel Calvin-Fornia
You can check out any time you like – but you can never leave :-]
To locate IRRATIONAL INCONSISTENCY within the mind of a Calvinist who perceives himself deliberating over scripture is now easy.
For Calvin teaches him to go about his office AS-IF nothing (including the perceptions within his brain) is predetermined in any part.
While his doctrine dictates the very opposite
That whatsoever “perception” comes to pass within his brain was rendered-certain by Calvin’s god.
Calvin’s god being the exclusive AUTHOR of each and every perception actualized within his brain.
Thus, the ascription of IRRATIONAL INCONSISTENCY within the mental state of the Calvinist perceiving himself a deliberator of scripture is secured.
Who wouldn’t want to sign up for that! :-]
Bro. Kemp,
I’ve never seen or heard this argument from a monergist/Calvinist except as a logical conclusion of synergistic doctrine, much in the same way that synergists assert that the logical conclusion of Calvinistic “determinism” is to make God a moral monster and the author of sin. I don’t think that anyone actually believes that any true believer, whether synergist or monergist, would boast in their faith. The argument is that they “could” boast, not that they “would” boast.
I’ve heard analogous responses to this argument such as “can a sick person boast because they simply received medicine” or “would a drowning person deserve credit simply because they grabbed onto a lifeline.” These do not really answer the question or concern of the monergist. The better analogy is if two people are drowning and both are offered a lifeline and one accepts while the other refuses, would those observing this rescue assign some merit or credit to the one accepting the lifeline over the one who did not? Certainly, the rescuer would be assigned the vast majority of the credit but would it not be human nature to assign some credit to the one who accepted the help? The issue is not whether the one rescued would actually boast but whether those who witnessed the rescue might think that he or she could boast.
In contrast, if the drowning person is unable to grab the lifeline (because he is unconscious or her hands are tied behind her back) and the rescuer grabs the person and lifts him or her to safety, there is absolutely no doubt as to who deserves all of the credit for the rescue. Now we can debate the actual inability of the drowning person or even question why the rescuer might save one and leave the other to drown, but we can be sure that the rescuer will be the only one that could boast.
As with any human analogy, this falls far short of actually describing the true situation of the drowning person (the rebel sinner who is dead in trespasses and sins) and the amazing love, grace, and mercy of the rescuer (the God of the universe Who willingly gave Himself in place of that sinner) but it at least ensures that only the Rescuer receives praise and honor.
Mark – Did the prodigal’s father go out and save his lost son or did the lost son repent and approach his father with a repentant heart and then the father saved him? That is a biblical illustration about being lost and repentance… though I don’t think someone watching a rescue of a drowning person ever thinks of how “wise” the rescued drowning person was to accept being rescued. 😉 Also, you may have missed my previous reply to you below.
Thanks Mark for taking a stab at push back on that article.
The problems I see with your analogy is that it does not match scripture.
The Old Testament is full (hundreds) of places where it says something like “I and I alone, the Eternal will rescue you…” and then God tells them what they must do to be rescued. Did He do it “alone”? Yes…. and no. It was conditional.
For example, “bringing them out of Egypt” is mentioned hundreds of times in many OT books and of course is very present in the NT (Jude 1:5, Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord at one time delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe.)
Of course everyone knows they were “dead in slavery” (like later we are “dead in sin”) and He delivered them out.
But …not “dead” like in the analogy you gave. They still had to sacrifice the animal, put the blood on the door, and stay in the house.
For your lifeline analogy to be accurate, they would have had nothing to do (been a non-participant). Those who did nothing died. Those who applied the blood in faith lived.
As for your “could boast/ would boast” idea….that falls flat too.
Of course they “could have” boasted “Well…. we did kill our animals and apply the blood on the door after all!” Nah…that’s just dumb. I often wonder why monergists insist on using this faulty lifeline analogy in the light of scripture.
Listen to Miriam’s song after crossing the Red Sea…. “He has triumphed gloriously” . Of course giving the glory to God …but it was not until “Moses stretched out his hand over the sea” that the water parted (Moses could a boasted on that one!).
Later the Jordan parted when they had the faith to stand in the river. Over and over the lesson that God’s deliverance is there if you act in faith (you are not “that dead”).
Sure God did it all —- rescued us from the slavery of sin …. if we apply the blood in faith. Will we boast about that? That’s just dumb.
ps. For good measure see the many posts on this site about Luke 15 where the son is “dead” but came to his senses. MacArthur makes that all about salvation and the Father is God… but the MacArthur forgets to mention that the Father just waited at home for the son to come to his senses while in a faraway land. That does not match your life lifeline analogy either. Best not to use that one in the light of what Scripture says.
Good points FOH… Red Sea, Jordan and the whole of scripture shows this kind of interplay. Notice the order below “You Turn then God pours out His spirit”. BUT if you refuse then God does X.
Pro 1:23 If you turn at my reproof, behold, I will pour out my spirit to you; I will make my words known to you.
Pro 1:24 Because I have called and you refused to listen, have stretched out my hand and no one has heeded,
Pro 1:25 because you have ignored all my counsel and would have none of my reproof,
Pro 1:26 I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when terror strikes you,
Calvinists often argue that if we as Christians were free to suppress the truth or believe it then we could boast in our choice to believe the gospel.
br.d
And Dr. Flowers would rightly point out that according to Calvinism, Calvin’s god – at the foundation of the world – decreed that that would infallibly come to pass.
And there is NOTHING anyone can possibly do to stop a divine infallible decree.
So in Calvinism – the bottom line is – NOTHING ABOUT ANYTHING is UP TO US.
So why are Calvinists so totally DOUBLE-MINDED?
Going about MAKING-BELIEVE we mere mortals can oppose infallible supernatural decrees?
FOH,
I think this may be our first direct interaction and I appreciate the response. I tried to explain that the lifeline analogy was one that I had seen used by synergists in response to the “he could boast” argument. I tried to improve on the analogy and it clearly fell short, as I even admitted. I typically try to steer clear of extra-biblical illustrations and should have done so in this case.
I agree that thinking anyone would boast about their salvation is just dumb. I also think that asserting that one must come to the conclusion that God is the author of sin because he or she believes that God has a sovereign decree is just dumb. Hence the problem with most logical conclusion arguments. They ultimately become straw men.
While the Passover is certainly a type and picture of the redemptive work of Christ, there is not an absolutely direct correlation between placing the blood on the doorpost and staying in the house to individual, personal salvation unless one believes that everyone in the house was individually and personally saved (in the eternal sense). The same can be said of the crossing of the Red Sea and the Jordan River. These were acts of corporate, national faith but not all who passed through were individually, personally saved. As you said yourself, many who were rescued from Egypt and crossed through the Red Sea later died in the wilderness under the judgment of God for their unbelief. The same can be said for those who attended the OT sacrifices. Just because they outwardly participated in these ceremonies that were types and pictures of the saving work of Jesus Christ does not mean they personally and individually experienced the forgiveness that came from trusting in the One these sacrifices were really about.
My point is that if those who did these things weren’t all personally saved, then the argument that these actions somehow demonstrate that men have the ability to act in faith to God’s rescuing work falls flat. These OT types are shadows or mysteries that are fulfilled and more fully revealed in the NT, particularly in Jesus Christ but also in the New Covenant teaching began by Him and recorded by the NT writers as inspired by the Holy Spirit. Shouldn’t we examine these NT revelations and explanations to help us have a full understanding of these OT shadows and mysteries? Or we could even refer to the New Covenant language found in the OT to help us understand not the just the outward actions of people in response to God’s rescuing and redemptive works but the basis for the justifying faith of those (like Abraham) who genuinely trusted in the person and work of the One these shadows and mysteries pointed to. Could it be that those who didn’t just outwardly put the blood on the doorposts but actually believed in the Messiah that would be the true Passover Lamb did so because God had put his Spirit in them and they became alive (Ezekiel 37:14)? Or because they had been given a new heart, a heart of flesh (Ezekiel 36:26)?
Explaining the parable of the lost son and how it relates to the work of salvation will require a separate post.
Mark,
Heb. 11:7; By faith Noah, being warned by God about things not yet seen, in reverence prepared an ark for the salvation of his household, by which he condemned the world, and became an heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.
Heb. 11:8; By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed by going out to a place which he was to receive for an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was going.
If these examples are written to teach us about the kind of faith that pleases God, and obtains the promises, what do they teach us? How did Noah save his household? How did he become an heir of the righteousness which is according to faith? How did Abraham obtain or receive the promised inheritance? What do the verses say, that they obtained the reward by faith alone or through the obedience of faith? What do these verses – and there are many more like them – tell you?
Hi Mark,
I really think this has to be answered. BR.D’s “Up to Us”
BR.D
FEBRUARY 25, 2020 AT 5:18 PM
“Calvinists often argue that if we as Christians were free to suppress the truth or believe it then we could boast in our choice to believe the gospel.
br.d
And Dr. Flowers would rightly point out that according to Calvinism, Calvin’s god – at the foundation of the world – decreed that that would infallibly come to pass.
And there is NOTHING anyone can possibly do to stop a divine infallible decree.
So in Calvinism – the bottom line is – NOTHING ABOUT ANYTHING is UP TO US.
So why are Calvinists so totally DOUBLE-MINDED?
Going about MAKING-BELIEVE we mere mortals can oppose infallible supernatural decrees?”
Mark:
I appreciate your gentle, measured response. I’m pretty sure you missed my point or points.
1. What about all those hundreds of passages in Scripture where God says, “I, the Eternal One (word for sovereign most times), the God of the armies of Israel……alone…did this and that….” and yet so much of the end result depended on what they did? God was still “Sovereign” and still “delivered …alone” but it includes the conditional participation of man. Hundreds of passages. All of these come against the monergist premise of “God alone” or their claim that others have a “man-centered Gospel.” ((Or you can propose the convoluted Calvinist idea that God says hundreds of times “if you do this….” but He “doesn’t really mean it” since He has already decreed what they will and will not do.))
When the Lord says over and over “I rescued you…. I delivered you…. ” is He wrong? Of course not! Were there conditions (things they must do) for Him to rescue them? Of course! Does that mean they “rescued themselves” or can boast about it? Again…. foisting a silly idea on a straw man.
2. You did not deal with the issue of being “dead in sin.” The NT references “dead to sin” even more times….but obviously that is not “dead” like you want it to mean (since we still sin). Remember also that Scripture says we were “sick” in sin. Sick or (monergist) dead-dead?
Dont worry about giving a bad analogy. We are used to it. The monergist “buried 6 feet under” (we are non-participants) does not match the hundreds of passages (both OT and NT) where it says that God’s people must respond. “Dead men dont make choices,” Calvinists proclaim. Sure they do….Luke 15 the dead son did.
3. Please know that I am NOT saying that putting blood on the door got someone “salvation in Christ.” Obviously the Word makes it clear that many walked away from that corporate position of being part of the Chosen People. Which of course is also my point. Why is it different now?
God has a people. You can be grafted in, by faith, like Ruth and Rahab. You can go out like so many that rebelled and left.
Now God has a people “in Christ”. If you are “in Christ” (the Chosen One) then you are “in the ark”
In all the OT cases that are illustrations of Christ, people must respond in faith: Ark, Passover, Serpent-on-pole. Those are the ones that are mentioned in the NT. And they all required faith and action. God delivered “alone” but each time they were required to act in faith. When did God change His way of working? Surely not just cuz Augustine decided that….
Does God get the glory? Yes. Does man have conditions that he is able to meet? Of course…. that is what the Bible tells us over and over. Certainly 100 years of building an ark was a condition!
When I was a Calvinist (Bible degree from Calvinist school) it was the simple reading of the Word and the MULTITUDE of passages and examples like this that led me out. Sure, I could have stayed a Calvinist by insisting that a few key verses, interpreted a certain way, trump all other long passages….but it became so obvious to me that I was purposely propping up my presupposition.
4. As to your point: “I also think that asserting that one must come to the conclusion that God is the author of sin because he or she believes that God has a sovereign decree is just dumb.” It is not non-Calvinists that make that claim. It is Calvin, the Divines, and the Confessions that say it clearly. BRD had given so many quotes of Calvin, as I have done with direct quotes from Piper’s website.
But the simple twist is that they say they He authored and decreed all that man does or thinks and yet does not author sin. Well if that works for you…. He authored, decreed, and willed the Holocaust but “did not really make it happen.” Again…. if that works for you…..
5. Again, you make far too much of my example of the Passover. You said “My point is that if those who did these things weren’t all personally saved, then the argument that these actions somehow demonstrate that men have the ability to act in faith to God’s rescuing work falls flat.”
Of course if I were making that point….it would fall flat. No one ever made that point. That is a Calvinist straw man.
When the spies told Rahab to display the red cord and she would be spared…. NO ONE in history to my knowledge believes that they meant and that she understood “saved in Christ.” It would just be silly to say that. It is also silly to imply that I am saying that. Again, not my point at all.
6. Your reference of Ezekiel’s dry bones shows that God does indeed act unilaterally sometimes, and He says when it is. Surely that cannot be superimposed on all moments and people in history!! That would simply render senseless the hundreds or thousands of verses where the Lord says, “If you do this, I will do this” “Because you did not do this, I did not do that” “If you stop doing this, I will stop doing that”. All of these passages (many, many more than unilateral passages) meant nothing to me as a Calvinist cuz I told myself “those passages dont really meant what they say” “they only made God look weak” “they make God look ‘un-sovereign'”.
Then I realized that I needed to let God tell me who He is and how He set things up….. not come to the Bible with the presuppositions of Greek-philosopy-based theology. That is how I journeyed out of Calvinism. ((side note: I got in on the original YRR wave like Piper and MacArthur in the 70’s when it was getting started.))
FOH,
There is something I was listening to recently which concerned God’s Sovereignty, that I thought I might share with you. But first of all, I want to commend you for how you answered that question. The best way to handle these incidental points or passages brought up by Calvinists, is by first getting a handle ourselves on the greater context of a chapter, book, or even general scripture. And that seems to be what you did to overcome this issue in your own life.
I think Calvinists are the ones who really have the problem with God’s Sovereignty. They say if you’re going to make man’s deliverance or salvation dependent upon conditions which man must meet, then that is a reflection on God’s Sovereignty, because it makes God look weak. God is indeed sovereign and has a right to do as He pleases. But the scriptures reveal what God actually did having that right to do as He pleases. He sent the Gospel out into the world and made it – conditional upon man’s response to the gospel. And so, Calvinists are the ones with the problem when they say, ‘God can’t do that – He couldn’t choose to make it conditional if He wanted to and still be Sovereign.’ Well, I’m afraid that’s exactly what He did do. Therefore, it is them who are criticising what God actually did, in His Sovereign will and power.
And so I agree, that this is precisely what we see all the way down through Biblical history, namely, God imposing conditions to include man’s will in the obtaining of certain promises. Those who were faithful and obeyed received the promises. But those who were not, who despised the long-suffering of God, were rejected and cut off. How things haven’t changed!
Aidan writes, “Calvinists are the ones with the problem when they say, ‘God can’t do that – He couldn’t choose to make it conditional if He wanted to and still be Sovereign.’ Well, I’m afraid that’s exactly what He did do.”
Calvinists don’t say this (at least, none that I am aware). God can make anything conditional on man’s actions. The issue has been and always will be what conditions a person can meet without the help of the Holy Spirit and faith.
rhutchin
God can make anything conditional on man’s actions…..etc
br.d
DOUBLE-SPEAK Interpretation:
Calvin’s god can make anything conditional on what he predetermines (before man exists) man’s actions to be.
Which follows Calvin’s DOUBLE-THINK instructions:
Go about your office *AS-IF* nothing (in this case man’s actions) are determined in any part.
In other words – what he holds to be TRUE – he is to treat *AS-IF* FALSE.
And that is his “scriptural theology”
What a hoot! :-]
Aidan writes, “Calvinists are the ones with the problem when they say, ‘God can’t do that – He couldn’t choose to make it conditional if He wanted to and still be Sovereign.’ Well, I’m afraid that’s exactly what He did do.”
RH writes, “Calvinists don’t say this (at least, none that I am aware). God can make anything conditional on man’s actions. The issue has been and always will be what conditions a person can meet without the help of the Holy Spirit and faith.”
Okay! So God simply allows men to make their own free will choice in responding to the gospel or not. Wonderful! This must be a new form of Calvinism. And of course, you’re right; ‘what conditions can anyone meet – if they don’t have God’s direct supernatural intervention’.
John Calvin is extremely clear in his rejection of any notion of a god who “allows” anything to happen without him specifically *CAUSING* it to happen.
Lets say that Calvin’s god puts a coffee cup on a kitchen table
And then he moves that coffee cup to the left.
By virtue of him moving it to the left – Calvin would say he “permitted” it to move to the left.
So whatever Calvin’s god does not CAUSE – he does not “permit” or “allow”.
Calvin derives this pretty much from LOGIC.
1) No event of any kind can come to pass without Calvin’s god specifically decreeing it come to pass
2) Every decree is unchangeable
3) Any event decreed cannot fail to come to pass.
4) Any Alternative to what is decreed would falsify the decree – which god cannot permit.
Therefore for the strict Calvinist – what god does not CAUSE he does not permit or allow.
However, this presents a problem for the average Calvinist in the context of human sins and evils.
So Calvinists deviate from the doctrine by using “permit” or “allow” in ways the doctrine strictly rejects.
John Calvin
-quote
It is a quite frivolous refuge to say that god otiosely *PERMITS* the [i.e. sins and evils]
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
One would hope – the Calvinist’s conscience would bother him when using deceptive language
But I think they justify dishonesty – if it works to hide the “Author of evil” problem.
Speaking in its truest sense – man’s free will to choose is anathema to them. For that would take away from the notion of a god who ‘determines/causes’ everything that happens. In the words that you have used, “for the strict Calvinist – what god does not CAUSE he does not permit or allow.” And so, the notion that man truly has the power to choose life or death of his own free will – is, in their mind, an attack on the sovereign will and power of God. And, a threat to the doctrine of ‘total depravity,’ man’s inability, and need for a special work of the Holy Spirit to enable men to respond to the gospel. So they do everything in their power to suppress the truth in their zeal for a lie. But that truly is – a choice for which they will be held accountable for!
Yeh – they have what they call “compatiblist” freedom – which for them is “free will”.
Its the freedom to be/do what Calvin’s god CAUSES you to be/do.
And you are not free to be/do otherwise.
But since its the only freedom they have – it allows them to claim they don’t reject man having “free will”
However don’t try to hold your breath waiting for them to be honest enough to say what kind of “free will” they have
That’s information they don’t want to divulge. :-]
And that’s when a red flag should go up, is when it turns into a word game. And they love it, because it puffs up their ego.
Yes – good insight!
I think word-game artists do obtain a sense of personal power and/or efficacy from their abilities to manipulate.
It must give one a sense of power to know there are people out there who are unsuspecting and can be tricked..
Well – it does say in Genesis – the serpent was the most *SUBTLE* beast in the field.
And interestingly enough – that *SUBTLETY* manifested itself in the ability to manipulate unsuspecting Eve through language.
So we of all people should know how the game works.
Do you know something Br.d, that is an excellent verse in the Bible to use. Thank you for that. Yep! the various translations have words like, cunning, shrewd, crafty and subtle. It is an interesting word. One of the aspects of being subtle is to be obscure. Which involves not being obvious, but even being clever at attaining one’s ends by indirect and often deceptive means, not showing your real purpose. Have you ever wondered if some perhaps are using this site to hone that skill? Who are prepared to wage and lose many a battle if it helps them (in their mind) win the long war? Maybe that’s just my distaste coming out for people who are full of guile and word games!
Yes – I do see that some come here – express their displeasure and end up leaving and not coming back.
But yes – I can see a Calvinist continually coming back to exercise his skill in twisting language for the sake of the sacred image.
In the book of 1 Samuel – the priests of Dagon had quite an interesting carrier and a real sense of job security.
Every time the sacred image fell down in the mud – the priests came rushing back in to pick it up, clean, and polish the image.
Keeping something man-made – requires a long-term maintenance program! :-]
I thought you were going to say, ‘Calvinists keep needing to clean and polish their god to maintain his image’ – But they never seem to be able to get the mud off.
Good stuff Aidan and BR.D and Andy,
Aidan’s quote to BR.D made me laugh.
“I thought you were going to say, ‘Calvinists keep needing to clean and polish their god to maintain his image’ – But they never seem to be able to get the mud off.”
GA: The reason they can’t get the mud off their god is because the mud isn’t just on the surface of their god, it is the very internal fiber of their god. His nature is riddled with darkness and authoring evil right down to his core.
You are absolutely right GA, that’s a much better way to explain what happens when one is more concerned about how the outside looks. If the root is rotten to the core, then so are the branches (Rom. 11:16).
I was alluding to how much job security that job offers them! :-]
Yeah – but what about a guaranteed pension?
Oh that is funny! :-]
Aidan writes, “man’s free will to choose is anathema to [Calvinists]. ”
No, it is not. Calvinists say that a person is free to choose as he desires. Absent desire, a person will not choose. If people do not have a reason to chose, they do not choose. You seem to hold to the fanciful notion that people choose without any incentive to choose.
Then, “the notion that man truly has the power to choose life or death of his own free will – is, in their mind, an attack on the sovereign will and power of God.”
No, it is an accurate characterization of the person who cannot choose between life and death without faith – a notion you seem to reject.
Rh writes, “Absent desire, a person will not choose. If people do not have a reason to chose, they do not choose. You seem to hold to the fanciful notion that people choose without any incentive to choose.”
Ezekiel 18:21-32;
“But if a wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed, keeps all My statutes, and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. “None of the transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him; because of the righteousness which he has done, he shall live. “Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?” says the Lord GOD, “and not that he should turn from his ways and live? “But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and does according to all the abominations that the wicked man does, shall he live? All the righteousness which he has done shall not be remembered; because of the unfaithfulness of which he is guilty and the sin which he has committed, because of them he shall die. “Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not fair.’ Hear now, O house of Israel, is it not My way which is fair, and your ways which are not fair? “When a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity, and dies in it, it is because of the iniquity which he has done that he dies. “Again, when a wicked man turns away from the wickedness which he committed, and does what is lawful and right, he preserves himself alive. “Because he considers and turns away from all the transgressions which he committed, he shall surely live; he shall not die.
“Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways,” says the Lord GOD. “Repent, and turn from all your transgressions, so that iniquity will not be your ruin. “Cast away from you all the transgressions which you have committed, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. For why should you die, O house of Israel? “For I have no pleasure in the death of one who dies,” says the Lord GOD. “Therefore turn and live!”
Notice, none were absent of desire. The righteous man desired good things while the evil man desired evil things. Both independently chose the path they were on. But then notice, they – both changed in their desires. The righteous man changed in his desires and chose the evil. And the evil man changed in his desires to choose the good. What was the incentive for their change? For the righteousness man – he changed because his desire changed to wicked things. And for the wicked man – he changed because he wanted to live and not die.
What’s the conclusion to this?
“Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, EVERY ONE ACCORDING TO HIS WAYS,” says the Lord GOD. Notice, God is going to hold every individual responsible for the choices he has made. But all is not lost, for a man can choose to change and live. The wicked man does not have to die. He can have a change of heart and choose the good. Therefore, even the righteous man who turned evil can turn back and live, or he can remain in his sins and die – that choice is totally up to him! But also notice, this call is not just for the few, but goes out to EVERYONE, THE WHOLE NATION. God says, “Repent, get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. For why should you die, O house of Israel? “For I have no pleasure in the death of ONE who dies,” says the Lord GOD. “Therefore turn and live!” Hence, we all have been given that innate ability to respond to the truth of the gospel. After all, we ARE made in the image of God and not the devil, as Calvinists presume!
This passage of scripture is worth studying, because it really does refute Calvinism in so many ways.
Aidan writes, “Notice, none were absent of desire….This passage of scripture is worth studying, because it really does refute Calvinism in so many ways.”
It is Calvinism that says people choose according to their desires. LFW opposes this. Seems to me that the Scriptures refute LFW and support Calvinism. How do you turn it around?
Then, ‘But all is not lost, for a man can choose to change and live.”
Not without faith according to the Calvinists. Do you disagree with this?
rhutchin
It is Calvinism that says people choose according to their desires.
br.d
Everyone knows in Calvinism – the “effect” is the reason for the “CAUSE” :-]
WHAT IS ALTRUISTIC DISHONESTY IN CALVINISM
See: https://soteriology101.com/2019/01/21/why-divine-permission-establishes-free-will/#comment-34483
I hope people will take the time to read Ezekiel 18:21-32, with the comments I’ve made and see how ridiculous your response is. Obviously it suits you to distract attention away from that passage because you can’t deal with the implications there.
Rh writes, “It is Calvinism that says people choose according to their desires.”
James 1:13-15
“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.”
I don’t know of anyone who would deny that all men are tempted. Even Jesus was tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin. But what avenue does the devil use to tempt us? Our desires. Hence, even Jesus had normal human desires. But He proved that you don’t have to transgress because of these desires.
Adam and Eve were given the freedom of the garden to eat of any tree they so desired, except for one. Did that mean it was impossible for them to eat of it? Obviously not, for we know how that turned out! Although they were forbidden to eat of it, their desires were not curtailed in the least. But neither did it mean that it was impossible for them to resist acting on those desires when tempted, for God commanded them not to eat. Nor is it impossible for us to choose contrary to our desires, otherwise God could not have told Cain that he could master sin crouching at the door.
So yes, “Calvinism says people choose according to their desires,” something which the Bible also acknowledges. But it also acknowledges that we all have been given the “will-power” to choose to act contrary to those desires. Its called, resisting temptation to do the wrong thing in order to do the right thing. That’s the reason why we are all accountable whenever we sin. And so, both the wicked man and the righteous man have all the LFW in the world to choose life or death:- Ezek. 18:21-32. We are the ones who choose to listen or not listen, to believe or not to believe, to obey or not obey – without any special work of the Holy Spirit to make it so for a chosen few.
Aidan writes, ‘[Jesus] proved that you don’t have to transgress because of these desires..Nor is it impossible for us to choose contrary to our desires, otherwise God could not have told Cain that he could master sin crouching at the door..”
So, what overrides the person’s desires that arise from temptation? A greater desire, perhaps? If not, what?
Then, “[The Bible] also acknowledges that we all have been given the “will-power” to choose to act contrary to those desires.”
Where does it do this? Regarding Cain, God said, “[sin’s] desire is for you, but you should rule over it.” How does one rule over sin except through a greater desire for Christ? In the end, desire rules the person’s choices. If not, what?
Then, “both the wicked man and the righteous man have all the LFW in the world to choose life or death”
Yet, LFW seems to deny that desire rules the person’s choices. Seems to me that a life or death decision depends on a person’s desire for life or death. If not, what does rule that decision? If desire underlies a person’s temptation to sin and death, what underlies a person’s choice of holiness and life?
rhutchin
So, what “overrides” the person’s desires that arise from temptation? A greater desire, perhaps? If not, what?
br.d
In Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) every creaturely impulse is determined *FOR* the creature – at the foundation of the world – before the creature is created.
Where everything follows an infallible program – a preprogrammed impulse is not said to be “overridden” by another preprogrammed impulse. Rather, the infallible immutable (i.e. unchangeable) program simply switches from one impulse to the other.
In such case person’s don’t really have their own “desires” or “impulses”
What they have are predetermined preprogrammed impulses at predetemined preprogrammed times.
None of which is UP TO THEM.
BR.D writes: “In such case person’s don’t really have their own “desires” or “impulses”
What they have are predetermined preprogrammed impulses at predetemined preprogrammed times.
None of which is UP TO THEM.”
GA: This is the WHOLE show for Calvinism… Nothing at all is ever left over for any man at any time to decide. It is all pre-determined FOR them by the Author of Evil (the Calvi-god). Who at times can manifest Goodness as well but since there is more Evil in this world we can rightly deduce that the Calvi-god prefers to Author moral evil, in the Calvi-system it brings their god more glory. Why? Because in their system All that he authors has one focus, his own glory. So it is right to conclude their god gets the most glory in this world from maximum evil. That is why there is soooo much of it.
Satan loves this system since it maligns the Moral nature of Holy God, who is Truth, who is Love, who is Mercy who is Just. The Calvi-system undermines ALL of that in a covert manner as well as an overt manner.
That is why I say Calvinism Blasphemes God’s Moral Character and Satan delights in that.
GA writes, “This is the WHOLE show for Calvinism… Nothing at all is ever left over for any man at any time to decide.”
No. Calvinism says that God made man in His image. That gives man the ability to reason as God reasons. However, God has infinite understanding so nothing future can be hidden from Him. God’s understanding makes certain those things that are to happen both those future events happen concurrently with man who is made in the image of God.
When God created Adam and Eve and placed them in the garden, He understood what would happen when He gave Satan freedom to enter the garden to tempt Eve. Certainly, you are not going to deny that God understands all that will happen in the future and those future events depend on His predetermination to prevent certain evil (Abimelech violating Sarah) and not other evil (David’s adultery with Bathsheba).
Rhutchin
Calvinism says that God made man in His image. That gives man the ability to reason as God reasons
br.d
Well – what Calvinism “says” and what is RATIONAL are often two different things.
There is a difference between Calvin’s god and man – which can be LOGICALLY DEDUCED:
Namely – Calvin’s god’s perceptions are not determined *FOR* him by an external mind.
But that is not the case with creatures he creates, because “whatsoever comes to pass” internal within each man is EXCLUSIVELY determined *FOR* each man – by Calvin’s god – at the foundation of the world.
Now this means that a man’s perceptions of any proposition (whether that proposition be TRUE or FALSE) is EXCLUSIVELY predetermined *FOR* man by an external mind.
Which means man is left without the capacity to determine for himself – TRUE vs FALSE – on any proposition.
And that LOGICALLY rules out any function of affirming anything through rational reasoning.
Man’s perceptions are totally controlled by an external mind.
And that represents a *BIG* difference.
RH writes: “Certainly, you are not going to deny that God understands all that will happen in the future and those future events depend on His predetermination to prevent certain evil”
GA: No one denies that God can and at times does intervene and prevent certain specific things from happening.
BUT to extrapolate that into “God ALWAYS at ALL times and in ALL cases is causing ALL Agents to do ALL things that they do” is simply dishonest and irresponsible this is not what scripture shows us nor is it a logical deduction.
That would be tantamount to saying: “because two times a parent forcibly separated two of his children who were fighting therefore we can say that everything his children ever does is happening because the parent is forcibly making him do it.”
Those deductions lack logical and honesty…but that is the logic that Calvinism uses.
Aidan writes, “to extrapolate that into “God ALWAYS at ALL times and in ALL cases is causing ALL Agents to do ALL things that they do” is simply dishonest and irresponsible…”
No one says that “God ALWAYS at ALL times and in ALL cases is causing ALL Agents to do ALL things that they do” except that God is, obviously, the first and ultimate cause of all things because He created the universe with a perfect knowledge of all that was to happen even though He uses immediate causes to bring about specific events in the course of time.
Nonetheless, we have Ephesians 1, “God works all things according to the counsel of His will,” indicating that God is in control of all things and because of that control, God is the cause of all things whether through direct intervention or through secondary means.
In addition, we have, Romans 8, “God works all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.” This reiterates what Paul says in Ephesians but here with attention to believers.
I don’t see the dishonesty and irresponsibility here. Maybe, you can explain how you got your conclusion using a couple examples.
rhutchin
No one says that “God ALWAYS at ALL times and in ALL cases is causing ALL Agents to do ALL things that they do”
br.d
Calvinists say all sorts of things! :-]
What a given Calvinist says – and what LOGICALLY FOLLOWS in Universal Divine Causal Determinism (aka Calvinism) are often two different things.
UNIVERSAL: Everything without exception
DIVINE: A reference to a THEOS
CAUSAL: A reference to Causation
DETERMINISM: The over arching belief system
The creature cannot “Do Otherwise” that what Calvin’s god CAUSALLY DETERMINES
Therefore if follows:
Calvin’s god ALWAYS at ALL times and in ALL cases is *CAUSING* ALL creatures to do ALL things that they do.
br.d writes, ‘In Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) every creaturely impulse is determined *FOR* the creature – at the foundation of the world – before the creature is created.”
Given that God had an infinite understanding of His creation before He created, necessarily God determined everything that He understood was to happen if He created. If not, God cannot have infinite understanding, but then, He would not be God. Would you argue against God having infinite understanding??
rhutchin
Given that God had an infinite understanding of His creation before He created….etc
br.d
After having determined a creature’s every impulse – one might surmise Calvin’s god would have some understanding of that creature.
But if he expects the outcome of infallible decrees to be the opposite of those decrees – then IXNAY on understanding! :-]
Rh,
“So, what overrides the person’s desires that arise from temptation? A greater desire, perhaps? If not, what?”
Aidan,
Anyone who has smoked knows the amount of will-power it takes to overcome it. The – greater desire – becomes the goal set in front of you. By keeping our eye on that goal we can reach it. But again, it may take a lot of will-power, and help, to do it. God has given each of us a very powerful tool to deal with these things – its called the will.
How else would Cain rule over his sin? How else could ALL – equally be able to choose life or death in (Ezek. 18:21-32)? Their God-given will.
Rh,
“LFW seems to deny that desire rules the person’s choices.”
Aidan,
LFW does not deny that desire rules the person’s choices, but rather, that desire HAS TO rule a person’s choices. Talk to any Olympic athlete, and they will tell you what it takes to rule over your desires.
Aidan writes, “God has given each of us a very powerful tool to deal with these things – its called the will.”
The “will” is the means by which a person expresses his desires. That there are conflicting and sometimes equal desires is not at issue. The desire that wins out, sometimes in the heat of the moment, is then expressed by the will.
Then, “LFW does not deny that desire rules the person’s choices, but rather, that desire HAS TO rule a person’s choices.”
I don’t see people defining LFW as having anything to do with one’s desire as that is the claim of Calvinism and LFW is offered in opposition to Calvinism.
Then, ‘Talk to any Olympic athlete, and they will tell you what it takes to rule over your desires.”
An Olympic athlete is acquainted with conflicting desires. His desire to win a medal will override his desire to avoid the hard work necessary to that goal.
rhutchin
The “will” is the means by which a person expresses his desires.
br.d
The state of nature at any time (including man’s) being EXCLUSIVELY determined at the foundation of the world – by Calvin’s god.
Which means NOTHING about it is UP TO man.
Rh,
“The “will” is the means by which a person expresses his desires. That there are conflicting and sometimes equal desires is not at issue. The desire that wins out, sometimes in the heat of the moment, is then expressed by the will.”
Aidan,
The will is given to subject and control our desires – its called self control and self-discipline.
Rh,
“I don’t see people defining LFW as having anything to do with one’s desire as that is the claim of Calvinism and LFW is offered in opposition to Calvinism.”
Aidan,
I understand that you are coming at this from a different perspective than I am. As Br.d stated concerning Calvinism, “NOTHING about it is UP TO man.” From your perspective, every impulse is a pre -programmed choice by calvi-god. But not so when there is true LFW and no such thing as total depravity. How then do you exclude desire?
Rh,
“An Olympic athlete is acquainted with conflicting desires. His desire to win a medal will override his desire to avoid the hard work necessary to that goal”
Aidan,
An Olympic athlete employs sheer will-power in order to discipline the body and make it his slave. He or she exercises self control in every area of their life in order to achieve that goal . How much more the man of God? (1 Cor. 9:25-27)
Was Cain not given the counsel he needed to gain control and prevent his sin from happening? He could have chosen to do that, but he chose not to.
Aidan writes, “The will is given to subject and control our desires – its called self control and self-discipline. ”
I agree. The will imposes order among the person’s desires an order that requires a moral compass and spiritual subjection to maintain order across a society.
Then, “As Br.d stated concerning Calvinism, “NOTHING about it is UP TO man.”
That is the conclusion he draws draws from his humanist philosophy. If we follow a Scriptural theology, we arrive at a different conclusion.
Then, “From your perspective, every impulse is a pre -programmed choice by calvi-god.”
No. God obviously understands people (He created them) and can know what any person will do in any situation. However, that does not mean that God pre-programs a person to act without an awareness of what he is doing and acts without thinking. The pre-programming includes the corrupt nature, lack of faith, limited knowledge, even less understanding, and even less wisdom. Obviously, people are at a disadvantage. Even br.d does not deny that. Nor should you.
Then, “But not so when there is true LFW and no such thing as total depravity. How then do you exclude desire?”
How do you get “true LFW” without faith or with a heart that is “deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked;,” or where aperosn is that described in Genesis, “every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.”
Can you explain this “true :FW” that you are advocating?
Then, “An Olympic athlete employs sheer will-power in order to discipline the body and make it his slave….How much more the man of God? (1 Cor. 9:25-27)”
And this by desire.
Then, “Was Cain not given the counsel he needed to gain control and prevent his sin from happening? He could have chosen to do that, but he chose not to.”
We know what Cain actually did. Could Cain have over-ridden his desires to do otherwise? Not without faith – not by himself.
rhutchin
As br.d stated concerning Calvinism, “NOTHING about it is UP TO man.
br.d
rhutchin you’re often like CNN twisting quotes from people
You should at least be honest enough to quote it correctly.
Its not concerning NOTHING about “Calvinism” that is UP TO man
It is – in Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) NOTHING about ANYTHING is UP TO man.
Since “Whatsoever comes to pass” is determined EXCLUSIVELY and SOLELY by Calvin’s god
rhutchin
That is the conclusion he draws draws from his humanist philosophy. If we follow a Scriptural theology, we arrive at a different conclusion
br.d
GENETIC FALLACY
This fallacy occurs when a LOGICAL argument is rejected based on the claimed source of the argument – and typically found as a failed response to RATIONAL thinking.
rhutchin
No. God obviously understands people (He created them) and can know what any person will do in any situation.
br.d
After having determined “whatsoever comes to pass” with every human IMPULSE – Calvin’s god ought to be smart enough to understand what he makes people do.
But if he expects the outcome of an infallible decree to be the opposite of that infallible decree – then IXNAY on understanding! :-]
br.d writes, “After determining “whatsoever” human IMPULSE will come to pass – Calvin’s god ought to be smart enough to understand what he makes people do. ”
God’s understanding of all possibilities precedes His determination of actual events. It is the counsel of His will (His understanding of all possibilities) that enables God to work (or determine) that which then comes to pass in the course of time.
Then, ‘But if he expects the outcome of an infallible decree to be the opposite of that infallible decree – then IXNAY on understanding! ”
The infallible decree is derived from God’s infinite understanding. So, no conflict between God’s understanding and His infallible decree (or between the counsel of God’s will and His works).
br.d
After determining “whatsoever” human IMPULSE will come to pass – Calvin’s god ought to be smart enough to understand what he makes people do. ”
rhutchin
God’s understanding of all possibilities precedes His determination of actual events. It is the counsel of His will (His understanding of all possibilities) that enables God to work (or determine) that which then comes to pass in the course of time.
br.d
All possibilities of what he is going to decree come to pass – and all possibilities of what he’s going to make people be and do
Otherwise they don’t do anything.
br.d
But if he expects the outcome of an infallible decree to be the opposite of that infallible decree – then IXNAY on understanding! ”
rhutchin
The infallible decree is derived from God’s infinite understanding. So, no conflict between God’s understanding and His infallible decree (or between the counsel of God’s will and His works).
br.d
Interpretation:
Expecting the outcome of an infallible decree to be the opposite of that infallible decree is not a conflict within the Calvinist’s “scriptural theology” :-]
rhutchin
We know what Cain actually did. Could Cain have over-ridden his desires to do otherwise? Not without faith – not by himself.
br.d
Funny business – about Calvin’s god and his infallible decrees concerning “Whatsoever comes to pass” with every human desire.
SOT101 readers will find many posts here from Calvinists insisting that fallible creatures can in fact “do otherwise” from what Calvin’s god infallibly decrees.
They call that: “scriptural theology”
I think God gave Calvinism to mankind for its entertainment value! :-]
Aidan writes, “The will is given to subject and control our desires – its called self control and self-discipline. ”
Rh,
“I agree. The will imposes order among the person’s desires an order that requires a moral compass and spiritual subjection to maintain order across a society.”
Aidan,
That moral compass is informed by the Word of God.
Rh,
“That is the conclusion he draws draws from his humanist philosophy. If we follow a Scriptural theology, we arrive at a different conclusion.”
Aidan,
I think it might be presumptuous to suggest that Br.d follows no Scriptural theology.
Rh,
“The pre-programming includes the corrupt nature, lack of faith, limited knowledge, even less understanding, and even less wisdom. Obviously, people are at a disadvantage. Even br.d does not deny that. Nor should you.”
Aidan,
I understand that we sometimes make inferences that are not necessarily true. But if we have the right information we can make what’s called ‘necessary inferences’. I believe the list you have given above comes from the false assumption that men are born totally depraved. Therefore, a lot of what you believe about men being dead, your view on regeneration, faith, etc.. hangs on total depravity being true. What verse or passage blows it out of the water for you in proving that TD is true?
Rh,
“How do you get “true LFW” without faith or with a heart that is “deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked;,” or where aperosn is that described in Genesis, “every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.”
“Can you explain this “true :FW” that you are advocating?”
Aidan,
Well, If you can imagine just for one second, that there is no such thing as inherited total depravity, or Determinism as you know it, then what are you left with? FW without those impositions. I would suggest that it was because they had FW, they got to the point where, “every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” I think it makes people more culpable, don’t you? Let it not be lost on us that Noah still called on those people to repent.
Rh,
“Then, “An Olympic athlete employs sheer will-power in order to discipline the body and make it his slave….How much more the man of God? (1 Cor. 9:25-27)”
“And this by desire.”
Aidan,
And by the desire of the will. I say this because, like giving up smoking, it takes real willpower to fight against that craving desire to smoke, raging within our body and mind. And that’s just the simplified version.
Rh,
“We know what Cain actually did. Could Cain have over-ridden his desires to do otherwise? Not without faith – not by himself.”
Aidan,
Again, your reply looks to total depravity and determinism for the answer rather than the context of the verse itself. If you could remove total depravity and determinism from your mind here, what conclusion would you make, just from the verse, about Cain’s ability to believe God and act accordingly? Is that too big an ask for you to contemplate?
Genesis 4:6-7:
“So the LORD said to Cain, “Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen?
“If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it.”
Aidan writes, “That moral compass is informed by the Word of God.”
For believers who operate by faith, Yes; for unbelievers who lack faith, No except through societal or peer pressure.
Then, “I think it might be presumptuous to suggest that Br.d follows no Scriptural theology.”
There is no indication of br.d following a Scriptural theology in his comments. He readily appeals to his humanist philosophy in his arguments. Until that changes, I don’t think your comment reflects reality.
Then, “I believe the list you have given above comes from the false assumption that men are born totally depraved.”
Calvinists say that people are born with corrupt hearts (natures) and without faith. That gives us Total Depravity.
From Jeremiah 17, we know that “The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked;” Hebrews 11 tells us “without faith it is impossible to please God.” Paul explains this 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.” Then, Paul extends this in Romans 3, ““There is none righteous, no, not one; There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God…There is none who does good, no, not one….There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
Can you explain the false assumption do you see the Calvinist drawing from this?
Then, ‘Well, If you can imagine just for one second, that there is no such thing as inherited total depravity, or Determinism as you know it, then what are you left with? FW without those impositions.”
LOL!!! Yeah, imagine that all people always have faith. Create an illusion and you can get anything you want.
Then, “And by the desire of the will. I say this because, like giving up smoking, it takes real willpower to fight against that craving desire to smoke, raging within our body and mind. And that’s just the simplified version.”
Sure. To override a desire for smoking requires a greater desire to give up smoking.
Then, ‘If you could remove total depravity and determinism from your mind here, what conclusion would you make,”
Sure – Give Cain a good heart and faith and you can get your result. That’s not the reality expressed in the Scriptures.
rhutchin
There is no indication of br.d following a Scriptural theology in his comments. He readily appeals to his humanist philosophy in his arguments. Until that changes, I don’t think your comment reflects reality.
br.d
GENETIC FALLACY
This fallacy occurs when a LOGICAL argument is rejected based on the claimed source of the argument – and typically found as a failed response to RATIONAL thinking.
Rh,
“There is no indication of br.d following a Scriptural theology in his comments. He readily appeals to his humanist philosophy in his arguments. Until that changes, I don’t think your comment reflects reality.”
Br.d,
“I agree also!! Thank you so very much for everything you do Dr. Flowers.
You are greatly appreciated!!”
Aidan,
As I’ve said, it is rather presumptuous of you to suggest that br.d has no Scriptural theology!! The comment above could not be made by someone lacking a Scriptural theology he appreciates. Perhaps you are frustrated because he never gives you a target to shoot at?
Aidan writes, “That moral compass is informed by the Word of God.”
Rh,
“For believers who operate by faith, Yes; for unbelievers who lack faith, No except through societal or peer pressure”
Aidan,
How can you say that unbelievers have a moral compass if they are born totally depraved? Think about it, its a contradiction in terms. Under Calvinism the unsaved cannot do otherwise than resist God because their corrupt nature allows nothing else. Therefore, if one is born TOTALLY depraved there is no “moral compass” except toward evil, and nothing but evil. As you said yourself, “That gives us Total Depravity.” From birth “The heart is … desperately wicked;” and “There is none righteous, no, not one;” You even indicated that we are not born with a good heart when you said, “Sure – Give Cain a good heart” Born totally depraved, by definition means – born totally morally corrupt; wicked.
While I agree that men can become morally corrupt and wicked, the false assumption in Calvinism is that men are, in any way, BORN that way.That’s not the reality expressed in the Scriptures!!
Rh,
“From Jeremiah 17, we know that “The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked;” Hebrews 11 tells us “without faith it is impossible to please God.” Paul explains this 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.” Then, Paul extends this in Romans 3, ““There is none righteous, no, not one; There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God…There is none who does good, no, not one….There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
“Can you explain the false assumption do you see the Calvinist drawing from”
Aidan,
The false assumption Calvinists draw from, is the presupposition that these verses are speaking about the condition of babies. Where is the necessary inference that infants are being spoken of in these passages? Your Romans 3 passage for example, would suggest the opposite view to this Calvinist claim. In v.12 it says,
“They have all turned aside;
They have together become unprofitable;
There is none who does good, no, not one.”
They only became unprofitable AFTER they turned aside, proof that they were not born so. We are born innocent and pure, but become corrupted over time because we live in a corrupt world. And Romans 8 mentions nothing about babies, but rather, in its context Paul is addressing his readers who are mature individuals. In fact, Paul tells them further down in Rom. 8: 12-13; “Therefore, brethren, we are debtors—not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.” It seems it was possible, even for these mature Christian individuals, to live according to the flesh again. Hence the warning not to, but to put the death the deeds of the body and you will live. And how could you possibly apply Hebrews 11 to babies, which tells us “without faith it is impossible to please God”? Surely, that passage could only apply to someone both old enough and able enough to seek after Him. I think the Calvinist is reading too much into these passages because they are brain-washed. And that’s why you will not be able to accept the truth.
Aidan writes, “How can you say that unbelievers have a moral compass if they are born totally depraved?”
I didn’t. I said, without faith, unbelievers have no moral compass. Without faith, morality becomes relative and based on one’s’s wants and desires.
Then, “While I agree that men can become morally corrupt and wicked, the false assumption in Calvinism is that men are, in any way, BORN that way.That’s not the reality expressed in the Scriptures!!”
The Scriptures divide people by those in the flesh and those led by the Spirit. In Proverbs, the contrast is between the righteous and the wicked – a person does not become righteous apart from the Word. No one is born with a good heart or with faith – these come through the Word and involve turning away from evil and submitting to God/Christ. That’s the reality expressed in the Scriptures.
Then, “The false assumption Calvinists draw from, is the presupposition that these verses are speaking about the condition of babies….We are born innocent and pure, but become corrupted over time because we live in a corrupt world.”
Basically, you are saying that each person is born with a good heart and the faith to live a good life. Then, each person takes a bite of the fruit and becomes corrupt with the loss of faith. Like the prodigal son, the person can always come to his senses by realizing his condition and desiring to change. I’m not buying it.
Then, “And that’s why you will not be able to accept the truth.”
So, if I accept your view about babies, I will see the truth and that truth is not Calvinism. That probably explains the non-Calvinist position.
RH just repeats a Mantra that men are born having no Faith. RH writes: “No one is born…with faith “…. ” I said, without faith, unbelievers have no moral compass. Without faith, morality becomes relative and based on one’s’s wants and desires”
GA: This is an assumption RH just pushes over and over again because without this false assumption his argument fails completely.
Let’s see what the scriptures actually teach. Now I know RH will just ignore this and push on with his false assumption as he has done over and over again. But I will repeat this again.
GA:
BACKGROUND
As Christians we all believe:
1Co 4:7 What do you have that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if you did not receive it?
This truth refers to absolutely everything we have.
Everything you and I have, we have received, our very breath, our eyes, our nose, our ability to think, our ability to love, our ability to work, absolutely everything we have is a gift from God. This makes it Clear to anyone willing to listen to the scriptures. We have absolutely NOTHING to boast about. My very existence is a gift from God and everything about my life is a gift.
As creatures created in His image we should take all that has been given to us, and direct it back towards God, focus it back on God the great gift giver. Anything less is idolatry.
The gifts that we have from God also include intellectual abilities and the ability to believe and trust propositions, ideas and even people. RH claims that non-christians have no ability whatsoever to have faith or believe. HOWEVER
The important thing within Christianity has always been what is the OBJECT of your faith, or the FOCUS of your faith. (Which is given to mankind by God to excercise.)
Calvinism changes the focus of the gospel.
Biblically speaking a weak faith or a small faith focused on the right OBJECT is praised in scripture, “faith the size of a mustard seed”. In scripture the QUALITY of your faith is NOT the key issue instead it is the OBJECT of one’s faith. Calvinism’s focus is not on the OBJECT of the faith ie Christ. Calvinism’s focus is on the QUALITY of your faith. Calvinism changes the gospel message.
The late, Dr. Adrian Rogers used to ask the question “When crossing a frozen river what is better? Weak/small faith in very thick ice or lots of faith in very thin ice?” He would rightly point out that weak or small faith in thick ice will get you to the other side of the river but great faith in thin ice will take you to the bottom of a river.
Why?
Because the quality of the OBJECT of our faith is the most important thing, instead of the quality of your faith itself. You can have weak faith in a GREAT savior and you are going to be just fine. But great faith focused on the wrong object is a death trap.
Do the unsaved have faith? The Biblical answer is YES.
In true, God glorifying Christianity the quality of the OBJECT of one’s faith has always been the most important thing NOT the quality of one’s faith. Calvinist always change the focus from Christ to the “quality of one’s faith” instead of the quality of the OBJECT-Jesus Christ and Him crucified. This is a subtle shift but it changes everything with devastating ramifications.
In the verses below…ALL the passages use the exact same Hebrew word Believe strong’s concordance number H539. Nothing is different in any of the passages take careful note. Both saved and unsaved have the exact same faith or belief but the OBJECT of their faith is different, that is what Christianity is all about.
What sayeth the scriptures?
Abraham:
Gen 15:6 And he BELIEVED H539 in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.
Jon 3:5 And the people of Nineveh believed H539 God. They called for a fast and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them to the least of them.
Notice the importance of the OBJECT – the LORD, GOD. The word used is identified by Strong’s number H539. This exact same word is used to describe believing a lie or anything other than God. Which proves that mankind has already been given the ability to have faith/ believe. Man is not without this ability the difference is what is the focus of that faith of what is the OBJECT of that faith?
EXACT SAME Hebrew Word here:
1Sa 27:12 And Achish believedH539 David, thinking, “He has made himself an utter stench to his people Israel; therefore he shall always be my servant.”
(Here David told Achish lies and Achish BELIEVED those lies. Achish had faith he just placed his faith in a lie that David told him. Exactly the same Hebrew word as Gen.15:6) Not absence of Faith or Belief.
Pro 14:15 The simple BELIEVES H539 everything, but the prudent gives thought to his steps.
(Notice it is not the lack of ability to believe, it is believing the wrong thing.)
Pro 26:24 Whoever hates disguises himself with his lips and harbors deceit in his heart;
Pro 26:25 when he speaks graciously, believe H539 him not, for there are seven abominations in his heart;
(The Lord exhorts us not to believe H539 a deceiver, the ability to believe is not missing, in fact the probability of believing a liar is very real so we are warned. It is the OBJECT of ones belief that is critically important.)
Job 15:31 Let him not trust H539 in emptiness, deceiving himself, for emptiness will be his payment.
(Same word again- People can trust or believe H539 in emptiness, or thin ice, however the believer will suffer harm because the OBJECT of his faith is empty.)
2Ch 32:15 Now, therefore, do not let Hezekiah deceive you or mislead you in this fashion, and do not believe H539 him, for no god of any nation or kingdom has been able to deliver his people from my hand or from the hand of my fathers. How much less will your God deliver you out of my hand!’”
(The possibility of believing or having faith in a liar exists so the exhortation is Do NOT believe H539 him. The absence of Faith is not the issue but instead misplaced faith is the issue, misplaced in thin ice.)
Jer 12:6 For even your brothers and the house of your father, even they have dealt treacherously with you; they are in full cry after you; do not believeH539 them, though they speak friendly words to you.”
(NOTICE that the same Hebrew word is used in every instance the only difference is that faith or belief is placed in a DIFFERENT OBJECT. The object is always the issue. If like Abraham we place our God given faith in the right OBJECT we will be blessed but if we place that faith in lies and liars then we are in trouble.)
Gen 15:6 And he believedH539 in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.
Jon 3:5 And the people of Nineveh believed H539 God.
Remember it is the OBJECT of one’s faith that is important not how GREAT your faith is. All of us have been given, by God, the ability to believe propositions make sure you believe the correct one. Christianity is about believing the correct thing. Scripture clearly teaches that all people have this God given ability. We are responsible to place it in the right OBJECT.
The Psalmist stated the importance of this in Psa 20:7-8 “Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the LORD our God. They collapse and fall, but we rise and stand upright.”
Act 16:30-31 Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved,
Mic 7:4 The best of them is like a brier, the most upright of them a thorn hedge. The day of your watchmen, of your punishment, has come; now their confusion is at hand.
Mic 7:5 Put no TRUST H539 in a neighbor; have no confidence in a friend; guard the doors of your mouth from her who lies in your arms;
Mic 7:6 for the son treats the father with contempt, the daughter rises up against her mother, the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; a man’s enemies are the men of his own house.
Mic 7:7 But as for me, I will look to the LORD; I will wait for the God of my salvation;
EVERYONE is believing and trusting something. It is never the inability to believe it NOT believing the correct (thing) the OBJECT of our faith is what Christianity is all about.
I know RH will just ignore all of this Biblical proof and continue to repeat his mantra, but repeating a falsehood 10 times, or 10,000 times does not all of a sudden make it true. BUT I realize Calvinism needs this Mantra in order to build it’s structure so they will repeat it 10,000 times hoping people will not see how wrong it is. A Calvinist can’t even stop to consider if it is true, his whole house will collapse if it is true. So he must just plug his ears and repeat his mantra louder and louder. No consideration can ever be given to these truths.
If the Calvinist could tell the WHOLE truth – he would say – the divine potter *DESIGNS* his vessels to be born without faith.
But one does not have to be a brain surgeon to figure out why they consistently omit that particular fact.
But if that fact is a *REAL* aspect of the *TRUE* gospel – then why consistently omit it?
Perhaps this is called “hedging one’s bets” – just to ensure things turn out (i.e. come to pass) the way they would like.
So much for 100% trust in divine sovereignty! :-]
GA writes, “RH just repeats a Mantra that men are born having no Faith….This is an assumption RH just pushes…”
In Romans, Paul writes, “…faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God….” So, a person must hear the word of God in order to receive faith. Without hearing the Word of God, there can be no faith. This makes sense because faith is in Jesus. A person must ehar about Jesus in order to have faith in Him.
GA says this is a false assumption (or conclusion drawn from Romans 10. How does he argue this?
GA says “Everything you and I have, we have received…is a gift from God.” This includes faith. No conflict here. Faith is a gift from God conveyed to people through hearing the Word of God.
Then GA says, ‘RH claims that non-christians have no ability whatsoever to have faith or believe. ”
Non-Christians cannot have faith until God gives them faith and this is accomplished through hearing the Word of God.. They have no ability to have faith until God gives them faith Isn’t that what GA already claimed, “Everything you and I have, we have received…is a gift from God.” However GA claims, “Do the unsaved have faith? The Biblical answer is YES.” This despite saying that faith is a gift from God that would seem to require that God gift it. Later, GA says, ” Which proves that mankind has already been given the ability to have faith/ believe.” So, according to GA, faith is not a gift from God but the ability to have faith is the gift. So, we disagree.
Then, “The important thing within Christianity has always been what is the OBJECT of your faith…Calvinism changes the focus of the gospel… Calvinism’s focus is not on the OBJECT of the faith ie Christ. Calvinism’s focus is on the QUALITY of your faith. ”
Not sure what GA means by this as he doesn’t explain it. He does make the erroneous claim, “Calvinism’s focus is not on the OBJECT of the faith ie Christ. Calvinism’s focus is on the QUALITY of your faith.”
Then, “I know RH will just ignore all of this Biblical proof and continue to repeat his mantra, but repeating a falsehood…”
When GA changes God’s gift from “faith” to the “ability to have faith” he does not make the Calvinists wrong. He only introduces a false belief to his system.
rhutchin
When GA changes God’s gift from “faith” to the “ability to have faith” he does not make the Calvinists wrong. He only introduces a false belief to his system.
br.d
Well lets examine this with a little LOGIC:
1) This is spoken by a person whose every perception of “True vs False” is determined *FOR* him at the foundation of the world – by an external mind.
2) With FALSE perceptions infallibly decreed to exist in this person’s mind – any ability to discern those perceptions as FALSE would falsify the infallible decree that established him to have those FALSE perceptions.
3) Per (1-2) it LOGICALLY follows – this person is left with no ability to discern his FALSE perceptions from his TRUE perceptions – because doing so would falsifying an infallible decree.
CONCLUSION:
This person’s perception of having the ability to distinguish infallibly decreed TRUE perceptions from infallibly decreed FALSE perceptions – can itself be chalked up to a FALSE perception.
I think Calvin’s god gets a kick out of toying with Calvinist minds! :-]
br.d writes, “This person’s perception of having the ability to distinguish infallibly decreed TRUE perceptions from infallibly decreed FALSE perceptions – can itself be chalked up to a FALSE perception.”
This is your philosophy, but how does it promote our understanding of the Scriptures? If at all!
rhutchin
br.d writes, “This person’s perception of having the ability to distinguish infallibly decreed TRUE perceptions from infallibly decreed FALSE perceptions – can itself be chalked up to a FALSE perception.”
rhutchin
This is your philosophy
br.d
Your doctrine explicitly stipulates that “whatsoever comes to pass” (which obviously includes your every FALSE perception) is decreed at the foundation of the world – by Calvin’s god.
Your negative response to that simply shows – you want Calvinism’s doctrine of decrees on your own terms.
That’s your condition not mine
rhutchin
how does it promote our understanding of the Scriptures? If at all!
br.d
Showing the LOGICAL implications of Calvinist doctrine -shines a flashlight on it.
And we can understand why someone wouldn’t want a spot-light
For there is nothing covered that will not be revealed, nor hidden that will not be known.
Therefore whatsoever men hide in darkness shall eventually be brought into the light
Well I would contend that faith in Christ is a “work” that man must do, and that there is no verse which actually says, faith comes as a special gift from God. They asked the question, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.” So in answering their question of what they should do that they might work the works of God, He tells them – this is the work of God that you must do, that you might ” believe in Him whom He sent ” Perhaps then, that is key to working all the works of God. So, we do the work of God in our choice to believe in Him whom He sent.
Aidan writes, “…we do the work of God in our choice to believe in Him whom He sent.”
This can only result after God gives the person faith. Without faith, no one will believe in Christ.
Look at Paul’s argument in Romans 10, “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.”
Rh, writes,
“Aidan writes, “…we do the work of God in our choice to believe in Him whom He sent.”
Rh,
“This can only result after God gives the person faith. Without faith, no one will believe in Christ.”
“Look at Paul’s argument in Romans 10, “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.”
Aidan,
Okay, let’s look at Paul’s argument in Rom. 10. Paul’s argument is not that God has determined since before the foundation of the world, who is going to be saved and who is going to be lost. In other words, He determines who is given faith, and who is not. Nor is he saying, man is such a sinner that he can’t respond to whatever God is offering without some special enabling power of God. That is just something Calvinists read into the passage.
But Paul does discuss God’s enabling power. He says that there are some things necessary in order for one to be able to – call on the name of the Lord. But what are they? Well first of all, he must believe, and he can’t believe without hearing, and he can’t hear without a message being preached, and that message can’t be preached without a preacher being sent. But God has already done these things. He has made these provisions available to everyone, according to Paul. THIS IS GOD’S ENABLING POWER, the thing that makes it possible for men to be able to reach out and be saved. It is not some special work of the Holy Spirit operating on men in a direct way, but rather, it is the work of the gospel; this is God’s way according to Rom.10. Anything more than that, is not warranted by this passage. Therefore, what you are saying about this passage, is nothing more than what you are reading into it.
Aidan writes, “let’s look at Paul’s argument in Rom. 10. Paul’s argument is not that God has determined since before the foundation of the world, who is going to be saved and who is going to be lost.”
To that, we both agree.
Then, “That is just something Calvinists read into the passage.”
Calvinists do not conclude such things from this passage.
Then, “Paul does discuss God’s enabling power. He says that there are some things necessary in order for one to be able to – call on the name of the Lord.”
Because there are things necessary for one to be able to – call on the name of the Lord, then prior to those things being provided, a person is unable to be saved, i.e., he is totally depraved. The things identified in this passage are not necessarily everything a person requires in order to be saved.
Then, “first of all, he must believe,…God has already done these things. He has made these provisions available to everyone,”
God has made these things available to everyone but only those who hear the gospel can receive them and not all who have the gospel preached to them actually “hear’ the gospel and receive these things.
Then, “It is not some special work of the Holy Spirit operating on men in a direct way, but rather, it is the work of the gospel; this is God’s way according to Rom.10.”
That conclusion does not flow from this passage. The work of the Holy Spirit is addressed elsewhere and is not addressed in, or excluded by, Romans 10.
Then, “what you are saying about this passage, is nothing more than what you are reading into it.”
My claim is that the passage establishes that faith comes by hearing the gospel and faith is necessary to salvation. That supports my claim from elsewhere in the Scripture that people are not born with faith and cannot be saved unless they receive faith and they can only receive faith from hearing the gospel..
Rh writes,
“Aidan writes, “let’s look at Paul’s argument in Rom. 10. Paul’s argument is not that God has determined since before the foundation of the world, who is going to be saved and who is going to be lost.”
Rh,
“To that, we both agree.”
Aidan,
“That is just something Calvinists read into the passage.”
Rh,
“Calvinists do not conclude such things from this passage.”
Aidan,
You left out some important bits. I qualified my statement at the top by saying, “In other words, He determines who is given faith, and who is not.” Even you yourself said, “They have no ability to have faith until God gives them faith.” Now, those who God chooses to give faith, according to Calvinism, are those whom He saves. But when was this choice made? Was it determined before the foundation of the world, or, on the spur of the moment? Therefore, when a strict Calvinist reads Rom.10, he reads into that passage – God chooses who to give faith to (just as you’ve commented many times on this passage), and that was predetermined before the foundation of the world. So, yes! Calvinists do read such things into this passage.
Rh,
“then prior to those things being provided, a person is unable to be saved, i.e., he is totally depraved.”
Aidan,
I see total depravity is another thing you read into this passage! In other words, “man is such a sinner that he can’t respond to whatever God is offering without some special enabling power of God. That is just something Calvinists read into the passage.”
Rh,
“but only those who hear the gospel can receive them and not all who have the gospel preached to them actually “hear’ the gospel and receive these things. – Non-Christians cannot have faith until God gives them faith and this is accomplished through hearing the Word of God..”
Aidan,
And why can’t they – hear the gospel?
Rh,
“a person is unable to be saved, i.e., he is totally depraved.”
Aidan,
Hence, that is the reason why Calvinists believe that – “man is such a sinner that he can’t respond to whatever God is offering without some special enabling power of God.” So, not only does God give him the faith, but also the ability to “hear” through some special work of the Holy Spirit operating on men in a direct way. This is yet another thing Calvinists read into Rom. 10, because of their false doctrine of total depravity. They just can’t help themselves.
Rh,
“The work of the Holy Spirit is addressed elsewhere and is not addressed in, or excluded by, Romans 10.”
Aidan,
Nevertheless, that is always the presupposition you read into this passage and elsewhere. But, there is no special work of the Holy Spirit operating on men in a direct way – to enable some to hear and believe the gospel. That is an all-pervading, and unproven assumption of Calvinism.
Rh,
“people are not born with faith and cannot be saved unless they receive faith.”
Aidan,
So what if “people are not born with faith”!! Nobody is born believing! A baby hasn’t got the capacity to hear the gospel and believe. So, that’s a ridiculous statement! Of course no one is born believing. Nor does it logically follow that one “cannot be saved unless they receive faith.” That’s just pure speculation – not based on any scripture, but on the false premise of – total depravity. If total depravity were true, you might have a leg to stand on – but it’s not, so you don’t.
Good points Aidan.
But is it possible that Calvinism’s doctrine of “Total Depravity” is simply a red-herring?
If you designed a creature to be a turtle – then why fuss over the fact that it can’t run a mile in 10 minutes?
Running a mile in 10 minutes was not what the creature was designed for.
So what does Calvin’s god design different people for?
1) He designs “many” for eternal torment in a lake of fire – for his good pleasure.
2) He designs “few” for heaven
So lets say Calvin’s god designs John Doe for eternal torment in the lake of fire.
Calvin’s god could design John Doe to be the worlds most godly person every day of John Doe’s life
And that won’t change John Doe’s fate any more than the color of his socks.
So a Calvinist fussing over John Doe being Totally Depraved – is like fussing over what color socks John Doe will wear in the lake of fire. :-]
Br.d,
“But is it possible that Calvinism’s doctrine of “Total Depravity” is simply a red-herring?”
Aidan,
Absolutely! And you could probably add that the whole of TULIP is simply a red-herring. If the fallacy of Determinism, as defined by Sot.101, is at the back of this red-herring, then that lie should be exposed. I believe that you are showing how this determinism does not equate with the truth found in scripture. Their causal false premise – Determinism, is at the back of many of their arguments for TULIP. You have the wherewith-all to logically deconstruct those arguments, by bringing it back to the main source – Determinism, thereby exposing the fallacy of the whole system.
I don’t have that capability. All I can do, is scripturally pull each petal from that flower to expose it for what it is – a lie, a red-herring! And if the Calvinist is unwilling to see these things, so be it – the truth still stands. I believe their attempts to give a scriptural apologetic, keeps exposing how weak it really is. But what you do, pulls the rug out from under their feet – leaving them nothing reasonable to stand on. In fact, it reveals how totally Unscriptural Calvinism really is. And if they say they stand on the word of God, I say, “well lets hear it so.” Lets examine the Scriptures daily to see whether these things are so.
Agreed!
And thank you for your kind words!
And I appreciate greatly what you do Aidan!
Our approaches are going to be different because the Lord has built us up in different ways.
But I can see how every joint supplies here!
And that is the Lord!
My thanks!
br.d :-]
Thanks Br.d,
I think even Calvinists are being educated about the true nature of Calvinism from many of the things you and others have presented here. It is always good to put a spotlight on doctrinal error, especially for the sake of the unsuspecting. Plus, there’s one really good thing this site has taught me, and that is – to brush up on my spelling. Who’d a thunk it?
Aidan writes, “the whole of TULIP is simply a red-herring. If the fallacy of Determinism, as defined by Sot.101, is at the back of this red-herring, then that lie should be exposed.”
TULIP has nothing to do with determinism as TULIP relates to Calvinism;s doctrine of man. Determinism is tied to Calvinism’s doctrine of God where God has infinite understanding and is omnipotent leading to His absolute sovereignty over His creation.
Then, “I believe that you are showing how this determinism does not equate with the truth found in scripture.”
Yet, it is the Scripture that says God has infinite understanding, is omnipotent, and is sovereign over His creation.
rhutchin
TULIP has nothing to do with determinism as TULIP relates to Calvinism;s doctrine of man.
br.d
I got a chuckle when I saw this!
The shingles and siding on a house rest on walls – which rest on the foundation.
There is nothing on that house that doesn’t have to do with its foundation.
Theological Determinism is the underlying foundation upon which the house of Calvinism is built.
Calvinism’s underlying doctrine of man is simple.
Man’s every impulse is totally determined by Calvin’s god who leaves nothing left over for man to determine.
And the TULIP is simply window dressing on top of that. :-]
Good point and agreed the foundation matters and window dressings don’t constitute a solid foundation 😊 I can’t always read everything though I try when I can, but I do appreciate this unity I’m seeing. & Desiring God isn’t desiringgod.org which is another twist of who He is!!! He is Beyond their comprehension yet they think we are undermining Him what a hoot:-] that’s a funny saying so I’m copying it which is a form of flattery😊 thank all of you who stand up for the truth here on soteriology 101…. Leighton, Brian,Eric,Br.d and all the posters who see His provision is authentically offered yet not actually recieved/excepted by all so in terms a calvinist excepts .. the non elect hmm why???? 2 Thessalonians 2:10 NASB — and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved.
Why fight to defend a system that is clearly flawed in Scripture and makes a Holy God out to be duplicitous ugh☹ & hmm!!! Look outside the box He is recognizably Good🌻
Reggie
Look outside the box He is recognizably Good🌻
br.d
Amen and amen – He is the fairest of ten thousand – he’s the bright and shining star!
br.d writes, “Theological Determinism is the underlying foundation upon which the house of Calvinism is built.”
The doctrine of God is the foundation upon which Calvinism is built. That doctrine says that God has infinite understanding and is omnipotent making God an absolute sovereign over His creation leading to the conclusion that God is omniscient and to a Theological Determinism that incorporates the creation of man in God’s image.
rhutchin
The doctrine of God is the foundation upon which Calvinism is built.
br.d
Then you actually agree!
And what makes Calvinism’s doctrine of god unique and set apart from others – is that its god EXCLUSIVELY determines 100% of “whatsoever comes to pass” – which obviously leaves nothing left over for the creature to determine.
Thus Theological Determinism is the underlying foundation of Calvinism :-]
rhutchin
That doctrine says that God has infinite understanding and is omnipotent making God an absolute sovereign over His creation
br.d
Historically classified as “Decreetal Theology” – and hence – Universal Divine Causal Determinism.
I.E. Theological Determinism
rhutchin
leading to the conclusion that God is omniscient and to a Theological Determinism that incorporates the creation of man in God’s image.
br.d
Let the SOT101 reader not be fooled by an “image” MASQUERADING as something it isn’t in Calvinism.
1) Calvin’s god’s image:
Calvin’s god’s impulses are not determined *FOR* him by an external mind – or by factors outside of his control.
His choices are not determined *FOR* him
He therefore exercises “Libertarian” freedom.
2) Man’s image in Calvinism:
Calvin’s god EXCLUSIVELY determines *ALL* things *FOR* humans
Which obviously leaves nothing left over for humans to determine.
Human choices are determined *FOR* them.
They do not exercise “Libertarian” freedom
And that is a *HUGE* aspect in which humans are NOT created in Calvin’s god’s image.
So let us not be tricked by ambiguous terms MASQUERADING as something they aren’t
RH writes: “The doctrine of God is the foundation upon which Calvinism is built. That doctrine says that God has infinite understanding and is omnipotent making God an absolute sovereign over His creation leading to the conclusion that God is omniscient and to a Theological Determinism that incorporates the creation of man in God’s image.”
GA: You are right Calvinism is determinism even when you try and soften it by saying “incorporates the creation of man in God’s image” the Calvi-god incorporates His own deterministic design of the man that he made to only function from a deterministic foundation, so that every thought and action of man are 100% determined. Good job. Now it is clear.
Rh,
“TULIP has nothing to do with determinism”
Aidan,
That’s what he said folks! TULIP has nothing to do with Determinism. Therefore, there is no relation between the 5 points of TULIP and determinism! Determinism: the doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes regarded as external to the will. So, what does it mean if nothing in TULIP is related to determinism? This means that Total depravity is not related to determinism, and so, it has not been determined that man be born dead in sin. Well, I’m glad we agree, because that’s what I’ve been saying all along. It also means that Unconditional election is not determined. That’s great to know, because this site has been saying that from the beginning. And so, Rh agrees that before any man or woman is born — in fact, before the world was made — God did not arbitrarily determine who would go to heaven and who would not. And that He did not determine to limit the atonement to the few – Nor make His grace irresistible. That’s right, none of these things have been determined either, if the 5 tenets of TULIP are not related to Determinism. And lets not forget the P of TULIP! Simply put, this means that God has not determined that “Once you are saved, you are always saved.” And as we know, whatever God has not determined – has not been not determined.
Its really good to know that there is no relation between the 5 points of TULIP and Determinism.
Aidan writes, ‘Therefore, when a strict Calvinist reads Rom.10, he reads into that passage – God chooses who to give faith to (just as you’ve commented many times on this passage), and that was predetermined before the foundation of the world.”
Calvinists don’t read the effects of God’s choices into this passage. The passage, standing alone, says that faith comes from hearing the gospel. That truth is then combined, by Calvinists, with truths from other Scriptures to reach certain conclusion.
However, the point made by this passage – that faith comes by hearing – allows us to identify a point to divide people into two groups, those who have heard the gospel and have faith and those who have yet to hear the gospel.and do not have faith. Those without faith have no ability to believe the gospel and will not be able to believe the gospel until they hear and receive faith. Until a person hears the gospel and receives faith, he is Totally Depraved.
Then, “I see total depravity is another thing you read into this passage! ”
The passage enables us to describe certain people – those who have yet to hear the gospel and receive faith – as Totally Depraved. A totally Depraved person is one who has no faith and is unable to respond positively to the gospel. If by “reading into the passage,” you mean drawing conclusions from the passage in building a theology, then I agree that Calvinists do this. Even non-Calvinists use the Scriptures in this manner.
Then, “And why can’t they – hear the gospel? ”
We know that everyone who comes under the preaching of the gospel does not receive faith, because we observe that not all people who come under the preaching of the gospel evidence changed lives. How do we account for some people accepting the gospel and some rejecting the gospel? Calvinists say that those who accept the gospel were regenerated and enabled to hear the gospel.
Then, ‘not only does God give him the faith, but also the ability to “hear” through some special work of the Holy Spirit operating on men in a direct way.”
The Calvinist says that the Holy Spirit regenerates the person allowing the person to both see and enter the kingdom of heaven. By doing this, the Holy Spirit enables a person to hear the gospel and in hearing the gospel, faith is conveyed to the person who then believes.
Then, “that is always the presupposition you read into this passage and elsewhere.”
Once one reads John 3, the truths of John 3 become presuppositions for understanding other Scriptures. Reading John 6 adds more presuppositions. So it is with all Scripture. The more one reads Scripture, the more he gains truth that become presuppositions for understanding additional Scripture.
Then, “Nor does it logically follow that one “cannot be saved unless they receive faith.” That’s just pure speculation – not based on any scripture, ”
Calvinists would point to Romans 10 as proof of this. You don’t see that, so you will disagree with the Calvinists on this point. Hebrews 11 describes many actions taken by people because of faith and in one case, says, “By faith the harlot Rahab did not perish with those who did not believe.” This seems to say that faith separates those who believe (like Rahab) from those who do not believe.
Rh,
“They have no ability to have faith until God gives them faith. Calvinists say that those who accept the gospel were regenerated and enabled to hear the gospel. The Calvinist says that the Holy Spirit regenerates the person allowing the person to both see and enter the kingdom of heaven. By doing this, the Holy Spirit enables a person to hear the gospel and in hearing the gospel, faith is conveyed to the person who then believes.”
Aidan,
So you read all of the above into Romans 10? But Romans 10 doesn’t say that they had to be regenerated first in order to enable them to hear the gospel. Romans 10 doesn’t even say that they needed to be enabled to hear the gospel, never mind be regenerated to effect it. In short, Rom. 10 does not say that the Holy Spirit enables a person to hear the gospel, and in hearing the gospel, faith is conveyed(gifted) to the person who then believes.” Again, as I said before, you are reading into Romans 10 what is clearly not there. I can guarantee you that neither John 3, John 6, nor any other passage say anything of the sort. Nor is there a passage in the Bible which speaks about total depravity. All these things are mere assumptions and presuppositions without Biblical proof.
Rh,
“This seems to say that faith separates those who believe (like Rahab) from those who do not believe.”
Aidan,
The mere fact that faith separates those who believe (like Rahab) from those who do not believe, means nothing more than, she chose to believe and act while others didn’t. I wouldn’t read too much more into it than that.
Aidan writes, “So you read all of the above into Romans 10?”
If by “read into,” you mean that the Calvinists takes the whole counsel of Scripture to help understand any one Scripture (e.g., Romans 10), then, Yes. Obviously, Romans 10 tells us certain things that we can then combine with the whole of Scripture to get a complete picture of that which God is telling us.
Then, “But Romans 10 doesn’t say that they had to be regenerated first in order to enable them to hear the gospel.”
You are correct. John 3 tells us that a person must be born again in order to see and enter the kingdom of heaven. Calvinists conclude that a person must be able to see and enter the kingdom of heaven before the preaching of the gospel can make sense. Romans 10 tells us that the gospel is conveyed to people through preaching (whatever the form that preaching takes).
Then, “Romans 10 doesn’t even say that they needed to be enabled to hear the gospel,…”
No, it doesn’t. The experience of those who preach the gospel is that some respond in faith and others do not. How are we to explain thi? John 3, John 6, Ephesians 1, Philippians 1 and Colossians 1 all provide information to help us understand this.
Then, “Nor is there a passage in the Bible which speaks about total depravity.”
Romans 10 says that faith comes by hearing the gospel. Prior to a person hearing the gospel, he can have no faith. Total Depravity is a label given to those who have no faith. Paul describes people without faith as having minds set on the flesh Jude describes them as, “certain men,” saying, “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.”
Then, ‘The mere fact that faith separates those who believe (like Rahab) from those who do not believe, means nothing more than, she chose to believe and act while others didn’t. ”
Don’t we know that Rahab could not believe without faith? Without faith Raham could not believe. So, Hebrews 11 says, “By faith the harlot Rahab did not perish with those who did not believe, when she had received the spies with peace.”
What I find hilarious about Calvinism’s “Total Depravity” doctrine – is how it works with Calvin’s doctrine of the “wheat and the chaff”.
Calvin teaches that in the Calvinist church there are a FEW grains of wheat hidden within a HUGE pile of chaff.
For Calvin – the MANY Calvinists are specifically selected – to be deceived with a FALSE PERCEPTION of election.
A taste of salvation now – works to magnify one’s eventual torment in the lake of fire.
But of course on the doctrine – Calvinists who are not elect – are TOTALLY DEPRAVED
So we end up with MANY TOTALLY DEPRAVED Calvinists running around – living a life of predestined FALSE PERCEPTIONS
And of course no spiritual discernment.
Which begs the question:
How many TOTALLY DEPRAVED Calvinists does it take to turn a TOTALLY DEPRAVED light-bulb! :-]
Rh,
“If by “read into,” you mean that the Calvinists takes the whole counsel of Scripture to help understand any one Scripture (e.g., Romans 10), then, Yes.”
Aidan,
As a principle, that’s not the problem. The problem lies in making vague references to scriptures that don’t teach what you are reading into Rom.10.
Aidan,
“But Romans 10 doesn’t say that they had to be regenerated first in order to enable them to hear the gospel.”
Rh,
“John 3 tells us that a person must be born again in order to see and enter the kingdom of heaven. Calvinists conclude that a person must be able to see and enter the kingdom of heaven before the preaching of the gospel can make sense.”
Aidan,
John 3 is a point in case! John 3 says nothing of a person needing to be regenerated in order to enable them to hear the gospel. This is what you are reading into John 3 and consequently into Rom.10. Your conclusion on John 3 is very erroneous. A person cannot enter the kingdom of heaven BEFORE the preaching of the gospel.
Aidan,
“Romans 10 doesn’t even say that they needed to be enabled to hear the gospel,…”
Rh,
“The experience of those who preach the gospel is that some respond in faith and others do not. How are we to explain thi? John 3, John 6, Ephesians 1, Philippians 1 and Colossians 1 all provide information to help us understand this.”
Aidan,
Another point in case! What verses in John 3, John 6, Ephesians 1, Philippians 1 and Colossians 1 clearly show, or even necessarily imply, that people need – to be enabled to hear the gospel? Don’t confuse the ‘what’ with the ‘how’. Like you said, sometimes a passage doesn’t give all the details. For example, you might come across a passage which says, ‘ God gave Jericho into their hands,’ but as you know, that verse would not tell us ‘how’ this was accomplished.
Aidan,
“Nor is there a passage in the Bible which speaks about total depravity.”
Rh,
“Romans 10 says that faith comes by hearing the gospel. Prior to a person hearing the gospel, he can have no faith. Total Depravity is a label given to those who have no faith.”
Aidan,
Romans 10 is looking to faith IN CHRIST. It would be more correct to say, ‘Prior to a person hearing the gospel, he can have no faith IN CHRIST. Total Depravity must first be proven to be a biblical concept before it can be entertained. Therefore it is vain to cite it as the reason
why people have no faith IN CHRIST. Men are not born corrupt, they BECOME corrupt (Rom. 3:12; Ps. 14:2-3)
“The LORD looks down from heaven upon the children of men,
To see if there are any who understand, who seek God.
They have all turned aside,
They have together become corrupt;
There is none who does good,
No, not one.”
Rh,
“Don’t we know that Rahab could not believe without faith? Without faith Raham could not believe”
Aidan,
You are confused about what faith is! Faith is believing, and believing is faith – they are one and the same thing!
This reminds me of a Calvinist’s web-site I happened across a year or so ago.
This particular fellow believed the scriptures teach the earth is flat.
Of course he has scripture evidence *IF* one’s exegesis takes into consideration the -quote “whole counsel of god”.
He has the “proper exegesis” – and everyone else has it wrong.
I also remember years ago – a certain believer who desired a certain item – but had only enough money to pay the rent.
Looking up into the sky – saw a cloud formation that resembled the shape of the item
And concluded that cloud formation was the “word of god”
Bought the item – and then got kicked out of the apartment for rent delinquency.
The human mind is very capable of seeing what it wants to see – even in random data :-]
John 17:17; “Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth.”
I firmly believe that one of our greatest problems is our struggle with the truth. Its a heart problem! Our response to the truth, the word of God, exposes what’s in the heart. The scripture warns us to “Watch over your heart with all diligence, For from it flow the springs of life.” We’ve got to want the truth more than life, no matter how unpalatable it might be. So, it probably boils down to how much we want the truth, or how much we love the lie. This we know, that God will judge us for it.
Heb. 4:12-13;
For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account.
Aidan wrotes, ‘The problem lies in making vague references to scriptures that don’t teach what you are reading into Rom.10.”
If anything seems vague, let me know and i will provide specific Scriptures behind comments.
Then, “John 3 is a point in case! John 3 says nothing of a person needing to be regenerated in order to enable them to hear the gospel.”
John 3 says that a person must be born again in order to see and enter the kingdom of heaven. Romans 19 says a person must hear the gospel to receive faith. Which comes first? That is why we have the regeneration before faith (Calvinism) vs faith before regeneration (non-Calvinist) disagreement. You take one side and I take the other.
Then, “A person cannot enter the kingdom of heaven BEFORE the preaching of the gospel.”
That’s fine. Why didn’t you argue, “A person cannot see the kingdom of heaven BEFORE the preaching of the gospel.” You didn’t because to see the kingdom of heaven is to be regenerated. If the preaching of the gospel is the means whereby a person is enabled to see (be regenerated), the issue again becomes where to fit faith into the process.
Then, “Another point in case! What verses in John 3, John 6, Ephesians 1, Philippians 1 and Colossians 1 clearly show, or even necessarily imply, that people need – to be enabled to hear the gospel? Don’t confuse the ‘what’ with the ‘how’.”
We have the following truths in the Scriptures:
1 ‘God has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ;” )Philippians 1)
2 “God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved),” (Ephesians 2)
3. “unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 3)
4 “…God chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will,…” (Ephesians 1)
5. “…God qualified believers to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in the light.He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love,…” (Colossians 1)
6 “you, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now Christ has reconciled in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy, and blameless, and above reproach in His sight–” (Colossians 1)
7 “by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.”
What truths do we gain from these verses?
1. God begins a good work (salvation) in people.
2. God makes people alive when they are still dead in trespasses and sins
3. A person must be born again to see the kingdom of heaven (and thereby be saved)
4. God chose us before the foundation of the world to holy and blameless (have our sin forgiven)
5 God qualified us to be saved; God delivered us from darkness
6 God made us alive when we were dead in sin
7 God saves us by grace through faith – we are His workmanship
Where does faith enter the process – “faith comes by hearing the gospel.” Except for God choosing us before He created the world and qualifying us, all of His actions toward us are accomplished through the hearing of the gospel.
rhutchin
Except for God choosing us before He created the world and qualifying us, all of His actions toward us are accomplished through the hearing of the gospel.
br.d
At least – the “FEW” Calvinists he didn’t DESIGN for eternal torment in a lake of fire – for his good pleasure.
But of course he doesn’t have to do anything special to achieve that outcome.
All he has to do is create creatures and immediately throw them into it.
No need to delay any of that good pleasure.
But then again – since Calvinists say (he’s just the AUTHOR of a fictional novel) then perhaps he wants a more interesting story-line :-]
Rh,
“John 3 says that a person must be born again in order to see and enter the kingdom of heaven.”
Aidan,
John 3 says that a person must be born again in order to see or enter the kingdom of heaven. But, John 3 does not say – “a person needs to be regenerated or born again to enable them to hear the gospel.” That’s imposing something not said or implied by Jesus. In simple terms, you must be born again in order to see or enter the kingdom of God. You seem to make a distinction between – seeing the kingdom (v.3), and ‘entering the kingdom’ (v.5). But a natural reading of the passage shows that v.5 is an explanation of v.3.
In verse 3, Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus is confused in verse 4, so Jesus gives further explanation in verse 5: Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. Thus making it clear that to be “born again” has two aspects, namely – water and the Spirit. But also that, seeing the kingdom of God means entering the kingdom of God. In other words, Jesus is just basically talking about how one can enter the kingdom of God. Paul told the Colossians that they were already in the kingdom when he said, “He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son (Col. 1:13). How so? Because they were born again having been born of water and the Spirit (John 3:5).
Aidan,
What verses in John 3, John 6, Ephesians 1, Philippians 1 and Colossians 1 clearly show, or even necessarily imply, that people need – to be enabled to hear the gospel? Don’t confuse the ‘what’ with the ‘how’.”
Rh,
1. God begins a good work (salvation) in people. Philippians 1
Aidan,
That statement tells us WHO, it doesn’t tell us HOW He accomplished it.
Rh,
2. God makes people alive when they are still dead in trespasses and sins. (Ephesians 2)
Aidan,
“And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, in which you once walked according to the course of this world” Dead not in consequence of somebody else’s sins, but rather, as a consequence of the sins, “in which YOU once walked according to the course of this world” Col 2:13; “And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses.” Again, this tells us WHAT God did for these Christians. It tells us that He made them alive, having forgiven them all their trespasses, NOT BEFORE THAT. But it still doesn’t tell us what process was involved for that to happen..
Rh,
3. A person must be born again to see the kingdom of heaven (and thereby be saved) John 3.
Aidan,
Again, just a statement of fact, that a person must be born again in order to enter the kingdom of God. Nothing here to tell us HOW one is born of water and the Spirit. Nothing here about a person needing to be ENABLED to hear the gospel.
Rh,
4. God chose us before the foundation of the world to holy and blameless (have our sin forgiven) Ephesians 1.
Aidan,
Again, this says nothing about enabling us to hear the gospel. And it doesn’t say, “God chose us before the foundation of the world,” it says, “God chose us IN HIM before the foundation of the world.”
Rh,
5 God qualified us to be saved; God delivered us from darkness (Colossians 1)
Aidan,
Paul is simply telling these Christians WHAT God has done for them. He says nothing here about HOW it was accomplished. And certainly nothing about ENABLING anyone to hear the gospel.
Rh,
6 God made us alive when we were dead in sin (Colossians 1).
Aidan,
Still nothing about some enabling power to hear the gospel. Nothing about how it was accomplished.
Rh,
7 God saves us by grace through faith – we are His workmanship (Ephesians 2)
Aidan,
Of course it would have to be by grace though faith. No one could be justified on the basis of his record, seeing that “ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23). Absolutely, it would need to be by grace through faith – otherwise, no one would be saved. Again, absolutely no mention of God having to grant anyone enabling power, in order for them to hear the gospel.
You would do well to speak where the scriptures speak, and to remain silent where the scriptures are silent.
A certain Calvinist needed the faith to believe he wouldn’t turn into a frog the minute he walked out of his house.
He was taught by the great interpreters of scripture – that he would have to be given a special gift of faith for that purpose
So being scriptural he waited
Sure enough at a certain point his mind was filled with the most powerful impression that god have given him that gift.
So he happily walked out of his house.
And instantly turned into a frog. :-]
Very good! What was it? A LEAP of faith, or was he just a bit GREEN?
Good one! 😀
All of the above
He went from Totally Depraved to Tailless Amphibian!
Aidan you have done a great job of exposing RH’s assumptions that he reads into the text.
I really enjoyed reading this post…you and BR.D are punching holes in RH systematic and showing clearly how it is built upon mere assumptions that are then read into the scriptures. The Calvinist boat is sinking fast but then again you can always cover your eyes and live *AS IF* it is not.
Thank you GA. I just hope the Calvinist realises that I am not his enemy in trying to bring him the truth.
RH just ignored the passages I presented and the argument I presented. Just as I said he would do.
He has done this a half dozen times already. I suspect he has no answer so he must change the subject.
That is Calvinist tactic # 178 – Change the subject to avoid having to deal with the truth.
GA writes, “RH just ignored the passages I presented and the argument I presented. ”
You seemed to be saying that Christ is the object of the believer’s faith. I have no problem with that.
You also said that the Calvinist makes the quality of faith the issue. I have no idea what you meant by that. Did you just make it up?
Rh,
Aidan writes, “How can you say that unbelievers have a moral compass if they are born totally depraved?”
“I didn’t. I said, without faith, unbelievers have no moral compass. Without faith, morality becomes relative and based on one’s’s wants and desires.”
Aidan,
By definition, TOTAL depravity is absolute, not “relative.” Hence, not “moral” but “immoral.”
Rh,
“The Scriptures divide people by those in the flesh and those led by the Spirit. In Proverbs, the contrast is between the righteous and the wicked – a person does not become righteous apart from the Word. No one is born with a good heart or with faith – these come through the Word and involve turning away from evil and submitting to God/Christ. That’s the reality expressed in the Scriptures.”
Aidan,
There’s no argument that the scriptures divide people into two classes – the righteous and the wicked. But it also tells us that people are NOT born that way, but rather BECOME that way. You say, “No one is born with a good heart.” Another way of putting that is, “everyone is born with an EVIL heart.” Some call it – TOTAL depravity. Not a reality expressed anywhere in the Scriptures.
Rh,
“Basically, you are saying that each person is born with a good heart and the faith to live a good life. Then, each person takes a bite of the fruit and becomes corrupt with the loss of faith. Like the prodigal son, the person can always come to his senses by realizing his condition and desiring to change. I’m not buying it.”
Aidan,
Why not? Its your strawman! But, you are right in saying that a person is born with a good heart. After which, they can either develop in faith, or in unbelief. And, that people can come to their senses and repent. The reason you are not buying what the scriptures teach is, because you have invested too much in Calvinism. But that’s not my problem!
Rh,
“So, if I accept your view about babies, I will see the truth and that truth is not Calvinism. That probably explains the non-Calvinist position.”
Aidan,
No! But rather, If you were willing to accept the biblical view of babies, you would see the truth and that truth is not Calvinism. That, probably, is a more likely explanation!
Aidan writes, “So God simply allows men to make their own free will choice in responding to the gospel or not….‘what conditions can anyone meet – if they don’t have God’s direct supernatural intervention’.”
That is why Jesus said, “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him;” That is why Paul said, “we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, but to those who are called [by God], both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
Hello all,
This is my first post to this site, though I have been reading articles here for over a year. A brief bit about me… I love the Lord Jesus who has saved me from my sins. I am no scholar, nor theologian, nor pastor, nor written any books about these soteriological matters; I’m just a sinner saved by the mercy of our Living God. I am not a Calvinist, though what I am is not so clear (Arminian, Traditionalist, etc.).
Now, on to my post, in the past I have found this Calvinist accusation towards non-Calvinists about ‘boasting’ to be worthy of reflection. What I mean is that Scripture is clear that NO ONE will have any reason to boast before God so any accusation that suggests that some WOULD have such grounds (based on a potentially faulty soteriological stance) should be examined as to its merits. However, I am persuaded that Scripture silences this accusation, and it does so convincingly. I present three passages in Romans:
Ro 3:27: Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
Ro 11:18-20: do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. Then you will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear.
Ro 4:16: That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all,
The above passages state that boasting is excluded, and why? Because of faith (1st verse). And, that believers should not be arrogant towards Jews who were broken off, and why? Because we stand by faith (2nd verse). And, that we know that righteousness/salvation is solely by grace, and why? Because it comes to us through faith (3rd verse). What I find both intriguing and persuasive in all of these verses is that the usual Calvinist answers for why we know it is grace (unconditional election, irresistible grace, effective purchase of faith only for the unconditionally elect, etc.) are not even present in Paul’s argument flow….this is clear when these verses are read in context, especially the latter half of Romans 3 thru 4. Now, it is a faulty expectation to think all possible doctrine can be expounded in each verse; that would be impossible and I am not suggesting that here. But, what I find critical in these verses (and their context) is that Paul is establishing the REASON why we can’t boast and the REASON why we know salvation is by grace and those traditional Calvinist doctrines are not found in Paul’s answer… faith is the simple answer he gives. I find this to be telling.
Thank you for the privilege of being able to interact here.
Blessings in Christ Jesus.
Hello JaceWhite and welcome
Hi JaceWhite:
Your post was well thought out and very biblical.
When people read the scriptures without the Calvinist glasses being put on them, they come to these conclusions. Keep up the good work being a student of scripture, not a follower of some “celebrity pastor” or teacher. That is the problem this day and age people love to identify themselves with a popular contemporary figure rather than Christ.
People are “discipled out of ” these plain common sense readings of scriptures.
Glad you are here.
GA writes, “People are “discipled out of ” these plain common sense readings of scriptures.’
True. Like the following–
“All that the Father gives Jesus will come to Jesus,…”
Jesus said, “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him;…”
“…everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Jesus.”
My heart is breaking and sorrowful over the ‘christian determinist philosophy voice in the air’ on social medias. It is heightening. And then how many are becoming more like Mac Arthur:doubled up on chosen and raptured out by a secret return for rapture before the return.
Above presenting the good news many are correcting over it. For example ‘Just know, as long as you understand God chooses you because you can’t understand the truth.So, no boasting.’ or to the unbeliever: ‘You can’t understand as you don’t have eyes to see'(of course related to a challenge by an unbeliever against determinist philosophy as if it is theLOVE in our message.) Straight out comments to unbelievers that God chooses some and not others as a defense against unbelievers.( the unbeliever sometimes giving way to a fair challenge and sometimes making snide comments) This work of veiling our testimony about and in Jesus Christ is getting further smothered of late by the pendulum swing about GLORY without perspective and angle, but as a swinging tool against those who do not ‘double up with determinist philosophy’ when we repeat God’ invitation, PRACTICALLY, offered to Come!
About double-mindedness: The spirit of the air speaks chaos into WHAT IS PRACTICAL and all that is practically revealed and pictured for us.
They are making parables practical for their own theology and making the practical to be a parable for what is spoken simply to be understood. There depth is useless because that counterfeit the first thing revealed practically for understanding the foremost spiritual truth: THE GOOD NEWS !
I have been speaking with poetic candance , as TS00 once pointed out . But, I am starting to lose my patients. I am patient because of the nonchristian who may be reading stuff as a true questioning unbeliever. (So, I am venting here because I am in a moment of wanting to lose my patients and write directly to demolish!!! )
And if you say “for us to God’s glory”, they battle back with God’s Glory, ignoring the conversation practically includes “us”. I will KEEP repeating God died for Us and all that means about HIS Word on Glory.
Ahhhhh, that I could wish that every Calvinist would do a word/verse study on the word GLORY in scripture, in context, immediate and big picture, IN TRUTH FOR US! Jesus our MEDIATOR
2+2=4 is truly able to be understood because PRACTICALLY we can understand the truth GOD has GIVEN as a common sense to mankind! God does not excuse mankind from understanding THE TRUTH of HIS communication of what GOD SAID in the beginning and BREATHED into Humans.
Okay, done….. thanks, I have vented …. I think I might start using the question “Can we look at this again, practically in the context?”
Thanks guys. This is an important point.
When I was a Calvinist I struggled (like all Calvinists) to distinguish between the law of works and the law of faith. Rom 3:26-27. With one there would be boasting (unless, of course the works were wrought by irresistible grace / you can’t boast of doing something which you could not resist) with the law of faith “boasting is excluded.” It is impossible to be proud of true contrition.
Behold the proud, his soul is not upright in him.
But the just shall live by faith. Hab 2:4
Chosenornot.com might be helpful.
Keep up the good work!
Everyone I am sure has noticed that I have challenged Mark Thompson with BR.D argument above.
But I want to make it clear that a Christian Calvinist does not struggle with the law of works and and faith.
The greatest works I have seen written on how God justifies the ungodly have been written by Calvinists. I am not going to be intellectually dishonest although I am struggling with all of this. If I see something I know is wrong I am going to call it out.
How many people here know the Gospel was preached to Abraham?
Galatians 3:8 – And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, “In you all the nations shall be blessed.”
Romans 4:3 says For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
But I have read on here more than once that it seems Abraham was justified, or counted righteous before God in a different way than Christians are as is written in Romans 4 where in the same context it says Abraham believed God and it was counted unto him for righteous. The same Abraham who had the Gospel preached to him by God Himself as told us in Galatians 3:8
Romans 4 as Abraham being justified and counted righteous in the same context as those who by grace alone, through faith alone, because of Christ alone we are accepted in the beloved to the praise of God’s glorious grace. God justifies the ungodly through the instrumentality of faith in Christ who is our righteousness as Abraham’s righteousness.
It is not just a innate human faith that makes a decision for Christ. Faith is a gift of God’s grace. More than willing to talk about it to anyone.
Does not faith COME by hearing the gospel. If it has to come to the sinner that strongly implies there is a time they did not have faith.
Does not the Word of God say Christ is the Author/Originator/Source of our faith and the one who will bring it to a finished state of completion as we behold Him
Hebrews 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
The Lame man at the gate of beautiful was healed by the faith that comes through Jesus.
Acts 3:16 – “And on the basis of faith in His name, it is the name of Jesus which has strengthened this man whom you see and know; and the FAITH WHICH COMES THOUGH HIM has given him this perfect health in the presence of you all.
2 Thess. 3:2 – And pray that we may be delivered from wicked and evil people, for not everyone has faith.
It is double talk for non-Calvinists to say that faith is not a gift of God, That it is something that wicked and evil people have when the word of God says they do not. This is intellectual dishonesty.
I know you all read the verses I have given that show faith is something that is not innate and natural to sinners but is from Christ who is the source of our faith and comes through the hearing of the Gospel of Christ. And I know you all read that wicked and evil people do not have faith.
I may not understand everything but I do understand this and the desire of the non-Calvinist to say that it is the exercising of their LFW engaging some form of innate natural human faith that saves. This is not what the Word of God says. Even the demons have faith and believe and tremble.
You receive saving faith it is not in you naturally from the day you are born and the fact you can just believe bc you think you have LFW.
2 Peter 1:1 – Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ HAVE RECEIVED A FAITH AS PRECIOUS AS OURS:
In the verse I just quoted was the faith received or did they already have it. This is where intellectual honesty comes into play.
JUSKLNTIME2442,
You referred to Romans 4 – “as Abraham being justified and counted righteous”? I have a few questions! What period of Abraham’s life is this referring to? Also, where is the quotation taken from in Romans 4? Is this the only time in his life that this quotation is used? If not, then is it simply referring to an unbeliever who suddenly comes to believe? Or could it be referring to someone who was already a long time believer? (cf. Heb 11:7). And if it is the latter, did Abraham not need to continually walk by faith throughout his life in order to fulfill the quotation that, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness?”
Romans 4 then uses Abraham, the chief ground of Jewish confidence, to illustrate a righteousness on the basis of faith, and not the works of the law! Abraham is shown to be “the father of all those who believe” (v.11). The true seed of Abraham, his spiritual descendants, are those “who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had” (v.12), who have “the faith of Abraham” (v.16). Romans 4, then, is a most appropriate place to learn of the nature of justifying faith. How do you read these passages?
Great post Doug!
Thank you!
And welcome! :-]
Straw man:
“I may not understand everything but I do understand this and the desire of the non-Calvinist to say that it is the exercising of their LFW engaging some form of innate natural human faith that saves.”
JUSKLNTIME2442. There may be some non-Calvinist sometime, somewhere who believes that “some form of innate natural human faith saves”. Never met one. I’m not one. You are projecting.
Every Christian I’ve ever met believes that God is ultimately behind every good thing. Calvinists just add that God is behind every evil thing also, thus rendering the idea of evil as completely without meaning.
Hi Carl,
My name is Kevin.
So not a straw-man. Because I have not met a non-Calvinist who does not believe that it is his or her natural innate human faith that they exercise by their LFW and believe in Christ. Then become justified or declared righteous though Christ.
You are the first non-Calvinist I have met who believes that faith is a gift from God.
Because you did say:
Carl
“There may be some non-Calvinist sometime, somewhere who believes that “some form of innate natural human faith saves”. Never met one. I’m not one.”
Kevin
So where doe your faith come from God or yourself?
Carl
“Every Christian I’ve ever met believes that God is ultimately behind every good thing.”
Kevin
OK cool!!
Carl
“Calvinists just add that God is behind every evil thing also, thus rendering the idea of evil as completely without meaning.”
Kevin
Carl, this is not even the subject, why run and hide behind it as all Non-Calvinist do when they know they are wrong about something. How do you know I even believe in this. Maybe you better talk to BR.D. But one thing I really tries my patience is when we are talking about one subject and the Non-Calvinist runs and hides behind this,
Be careful because I can show the Non-Calvinist do not understand God is behind every evil thing also. I have argued it on here before and I have not got any satisfactory answers.
God created everything from all eternity and knew every evil action and choice every individual who would come into existence would make before he even created. But God chose knowing all the evil actions he knew their would be from a Non-Calvinists perspective.
I understand the Non-Calvinists are running to alternatives to get away from this obvious truth that makes God guilty by association with evil like Open Theism and Middle Knowledge. But there still is the obvious problem of God and the difficulty of sin and evil that one cannot escape no matter what denomination you belong to.
But the subject is the “Doctrine of Justification and and being Saved by Grace through Faith, that not of yourself, it is the gift of God.”
So let’s not use “changing the issue fallacy”
Thanks and God bless
carl
Every Christian I’ve ever met believes that God is ultimately behind every good thing. Calvinists just add that God is behind every evil thing also, thus rendering the idea of evil as completely without meaning.
br.d
Excellent and insightful!
This evolved by Augustine’s acceptance of the ancient Gnostic/Neoplatonist doctrine of “GOOD-EVIL” dualism.
Where good and evil are “Co-Equal”, “Co-Complimentary”, and “Co-necessary”.
Good and evil are said to exist in “Undifferentiated” form
The ancient NeoPlatoniists could therefore call evil “Beautiful”.
Augustine called this “Antithesis” and said it is pleasurable to contemplate.
Jonathon Edwards enunciates it this way:
-quote
the shining forth of God’s glory would be very imperfect….parts of divine glory would not shine forth as the other do….nay, they could scarcely shine forth at all. (Works of Jonathon Edwards)
Hi AIDAN MCMANUS.
You asked a few questions I will try to answer.
Aidan
What period of Abraham’s life is this referring to?
Kevin
I think you may be looking for the answer before the written “Law of God” was given to Moses. Correct? I could be wrong but I think that is the answer you are looking for.
Aidan, did you know the law of God was in effect before it was written down on tablets of stone and given to Moses? Most I talk with do not know this.
God’s Word defines sin as “the transgression of the law” (1 John 3:4, KJV) or “lawlessness” (New King James Version, NIV). Therefore, “where there is no law there is no transgression” (Romans 4:15). This is what the Bible clearly says! So do we find transgressions of the Ten Commandments described as sinful before Mt. Sinai? Clearly we do.
For example, Genesis 13:13 tells us that “the men of Sodom were exceedingly wicked and sinful against the Lord.” Since sin is violating God’s law, the people of Sodom could not have been punished for being wicked and sinful if no law condemned what they were doing. We must conclude, therefore, that God had already made available the knowledge of what is sinful.
Here is a clear example. Genesis 20:3-9 and Genesis 39:7-9 describe adultery as “a great sin” and a “sin against God.” Adultery breaks the Seventh Commandment . Before the Law given to Moses.
In Genesis 4:9-12, God punishes Cain for murder and lying—violations of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments .
In Exodus 16:4, several days to several weeks before God established His covenant with the Israelites at Mt. Sinai, we find God giving them a test to see “whether they will walk in My law or not.” His test involved whether they would rest on the seventh-day Sabbath as He commanded in the Fourth Commandment of that law—with which they were at least partly familiar. The seventh day had been hallowed—set aside as holy by God—from the time of Adam and Eve (Genesis 2:1-3).
God’s reaction to their disobedience is revealing. He exclaims, “How long do you refuse to keep My commandments and My laws?” (Exodus 16:28). God clearly speaks of both His “commandments and … laws” as already existing and in force well before He listed the Ten Commandments verbally at Mt. Sinai, as described four chapters later
In Leviticus 18:21-27, God calls the idolatrous practices of the people of the land of Canaan “abominations”—actions so filthy and degrading that God compared their expulsion to being “vomited out” of the land (Leviticus 18:28). What was their sin? Among other things, idolatry (the worship of false gods) and human sacrifice, which violated the First, Second and Sixth Commandments .
The Bible shows that the Ten Commandments did not originate with Moses or in his time. Nor were they in any way limited only to the Jews. They were in effect and known long before Moses or a people known as the Jews existed. They are the foundation of God’s laws that show us how to love God (defined by the first four Commandments) and how to love our fellow man (defined by the last six).
Ok that should answer your first question and stun you a little about something that maybe you did not know.
God bless
Hi KEVIN,
Thank you for that, but it doesn’t really answer my questions. I was referring to what period in Abraham’s personal life it was said “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness”(Gen. 15:6).
The point being that Gen. 15:6 does not refer to the conversion of an alien sinner. Abraham had been a believer and worshiper of God for a long time before this: Gen. 12:1-4 (cf. Heb 11:8), Gen. 12:7-8; 13:4,18; 14:18-19,22; 15:1.
Therefore, the faith Paul discusses in Romans and illustrates in chapter 4 is not just the faith of one critical moment of surrender – the moment of conversion. Paul is discussing the faith one must have all through his lifetime in order to be accounted as righteous before God. It is a faith that will have many different applications all through life, depending upon the circumstances. In Romans 4 Paul is looking at Gen. 17 when Abraham is 100, and quoting it as a fulfillment of Gen 15:6 there. So, Gen. 17 is just another manifestation of that same faith.
It also explains how James can say that Gen.15:6 was also fulfilled in Gen 22 when Abraham was justified by works in offering Isaac. Gen. 22 is simply another manifestation of the same faith and shows how that faith responded to a positive command of God, just as Gen 15 and Gen 17 show the response of that faith to a divine promise.
Paul appeals to Gen.15:6 again in Gal. 3, in order to conclude that those of faith are sons of Abraham (vv. 6-7), but then says that the seed of Abraham is the one who has been baptized into Christ (vv. 26-29). The faith that makes one a son of God (v.26), and a son of Abraham (v. 7), includes baptism into Christ (v.27), and that shows how the Abrahamic faith behaves today. This explains how Paul can say such strong things about baptism in Rom.6. Paul did not consider faith and baptism to be two different acts at odds with each other. Baptism is the embodiment of the faith. In fact, Rom.6 is where Paul shows what faith is especially at the moment of conversion.
Aidan
“Also, where is the quotation taken from in Romans 4? Is this the only time in his life that this quotation is used? If not, then is it simply referring to an unbeliever who suddenly comes to believe? Or could it be referring to someone who was already a long time believer? (cf. Heb 11:7). And if it is the latter, did Abraham not need to continually walk by faith throughout his life in order to fulfill the quotation that, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness?”
Kevin
Aidan, do you believe in Gospel righteousness. That when one believes upon the Lord Jesus Christ God justifies the ungodly, the sinner is declared righteous in Christ?
In that understanding Abraham who “who God preached the Gospel to beforehand” (something you did not bring up that I mentioned)
What do you mean that Abraham would have to continually walk by faith to be accounted as righteous?
Is this something Abraham could have lost if he did not by his LFW and human exertion conjure up a human faith to sustain?
Galatians 3:8- And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.”
Notice in this verse it says the “Scripture foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith”
Then notice how God is going to justify the Gentiles or declare them righteous.
God preached the gospel of Christ to Abraham beforehand and Abraham obviously believed and was counted righteous.
As in Romans 4 it talks about those who are justified in Christ and mentions Abraham in the context among the believer in Christ. Abraham had the same Gospel preached to him or at least implied to some extent because it was said that through him all nations would be blessed.
Galatians 3:8 – And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, “In you all the nations shall be blessed.”
KEVIN,
The gospel preached to Abraham was in the saying, “In you all the nations shall be blessed.” I think you need to re-study Rom 4, and those other passages again in light of what I have presented above. That the faith Paul discusses in Romans and illustrates in chapter 4 is not just the faith of one critical moment of surrender – the moment of conversion. Paul, along with James, is discussing the faith one must have all through his lifetime in order to be accounted as righteous before God. It is a faith that will have many different applications all through life, depending upon the circumstances. In Romans 4 Paul is looking at Gen. 17 when Abraham is 100, and quoting it as a fulfillment of Gen 15:6 there. So, Gen. 17 is just another manifestation of that same faith, just as James can say that Gen.15:6 was likewise fulfilled in Gen 22 as a manifestation of that same faith, when Abraham was justified by works in offering Isaac.
Ok AIDAN MCMANUS
I admit I did jump on it pretty quick. So I will take the time and study it a little slower after reading your comments.
I think I misunderstood your question about Abraham.
You said and I quote: “The point being that Gen. 15:6 does not refer to the conversion of an alien sinner. Abraham had been a believer and worshiper of God for a long time before this: Gen. 12:1-4 (cf. Heb 11:8), Gen. 12:7-8; 13:4,18; 14:18-19,22; 15:1.”
Kevin
Excellent point Aidan. I cover my mouth in respect to your understanding of God’s Word. I have been doing a lot of that on here lately.
You said and I quote: “Therefore, the faith Paul discusses in Romans and illustrates in chapter 4 is not just the faith of one critical moment of surrender – the moment of conversion. Paul is discussing the faith one must have all through his lifetime in order to be accounted as righteous before God.”
Kevin
Do I understand you correctly that you believe that one can lose their Salvation in Christ. That the Savior cannot keep them saved that it is up to the person’s continuing faith to be counted righteous before God. So that would mean one would take their eyes off of Christ who is the Author and Finisher of our faith.
Hebrews 12:2 – 2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
Faith does not save, Christ is the one who saves and makes one righteous. When we say we are made righteous by faith that is just short hand for saying being make righteous or justified by grace through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Because it is his righteous reckoned to us that saves us.
And notice Jesus is the Author/originator/source of our saving faith and the One who will bring it to a finished state of completion when we are glorified.
John 6:37-39. Jesus says, ” this is the will of the Father, that all He has given me I will lose none, but raise them up on the LAST DAY!!”
Jesus is the Savior, and the one who gives us saving faith a Hebrews 12:2 says and other verses I mentioned in my first post.
I may be misunderstanding you and If I am I apologize. But I do agree and accept some of the things you have said above.
God bless
Hi AIDAN MCMANUS,
Thank you so much for your reply. One thing I have learned on here is that I am not as knowledgeable of God’s Word as I think I am. This becomes apparent when I talk to people like you.
I want to explore this some more as I do study better Romans 4 and when and where Abraham was saved.
There is no doubt that Abram was following the religion of Judaism. So he was devout, prayed, made altars to God and all that was required. But that does not mean Abram was saved or considered a Saint of God yet.
God talked to many who were not Saints and saved in the Old Testament. Saul, the first King was one of them. God even prophesied through Saul by the Spirit of the Lord.
I think you are reading to much into Genesis 12.1-7. God promised to bless him (future tense). Abraham made an altar to the Lord and yet he was not saved at this time. Yes, he’s gone on a religious pilgrimage, but he isn’t saved. Judaism…..
Then in Genesis 15:6 – And he believed in the Lord, and He accounted it to him for righteousness. Does one through saving faith become justified, righteous before God? Yes and that is what happened to Abraham. Once one is justified and declared righteous before God then they are saved.
You have missed the whole point and only partially quoted Galatians 3:8 where God preached the Gospel to Abraham. If you would have quoted it completely you would have seen the context and subject of what God was talking about. Let’s do that.
Galatians 3:8 – The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “ALL THE NATIONS WILL BE BLESSED IN YOU.”
Yes it does say as you said that “all the nations shall be blessed in you” But what does God mean by this. Is Abraham the source of blessing or is he the “father of faith” that lead to him being justified before God and he is the example as to who all Gentiles of the world will be blessed as he was through his faith in believing God?
Look at the beginning of the verse, “The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith”
“This is the blessing” that is being talked about at the end of verse 8 that you were not able to put together. The Gospel blessing of Justification, being declared righteous through faith in Christ Jesus.
So when God proclaimed the Gospel to Abraham that “all nations will be blessed in Him” the idea behind that was Justification by grace through faith in Christ Jesus. As the context of Galatians 3:8 indicates.
I would suggest you go back and take a closer look at this.
As far as what Romans 4 is talking about. I can take you back to one passage if Scripture in Romans 3 and this is basically what the Apostle Paul is continuing to try and tell us in Romans 4
Romans 3:21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
Galatians 3:9 – 9 So then those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham.
Paul is talking about a righteousness that is not imparted but reckoned toward the believer in Christ. From what you say I do not get the feeling you believe Paul is teaching this. That Justification is a one time application of God reckoning the righteousness of Christ to us through faith.
You sound as if you believe in a faith plus works salvation. Which ultimately takes ones eyes off of Christ and looks to how good one is being before God. How good is good enough? We keep Christ’s commandments bc we love Him not to be accepted or declared to right before Him.
That is why I hold to one of favorite verses of Scripture
Galatians 3:24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
You said and I quote: “That the faith Paul discusses in Romans and illustrates in chapter 4 is not just the faith of one critical moment of surrender – the moment of conversion. Paul, along with James, is discussing the faith one must have all through his lifetime in order to be accounted as righteous before God.”
This I disagree with whole heartily.
I will admit Sir that I know I do not understand Romans 4 or Galatians 3 as well as I should. But I think there are some errors on your end also. If I am understanding you correctly. This I say respectfully and thank you for discussing this with me.
I will let you have the last word. I am sure we will not agree completely. I will read your reply and if I see I am wrong I give you my word I will put it in writing right here on this site. I am not about trying to win arguments. This is about God’s Word and us knowing Him better so that our faith and understanding of him increases.
God bless
Hi KEVIN,
Thanks for your correspondence on this issue. You certainly don’t need to apologize for asking questions. I wish more people were willing to discuss and examine the scriptures because they want to know the truth. And believe me when I say, that I too wish I were more knowledgeable in God’s Word. Also, I don’t see this as an argument, but rather as a friendly and respectful conversation. I am, if anything, your friend here. I am in Ireland with several hours between us and working full time which may account for any delays between responses.
In this conversation we see two conceivable systems of justification:
First we see a – legal justification or justification by works of law. What is the concept here? It is a justification on the basis of keeping the law, always doing what is right. One who never violated the law would be justified on the basis of his own good record (cf. Rom. 7:10; Gal 3:10; Col. 2:14).
Justification by works of law has nothing to do with the justification of sinners. It is a justification for people who are not sinners, with no need of grace or forgiveness; persons acquitted of guilt because they are not guilty. Therefore, it ought to be clear that the “works” mentioned in Rom. 3:20 have nothing to do with anything that is “for the forgiveness of sins,” because one who has these works has no need of forgiveness. Hence, nobody is justified on this basis! It is also important to realize that Rom. 3:19-20 is the conclusion of Paul’s demonstration of – universal human guilt. All are guilty; none could be judged righteous on the basis of his record of law keeping. We need forgiveness.
The second system is justification on the basis of grace:
No need to despair. Paul’s whole purpose in Rom. 1:18-3:20 is to show the hopelessness of one’s ever being justified on the basis of his own life in order to prepare us to accept the gospel plan of salvation. What is the concept? It is a justification based on the forgiveness of sins, namely, a verdict of acquittal given to sinners as a gift. Hence, a justification for sinners! But how is such justification possible? How can a sinner be judged righteous? The gospel is God’s solution to that problem (Rom. 3:21-26).
Notice v. 21: A righteousness manifested – apart from the law – one not dependent on perfect law keeping. Therefore a righteousness possible for sinners. The righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ: The word “through” indicates the means or instrument by which this righteousness is obtained, namely, through faith in Jesus Christ (cf. Phil. 3:9). This is further seen in Romans 4 with the following expressions: Faith credited as righteousness (vv. 3, 5, 22-25). Righteousness credited to one apart from works (v. 6; cf. v.11). Sins forgiven (v.7). Sin not reckoned (v.8).
Rom. 3:24; “being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,”
Justified = judged righteous; Freely = as a gift; Grace = loving-kindness, favor, good-will bestowed on one who does not deserve it.
Rom. 3:24; …”Through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,” whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith,..v.25.
Redemption = deliverance, liberation or release effected by the payment of a ransom. The phrase explains how God can justify sinners. He can do so because a full ransom has been paid to obtain our freedom from sin.
That is probably enough said for the moment. I hope this at least gives you an idea of where I’m coming from before I can answer some of the issues you have raised.
Aidan.
Aidan,
That is excellent. A very nice post. It seems we are on the same page here as to what you wrote above.
You actually explained it way better than I can. Like when you said that faith is the instrument and not the cause of our justification in Christ.
You definitely have a better understanding and grasp on it than I do in the fact that you can communicate it better. I was very blessed in reading this and thank you for it.
God bless you in your knowledge and understanding of His Word.
This is what I feel you have done with me today my brother and friend. Because you have more than a dry intellectual knowledge. The Word of Christ dwells in you richly and you were able to do this with me today:
Colossians 3:16 – Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.
Kevin,
I appreciate your kind words, but you have actually said pretty much the same thing as well. In another post you said, “God justifies the ungodly through the instrumentality of faith in Christ.” And I certainly agree with your statement concerning Gal. 3: 8; where you say, “when God proclaimed the Gospel to Abraham that “all nations will be blessed in Him” the idea behind that was Justification by grace through faith in Christ Jesus. As the context of Galatians 3:8 indicates.” I might not have agreed with everything you have said in your posts, but don’t sell yourself short, there is plenty you do know and understand and are able to express coherently. I do have a little question though, because you used the expression, “God reckoning the righteousness of Christ to us through faith”? I just wondered what you meant by that expression, ‘reckoned the righteousness of Christ to us’ and what specific scriptures you would use?
Aidan
Hi Aidan,
I also thank you for your kind words. In my last comment I was just very blessed in your ability to express. To be honest I did not even think we were close in what we believed until your last comment.
As to “God reckoning Christ righteousness to us through faith” This would take us back to Romans 4 again and where it talks about righteousness being imputed to Abraham by faith and believers in Christ also.
Now. I do not know this may be where we part in understanding. Because you had said something about justification (I think it was you I could be thinking of someone else) not being in a sense a “done deal the moment we place our faith and trust in Jesus Christ”
To me it is not an “imparted” righteousness but an “imputed” righteousness that we receive when we place our faith and trust in the Lord Jesus Christ.
Through faith God justifies the ungodly. In a sense, spiritually speaking we are “clothed with the righteousness of Christ” Not some righteousness that is “imparted” (within us). Below is the passage of Scripture I would use and then I will show you other translations of a couple of verses in this passage that brings out the thought of “imputed or reckoned righteousness by faith in Christ.
Romans 4:20 He (Abraham) did not waver at the promise of God through unbelief, but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God, 21 and being fully convinced that what He had promised He was also able to perform. 22 And therefore “it was accounted to him for righteousness.”
23 Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him, 24 but also for us. It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, 25 who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification.
Romans 4: 22 And therefore “it was accounted to him for righteousness.” NKJV
Romans 4:22 – This is why “it was credited to him as righteousness. NIV
Romans 4:22 – Therefore also IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS. NAS 1977
Romans 4:22 – Wherefore also it was reckoned unto him for righteousness. English Revised Version
Romans 4:22 – And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness KJV
Romans 4:22 – And therefore “it was accounted to him for righteousness.” NKJV
The word reckoned as you see is used in a couple of the translations above means, “accounted or imputed”
Thayer’s Greek English Lexicon has for Romans 4:22 definitions for the word imputed. It has “to reckon, to take into account, metaphorically to pass to one’s account, to impute.
Then we read in the remaining verses of Romans 4 that it was not “imputed, reckoned or accounted” to him only, but but “also for us. It shall be imputed. (reckoned to our account) to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, 25 who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification.
Jesus was raised for our Justification once and for all. And once we place our trust in Christ we are justified or declared righteous in Him once and for all.
We become clothed in Christ’s righteousness, even in the garments of Salvation
Isaiah 61:10 – I will greatly rejoice in the LORD, My soul shall be joyful in my God; For He has clothed me with the garments of salvation, He has covered me with the robe of righteousness, As a bridegroom decks himself with ornaments, And as a bride adorns herself with her jewels.
Notice we are clothed with the garments of Salvation and covered with the robe of righteousness.
We must remember this righteousness is Christ’s righteousness that is imputed or reckoned to us.
God only accepts perfection. So that is why he accepts us on the basis of Christ’s righteousness. When God looks at us he sees us clothed in the garments of Salvation and covered or wrapped in the robe of Christ’s righteousness.
This is why we can say as the Apostle Paul said in the Ephesians 1
Ephesians 1:6 – 6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved.
Remember when Jesus was baptized and God the Father said from heaven this is my BELOVED SON IN WHOM I AM WELL PLEASED
Connect this with Ephesians 1:6. Praise to the glory of God’s grace by which He has made us accepted (Blessed and favored) in the Beloved.
We are accepted by God in His beloved Son, in whom God is well pleased. Now by faith in Christ, God has justified us and clothed us with the Garments of Salvation and covered us with Christ’s Righteousness. His perfect obedience in His ministry time while here on earth, and Christ obedience to the point of His death, Christ righteousness has been imputed or reckoned to us. When God sees us, he sees His Christ’ righteousness, His beloved son in whom He is well pleased so God is well pleased with us because of Christ.
Now I do believe in Progressive Gradual Sanctification. Being inwardly and outwardly conformed to the image of Christ. I will not go into the Scriptures of my understanding of it. Other than we know if we walk in the Spirit we will not fulfill the lust of the flesh, and God has predestined us to be conformed to the image of His Son that he might be the first born among many brethren. And then where it talks about the “Fruit of the Holy Spirit in the Book of Galatians.
I believe justification is positional, Once we believe God justifies the ungodly and it is something that cannot be undone. A one and for all action that is completed and done once we place our faith and trust in Christ.
I believe Sanctification, Holiness in heart and in everyday life is experimental. Something we grow in. In the very grace of Holiness being conformed to the image of Christ.
But not so of Christ’s righteousness being imputed or reckoned to us by faith.
Sorry so long
God bless
Hi Kevin,
Thank you for your last reply and for you patience in waiting for mine. Unfortunately I will have to disagree with your conclusions to this issue. The reason I disagree is because I found that you had made the presupposition before you even got to the passage. Therefore the conclusion seems to be imposed on the passage from the start. Here’s what you said just before introducing Rom. 4:20-25:
KEVIN:
“Through faith God justifies the ungodly. In a sense, spiritually speaking we are “clothed with the righteousness of Christ” Not some righteousness that is “imparted” (within us). Below is the passage of Scripture I would use and then I will show you other translations of a couple of verses in this passage that brings out the thought of “imputed or reckoned righteousness by faith in Christ.”
Then you quote Rom 4:20-25; and qualify what you meant above as this:
“We become clothed in Christ’s righteousness, even in the garments of Salvation” And then after Isaiah 61:10 you say, – “We must remember this righteousness is Christ’s righteousness that is imputed or reckoned to us.”
AIDAN:
Here is what Rom 4 indicates:
Rom. 4:3;- For what does the Scripture say? “ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.” Notice, it was – his faith – that was credited to him as righteousness. Rom 4:5- “..but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness.” And so we find all the way through this chapter: Rom. 4:9- “For we say, “FAITH WAS CREDITED TO ABRAHAM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.” Rom. 4:13- “..was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith.” Rom 4:20,22- “he did not waver in unbelief but grew strong in faith, giving glory to God,..Therefore IT WAS ALSO CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.” Rom 4:24- but for our sake also, to whom it will be credited, as those who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead.”
Notice, NOT ‘Christ’s righteousness,’ but one’s faith – “HIS FAITH is credited as righteousness” (Rom. 4:5).
Sins forgiven (v.7). Sin not reckoned (v.8). The blessing of that righteousness which God bestows upon the sinner who BELIEVES in Him, is in forgiving him of his sins.
ONE FINAL THING:
You said, “Jesus was raised for our Justification [once and for all]. And once we place our trust in Christ we are justified or declared righteous in Him [once and for all].”
AIDAN:
I put in brackets above what you added to the verse showing what you imposed as an interpretation on that basis. Just because Jesus was raised once for all, does not necessarily imply once saved always saved. The verse just simply says, “who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification” (Rom. 4:25). There is nothing to conclude ‘once saved always saved’ from that verse, otherwise turning back into unbelief is of no consequence. We are saved by faith in Jesus Christ.
Aidan
So your faith is your righteousness. Never heard someone claiming faith was their righteousness before. Read Genesis 15:6 again. Respectfully I do not look at my faith as my righteousness but by the instrumentality of faith,or through faith I look at the promise of God, that Christ is my righteousness. Through the eyes of faith I see Christ who is my righteousness.
We will also discuss natural innate human faith and faith as given as a gift of God.
Genesis 15:6 – And he believed in the LORD, and He accounted it to him for righteousness.
Maybe this will help to show where I am coming from and then I will answer more fully on my own when I have time.
“Does Paul Mean “Our Faith Is Our Righteousness?
So here is my answer to the question. No, when Paul says “Faith is credited to us as righteousness,” he does not mean that our faith is our righteousness, or any part of our justifying righteousness. He means that faith is what unites us with Christ and all that God is for us in him. When God sees faith in Christ, he sees union with Christ. And when he sees union with Christ, he sees the righteousness of Christ as our righteousness. So faith connects us with Christ who is our righteousness and, in that sense, faith is counted as righteousness. Faith sees and savors all that God is for us in Christ, especially his righteousness. That’s what faith does.
Now what is the Biblical basis of that interpretation? John Owen, in volume five of his Works (pp. 318-319) gives five arguments, and John Murray in his commentary on Romans gives nine arguments (pp. 353-359) why “faith credited as righteousness” does not mean that faith is our righteousness. I will give a few of these.
First, notice that at the end of verse 6 and at the end of verse 11 in Romans 4 you have a very different way of expressing “imputation” or crediting. At the end of verse 6 it says, “God credits righteousness apart from works.” And at the end of verse 11 it says, “. . . that righteousness might be credited to them.” Notice: in both of these, faith is not the thing credited as righteousness, but righteousness is the thing credited to us. “God credits righteousness,” not “God credits faith as righteousness.” What this does is alert us to the good possibility that when Paul says, “Faith is credited as righteousness,” he may well mean, “God credits righteousness to us through faith.”
Second, look at Romans 3:21-22, “But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe.” Notice that it is God’s righteousness that comes to us through faith. Faith is what unites us to God’s righteousness. Faith is not God’s righteousness.
Third, 2 Corinthians 5:21, “He [God] made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” Here we have a double imputation. God imputed our sins to Christ who knew no sin. And God imputed his righteousness to us who had no righteousness of our own. The key phrases for us are “the righteousness of God” and “in Him.” It’s not our righteousness that we get here. It is God’s righteousness. And we get it not because our faith is righteous, but because we are “in Christ.” Faith unites us to Christ. And in Christ we have an alien righteousness. It is God’s righteousness in Christ. Or you can say it is Christ’s righteousness. He takes our sin. We take his righteousness.
Fourth, consider 1 Corinthians 1:30. John Bunyan said that, after that experience in the field where the imputed righteousness of Christ hit him so powerfully, he went home and looked for Biblical support. He hit upon 1 Corinthians 1:30. “But by His [God’s] doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption.” “By this scripture,” Bunyan said, “I saw that the man Christ Jesus . . . is our righteousness and sanctification before God. Here therefore I lived for some time very sweetly at peace with God, through Christ” (Grace Abounding, p. 91).
Christ Is Our Righteousness
This text says that Christ became to us (or for us) “righteousness.” And the reason Christ is our “righteousness” in this way is that we are “in Christ Jesus.” “You are in Christ Jesus who became to us . . . righteousness.” Christ is our righteousness, not faith. Faith unites us to Christ and all that God is for us in him. But what he is for us in him is righteousness.
So then what is the point of all this? The point is this: When Paul says in Romans 4:22 (and verses 3, 5, and 9) that “faith is credited as righteousness,” he does not mean that our faith is our righteousness. He means that our faith unites us to Christ so that God’s righteousness in Christ is credited to us.
Here’s a very imperfect analogy. But I will risk it in the hope of greater understanding. Suppose I say to Barnabas, my sixteen-year-old son, “Clean up your room before you go to school. You must have a clean room, or you won’t be able to go watch the game tonight.” Well, suppose he plans poorly and leaves for school without cleaning the room. And suppose I discover the messy room and clean it. His afternoon fills up and he gets home just before it’s time to leave for the game and realizes what he has done and feels terrible. He apologizes and humbly accepts the consequences.
To which I say, “Barnabas, I am going to credit your apology and submission as a clean room. I said, ‘You must have a clean room, or you won’t be able to go watch the game tonight. Your room is clean. So you can go to the game.” What I mean when I say, “I credit your apology as a clean room,” is not that the apology is the clean room. Nor that he really cleaned his room. I cleaned it. It was pure grace. All I mean is that, in my way of reckoning – in my grace – his apology connects him with the promise given for a clean room. The clean room is his clean room. I credit it to him. Or, I credit his apology as a clean room. You can say it either way. And Paul said it both ways: “Faith is credited as righteousness,” and “God credits righteousness to us through faith.”
So when God says, this morning, to those who believe in Christ, “I credit your faith as righteousness,” he does not mean that your faith is righteousness. He means that your faith connects you to God’s righteousness.
It was not faith that was Abraham righteous, it was because he believed or had faith in God, that it was counted as righteousness.
Also I will address the statement of “once saved always saved” Hate that statement myself. I am preserved by the grace of God through faith in Christ, and because of that I persevere in holiness, faith and love until the end.
God bless and thanks Aidan
Hi Kevin,
Did you just make a “straw-man” argument in your last reply? You just assumed that my argument was; ‘It was only – faith – that was Abraham’s righteousness, and not because he believed or had faith – in God, that it was counted as righteousness’. Where did I make that argument? In fact, I simply quoted Paul verbatim and then repeated what he said verbatim. Here’s what I wrote, again – verbatim:
“AIDAN:
Here is what Rom 4 indicates:
Rom. 4:3;- For what does the Scripture say? “ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.” Notice, it was – his faith – that was credited to him as righteousness. Rom 4:5- “..but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness.” And so we find all the way through this chapter: Rom. 4:9- “For we say, “FAITH WAS CREDITED TO ABRAHAM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.” Rom. 4:13- “..was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith.” Rom 4:20,22- “he did not waver in unbelief but grew strong in faith, giving glory to God,..Therefore IT WAS ALSO CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.” Rom 4:24- “but for our sake also, to whom it will be credited, as those who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead.””
“Notice, NOT ‘Christ’s righteousness,’ but one’s faith – “HIS FAITH is credited as righteousness” (Rom. 4:5).”
So, Kevin, how many times in Rom.4 above, does it say, – ‘faith, his faith’, was credited to him as righteousness? I think you’ll find it said multiple times. But more to the point, how many times in Rom.4 did Paul explicitly state – “Christ’s righteousness was credited as righteousness”? Not once! In fact, you had to impose it from the outside in order to get that interpretation into the chapter. I mean, you had to impose it from outside of scripture, and with imperfect analogies from the likes of John Piper and others! Who are you going to put your trust in, John Piper, or an inspired apostle like Paul?
Also, you ignored the fact that I had quoted Rom. 4:5- “..but believes IN HIM who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness.” And Rom. 4:24- “but for our sake also, to whom it will be credited, as those who BELIEVE IN HIM who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead.” And even then you are mistaken in your explanation! In Gen 15:6, Abraham believed God – not just God’s promise. Faith in God’s promise was grounded upon a fundamental confidence in God Himself. Faith is more than agreeing with God. Notice verse 24 again: It is those who BELIEVE IN GOD who raised Jesus from the dead, to whom it will be credited. Again, this is the faith that Paul is describing in Rom. 4, just as Abraham, it is the faith that one must have all through his lifetime in order to be justified before God. And it will have many different applications all through life depending upon circumstances. So you see, our faith is IN GOD who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. But it is GOD who credits OUR FAITH as righteousness. That is precisely what the passage says, over and over again!
Therefore, It WAS very much Abraham’s faith that was credited to him as righteousness – For what does the Scripture say? “ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.”
There are many warnings in scripture about, adding to, or taking away from God’s word. That is something we must always take very seriously! Deut 4:2- “You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.” I hope to answer the four points you raised in my next post.
Kind regards,
Aidan
Aidan,
I do hope that you do not think I am adding or taking away from the Word of God to create my own theology. I am be mistaking or misunderstanding but I am not intentionally doing what you are implication accusation above.
When you quote the verse God credited his faith as righteousness it sounds like there is some kind of virtue in your faith that earned right standing before God.
I do think my last post explained what it meant by God crediting his faith as righteousness means.
I am going to get more into this later.
In your earlier post you in with a very kind heart told me how good it was I was searching for the truth. That warning is not for people who are just mistaken or misunderstanding.
What has changed?
Kevin
Hi Kevin,
Nothing has changed. I haven’t spoken unkindly to you. A friend will tell you the truth, not only when you are right, but also when you are wrong. If you are really looking for the truth, you will want me to tell you the good, the bad, and the ugly, especially in regards to salvation. These are, as far as I’m concerned, eternal matters of life and death. I’m not trying to be personal when I say that I believe Calvinism is another gospel. I live in Ireland and came out of Catholicism many years ago, and believe they too are preaching another gospel. Many here, including family and friends, still hold to the teachings of Catholicism. It would be cruelly unkind for me to leave them in their ignorance for fear of offending them.
The warning I gave I apply to myself agonizingly all the time because I want to teach the truth – all the time. Faithful in little, faithful in much!
Your last post seemed to be heavily influenced by Calvinistic scholarship rather than what Rom. 4 is actually saying. What’s the difference? I quote Rom. 4 verbatim and repeat it verbatim, and you say, “When you quote the verse God credited his faith as righteousness it sounds like there is some kind of virtue in your faith that earned right standing before God.” Yet, all I did was quote and repeat what they said -verbatim! But I know that its because of Calvinism’s presuppositions, that these passages could never mean “faith” but rather – Christ’s righteousness imputed to us! So you are left quoting Calvinistic scholars to tell you that the verses don’t mean what they say. You are in serious trouble when you allow them to twist the scriptures in this way. Except for these preconceived ideas, you would have had no trouble in understanding what that passage was saying. I’m trying to help you to take those lenses off to understand this.
Aidan,
Excuse me an please don’t be offended when I say I think you are wrong and I am warning you.
You sound like you are teaching me from Catholic Theologians other than Romans 4
What does faith do? It believes God.
Genesis 15: 6 says – And he believed in the LORD, and He accounted it to him for righteousness.
I am only (as you stating what the word of God says) Abraham believed (had faith) in the Lord, and because in believed (had faith) IN THE LORD, he accounted it to Him for righteousness,
Are you saying it is the very act of believing or having faith is why you are righteous or the object of faith who is Christ who is your righteousness?
If this is what you are saying then you are not understanding the Word of God correctly. Because it is the fact that we believe, have faith, and it is through believing faith that we are saved and then God justifies the ungodly. Christ righteousness is reckoned or imputed unto them.
I do not look to my faith but I through faith believing as in Genesis 15:6 look to the object of my faith who is Christ.
In Genesis 15:6 Abraham’s faith is nothing more than his complete faith in God.
It sounds like you are saying that your “faith” is (equivalent) of righteousness or that God see your faith or Abraham’s faith as itself a righteous act that well pleasing to Him.
This is wrong and I must warn you of this. No one is making a straw-man. I could say the same of what you say of how I believe so it is best to leave that inflammatory word out of the discussion.
The reckoning of Abraham’s faith as righteousness means, “to account to him (Abraham) a righteousness that does not inherently belong to him” Abraham’s response to God’s promise in faith believing leads God to “reckon, account” to him (Abraham) a righteousness that does not belong to him inherently.
It seems to me you think your faith becomes obedience to God (and that would be a work, but you hold to a faith-works Roman Catholic Gospel anyway that is not the Gospel of Grace through faith in Jesus Christ)
And because it seems you think your “faith” is some type of obedient work to God you are owed a reward from God. A righteousness that is a virtue of your faith. Now you may not see it that way but that is the conclusion of your theology.
This is a Gospel of Grace Sir not of Faith plus works.
Romans 4: 4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. 5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness,
I will go directly to the verse that you are trying to make your argument from. Verse 5 of Romans 4. First I want you to notice that grace is mentioned in verse 4 of Romans 5.
Then I want you to notice right after Romans 5:4 there is a comma meaning the Apostle Paul’s thought is not finished. You seem to want to stop there as if that is it.
I want to say that works (even what you might be thinking obedient faith that earns you righteousness) has no part in God justifying the ungodly. This is because God’s verdict is given freely, on the basis of Grace, no strings attached (something not earned)
Paul is saying the “accounting which also means reckoning”, of faith for righteousness, in Abraham’s life, or anyone life for that matter, is reckoning that is wholly of grace (vs 4) and must be , then based on faith. Because of God’s grace in Salvation, the faith that justifies (that believes and trust in Christ) must be of faith and apart from all works.
When we say “Faith alone” all that is meant is faith apart from works. Faith is not given some virtuous merit that requires God to reward you with righteousness.
Remember I said there was a comma after verse 5 meaning the sentence and Paul’s thought was not complete, Let’s look at it.
Romans 4:6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works: 7 “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, And whose sins are covered; 8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord shall not impute sin.” Notice the sins are covered. Covered by what, the righteousness of the Lord Jesus Christ that was attained through faith. That robe of righteousness you read about in Isaiah 61 that we are covered with when we place are trust in the object of our faith Christ that you so easily dismissed.
This further describes verse 5 of Romans 4. In God through faith in Christ reckoning, accounting or imputing Christ righteousness to us our sins our covered and we are forgiven as said in verse 7 of Romans 4.
Also in the same thought in verse 8 our sins are not accounted, reckoned or imputed to us.
Two last thoughts on this before I end in explaining your false gospel you are in.
Romans 4:22 And therefore “it was accounted to him for righteousness.”
23 Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him, 24 but also for us. It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, 25 who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification.
It was not written for Abraham’s sake alone that in believing God, in trusting God it was accounted, reckoned or imputed to him as righteousness.
But it shall be imputed to us also who believe in Him (Christ) Christ’s righteousness.
If this is not Christ’s righteousness then what righteousness is it Sir? What is saving you?
You have a faith-works understanding of Salvation. You believe you can lose your Salvation. Which means you do not really believe Christ can and is saving you from your sins.
The Cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, BUT TO US WHO ARE BEING SAVED IT IS THE POWER OF GOD.
1 Corinthians 1:18 – For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
You see through the eyes of faith I am still beholding Christ is the author/originator/source of my faith and the one who will bring it to a finished state of completion in Him
You may have originally looked to Christ when you were saved. But now Christ is not enough. There must be faith in Christ plus something more to keep you saved.
They may even be you putting forth and exerting and conjuring up a human faith that depends on you.
Jesus said this is the will of the Father, that all that He has given me I will lose none.
He says in other places that we shall never perish.
Your gospel shows a weak Savior who cannot keep you saved. I am not sure but it must depend on you, meaning faith plus works because you did mention the Book of James and his discussion of faith and works. Works are the evidence and proof that faith is genuine and real. But if it is of works then it is no longer of Grace. Romans 4 Bro.
You have a false Gospel.
I do not think we will be able to continue are discussion bc I think our beliefs are to far apart. I am sure you will want to respond to this and I have no problem with that.
But I will not respond back bc I do not think we will ever agree. But only see each other with a false gospel.
I only spoke the truth to a friend and warned you as you said you would to me. So there was no disrespect intended. I had to speak the truth
So no hard feelings here. God bless you and I wish you the best.
Hi Kevin,
In this post I’d like to answer the four points you raised, which I believe are interpretations coming from outside of scripture; from Calvinist scholars like John Piper who are heavily influenced by man made doctrines such as TULIP and Determinism.
Point one:
You quote Rom. 4:6,11 and concluded- “Notice: in both of these, faith is not the thing credited as righteousness, but righteousness is the thing credited to us.”
Aidan:
This of course is just another attempt to explain away ‘faith’ as the basis for crediting righteousness, to replace it with, “Christ’s righteousness credited to us as righteousness.” But again, that’s not what the passage says. Let’s go back to v.5 and quote it together with v.6:.. Rom 4:5-6, “But to him WHO DOES NOT WORK BUT BELIEVES ON HIM who justifies the ungodly, HIS FAITH IS ACCOUNTED FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS, – JUST AS David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes RIGHTEOUSNESS APART FROM WORKS:” And again you say, “And at the end of verse 11 it says, “. . . that righteousness might be credited to them.”” Yes, but note how in the first part of v.11, “and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the RIGHTEOUSNESS OF THE FAITH WHICH HE HAD while uncircumcised, so that he might be THE FATHER OF ALL WHO BELIEVE.” That same term – the RIGHTEOUSNESS OF FAITH is used again in reference to his ‘spiritual descendants’ in (v.13) “For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith.”
What is Paul talking about in these verses? He is contrasting two systems of justification and righteousness. One system is based on (law) WORKS, the other system is based on the (Gospel) FAITH. That’s what you’ve got to see when you look at these words in Rom 3 and 4.
Point two: You said – “look at Romans 3:21-22,…Notice that it is God’s righteousness that comes to us through faith.” But of course, Kevin, what I think you really meant to say here is, – ‘Notice that it is God’s righteousness that is IMPUTED to us through faith’. If so, then you have fundamentally changed the meaning of this text to suit the doctrine of Calvinism. And you would be – adding to the Word of God – because the word ‘IMPUTED’ is no where found in the text of (Rom. 3:21-22).
Third point: You said – “2 Corinthians 5:21, “He [God] made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” Here we have a double imputation. God imputed our sins to Christ who knew no sin. And God imputed his righteousness to us.” Again – you are adding to the Word of God – because the word ‘IMPUTED’ is no where found in this text.
Fourth Point: Again you used the term “imputed righteousness of Christ” for (1 Corinthians 1:30) when the word IMPUTED is no where in this text either! Do you see a pattern here? You keep adding to the word of God (Dt. 4:2). And,- If Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us in this verse, then so is CHRIST’S WISDOM imputed to us; and so also is CHRIST’S SANCTIFICATION IMPUTED TO US! That would imply that we are not only AS RIGHTEOUS AS CHRIST, but also as WISE AS CHRIST, and in no need of further Sanctification, because HIS PERFECT SANCTIFICATION would be imputed to us as well.
Consequently, you would have no need to – “persevere in holiness.”
I would have to write a blog on my own web page to show all the fallacies and false teaching that you have demonstrated above.
Faith is not your righteousness, Christ is who we received when we believed through faith.
But we are not going to agree as you believe in the Roman Catholic doctrine of a Faith-Works salvation. I am saved by grace alone, through faith alone, because of Christ alone to the glory of God alone,
You can call Calvinistic Soteriology a false Gospel all you want. I am calling your Roman Catholic Faith works Salvation a false doctrine.
You look to your faith to keep you saved instead of through faith looking to the Savior Christ, who saves to the uttermost, completely and forever.
There is no way you can ever have assurance of Salvation since you believe the God who regenerated you with the Holy Spirit, being born again by the Spirit, That powerful supernatural event done by God can be undone by you.
You ultimately are your own Savior. Jesus is my Savior and a perfect Savior who said if I believe in Him I will never perish. I am sure you recognize the verse I am quoting from the Gospels, You would say yes but……but nothing, it is you adding your traditions and your false Non-Calvinist teaching that deceive people into thinking they are saved by a Faith-Works Salvation.
I could go back and refute all that you said and where YOU have added to the gospel. Imputed is implied in a lot of places.
When he was made to be made sin for us that we might be made the righteous of God IN HIM…..Notice IN HIM, not of yourself.
What do you think that verse believes.
I know I said this before, but this will be my last post Sir. I am not offended and I hope you are not either. We just agree. I believe you are following a false gospel where you focus on yourself conjuring up faith and doing good works to keep yourself saved. That is not Christ being your Savior and what the Apostle Paul warned us about.
Yes the Calvinist has his TULIP
But you have your flower that you pick off the petals and say, he loves me, he loves me not, he loves me, he loves me not, How many times according to your gospel (not the Biblical Gospel) have you seen people saved.
Jesus said depart from me, I NEVER KNEW YOU. NEVER MEANS NEVER.
Not that you got saved one time and Christ knew you and then you walked away from Christ then you came back to him again and he knew you again.
No, if you have never been saved Jesus says he NEVER KNEW YOU at any time in your life,
You preach a confusing gospel that I hope God protects people from.
God bless you with His Salvation in Christ through faith by which he will impute to you the righteousness of Christ. All of grace through faith, not of yourself (at all) the gift of God.
I will talk about another subject with you that I think will make you doubt this false gospel.
Let’s talk about the nature of saving faith. Is it a gift of God’s grace or something that is innate within you, Human faith.
I can promise you I can show you Scriptures that show faith is a gift and not all people have this natural human faith. Even the demons believe and tremble but that does not save them.
But I in no way can agree with your Non-Calvinistic doctrine Roman Catholic theology.
But if you do not want to talk about the nature of saving faith I think our discourse has come to an end. The Reformed Faith rejects the Catholic Doctrine of a Faith works salvation you hold to. Let me know. Yes or no.
If no, God bless and I wish you the best and take care.
Hi Kevin,
This is what I said concerning the kind of faith that saves: “In Gen 15:6, Abraham believed God – not just God’s promise. Faith in God’s promise was grounded upon a fundamental confidence in God Himself. Faith is more than agreeing with God. It is those who BELIEVE IN GOD who raised Jesus from the dead, to whom it will be credited” (Rom. 4:24). In other words, that’s the kind of faith that is credited as righteousness.
And yes, I would be happy to talk with you about saving faith. Let me know where you want to start.
Sounds good Aidan I will let you know
Okay, Kevin, here’s a taster.
(Eph 2:8-10)
“For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.”
Salvation is the main subject here. The gift of God is salvation. That salvation is not (ek) of yourselves – meaning that the source of our salvation is not from us. For by grace(God’s part) you have been saved through faith (man’s part). Salvation is the gift of God; not (ek) of works, lest anyone boast. And, if it is a gift of God, God is the – source – of salvation, not yourselves, not from works. Does this mean that “yourselves” are excluded from the process? No! We are still involved in our salvation in terms of exercising faith in Jesus Christ. Does this mean then that “works” are excluded from the process? No! It just means that works are not the – origin or source – of salvation. But that is not the same as saying that works are not involved in a faith that saves (James 2:14-26). Clearly, works are involved. In Verse 10: – For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works. The fact that we are His workmanship serves to prove that salvation is not based upon our works. In other words, this salvation is not of human origin or by human works. Again, as you can see in v10, it does not exclude works – good works – that we should walk in them.
Aidan.
Sorry Aiden for not getting back to you.
As you all know I am usually on here quite often lately.
But as some know I have two hip implants and I am heading for two knee replacements.
I am having so much pain in my right knee that is extending down my leg I can barely walk.
Walked with a cane in Wal-mat today helping my wife shop but still had to go and sit down.
This started in the last 3 days and has just increased in painful hurting.
The pain is keeping me up at night. So I will taking a break unless the pain goes away. It come and goes but here lately it is increasing and for the first time has started keeping up at night like when I had first had problems with my hips. A disease called avasculer necrosis. Blood flow is cut off to the bone and it just dies.
Just cannot sit to think and write while hurting. Seeing the Specialist in a few days.
God bless you all. I will get back as soon as I can.
Kevin – take care of yourself.
And may the Lord bring good healing to those places needed the most!
Sorry to hear that you are in so much pain and discomfort Kevin. I hope the specialist is able to find something to give you pain relief. And perhaps when you rest up and take the weight off that knee, things will improve. I will pray for you.
Kind regards,
Aidan
Aidan to Kevin writes, “For by grace(God’s part) you have been saved through faith (man’s part). ”
Faith (the assurance and conviction in Christ) is God’s gift to the person leading the person to repent and believe. No one to whom God gives faith rejects that faith else there was no assurance or conviction in the first place. So, Paul says, “…we are God’s workmanship…” As Paul then says, that the believer is, “created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand…” we know that there is no room for error on God’s part as the good works assigned to believers were prepared “beforehand” even if the “good works” are viewed generically – those good works are certain so there is no room for anyone to reject God’s grace or gift of faith and not do those good works..
Rom. 10:16- But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “LORD, who has believed our report?”
Rom. 10:17- So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
In verse 16 above, the word (report) is the same Greek word that is used for the word (hearing) in v.17. Therefore faith comes from believing that message, that report, which is the gospel v.16. THE GOSPEL MESSAGE IS THE ENABLING POWER to believe in Christ. While that in itself is God’s work and gift to mankind, the context of Eph. 2:8-10, is salvation. THAT is the gift that Paul is speaking of there.
Audan writes, “In verse 16 above, the word (report) is the same Greek word that is used for the word (hearing) in v.17. etc.”
Sure, As Jesus stated in John 6, ““All that the Father gives Me will come to Me,…” and then, “everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.” Everyone who has “heard and learned from the Father” receives faith (i.e., assurance and conviction) by which they come to Christ. Those whom God gives to Christ are those who hear and learn from Him and the result of hearing and learning from God is faith. Thus, a person is saved by the grace of God with God using faith as the means to achieve this end..
And the enabling power is the Gospel, not by some supernatural means.
Aidan writes, “And the enabling power is the Gospel, not by some supernatural means.”
LOL!!! Nothing more supernatural than the enabling power of the Gospel. In God’s hands, people are supernaturally saved by the gospel.
Rh, writes, “In God’s hands, people are supernaturally saved by the gospel.”
There is no scriptural evidence that a person is first supernaturally regenerated by the Holy Spirit to enable them to accept the gospel. That’s why all you can do is assert your opinions that are based on TULIP and not scripture. Unless, of course, you can show a verse that says – “supernaturally saved by the gospel.”
Aiden writes, “There is no scriptural evidence that a person is first supernaturally regenerated by the Holy Spirit to enable them to accept the gospel.”
Jesus said, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God…Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God….Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
Peter said, ‘Since you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit in sincere love of the brethren, love one another fervently with a pure heart, having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever,… But the word of the LORD endures forever.” Now this is the word which by the gospel was preached to you.”
The process of being born again by the Holy Spirit is a supernatural process. It enables a person to see and enter the kingdom of heaven of which the gospel speaks.
Rh writes, “The process of being born again by the Holy Spirit is a supernatural process.”
All that the verses you provide show is that it is through the instrumentality of the Word that one is – born again/ regenerated. In your verse Peter said, “having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever,” Therefore – no regeneration/new birth supernaturally occurred – prior to, and separate from the word, the gospel.
Try again!
Aiden writes, ‘All that the verses you provide show is that it is through the instrumentality of the Word that one is – born again/ regenerated. In your verse Peter said, “having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever,” Therefore – no regeneration/new birth supernaturally occurred – prior to, and separate from the word, the gospel.”
You left out the part where the Holy Spirit is the one who initiates the new birth/regeneration that then allows a person to see and enter the kingdom by means of the word (i.e., through faith). Jesus spoke the truth; Peter spoke the truth. We read and understand them together as a whole.
Rh writes, “You left out the part where the Holy Spirit is the one who initiates the new birth/regeneration that then allows a person to see and enter the kingdom by means of the word”
Precisely what verse says, “the Holy Spirit is the one who INITIATES the new birth” separate and apart from the word? But Peter does say, ‘ born again – through the word of God’. That would seem to suggest one is – born again – only after coming in contact with the Word of God. You have no verse that says what you want it to say!
Try again!
Aiden writes, “Precisely what verse says, “the Holy Spirit is the one who INITIATES the new birth” separate and apart from the word? …one is – born again – only after coming in contact with the Word of God.”
One is born again only after coming into contact with the Holy Spirit who uses the word to regenerate a sinner. The word, by itself, cannot do anything apart from the Holy Spirit.
Rh writes, “One is born again only after coming into contact with the Holy Spirit who uses the word to regenerate a sinner.”
Correct me if I’m wrong, Calvinism teaches – Irresistible Grace – the direct operation of the Holy Spirit to convert the elect. That the Holy Spirit must first operate directly on the heart of the sinner in order to cleanse him of a depraved nature. So here’s the question – How does the Spirit work in the conviction and conversion of sinners – directly or through some medium? I would advise you to think carefully before you answer.
Aidan asks, “So here’s the question – How does the Spirit work in the conviction and conversion of sinners – directly or through some medium?”
Jesus said, ““The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
Peter said, “…love one another fervently with a pure heart, having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever,..But the word of the LORD endures forever.” Now this is the word which by the gospel was preached to you.”
Rh,
“Jesus said, ““The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
Aidan,
Okay, so that’ s a quote from scripture. Now lets hear your explanation of what that verse means exactly!
Aidan asks, “so that’ s a quote from scripture. Now lets hear your explanation of what that verse means exactly!”
Jesus said, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” and then, ““Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
So, we know that it is the Holy Spirit that initiates the new birth. He does this on His schedule and without the perosn realizing what is happening until it is a done deal. How does the Spirit do this? Peter explains this when he wrote, “…having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever,…” We know from Hebrews that, “the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” So Paul is able to say, “…we preach Christ crucified…to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.”
Okay, Rh, It then seems like you believe that the Holy Spirit initiates the new birth – simultaneously in coincidence with contact with the Word? Or, would you say that the Holy Spirit first initiates regeneration just prior to contact with the Word, and then He completes the process through the word, as per Peter’s passage?
Aidan writes, “It then seems like you believe that the Holy Spirit initiates the new birth – simultaneously in coincidence with contact with the Word?”
The Holy Spirit uses the Word to bring about regeneration (as Peter wrote). When Jesus says, “everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me,” we see God using the Scriptures to teach and it is by using the Scriptures that God conveys the assurance and conviction that we call faith.
Rh,
“The Holy Spirit uses the Word to bring about regeneration (as Peter wrote).”
Aidan,
Okay, because I understood Calvinists to teach that regeneration occurs first through a direct operation of the the Spirit on the heart. This, in turn, paves the way for reception to the gospel preached, through which the Spirit can complete the conviction and conversion process. Two stages if you like!
But if I understand you correctly, you are saying – No! but that it all happens together. The person hears the Word, at which point the Spirit intervenes, acting through the Word to regenerate – (as Peter wrote)? Perhaps other Calvinists follow the two stage version described above, and yours is slightly different?
Aidan writes, “I understood Calvinists to teach that regeneration occurs first through a direct operation of the the Spirit on the heart.”
I think the issue has been that the Holy Spirit regenerates a person irresistibly and without permission.
Then, ‘This, in turn, paves the way for reception to the gospel preached, through which the Spirit can complete the conviction and conversion process. ”
Regeneration paves the way for conveyance of faith (assurance and conviction) that then results in repentance and submission to Christ..
The process posed by Calvinists is: Regeneration => Faith => Justification => Sanctification
As you say, “The person hears the Word, …” Without the hearing of the Word, none of this is possible, but a person cannot “hear” the Word without being regenerated. This is why Jesus would say, “If you have ears to hear…” and Paul said, “Faith comes by hearing…”
Rh,
“Without the hearing of the Word, none of this is possible, but a person cannot “hear” the Word without being regenerated.”
Aidan,
My first suspicion was correct. If a person cannot hear the Word without first being regenerated by the Spirit, then there is a special, direct operation of the Spirit separate and apart from the Word – even if its milli-seconds apart. That is a necessary inference. This means that the Word does not regenerate, nor does the Spirit regenerate through the Word, but separate and apart from the Word, in order that the person can “hear” the Word. Your position is an assumption that cannot be proven – scripturally.
Nice analysis Aidan
I was watching this dialog – and noticed how you were getting peripheral answers to direct questions.
That’s always a tell-tale sign of a shell-game. :-]
Yes, Br.d, and its always just a matter of time before they slip up in something they say.
Agreed!
I think Calvinism can be summed up as a “poker game” of words – more than anything else. :-]
So much of the language is designed to create fabrications of things.
Calvinist language is always the “tell-tale” sign that something is wrong.
In vein is the net spread in the sight of any bird!
Br.d,
“In vein is the net spread in the sight of any bird!”
Aidan,
Or,
In vein is the net spread in the sight of any br.d!
With God’s and your help! :-]
Another great example!!
“”The condition of faith we assert mankind has the ability to meet is literal humility. Humbly confessing your sin, humbly recognizing your inability to save yourself, and humbling yourself before the Savior who sacrificed himself for you on the cross.”” I agree!!
It is so odd that anyone could believe this;
“In other words, if we are able to meet the condition of faith that is required for salvation, we can boast.” What??? I agree God is not decreeing His children to disagree if so, then that would be madness, and His character would be minimized in my eyes if I trusted my faith was irresistible given..🤔
How does a calvinist not consider themselves a program that by design cannot be altered… Humility is gut wrenching and I don’t pretend I have this characteristic more than I don’t, but I do recognize the 1st day I called on the Lord & He answered me not irresistibly, but rather profoundly and in such a tender way!
John 12:44 NASB — And Jesus cried out and said, “He who believes in Me, does not believe in Me but in Him who sent Me.
I believe all of His Words and that they actually have meaning and purpose and that irresistible grace would not make sense nor would limited atonement…
Acts 10:43 NASB — “Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.”
Acts 13:39 NASB — and through Him everyone who believes is freed from all things, from which you could not be freed through the Law of Moses.
The cross and resurrection changed everything!!!
Romans 1:16 NASB — For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
Why would I ever possibly feel ashamed if the gospel were irresistibly given to others?
Thanks Reggie… I think what I have to post dovetails with your post.
As Christians we all believe:
1Co 4:7 What do you have that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if you did not receive it?
This truth can refer to absolutely everything we have.
Everything you and I have, we have received, our very breath, our eyes, our nose, our ability to think, our ability to love, our ability to work, absolutely everything we have is a gift from God. My very existence is a gift from God.
As creatures created in His image we should take all that has been given to us, and direct it back towards God, focus it back on God the great gift giver. Anything less is idolatry.
The gifts that we have from God also include intellectual abilities and the ability to believe and trust propositions, ideas and even people.
The important thing within Christianity has always been what is the OBJECT of your faith, or the focus of your faith. (Which is given to mankind by God to excercise.)
In fact Biblically speaking a weak faith or a small faith focused on the right OBJECT is praised in scripture, “faith the size of a mustard seed”. In scripture the QUALITY of your faith is NOT the key issue instead it is the OBJECT of one’s faith.
The late, Dr. Adrian Rogers used to ask the question “When crossing a frozen river what is better? Weak/small faith in very thick ice or lots of faith in very thin ice?” He would rightly point out that weak/small faith in thick ice will get you to the other side of the river but great faith in thin ice will leave you at the bottom of a river.
Why? Because the quality of the OBJECT of our faith is the most important thing, instead of the quality of your faith itself. You can have weak faith in a GREAT savior and you are going to be just fine. But great faith focused on the wrong object is a death trap.
The Psalmist stated the importance of the right object this way Psa 20:7-8 “Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the LORD our God. They collapse and fall, but we rise and stand upright.”
In true, God glorifying Christianity the quality of the OBJECT of one’s faith has always been the most important thing NOT the quality of one’s faith. Calvinist always change the focus from Christ to the “quality of one’s faith” instead of the quality of the OBJECT-Jesus Christ and Him crucified. This is a subtle shift but it changes everything with devastating ramifications.
What sayeth the scriptures? In the verses below…ALL the passages use the exact same Hebrew word Believe strong’s concordance number H539. Nothing is different in any of the passages take careful note.
Gen 15:6 And he believedH539 in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.
Jon 3:5 And the people of Nineveh believed H539 God. They called for a fast and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them to the least of them.
Notice the importance of the OBJECT – the LORD, GOD. The word used is identified by Strong’s number H539. This exact same word is used to describe believing a lie or anything other than God. Which proves that mankind has already been given the ability to have faith/ believe. Man is not without this ability the difference is what is the focus of that faith of what is the OBJECT of that faith?
1Sa 27:12 And Achish believedH539 David, thinking, “He has made himself an utter stench to his people Israel; therefore he shall always be my servant.”
(Here David told Achish lies and Achish believed those lies. Achish had faith he just placed his faith in a lie that David told him. Exactly the same Hebrew word as Gen.15:6)
Pro 14:15 The simple believes H539 everything, but the prudent gives thought to his steps.
(Notice it is not the lack of ability to believe, it is believing the wrong thing.)
Pro 26:24 Whoever hates disguises himself with his lips and harbors deceit in his heart;
Pro 26:25 when he speaks graciously, believe H539 him not, for there are seven abominations in his heart;
(The Lord exhorts us not to believe H539 a deceiver, the ability to believe is not missing, in fact the probability of believing a liar is very real so we are warned. It is the OBJECT of ones belief that is critically important.)
Job 15:31 Let him not trust H539 in emptiness, deceiving himself, for emptiness will be his payment.
(Same word again- People can trust or believe H539 in emptiness, or thin ice, however the believer will suffer harm because the OBJECT of his faith is empty.)
2Ch 32:15 Now, therefore, do not let Hezekiah deceive you or mislead you in this fashion, and do not believe H539 him, for no god of any nation or kingdom has been able to deliver his people from my hand or from the hand of my fathers. How much less will your God deliver you out of my hand!’”
(The possibility of believing or having faith in a liar exists so the exhortation is Do NOT believe H539 him. The absence of Faith is not the issue but instead misplaced faith is the issue, misplaced in thin ice.)
Jer 12:6 For even your brothers and the house of your father, even they have dealt treacherously with you; they are in full cry after you; do not believeH539 them, though they speak friendly words to you.”
(NOTICE that the same Hebrew word is used in every instance the only difference is that faith or belief is placed in a DIFFERENT OBJECT. The object is always the issue. If like Abraham we place our God given faith in the right OBJECT we will be blessed but if we place that faith in lies and liars then we are in trouble.)
Gen 15:6 And he believedH539 in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.
Jon 3:5 And the people of Nineveh believed H539 God.
Remember it is the OBJECT of one’s faith that is important not how GREAT your faith is. All of us have been given, by God, the ability to believe propositions make sure you believe the correct one.
Act 16:30-31 Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved,
Great post GraceAdict!!
Kevin,
The Straw Man is not you, it is your argument. You are arguing against a belief that non-Calvinists don’t have. A common Calvinist tactic.
We don’t believe that by our own innate faith we “save ourselves”. Even the boogeyman Pelagius didn’t believe that. Of course we believe that God saves us. Unlike Calvinists, the vast majority of Christians believe that God has given every person the ability to respond to the Gospel. But responding to the Gospel is not “saving ourselves”.
So behind every good thing, like properly placed faith, is God. We just don’t buy the strange notion that God picks out a very few people and forces faith on them so that He can have GLORY! (Who in their right mind would think that someone who commands people to do something they cannot do, and then condemns them to eternal punishment for not doing what they cannot do…. is glorious? )
To answer your question plainly, faith is an ability given be God to everyone. You can choose to acknowledge that God exists and that He rewards those who seek Him. So faith does come from God. It is in the operating system you were born with. God made that. Choosing to follow God is not “saving ourselves”, however. That is Calvinist non logic.
“Choose this day who you will serve”. God.
He didn’t say, “I chose this day which of you I will irresistibly cause to serve me”. (Calvinist re translation)
You don’t demand someone to make a choice if you know they can’t and that you have already made the choice for them. Obvious.
Hi Carl,
Not being disrespectful. But I can easily go through the things you said and show where yes you do not understand what Calvinist believe.
Just one, Calvinist do not believe God forces faith on anyone. That is either your misunderstanding or how you like to state it. I do not know.
But as for God commanding someone to do something and them not being able to do it.
I wonder what Pharaoh would think of that since that is the very and only reason he was born and raised up by God.
I think you mentioned something about Job, cursing God and dying. It was his wife who told him that.
Job called his wife a foolish woman and said, “shall we not accept evil from God as we accept good from Him”
I do believe in Total and Moral inability when it comes to that which is spiritually pleasing to God.
But I have argued it so many times with all the verses “No man can come…..No one in the flesh can please God…..So many more verses. John 6:44 No man can come (inability) unless the Father draws Him and I will raise that man (same man) up on the last day.
Romans 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. 8 So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
I am tired of this argument. Both sides are going to believe what they believe.
Your God does not really save as Christ is suppose to be the Savior. He only makes Salvation possible depending on your autonomous LFW choice of Christ.
See, I can throw things back like you use “God forces faith on people” with my own catch phrases.
But in the Book of Matthew it says, “You shall call his name Jesus, for HE SHALL SAVE HIS PEOPLE FROM THEIR SINS.
We say Jesus came to actually save
You say He came to just make salvation possible
But this has been argued so many times.
Then we both can shoot back our favorite passages and proof texts and things go no where.
I am sorry Carl. I should have not engaged you. Please forgive me. You can have the last word.
Kevin, “But I have argued it so many times with all the verses “No man can come…..No one in the flesh can please God…..So many more verses. John 6:44 No man can come (inability) unless the Father draws Him and I will raise that man (same man) up on the last day.”?
How do we understand John 6?
Eric to Kevin asks, “How do we understand John 6?”
Calvinists condense John 6 to this:
– All that the Father gives Christ will come to Christ (v37)
– No one can come to Christ unless the Father who sent Christ draws him; (v44)
– everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Christ (v45)
– Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him. (v64)
I am called to THE Faith revealed. I believe in THE WORK of GOD. I do not believe in vain.
I believe the Good News, according to all God promises, acknowledge what is behind us and looking forward.
1 Corinthians 15:star1-4
How did I come to believe the Good News?
The revealed communication of God. It is living and active, every word filled with the Spirit of His truth.( For example, evident, are you reading this? KEEp the good and throw away the bad. It is practically your choice, according to God’s word, determined to fully function as revealed in the truth.)
In the beginning -“God said” and communication continued with Adam and Eve understanding good and evil continued when they were kicked out of the garden. They were free to choose good or evil, though they could NOT save themselves from death. God accomplished this work through Jesus, according to HIs revelation. JesusChrist is THE RESURRECTION.
All that God has determined, according to HIs instruction DOES NOT equal determinism, which is a philosophy that counterfeits(counterfeit=truth mixed with error/or a lie. See the garden over words and the tree they ate from being the tree of the knowledge of good and evil) God’s revealed word in reality about His instructed command that we may acknowledge what He has determined and decreed. One of the truths we know He has determined: ‘You’ must believe in the work of God for ‘you’ to be saved.
philosophy of determinism and its duplicitousness , for example: you are not free to believe(not free to come worship/ not free to receive a free will offering) you must understand that you must believe to be saved but you can only except the good news that you must believe believing God already saved you before you believed the good news believe you really already had the Holy Spirit so you would understand that you can’t boast that you must believe the good news to be saved.) And this is the erring faith of determinist theology( a study of God to include philosophy and claim it to be the revealed word of God, as if to be sound doctrine.) What this is is the pride of man ‘showing’ their own rights over submitting to love the truth.
So, in faith some people believe this in their willingness and ability to think it is true.
The Faith, revealed according to scripture: God put on skin for us, prophetically worked as only the heart and mind of GOD could do give as a true witness, Jesus Christ paid for the sins done in the flesh as HE alone, the only one, who was perfectly faithful in the flesh as witness to the power of God to save, according to the faith. I believe only God saves me, according to his works, all credit and glory to God for all HIS WORK, The anointed One the only one able to perfectly, in faith in the flesh, give this FREE WILL OFFERING.
Determined: 2+2=4 God’s truth is present in the universe, living and active. Even remaining evil men understand and can hold this is true. It is from God, logic being available in our space and time, evident in history, recorded outside oneself, but true for all. If you deny this you deny and do not love truth as evident, though God seeks mankind, present from the time of creation, according to the Spirit of truth. ( I have not said one thing here that has to be explained philosophically. It is consistent with the word of God’s recording, practically exemplified in reality. See the resurrection in history, recorded, witnessed by common men, given the same ability to think in creation, that Jesus uncommonly rose His dead body from the dead, consistent with and giving us greater evidence to truth revealed.
Who must decide and has the ability to know 2+2=4? It is spiritual and GOOD truth, equations, unseen, not physical. The evil man, born a sinner is free to worship their present condition of death evident or hear and see life according to their evident, yet unseen spirit in the body, and come to worship the Creator on life. Yes , Romans 1 and 2. Jesus came to save the unbeliever who turns to admit he himself is evil, believing that truth, it is Satan who is a murderer. God revealed to us He determined a beginning and an end and that He rested on the 7th Day, yet is still working for the good of those who love Him and for another neighbor who may be saved. He revealed to us He has chosen to raise the bride to eternal life.
Determinism misplaces the mystery and answers things beyond revealed knowledge and in opposition to what God has determined for His people: repeat the message of eternal life, an invitation and a warning in true and love, according to the good news, according to the scriptures, according to the command the Father gave to the Son: His command was eternal life! The weights and measures on the balance are true: Jesus came to call sinners-God does not murder and blasphemy of the Spirit is to those who will remain to insult the Spirit of Grace, who reject the truth and call God evil for the work of Salvation. ( See the Pharisee who believed they were chosen, the Politically religious leaders, both according to their own way of thinking, the people who cried crucify Him after they had hailed Him as King,( the religious leaders stirring the crowd up) the Empire Cult wash their hands of truth, and the common man bothered by parts of Jesus testimony. In contrast – see the woman who kissed His feet in public.
love the truth? Ask the next question of God. He promises to give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him. He reveals in HIs word this as to evil men, telling them to come : ask, seek and knock.
My insult is not to Calvin’s good works, as iron sharpens iron. It is to the spirit of the philosophy of determinism in the church, to include spirits beyond those named as Calvinist, but which is an error that Calvin and Luther received and passed on, being not scripture. God will judge and reward His servants. I am thankful to God for the truth passed through them, but broken to not repeat their harm as God refines His people, ever working as we patiently wait for His appearing. Being we are instructed to test the spirits, I submit to to same test as Calvin’s works, according to the scriptures, even while testing the iron of another. 1Corinthians1-3,4 example.
Tammy writes, “philosophy of determinism and its duplicitousness”
The “determinism” of humanist philosophy espoused by some does not allow for God to create man in His image where the “determinism” of Scriptural theology does. However, explaining how making man in His image makes may responsible for his actions when God perfectly understood everything man would do before He created him is the challenging part.
rhutchin
The “determinism” of humanist philosophy espoused by some does not allow for God to create man in His image
br.d
Interpretation:
My mystical magical view of determinism – which is full of square-circles and married-bachelors – is holy spirit inspired
While “determinism” as acknowledged by all Reformed and Non-Reformed academia is “humanist philosophy”
Some Calvinists are experts at “shape-shifting” everything! :-]
Kevin,
“I understand the Non-Calvinists are running to alternatives to get away from this obvious truth that makes God guilty by association with evil like Open Theism and Middle Knowledge. But there still is the obvious problem of God and the difficulty of sin and evil that one cannot escape no matter what denomination you belong to.”
There is only an “obvious truth” if you hold to notions about God that come, not from the Bible, but from the Gnosticism and Platonism that infected the early church.
Every thinking Calvinist eventually comes to the correct conclusion that the Calvi-God is causing the very evil He says He hates. If that is true the words of the Bible cannot be trusted. Calvi-God saying he loves us is empty and hollow. Monstrous. In that case, follow Job’s wife’s advice, “curse God and die”.
Hi Carl,
This really was not the subject we were talking about. You probably have not been following the discussions between BR.D and myself. I really do not hold to Calvinist Determinism that God has decreed every action thought desire ect.
Although as I told you, logically every Christian denomination has the same problem with the existence of God and great difficulty with in relation of evil and sin.
Flowers knows it. He says when the Calvinist shows it by declaring the Infinite Eternal Exhaustive Knowledge of God, that God knew what would be, from all eternity before he ever created of the evil actions of individuals, Flowers says the Calvinists is using the “You Too Argument”
But he will go on to say that the Calvinist position is much worse than the Non-Calvinist. That is begging the question.
But, trust I see your point and do not have any real argument with you. Scroll back up and look at where I tell Mark Thompson that he must answer BR.D argument. That if you hold to Reformed Soft Determinism you have to answer BR.D argument that ultimately nothing is UP TO US.
God bless Carl
Hey Kevin, what system of free will do you hold to now if not determinism? Do you hold to compatibilism? To libertarian free will?
What changed and why?
Eric in John 3 where Jesus says you must be born again/from above by the Spirit. Do you acknowledge the supernatural in what Jesus was saying here? And do you believe that the Jews of that time would understand what he was saying?
Yes and no
Platonism, It is interesting that you mention that infecting the church Carl.
There is one person, a famous person I have showed on another page on this site His serious errors, false teachings until I was no longer able to post any more about him. Flowers really likes him and has quoted from him big time.
You say Platonism has infected the early church. How about closer today from a non-calvinist by the name of C.S. Lewis. Read what he has said below.
C.S. Lewis helped and encouraged the church of his time and is probably still affecting the church with Platonism through his acceptance of it.
“. . . if the average student wants to find out something about Platonism, the very last thing he thinks of doing is to take a translation of Plato off the shelf and read the Symposium. He would rather read some dreary modern book ten times as long, all about ‘isms’ and influences and only once in twelve pages telling him what Plato actually said. . . . The student . . . . feels himself inadequate and thinks he will not understand him. But if he only knew [that] the great man, just because of his greatness, is much more intelligible than his modern commentator.”
Then we have non-calvinist infecting the Modern day church with Open Theism and Molinism. Which if you and everyone will be honest the majority of orthodox Christianity have condemned.
Listen to this about C.S Lewis on Youtube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bY0YUA6rS3g
Martyn Lloyd Jones on the False teachings of C.S Lewis who was not an Evangelical. Read below
http://recognizingchrist.com/2015/01/14/martyn-lloyd-jones-on-c-s-lewis/
Eric writes, “Calvinists often argue that if we as Christians were free to suppress the truth or believe it then we could boast in our choice to believe the gospel.”
Calvinists say that the unsaved freely suppress the truth as Romans 1 describes. To freely believe requires that a person have faith that, per Romans 10, only comes through hearing the word (i.e., the gospel). It is only where a person is said to have faith inherently (i.e., to have faith apart from hearing the gospel) that the exercise of such faith would be the occasion for boasting. However, even Dr. Flowers argues for grace enabled faith as Calvinist do removing any reason for boasting.
Then, “In other words, if we are able to meet the condition of faith that is required for salvation, we can boast. They insist that boasting would only be eliminated if we agree with them that God effectually caused our belief in the gospel (by means of irresistible grace).”
I found this confusing. Meeting the condition (i.e., hearing the gospel) for grace enabled faith removes any cause for boasting. Grace-enabled faith is the cause of belief and is conveyed irresistibly to a person. Your issue seems to be whether grace-enabled faith can be resisted. However, if resisted, it would be hard to argue that it was either assurance or conviction, much less both, as Hebrews 11 describes faith.
Then, “2) On our view, people who would have the audacity to boast in humbly believing in Christ didn’t really humbly believe in Christ. Their rotten fruit has revealed a fake root. True humility doesn’t boast in itself. It boasts in the One we place our trust. (1 Cor 1:21)”
Calvinists will agree. It’s hard to be anything but humble when a person realizes that the faith he has to believe was grace-enabled and by Ephesians 2, “we are God’s workmanship” created for God’s purpose according to the counsel of His will.
rhutchin
Calvinists say that the unsaved freely suppress the truth ….
br.d
*AS-IF* Calvin’s god gives permits people to be “free” from what he infallibly decrees comes to pass concerning them.
Gotta love Calvinism library of DOUBLE-SPEAK! :-]
rhutchin
It’s hard to be anything but humble when a person realizes that the faith he has to believe was grace-enabled…..
br.d
Well of course – in Calvinism human perceptions are all predetermined *FOR* each person by an external mind.
And since Calvin’s god doesn’t let people determine whether those are TRUE or FALSE – then on that model of cognitive functionality people don’t really “realize” anything. The brain simply has perceptions – perceived as TRUE perceptions.
But they at least have the *ILLUSION* of realizing things. :-]
Excellent and a well said response to Eric’s article above Rhutchin!
Eric writes, “On Calvinism, all things are in accordance with God’s sovereign decree, so those who act pridefully (regardless of their soteriological views) are ultimately doing so because that is how God decreed for them to behave. Why does the Calvinist lament God’s decree?”
For the same reason that believers lament their sin. God made man in His image giving them the ability to gather information, organize thoughts and make decisions. This makes people independent from God (but not autonomous) with the ability to choose to sin (in whatever form). God understood all this even before He created Adam, and by creating Adam, everything God understood would happen, He thereby decreed to happen. Basically, God knew the future and decreed that future by creating Adam.
Hutch, but the only way you say “God made man in His Image giving them the ability to gather information, organize thoughts and make decisions” is through Calvinism double-speak. You don’t mean that humans can gather information or not gather information, you don’t mean they can actually choose which information to gather and which to ignore. You don’t mean “organize thoughts” as if man can actually choose what he thinks about, and you don’t mean man “make decisions” as if they could do otherwise than what God decrees them to do. You mean “determinism” but you talk as if you don’t so as to ignore the accuracy of my question.
“This makes people independent from God (but not autonomous)”…see, more language control. Doing the only thing God decreed them able to do is not “independence” in any stretch of the imagination.
“with the ability to choose sin” = doing only the one thing God decreed them to do.
You didn’t answer the question. Why do you lament men doing only the one thing God decreed for them to do?
Eric writes, “the only way you say “God made man in His Image giving them the ability to gather information, organize thoughts and make decisions” is through Calvinism double-speak.”
We both know that God made man in His image and it is this gives a person certain abilities to think and reason. For example, Joseph said to his brothers, “as for you, you meant evil against me;” Then, in Romans 2, “do you think this, O man, you who judge those practicing such things, and doing the same,…” It is the intent of the heart that is the basis for God to judge people for their actions. You call the Calvinist efforts to explain this in light of God’s determining all things, “double speak,” but even the non-Calvinist resort to the same explanations.
Then, “You don’t mean that humans can gather information…you don’t mean they can actually choose…You don’t mean “organize thoughts” as if man can actually choose what he thinks about, and you don’t mean man “make decisions” as if they could do otherwise than what God decrees them to do. You mean “determinism” but you talk as if you don’t so as to ignore the accuracy of my question. ”
I do mean that because that is the result of God making man in His image. Yet we also know that God has infinite understanding and perfectly understands His creation – so much so that nothing is hidden from Him including nothing in the future. God understood perfectly the outcome of His giving Satan entry into the garden of control over certain aspects of Job’s life. Did God’s understanding that Eve and then Adam would eat the fruit nullify their participation in those acts or remove responsibility on their part or make their judgment by God unjust or unfair. Calvinists say no. You call this double speak, so we will let you explain it in a way that is not double-speak, if you can.
Then, “Doing the only thing God decreed them able to do is not “independence” in any stretch of the imagination. ”
Fine. Let;s let you explain how God can have perfect understanding of you and not decree (since God had this understanding before He created you) everything you think, say, and do. When you develop a viable alternative to Calvinism, you can explain how you incorporate God’s infinite understanding with man’s “freedom” to think and act..
Then, “You didn’t answer the question. Why do you lament men doing only the one thing God decreed for them to do?”
Because they have an understanding of their sin. As Paul writes, in Romans 9, “But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” Nonetheless, you are free to offer a different explanation.
Eric
On Calvinism, all things are in accordance with God’s sovereign decree, so those who act pridefully (regardless of their soteriological views) are ultimately doing so because that is how God decreed for them to behave. Why does the Calvinist lament God’s decree?”
rhutchin
For the same reason that believers lament their sin.
br.d
NAH! Its because Calvin’s god decrees them to lament.
Not logically possible for them to have an impulse that wasn’t decreed *FOR* them to have.
One bio-bot is given the “lament” program – and another bio-bot is given a different program.
All bio-bot programming is built on the algorithms of infallible decrees. :-]
Eric writes, “On Calvinism, all things are in accordance with God’s sovereign decree, so those who act pridefully (regardless of their soteriological views) are ultimately doing so because that is how God decreed for them to behave. Why does the Calvinist lament God’s decree?”
1 Peter 1:20 – He indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you
1 Peter 1:21 – who through Him believe in God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.
Even Eric will not deny that Christ was foreknown and chosen before the foundation of the world that is from all eternity to come and die on the cross at the hands of wicked and lawless men.
Isaiah 53:10 – Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
It was even God’s desire, will and it even pleased the Lord to crush Christ on the Cross.
We rejoice in the Will of God, in what he desired and what pleased Him. Knowing that it has brought Salvation to our lives and forgiveness of sins and the fact that we will live with God in heaven for all eternity experiencing His mercy and love completely unhindered.
But God’s will, that which pleased Him and was His desire in having Jesus crushed or crucified on the Cross consisted of Jesus being murdered by the hands of wicked and lawless men.
God calls Christians not to rejoice in iniquity. We as Christian Calvinists in no way take pleasure that our Lord and Savior was murdered in a sinful way although this was part of God’s purpose and plan to bring about Salvation to all who call upon the name of the Lord.
God’s purpose and even his desire was for Christ to be crushed on the Cross. God took NO DELIGHT in that and neither do we as Christians. But we rejoice in the fact of what God has accomplished through the death of Christ on the Cross, but do not DELIGHT IN THE MURDER OF CHRIST!!
Acts 4:26 The kings of the earth took their stand, And the rulers were gathered together Against the Lord and against His Christ.’ 27 “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
28 to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done.
It was by the hands of wicked and lawless men as we know in Acts 2 that Christ was murdered on the Christ. In this we take no delight or rejoice over their sinful acts.
But verse 28 tells us that those with wicked and lawless hands did as God’s Hand and Purpose had predestined and determined before to be done. And they were still held accountable as they hated Christ and did what they did willingly.
You can argue about this all you want but it is the word of God that says they did what God determined they would do!!
So I would go to God in prayer and ask him or read the Apostle Paul, “who are you O’ man to answer back to God, God will have mercy upon whom he will have mercy, and he will harden whom he will harden.?
LOL I knew you could not last 5 mns Eric 🙂
Eric said and I quote: “Hey Kevin, what system of free will do you hold to now if not determinism? Do you hold to compatibilism? To libertarian free will?
What changed and why?
Kevin
What are you talking about Eric?
Kevin, I’m asking you a simple question. You claim you don’t hold to determinism so I’m asking if you hold to the other commonly held-to views; compatibilism or libertarian free will?
Eric said and I quote: “Kevin, “But I have argued it so many times with all the verses “No man can come…..No one in the flesh can please God…..So many more verses. John 6:44 No man can come (inability) unless the Father draws Him and I will raise that man (same man) up on the last day.”?
How do we understand John 6?
Kevin
Eric do you not remember our discussion on John 6 and when we got to the tough verses you even mentioned before hand that I would probably have a hard time understanding how you understand those verse. I am talking verses 37-45.
You had at least 3 to 4 verbs that you said meant practically the same thing and could be interchangeable. First time I heard anyone put a spin on John 6 like that. Because the verbs of (Give, come, draw) are all different verbs in the Greek and in English with different meanings. So you and I did not agree and left that discussion respectfully.
I have no desire to go back. You could not convince me then and you will not now.
Kevin, I’m not trying to convince you. I’m asking if you understand what our view is. You answered my question, though, thank you.
I answered your question. Your talking about how you view John 6 right. Because you asked, How do we view John 6?
You know that I know how you personally view John 6. I still have the discussion that we had by private email. You told me how YOU view John 6.
But you said, How do we view John 6?
Rutchin took that as you asking how the Calvinist views it. But I am sure you already know that.
So who is the WE you are talking about?
And exactly what question did I answer.
Also waiting for you to put yourself in Job’s circumstances and see if you would have answered like Job did.
Or do you think Job had false theology about God like Carl does.
Although God said Job spoke what was right about him. Even God giving and taking away Job’s children through them being murdered through
Satan the hand of God. It was God who sanctioned it right? Meaning he gave the green light and the ok for Satan to do what he did to Job bringing all the evil, calamity suffering and pain into Job life?
Eric I know, at least I think you have went to Bible College. So I know you are knowledgeable in the Word of God. So I know you have a take on this about God, Satan and Job. But just saying God gave Satan permission is not going to pass the test. Read what I have already written about Job if you would please Sir.
Thanks and God bless Eric
Eric even BR.D believes that somethings are determined by God. The Death of Christ are one of those things I believe was. That does not mean I consent to all things. I do still consent to Calvinist Soteriology.
JUSKLNTIME2442 Explain: How are ‘you’ being saved?
Job 2:2-4 English Standard Version (ESV)
2 And the Lord said to Satan, “From where have you come?” Satan answered the Lord and said, “From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking up and down on it.” 3 And the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil? He still holds fast his integrity, although you incited me against him to destroy him without reason.” 4 Then Satan answered the Lord and said, “Skin for skin! All that a man has he will give for his life.
Eric, I know I sound confusing. But I have told you that ultimately I am struggling with this. Yes, I know you think I am not sincere. But did I not tell Mark Thompson that he had to answer BR.D “Up to US” argument.
If you cannot understand where I am with my struggle and understandings right now. I am sorry I cannot help you.
I do not follow you or Flowers but I will listen. As I have listened to BR.D
There are things that I see clearly in the Word of God that God determined in my understanding and view. Like when God moved David to number Israel but used Satan as the agent to bring it to pass.
Like when Christ was murdered on the Cross by the hands of wicked and lawless men the word says clearly the did what God’s hand and purpose determined before to be done.
Now if you read that and do away with your traditions and biases you will see they did what God determined them to do.
Now as I said before.
I went to the mail box already today. I do not believe God determined me to do that.
I will throw in at times things like when Carl partially mentioned about Job cursing God and dying.
I gave him the whole scenario. Job’s wife told him to curse God and die. Job called his wife a foolish woman and said shall we not accept evil from the Lord as we accept good.
I am not saying what that means. But Job even says, “The Lord gives and the Lord takes away”
This was right after Satan had killed Job’s children and destroyed his property.
If a Calvinist had said what Job had said you Eric, and those on here would have been on top of that Calvinist like a Chicken on a bug.
Did not God though the agency of Satan do this to Job Eric? Be careful how you answer because it was said by the Word of God that Job did not lie in all that he said in that he said it was God but he did not blame God. Never do you hear Job accuse Satan
Now I am not saying I whole heartily believe in Reformed Soft Determinism. But you have to at least understand why I struggle.
If your children was killed in a car wreck Eric, would you say the Lord gives and the Lord takes away, blessed by the name of the Lord.
If things continued to get worse and you lost everything even your health. Your wife tells you to curse God and die. Would you as Job said, “Be still you foolish woman, shall we not accept evil from God as we accept good.”
You see why I am struggling. Quit seeing me as a liar and see me as someone who is trying to understand Eric.
As you have called me out I just called you out with some examples that Job went through. How would Eric respond?
I guess Eric only expects me to answer him as he goes dead air on me. Oh well. Let God’s will be done!!
Kevin, isn’t it always, no matter what?
Well if we are both being honest Eric. A Calvinist who holds to Compatibilism would respond , Yes
I understand we see God’s moral will being broken. So in that sense God’s will is not being done, but a Calvinist who holds to Compatibilism would say even that falls into God’s secret will that is always accomplished
I think you know that too.
Deut 29:29 – “The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.
It was God’s will to crush Christ on the Cross. But we both admit it was not God’s will for murder. But we read in Acts 2 and 4 that wicked men with lawless hands did what God had predestined or determined before to be done. Depending on the translation your using. Just paraphrasing.
God took no delight in Christ being murdered or his revealed will being broken. But there is the eternal purpose that God accomplished in Christ Jesus that God did desire to be done. Even though God took no delight in Christ being murdered and had no intentional will within himself that one of his commandments be broken. In some sense he desired for Christ to be crushed on the Cross which entailed Christ being murdered by the hands of lawless men that God determined before to be done.
Even Joseph, what the brothers meant for evil, God meant (the same exact thing) for Good.
Ephesians 3:11 – according to his eternal purpose that he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Just giving what the Calvinist Determinist would say. Do not know if I said it correctly or not.
Job 42:2 – “I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted.
Do you feel you can thwart the purpose of God or any of the billions upon billions of wills of individuals can?
Scripture says God frustrates the plans of people and nations
“You see why I am struggling. Quit seeing me as a liar and see me as someone who is trying to understand Eric.”
Who called you a liar? I asked you a question.
“As you have called me out I just called you out with some examples that Job went through. How would Eric respond?”
God allowed Satan to do those things, that’s not the same as God doing them. God doing certain things, and being able to do certain things, doesn’t mean He does everything. Unless one has already understood the universe as a mechanistic, determined one, I don’t see the difficulty.
Eric writes, “God allowed Satan to do those things, that’s not the same as God doing them. ”
Why not? God does not “allow” Satan to do anything without understanding what Satan will do and the impact of Satan’s actions. No surprises with God. Satan is the ax in God’s hand to chop the wood God wants chopped. This is just like the Assyrians of Isaiah 10, “…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;…”
rhutchin
Why not? God does not “allow” Satan to do anything without understanding what Satan will do and the impact of Satan’s actions.
br.d
Here is a good example of a Calvinist trying to SMUGGLE in “mere” permission.
Question:
If a Calvinist didn’t speak DOUBLE-SPEAK – could he speak at all? :-]
From Eric Comment
“You see why I am struggling. Quit seeing me as a liar and see me as someone who is trying to understand Eric.”
Who called you a liar? I asked you a question.
“As you have called me out I just called you out with some examples that Job went through. How would Eric respond?”
God allowed Satan to do those things, that’s not the same as God doing them. God doing certain things, and being able to do certain things, doesn’t mean He does everything. Unless one has already understood the universe as a mechanistic, determined one, I don’t see the difficulty.
Kevin
You have made it more than clear in previous post Eric that you think I am not being sincere. So you can see I cannot help but think you are thinking that I am a liar.
But I should have not said those words and for that I apologize.
As far as your answer goes about Job you still side-stepped my direct questions and did not answer them directly in my last post if they would pertain to you. If you had been Job.
Would you have said after your Children was murdered by Satan who called it the outstretched hand of God and destroyed all your property, “The Lord gives and the Lord takes away?”
Would you tell your wife who just told you to curse God and die, “Shut up you foolish woman, shall will not except evil from the Lord and as we accept Good.”
Once again in Job chapter 1 even Satan acknowledges that if “God would stretch out his hand and touch all that he has, Satan tells God Job would curse God to His face.
Satan did not say if I do it. He understood himself to be the hand of God that would do it. Because in Job chapter 1 Satan murders Job’s children and destroys his property.
No one ever said God directly Himself did this to Job Eric. This is where the non-Calvinist just cannot seem to understand. God uses second causes and means when he is to accomplish a good and holy purpose that might contain evil within it.
Can you not at least acknowledge that nothing touches or comes into your life without God’s permission. God can give permission for our families to be murdered as he did here to Job. Right?
I am not even saying this was determined from all eternity. But the fact remains is God used Satan to do this.
Job 1:11 But now, stretch out Your hand and touch all that he has, and he will surely curse You to Your face!”
12 And the Lord said to Satan, “Behold, all that he has is in your power; only do not lay a hand on his person.”
Notice Satan says to God, “if you stretch out Your hand and touch all that he has, then God tells Satan all that Job has in now in Satan Power. Satan knows God is not going to murder the children of Job. But God uses a second agent, Satan himself, even if it is permission to have Job’s children murdered and his property destroyed.
God said Job was blameless, a good and upright man. Why would God give Satan permission to do such evil (which Satan calls it the hand of God being stretched out)? To murder the family of Job, destroy his property and take all he has even his health?
Was God involved Eric with Job’s family being murdered? It could not have happened without him right? How do you answer that?
I am just pointing this out bc I do not think you have thought this through completely.
Kevin, this is again something I’ve mentioned to you before. If you would write more succinctly and to the point, I would be able to answer you more directly. As it is, I have to skim and pick and choose what I answer.
“This is where the non-Calvinist just cannot seem to understand. God uses second causes and means when he is to accomplish a good and holy purpose that might contain evil within it.”
It isn’t that we can’t understand that. We understand it just fine. It’s that it is literally non-sense.
“Can you not at least acknowledge that nothing touches or comes into your life without God’s permission. God can give permission for our families to be murdered as he did here to Job. Right?”
No, not in the sense I know you mean this. God allows evil in the same way He allows love. God isn’t in the heaven’s observing every behavior and decided which to allow and which to stop. He’s allowing ALL behaviors, including righteous ones, and then working within the choices of men through out history to accomplishes His particular purposes.
“God said Job was blameless, a good and upright man. Why would God give Satan permission to do such evil (which Satan calls it the hand of God being stretched out)? To murder the family of Job, destroy his property and take all he has even his health?”
Because He has given Satan permission to do what he will at all times on Earth. Why do you want God to be morally responsible for what evil men do? I do not understand at all the merits of this idea.
“Was God involved Eric with Job’s family being murdered?”
Not in the slightest.
“It could not have happened without him right?”
No, that’s exactly the point. It absolutely happened completely without Him.
“How do you answer that?”
A man named C.S. Lewis answered this much better than I can but I’ll try. Because without free will there would be no joy, love, or beauty worth having in this life. Without free will, ie. the permission to act on the evil desires of our hearts, there would also be no ability to have truly, loving, intimate relationship with anyone else OR our Heavenly Father. Since he wanted love and true goodness, and true joy, and true beauty, He needed to allow the true possibility of evil.
So, you see, men much smarter than me have thought this out quite thoroughly
He Eric,
I hope you have read some of the things I have wrote. I do not want you and I to be at odds with each other. But as you can see BR.D thinks I am being sincere. So what I write, I do not want to quarrel, I just want to discuss.
Right now I think I go to the mail box or type this to you with my own choice and not bc I was determined to.
You know I have said there are somethings that I see as determined by God in the Bible. If you look for that post you will see them. I believe even at one time (no I am sure) even Dr. Flowers said that the murder of Christ was determined by God.
But BR.D one line of reasoning and argument has me thinking otherwise 🙂 If all is decreed by God then how is it “up to us”
I have shopped this argument around to other Calvinists on the internet trying to get a cogent answer from them and all I get is: “That is just his reasoning or his philosophy” That just will not do for me. I am serious no one can seem to answer this.
At first I did not want to admit it. I hated when BR.D would bring this up and other arguments like it. But I am not going to say I have an answer for it and lie when I do not. So for now, (Yes, it is possible there is an answer to BR.D argument) I hold primarily to LFW in the ordinary day choices of life but not when it comes to that which is Spiritual or Moral before God.
I know this sounds contradictory in that I say I still hold to Calvinistic Soteriology.
But to me it is contradictory to say that you hold to autonomous LFW in choosing Christ for Salvation and then the option to reject Christ and walk away from Him is no longer an option.
You know Dr. Flowers holds to this. For what you guys call authentic love, the will has to be autonomous LFW, then it cannot change once you are saved or even when you are in heaven. For authentic Love to exist in heaven you must have autonomous LFW and the ability to reject Christ and his love in heaven also for it to be authentic, genuine and real.
If a person cannot now lose his salvation according to Dr. Flowers Eric. Is that person now being irresistibly saved against his will and will continue to be so in heaven.
This is not gotcha questions Eric I give you my word. Or me being rude to you. Just stuff that really makes me think. Like BR.D made me think. Like Mr. Brian Wagner made me think.
God bless in Christ Eric
Kevin, ” I hold primarily to LFW in the ordinary day choices of life but not when it comes to that which is Spiritual or Moral before God.”
Thank you for explaining your position.
“I know this sounds contradictory in that I say I still hold to Calvinistic Soteriology.”
No, I understand what you mean. It’s contradictory to reason and Scripture, but not Calvinistic Soteriology. You’re being blessedly inconsistent and I’ll take it.
“If a person cannot now lose his salvation according to Dr. Flowers Eric. Is that person now being irresistibly saved against his will and will continue to be so in heaven.”
This is one reason I reject OSAS. I think we can have assurance of salvation, blessed assurance, and eternal security, without the added baggage of OSAS.
I’m glad to hear that you are thinking about these things and are willing to say that someone has made a good argument; many Reformed are unable to even give us that much.
Kevin writes, ‘I went to the mail box already today. I do not believe God determined me to do that. ”
Yet, you seem to understand that God knew you wold go to the mail box and knew it before you even thought to do it. Thus, in creating you, God determined that you would go to the mailbox (plus every other moment of your life) – didn’t He?
rhutchin
We both know that God made man in His image and it is this gives a person certain abilities to think and reason.
br.d
Well in Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) there is of-course a *HUGE* difference in the “image”.
Calvin’s god determines all perceptions that will appear in the human brain
Determining them to perceive both TRUE and FALSE perceptions as TRUE.
Now the quintessential definition of a Libertarian function would be the ability to choose between TRUE & FALSE on any proposition.
And in Calvinism only freedom that is “compatible” with Theological Determinism exists for the creature.
That is why Dr. William Lane Craig and Calvinist Dr. Greg Koul agree – Rational reasoning requires Libertarian Functionality – which does not exist for the Theological Determinist.
So on the Calvinist “image”
Humans don’t “think and reason” because that would require choosing between TRUE & FALSE
Bottom line in Theological Determinism:
On the Calvinist “image” all Calvinist choices are determined *FOR* the Calvinist – by an external mind.
Hi Rhutchin,
That is an interesting thought and I thank you for it. As you can see I am struggling in this area.
You said and I quote: ” Yet, you seem to understand that God knew you wold go to the mail box and knew it before you even thought to do it. Thus, in creating you, God determined that you would go to the mailbox (plus every other moment of your life) – didn’t He?”
Kevin
Yes I do know that God knew I would go to the mail box because of God’s infinite eternal perfect exhaustive omniscience. I understand that God knows all the actions I will take because of this fact and this attribute God possesses.
But what I am having trouble with is your next comment. I am not completely ruling it out but I need a much better cogent argument from a Calvinist understanding than what I have.
You said and I quote: “thus, in creating you, God determined that you would go to the mail box (plus every moment of your life) – didn’t He?”
Kevin my response
Rhutchin, right now I see that as must as a mere assertion. Your first comments do not seem to lead to and actually prove your conclusion. I am willing to listen to you as I have listened to BRD. As you know he says that if God Decrees all then nothing is really “up to us” we are just mere robots or programmed computers.
I will admit that I do see in the Word of God where God did determine things. Like the death of Christ,men with lawless hands did what God’s hand and purpose predestined before for them to do.
When God moved David to number Israel and it was a sin but in the parallel passage it was Satan, the second cause/agent that actually moved/provoked (same thing) David to number Israel. In both places David repents and says he has done a wicked thing before God.
Even when God moved the hearts of the Egyptians to hate Israel and deal craftily.
When I see these things in the Word of God I know the Non-Calvinists are being intellectually dishonest in not acknowledging them as a school boy could read these accounts and know that God determined these things, like God moved the heart of the Egyptians to hate Israel.
Thanks Rhutchin and God bless.
Hi Kevin,
If you don’t mind I make a comment on this post – Its not my impression that you are struggling. In fact from my perspective – I see you carefully looking at all options – and following a methodological path – where you are working your way through various questions with a focus on sound rational reasoning. So I personally wouldn’t call that struggling.
And I think your sincere and intellectually honest approach puts you ahead of the curve – compared to a lot of people who simply stop their brains from thinking rationally – in order to accept whatever they are told Calvinism is.
Take the process of choice-making for example. When you get into a robotic automobile and you tell it where you need to go – it has to choose the most appropriate route to get you from where you are to where you want to go. Every time it comes up to an intersection it has to make a choice about whether to turn left, right, or go straight. So that is a model of choice-making.
Now we know the robot’s choices are all predetermined by the program developed by the engineer. So there are two issues involved in this model of choice-making. 1) The robot auto does actually make a choice at every intersection. So in that sense we can say the robot is making its own choice. 2) We know that choice is already determined *FOR* the robot. And that is how we come to the logical conclusion that choices are not “UP TO” to the robot – but rather “UP TO” the programmer who decreed what choices the robot would make.
So yes you are correct in your conclusion.
It logically follows – when your choice was determined by someone else *FOR* you – then your choice wasn’t really ever “UP TO” you.
Now the Libertarian believer is going to argue that that model of choice making does not resolve to a “genuine” choice.
His reasoning is that a choice requires choosing between multiple options.
And since your choice was made for you – then the reality is – you never had multiple options from which to choose.
And the Libertarian believer is going to argue that really doesn’t constitute a “genuine” choice.
The “compatibilist” believer will argue that you made a “genuine” choice – by virtue of the fact that you physically made a choice.
But then on that model – a robot’s choice would also be considered a “genuine” choice.
Rhutchin,
If you could and want to. Could you please reply to my answer to your comment.
Thanks and God bless in Christ
I want t o review this comment and question by Rhutchin. I know it will be seem by some as If I am changing my mind. But I am just introducing concepts into the argument that seem to make sense. Now I think I see what Rhutchin was saying.
First let me say I know there is BR.D argument that I find cogent. That is everything is decreed from God about us from all eternity before we exist then “Nothing is up to us”
But look at what Rhutchin said again,
Rhutchin said and I quote: “Kevin writes, ‘I went to the mail box already today. I do not believe God determined me to do that. ”
Yet, you seem to understand that God knew you wold go to the mail box and knew it before you even thought to do it. Thus, in creating you, God determined that you would go to the mailbox (plus every other moment of your life) – didn’t He?”
Kevin My comments on what Rhutchin said above
I heard Dr. James White say something that hit me on the head like a hammer and I immediately thought of Rhutchin’s question and reply to me.
To me it seems that Dr James White’s comment could be as cogent as BR.D’s is because it is very logical and makes all the sense in the World.
Dr. James White said and I quote: “The certainty of what was going to take place in this universe had to be fixed for God to even know you even exist. Because you are the result of literally millions upon millions of free creaturely choices of people.in all the generations before you.”
The question from Dr. White is this to BR.D, “Did God know you were going to exist? If so his argument and assertion above has to be valid it seems.
White: “”The certainty of what was going to take place in this universe had to be fixed for God to even know you even exist. Because you are the result of literally millions upon millions of free creaturely choices of people.in all the generations before you.”
You have to really think about that statement by Dr. James White to understand what he is saying. And I get it!!
More comments by Dr. James White quoting William Craig and his responses to them:
“In Molinism, God has to find the right world like a super-computer crunching the numbers. The world where autonomous LFW creatures determine what God can and cannot do. So that he can bring about his purposes.
Remember Molinism is Middle Knowledge. It is what people would do in certain particular circumstances in a actualized world by God determined by the autonomous will of man.
So God puts people in particular situations knowing what they would do in that circumstance for certainty. They cannot do otherwise. Talking about becoming a robotic puppet.
With Molinism trying to preserve the autonomous LFW of man they actually destroy it and man’s will becomes mechanistic.
MK is robotic, you believe if God puts you in a certain circumstance your always going to do the same thing, is that not robotic. And the Non-Calvinist accuses the Calvinist of being robotic or a puppet in their theology?!?
Your freedom is so robotic, or mechanistic, God can put you in the same circumstance and you are always going to do the same thing!
I honestly do not believe that the whole assertion that God would know what any free creature would do in any possible circumstance is a meaningful statement.
You end up creating a creature that God knows exactly what he will do in any given circumstance and he will never vary.
Or if he does God’s MK becomes invalid,
Mk is trying to preserve some kind of concept of the autonomous will of man
Why not create a world, or I think the philosophy of Molinism likes to say, actualize a world where all are saved. Not possible for God says the Molinist because of the autonomous LFW of man.
It was God’s will to actualize this world determined by the decisions of free autonomous creatures. (Who will only do what they would when God places them in the right set of circumstances and that only will they do and not otherwise.) That is not being free and autonomous.
That foreknowing who will be saved becomes just a philosophical thing than a personal an intimate thing.
There are some possible persons who would not receive Christ under any circumstance. They would never freely accept Christ.
The Biblical teaching is that is every single one of us Romans 8 hates God and can do nothing pleasing to God. Whether that is exerting humbling faith or repentance.These are things that are pleasing to God that every Single fallen son of Adam cannot do unless God takes out the heart of stone and puts in a heart of flesh that is pliable and willing.
God’s middle knowledge forces God to create people he knew who would go to hell, but the number who do receive Christ is maximized
God holds its better to have lots of people saved and lots of people in hell, than all people saved and no one in hell.
God’s goal is to create an optimal balance of the saved and the unsaved. Based on the will of free creatures.
Those that go to hell would never have been saved to begin with.
William Craig said We should accept middle knowledge not because of having some Biblical support but mainly on its theological emergence.
Kevin
(I find this speaks volumes that this theory of middle knowledge may be primarily philosophical based and why those who seem to determine their theology based on philosophy, other than the what is known as the Ultimate Authority. The Word of God, determining one’s philosophy, is why people are being drawn to this philosophical concept and theory.)
My study on Molinism has just started. But I wanted to put what Dr. White said about Molinism and Middle Knowledge in connection with what Rhutchin said and how the comment Dr. James White said seems to be connected or maybe saying the same thing Rhutchin (or closely related and was trying to say to me).
Dr. White’s quote again: “The certainty of what was going to take place in this universe had to be fixed for God to even know you even exist. Because you are the result of literally millions upon millions of free creaturely choices of people.in all the generations before you.”
If God knew you were going to exist from eternity and before he created the universe there it seems there might be some validity to what Dr. James White is saying. Or what God knows is denied like that in Open Theism. Open Theism says God did not know Kevin was going to exist or 9/11 was going to happen. I and it were new revelations to God.
I find what Dr. James White said as a possible response to BR.D’s argument “that if God decreed all nothing is up to you” Because even if God does Decree all about us what Dr. Flowers says about God knowing that I exist in his above comment seems cogent and true.
I understand BR.D will still say that it is still “up to you” But I cannot help but to feel the force of Dr. White’s statement and the fact that Determinism is compatible with creaturely free will.
Eric, I have not went back to Compatibilism, but I do want to see maybe how BR.D responds to Dr. White’s comments on Molinism and the comment he made that I felt was closely related to what Rhutchin was saying.
I would also like to see if maybe Rutchin will comment about his first comment and then how maybe what Dr. White said might connect or relate to what he said.
But I knew BR.D might possibly appeal to Molinism so I wanted to get to the actual conclusions of holding to this philosophical belief.
Now this does not mean that BR.D will not have a good response and blow out of the water what I have said. But I wanted to present this to further the conversation.
Patiently waiting for BR.D and Rhutchin if they want to reply
Hi Kevin,
I think you intended for me to respond to this
James White
The certainty of what was going to take place in this universe had to be fixed for God to even know you even exist. Because you are the result of literally millions upon millions of free creaturely choices of people.in all the generations before you.”
br.d
There are problems with the language of this statement.
Firstly the use of the word “certainty”.
I think you will agree with me that a being who has perfect foreknowledge of what is going to happen in the future has “epistemic” certainty of what is going to happen in the future.
So in that regard – yes there is “epistemic” certainty.
But all Christian philosophy acknowledges that “certainty” does not entail “necessity”.
In other words to say things are “certain” to happen is synonymous to saying things must happen of “necessity”.
And when we assert things happen of “necessity” we are asserting Theological Fatalism.
Is Dr. White using the word “certainty” to refer to “epistemic” certainty – or to “necessity”?
The statement does not make it clear which meaning is used for this term – and that makes the statement equivocal.
Secondly
We have the phrase “free creaturely choices”
Is the freedom here a Libertarian Freedom – or Compatibliist freedom?
Again – the statement does not make it clear – so again we have equivocal language.
And equivocal language makes any statement untrustworthy.
Thirdly
Dr. White’s statement is identical to what an Atheist Determinist would assert concerning NATURAL determinism.
All of the atoms in nature line up and create literally millions and millions of movements in specific directions generations before you exist.
And these determine every impulse you will have – and thus everything you do is fixed in the past.
And I don’t think Dr. White is an Atheist – or a NATURAL determinist.
He does not believe that events are “fixed in the past” by NATURE
He believes events are “fixed in the past” by a THEOS – who determines them pre-creation (at the foundation of the world)
Forthly:
You now understand “Middle-Knowledge” facilitates perfect divine knowledge of LFW choices people would make – without having to determine those choices *FOR* people. So a divine being could permit you to choose to go to your mail-box without determining you do so – and with Middle-Knowledge that divine being would still have full and comprehensive knowledge of everything you do.
Five:
The idea that everything that happens – is the result of millions of antecedent events – is a basic premise of “absolute” determinism.
Here is Dr. Ravi Zacharias response:
-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.
In other words – if your every future impulse is determined by millions of antecedent events – then your model of functionality is that of a robot. And if that is what we believe – we might just as well acknowledge we are designed to function as a kind of robot.
And that brings us back to the bottom line of determinism – in which it logically follows nothing is UP TO US
Hi BRD,
I intended for you and I was hoping Rutchin would also respond to this also since I thought Dr. White’s comment seemed to be related to what he said to me about going to the Mail Box. Not just you.
I noticed you did not interact with any of Dr. White’s refutation of Molinism and Middle Knowledge from William Craig. It would help me to see it from the other side if you did. I know you talked about it but I was hoping (I know you can’t always get what you want 🙂 you would interact directly with his comments.
You know me I jump on the first bandwagon and thinks its right until I hear a good response and that is what I will not deny I was doing. What White said sounded good.
But as God’s Word says, the first person to speak sounds right until cross examined or the next person makes his argument. After reading what I did of yours at a fast pace I am not as confident as I was. I knew your rebuttal would be good.
Your response is good as usual and I knew it would be. We both know Dr. White in know way is talking about Theological Fatalism.
And when it comes to creaturely will we know Dr. White in his comment is most definitely not talking LFW but Compatibliist freedom.
I have not took a slow reading to really focus closely on what you have said. But what I read made me go back and read the comment I wrote down of Dr. White’s and I kept asking myself what I meant by it and what he meant by it.
That is why I want to go back and read what I wrote again and then re-read what you wrote. And listen to Dr. White in that section again. Because I know he may not mean fatalism but that could logically be what the conclusion is of what he said.
If you want to engage with White’s critique of William Craig that would be good. Because that is what he was doing where I put all the comments underneath his name.
He actually makes out your position (Molinism) as being robotic. I think he may be quite right about that. God puts people into circumstances that he knows for sure what they would do. And they can do no other. Nothing otherwise. I find that interesting.
In Molinism and Middle Knowledge when God actualized this world, so that everyone will do what they would do in the circumstances of that actualized world, Nothing IS UP TO THEM. They can only do what they would do when placed in those circumstances.
So if this world that we are living in is constructed on the basis of Molinism and Middle Knowledge and we can only do what we would do in the circumstances we find ourselves in, then nothing really is “UP TO US” We only what we would do in the circumstances we are in.
I know I am probably understanding it wrong but I find it exciting and interesting to see where that is. Show me where I am wrong please BRD. Thanks and God bless as always
Hi Kevin – I think perhaps I can answer this question about Molinism making people function robotically without going back to your previous post – if that is Dr. Whites additional point.
The only degree to which “robotic” would be true – is the degree to which it is deterministic.
In other words in Molina’s scheme, creatures are granted various degrees of LFW.
And for every LFW choice they make – that choice is not made *FOR* them by a predestined program.
They are “merely” permitted to determine the choice for themselves.
And since they are making the choice for themselves that does not follow the model of robotic functionality where choices are programed in the past – and we simply follow them because we are not permitted to do otherwise.
Molina’s THEOS does determine what circumstances to put people in.
But he does not determine what their impulses or choices will be.
So I think you can see base on that – that is why the Molinist scheme puts responsibility or blame for choices onto the creature.
Let me know if that answers that question.
No, actually I see the fact that the very circumstance that Molina’s theos puts people in determines what they will do.
Does not God according to Molinism put them into circumstances He knows they would do if put into that specific circumstance?
They can do no other right? Please answer me if they can do differently according to Molinism BRD. This I ask respectfully my friend.
Because I see that according to Molinism if a person is put into a circumstance or circumstances and God knows what he would do in those circumstances and can do no other that is robotic and mechanistic.
Instead of preserving LFW Molinism destroys autonomous LFW and this makes Molinism invalid. Because its purpose was to be an alternate choice to Compatibliism right?
Can they do different with their LFW in the circumstances they are put in by God in the World he has “actualized” (a philosophical term as far a I am concerned, should be created) when God knows exactly what they would do in those circumstances and that they do and know other.
Right?
If they can do otherwise please explain to me how?
There is a whole lot more of Dr. Craig’s material Dr. White responds to like the saved and those who go to hell.
Only those who are put in circumstances where they will respond to the Gospel will be saved.
There are some who would respond in another actualized world but that world is not actualized by God according to Molinism.
And then we say God desires to save everybody.
I am not sure why those who believe in this pholosophy condemn Calvin when it seems the two are similar it seems in ways.
Not Molinism is not determined by God, it is determined by autonomous LFW (The Molinist thinks anyway) and God has to play with the deck of cards he is dealt with to bring about his purposes by putting people in circumstances He knows they WOULD do and will do no other.
Right?
Just asking because that is the way I am understanding it right now BRD.
But I will keep listening to you.
Thanks and God bless
Kevin
Does not God according to Molinism put them into circumstances He knows they would do if put into that specific circumstance?
br.d
Yes – he knows they will do it using their LFW.
Thus he doesn’t determine what they will do.
He determines the circumstance he knows they will do it in.
Kevin
They can do no other right? Please answer me if they can do differently according to Molinism BRD. This I ask respectfully my friend.
br.d
Yes but in a slightly different way.
Rather than a THEOS directly not permitting them to do otherwise – it is their own nature which does not permit them do do otherwise.
In other words – he does not determine what their nature will be – he puts them in circumstances which – in combination with their nature – he knows will produce the outcome he wants.
For example with Peter’s denial of Jesus – he does not determine what peter will do.
But he does put Peter in a circumstance which he knows – (in conjunction with Peter’s nature) – guarantees that Peter in that circumstance will deny Jesus.
I think you are noticing that Molinism does not totally remove determinism.
But rather it is thought of as a softer form of determinism – which incorporates a limited degree of LFW
Kevin
Because I see that according to Molinism if a person is put into a circumstance or circumstances and God knows what he would do in those circumstances and can do no other that is robotic and mechanistic.
br.d
I’m not sure one could see the model of functionality as robotic in that event because human functions are not determined by an external mind like they are in full-blown determinism. There is certain degree of LFW involved.
Kevin
Instead of preserving LFW Molinism destroys autonomous LFW and this makes Molinism invalid. Because its purpose was to be an alternate choice to Compatibliism right?
br.d
Molina and Molinsists certainly do not see that as a logical conclusion.
They see LFW involved – and to the degree there is LFW – that would not entail compatiblism.
Kevin
Can they do different with their LFW in the circumstances they are put in by God in the World he has “actualized” (a philosophical term as far a I am concerned, should be created) when God knows exactly what they would do in those circumstances and that they do and know other.
br.d
I think I answered this as the first question.
They are guaranteed to not-do-otherwise due to their nature.
But he does not determine what they will do or what their nature is.
He creates circumstances – which in conjunction with their nature – they are guaranteed to not do otherwise
On some of your other questions – I think there are some answers in the wiki article.
And that has to do with the differences that different Molinist take on how deterministic Molinism is – or how much LFW they see active in Molinism.
For example, I chatted with a Molinist professor last year who asserts that just as it is in Calvinism – every person’s salvation is predestined at the foundation of the world and is fated to occur. A select number of people “THE MANY” are predestined for eternal torment in a lake of fire – and the “FEW” are predestined to heaven. And the THEOS simply creates circumstances which guarantee that outcome.
Then there are other Molinists who believe that each person’s nature is the determiner of their eternal fate.
Some Molinists for example will assert that there are people who would reject Christ no matter what world or circumstance they are put in.
William Lane Craig – from what I can tell – believes that it is not logically possible for God to create a world in which all persons use their LFW to accept Christ. And because that is the case – God creates the “best possible world” in order to maximize the number of people who will use their LFW to choose Christ.
I know I said I was done BRD but there are a couple of things you said that I cannot stop thinking about. Thats when you know you are a good communicator when what you have said stays with someone.
BRD said and I quote: “br.d
Yes – he knows they will do it using their LFW.
Thus he doesn’t determine what they will do.
He determines the circumstance he knows they will do it in.
Kevin My response
I find this response so interesting and even equivalent to what Dr. James White was saying that Molinism is robotic or mechanistic.
You say that God knows “the individual will do it using their “LFW” Which means they should and can do otherwise
But you say he does not determine what they will do. I understand that.
Then you say, “he does determine the circumstance they will do it in”
But since God “determines the circumstance they will do it in” God knows exactly what they will do by putting them in that circumstance and they can do no other.
By God determine the circumstance he will put them in where he knows what they will do it seems in a sense he is determining that they can only do what they would do in that circumstance.
It seems like some kind of circular argumentation. I mean God may determine the circumstance but by doing so he also determines what the individual will do by putting them in that circumstance. Because God knows what they would do in the determined circumstance that he determined that determined the choice or action of the individual.
BRD said and I quote: Yes but in a slightly different way.
Rather than a THEOS directly not permitting them to do otherwise – it is their own nature which does not permit them do do otherwise.
In other words – he does not determine what their nature will be – he puts them in circumstances which – in combination with their nature – he knows will produce the outcome he wants.
Then you admit by God putting them in the God determined circumstance that the individual with LFW cannot do otherwise.
You have to see the problem here. That is the very definition of LFW and that is why I say this is in another way robotic and mechanistic.
BRD said and I quote: “he puts them in circumstances which – in combination with their nature – he knows will produce the outcome he wants.”
That is God determining what he wants. It may be in a different way, but determinism is involved. But still there is the problem with LFW and being able to do otherwise and they cannot when God puts them in his determined circumstance that will produce the intended choice and action of the individual.
BRD says and I quote: “I think you are noticing that Molinism does not totally remove determinism.
But rather it is thought of as a softer form of determinism – which incorporates a limited degree of LFW.
Kevin My response
I find this a strong admission from a Non-Calvinist. I also say if all of this is true then LFW cannot stand with Molinism or Middle knowledge and nothing is “up to us” because we can only do what we would do in the God determined circumstances God places us in.
Thanks BRD Now I will take that Break but I promise to get back to you.
Kevin
But since God “determines the circumstance they will do it in” God knows exactly what they will do by putting them in that circumstance and they can do no other.
br.d
Yes – as I said – in sense they can do no other.
Although I think some philosophers may disagree with this and call it a semantic argument.
But to me its just practical to say they can’t do otherwise
But you do see there is a difference?
On determinism they cannot do otherwise because he doesn’t permit them to do otherwise
On this (which i think is simply a softer determinism) that they cannot do otherwise is not directly determined by anyone else – it is determined by their nature
Kevin
By God determine the circumstance he will put them in where he knows what they will do it seems in a sense he is determining that they can only do what they would do in that circumstance.
br.d
Yes – that seems logical to me also.
Kevin
It seems like some kind of circular argumentation. I mean God may determine the circumstance but by doing so he also determines what the individual will do by putting them in that circumstance. Because God knows what they would do in the determined circumstance that he determined that determined the choice or action of the individual.
br.d
I can see that point and its an astute point the make.
It seems to me its a limitation that we find in determinism – No Alternative Possibilities
Since he controls the circumstances – he does not permit any alternative circumstances.
Kevin
BRD said and I quote: Yes but in a slightly different way.
Rather than a THEOS directly not permitting them to do otherwise – it is their own nature which does not permit them do do otherwise.
In other words – he does not determine what their nature will be – he puts them in circumstances which – in combination with their nature – he knows will produce the outcome he wants.
Then you admit by God putting them in the God determined circumstance that the individual with LFW cannot do otherwise.
br.d
Yes – I agree with you that there is a sense in which they cannot do otherwise.
But I can’t guarantee that others – such as William Lane Craig wouldn’t find some disagreement on this.
But from a practical stand point – it seems to me one might just as well say they can’t do otherwise.
Kevin
You have to see the problem here. That is the very definition of LFW and that is why I say this is in another way robotic and mechanistic.
br.d
If I understand you here – you are seeing a contradiction.
If LFW logically entails a person can do otherwise – then how can LFW be TRUE when it is the case that one cannot do otherwise.
Again – I think this is where we start go get into some of the conundrums that come with LFW.
And it is true that Christian Philosophers – such as Peter van Inwagen – acknowledge these as logical problems.
BRD said and I quote: “he puts them in circumstances which – in combination with their nature – he knows will produce the outcome he wants.”
That is God determining what he wants. It may be in a different way, but determinism is involved. But still there is the problem with LFW and being able to do otherwise and they cannot when God puts them in his determined circumstance that will produce the intended choice and action of the individual.
BRD says and I quote: “I think you are noticing that Molinism does not totally remove determinism.
But rather it is thought of as a softer form of determinism – which incorporates a limited degree of LFW.
Kevin My response
I find this a strong admission from a Non-Calvinist.
br.d
Yes – I think you will find most Molinists will agree with that also – that Molinism is a softer form of determinism.
Or perhaps they would call it semi-determinism.
Kevin
I also say if all of this is true then LFW cannot stand with Molinism or Middle knowledge and nothing is “up to us” because we can only do what we would do in the God determined circumstances God places us in.
br.d
Here again – I think you will find there will be philosophers who will disagree with this.
I might have a Molinist person I can reach out to to see what he might give as an answer on this.
Kevin
Thanks BRD Now I will take that Break but I promise to get back to you.
br.d
No problem!
Good stuff! :-]
Thanks BRD,
You affirming some of what I said let’s me know that I am starting to understand the Molinism position now. I think you also are seeing an issue with this position also. Because the things I have said are exactly what Dr. James White was critiquing Dr. Craig about in his book. Do not remember the title now but I am sure you know and probably have it. Craig believes what I have stated above and there are problems with this position. I know you see it to since you mention: “I might have a Molinist person I can reach out to to see what he might give as an answer on this.”
I do not see anything that is really “UP TO US” in Molinism since the use of LFW is being used in name only because a person cannot choose to do otherwise once they are placed in the God determined position that will determine what not only what they would do, but once they are placed in it, they will do and it will not vary.
God bless BRD
After listening again to the interview with Dr. Craig and Paul Helm’s I think I misrepresented a some points.
If you haven’t listened to that interview its worth your while to do so.
br.d to Kevin writes, “But you do see there is a difference?
On determinism they cannot do otherwise because he doesn’t permit them to do otherwise
On this (which i think is simply a softer determinism) that they cannot do otherwise is not directly determined by anyone else – it is determined by their nature”
Under Calvinism the unsaved cannot do otherwise than resist God because their corrupt nature allows nothing else. For the believer, the indwelling Holy Spirit enables the person to resist the old corrupt nature that is still hanging around and thereby submit to God.
Then, “It seems to me its a limitation that we find in determinism – No Alternative Possibilities
Since he controls the circumstances – he does not permit any alternative circumstances.”
This affirmed by Molinism where the world chosen by God to create is a fully determined world with this world then being described by Calvinism.
rhutchin
Under Calvinism the unsaved cannot do otherwise than resist God because their corrupt nature allows nothing else. For the believer, the indwelling Holy Spirit enables the person to resist the old corrupt nature that is still hanging around and thereby submit to God.
br.d
In Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) – the state of nature is something man is given absolutely no say in the matter of – since the state of nature at any time is totally determined by Calvin’s god at the foundation of the world before man exists.
Peter Van Inwagen – consequence argument
– quote
If Theological Determinism is true
1) Our every IMPULSE is the consequence of divine decrees established at the foundation of the world before we exist
2) Each IMPULSE occurs in accordance to the state of nature which exists at the time in which each IMPULSE is actualized.
3) But it is not UP TO US what decrees were established at the foundation of the world
4) And the state of nature at any given time (including our own) which is established by infallible decrees is NOT UP TO US.
Therefore the consequence of these things are NOT UP TO US.
br.d
Then, “It seems to me its a limitation that we find in determinism – No Alternative Possibilities
Since he controls the circumstances – he does not permit any alternative circumstances.”
rhutchin
This affirmed by Molinism where the world chosen by God to create is a fully determined world with this world then being described by Calvinism.
br.d
Actually my statement above was incorrect – based on a misunderstanding – and later corrected by statements from Dr. William Lane Craig.
William Lane Craig:
-loose quote
Molinism differs from Calvinism in regard to human impulses. In Calvinism each and every person is moved by god to do what they do. And that fits the model of a puppeteer who moves the puppet to make the puppet do what he wants it to do.
Whereas in Molinism a person’s impulses are not determined for them and persons are not therefore made to do what they do.
Instead people are granted Libertarian choice and as such they can do otherwise. In Molinism god – as it were – takes his hands off and says “its up to you to do what you want”.
He chooses to create a world where people have and exercise Libertarian choice, and he in effect says “If you choose to reject my grace and my love for you, then I will allow you to do so.”
But people can’t escape god knowing how they would use their Libertarian Freedom.
-end quote
br.d writes, “In Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) – the state of nature is something man is given absolutely no say in the matter of – since the state of nature at any time is totally determined by Calvin’s god at the foundation of the world before man exists.”
As is the date of birth, country of birth, culture into one is born, intelligence level, physical abilities, etc. So many things God controls over which a person has no say. Nonetheless, given this, the person is made in God’s image and has the ability to reason and make decisions if only consistent with one’s nature and outward circumstances. None of this is unknown to God or beyond His understanding.
Then, quoting Craig, “…people can’t escape god knowing how they would use their Libertarian Freedom.”
Not just knowing but understanding. So, no real distinction from Calvinism. Does not matter what you call a person’s freedom to choose – Calvinism says God understands and knows what the person will choose and knew this in eternity past.
br.d
In Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) – the state of nature is something man is given absolutely no say in the matter of – since the state of nature at any time is totally determined by Calvin’s god at the foundation of the world before man exists.
rhuthcin
As is the date of birth, country of birth, culture into one is born, intelligence level, physical abilities, etc.
br.d
Calvin’s god leaves NOTHING left over for anyone else to determine.
rhutchin
So many things God controls over which a person has no say.
br.d
Not “so many things” – but rather EVERYTHING WITHOUT EXCEPTION!
That’s why its call *UNIVERSAL* Divine Causal Determinism.
rhutchin
Nonetheless, given this, the person is made in God’s image and has the ability to reason and make decisions if only consistent with one’s nature and outward circumstances.
br.d
None of which is UP TO US
Since all of it is totally determined by infallible decrees before creatures exist.
See Peter Van Inwagen’s “Consequence Argument”
Unless you’ve figured out a way to alter, falsify or negate divine infallible decrees
Good luck with that! :-]
rhutchin
None of this is unknown to God or beyond His understanding.
br.d
If Calvin’s god doesn’t know what he decreed come to pass at the foundation of the world – then he could always record his decrees in a note-book whenever he gets forgetful. :-]
William Lane Craig
-quote
But people can’t escape god knowing how they would use their Libertarian Freedom.”
rhutchin
Not just knowing but understanding. So, no real distinction from Calvinism. Does not matter what you call a person’s freedom to choose – Calvinism says God understands and knows what the person will choose and knew this in eternity past
br.d
If thinking that makes one happy – c’est la vie
But I didn’t call it “Libertarian” freedom – Dr. Craig did – along with Molinists – along with Molina.
If anyone wants to reject calling it “Libertarian” freedom – they are free to do so
But theirs would then be an INCORRECT representation of Molinism
And LOGICAL persons know that “Compatibilist” freedom and “Libertarian” freedom – mutually exclude one another
The same way air cannot exist in a perfect vacuum – one’s existence excludes the other.
But in Molinism a person can have “Libertarian” freedom – in anything that is not pre-determined *FOR* that person.
As Dr. Craig states in “God and the problem of Evil – the Molinist solution”
-quote
The Reformed theologian might imagine God, surveying the range of feasible worlds, deciding that none of the worlds containing Libertarian free creatures is worth actualizing and therefore deciding to actualize a world in which he himself determines *EVERYTHING* that happens!
Molina, on the other hand, thought that God has decided to actualize a world of Libertarian free creatures…..in such a way that his ultimate ends are achieved through creaturely free decisions, despite the sinful decisions they would make and the evils they would bring about.”
-end quote
Thanks BR.D for another great post “Bringing to the Light what Calvinist try to hide in dark secret language” Tactic #120 is hide behind terms that disguise what you really believe. Make it sound like it is not “Universal divine causal determinism” when in reality you know that it is. Use words that hide this fact so that others will more readily agree with Calvinism. Even though you know you are being deceptive that is Ok because, if you did it, you were predetermined by God to be deceptive for His Glory. Yes, it is a mystery to the rational mind but who are you to question God? Especially when you are arguing for Universal Divine Causal Determinism.
You couldn’t help it anyway. Praise be to God for His mysterious ways—that Calvin was so wise to bring us.
Good one GraceAdict!
Yes – and double-speak language is Holy Spirit inspired of course! :-]
br.d writes, ‘Calvin’s god leaves NOTHING left over for anyone else to determine.”
As does the non-Calvinist God. There is nothing unknown to God from before creation. All was determined when God created and all of history plays out exactly as God understood it would. No one disputes this. What’s your point?
Then, rhutchin, “Nonetheless, given this, the person is made in God’s image and has the ability to reason and make decisions if only consistent with one’s nature and outward circumstances.”
br.d, “None of which is UP TO US.”
So you claim. However, when God made man in His image, he gave man the ability to make choices without being coerced to do so by God. God’s decrees are not the cause of man’s actions exclusive of any action by man.
Then, ‘But I didn’t call it “Libertarian” freedom – Dr. Craig did – along with Molinists – along with Molina.”
Craig can call freedom anything he wants so long as he recognizes the Calvinist conclusion, “people can’t escape god knowing how they would use their Libertarian Freedom.” This denies, “But in Molinism a person can have “Libertarian” freedom – in anything that is not pre-determined *FOR* that person.” There is nothing that God does not know about the future making everything determined.
“As Dr. Craig states…Molina, on the other hand, thought that God has decided to actualize a world of Libertarian free creatures…..” must be read in context with his other statement, “people can’t escape god knowing how they would use their Libertarian Freedom.” and that is not different than what the Calvinist argues – freedom is just labeled differently by each group.
br.d
Calvin’s god leaves NOTHING left over for anyone else to determine.
rhutchin
As does the non-Calvinist God. There is nothing unknown to God from before creation. All was determined when God created and all of history plays out exactly as God understood it would. No one disputes this. What’s your point?
br.d
An interesting adhoc theory – why don’t you refute Dr. Craig or perhaps Dr. Alvin Plantinga with it..
Good luck with that! :-]
rhutchin
Nonetheless, given this, the person is made in God’s image and has the ability to reason and make decisions if only consistent with one’s nature and outward circumstances.”
br.d
None of which is UP TO US
See Peter Van Inwagen’s “Consequence Argument”
Unless you’ve found a way to alter infallible decrees
Good luck with that! :-]
rhutchin
God’s decrees are not the cause of man’s actions exclusive of any action by man.
br.d
In Theological Determinism – Calvin’s god’s decrees EXCLUSIVELY determine *FOR* man “any action of man”.
rhutchin
Craig can call freedom anything he wants so long as he recognizes the Calvinist conclusion, “people can’t escape god knowing how they would use their Libertarian Freedom.”
br.d
As I said – LOGICAL persons know the only freedom compatible with Theological Determinism is freedom to be/do what one is determined to be do. And that as such “Libertarian” freedom doesn’t exist in that context any more than air exists in a perfect vacuum.
But of course that doesn’t apply to people who lean on MAGICAL thinking. :-]
rhutchin
This (Craig’s previous statement above) denies, “But in Molinism a person can have “Libertarian” freedom – in anything that is not pre-determined *FOR* that person.” There is nothing that God does not know about the future making everything determined.
br.d
One is free to take that claim up with Dr. Craig or perhaps Dr. Alvin Plantinga
Good luck with that! :-]
rhuthcin
“As Dr. Craig states…Molina, on the other hand, thought that God has decided to actualize a world of Libertarian free creatures…..” must be read in context with his other statement, “people can’t escape god knowing how they would use their Libertarian Freedom.” and that is not different than what the Calvinist argues – freedom is just labeled differently by each group.
br.d
rhutchin your not doing yourself any favors – not doing your homework before making bold claims.
It appears what you failed to notice within Dr. Craig’s statement is the term *WOULD*
With Middle-Knowledge it LOGICALLY follows – no one can escape a divine mind knowing how a person *WOULD* use their Libertarian Freedom. Such knowledge facilitates both “Libertarian” human choices not pre-determined *FOR* humans.
While also facilitating full and comprehensive foreknowledge.
And that is called Molinism :-]
br.d writes:
rhutchin your not doing yourself any favors – not doing your homework before making bold claims.
It appears what you failed to notice within Dr. Craig’s statement is the term *WOULD*
With Middle-Knowledge it LOGICALLY follows – no one can escape a divine mind knowing how a person *WOULD* use their Libertarian Freedom. Such knowledge facilitates both “Libertarian” human choices not pre-determined *FOR* humans.
While also facilitating full and comprehensive foreknowledge.
RH argues:…”that is not different than what the Calvinist argues – freedom is just labeled differently by each group.”
GA — I think RH desperately wants Calvinism to not be deterministic and so he hopes it is the same as what Dr. Craig argues for BUT unfortunately Calvinism gives no such option. Everything is Pre-determined FOR humans in Calvinism.
RH keeps trying to hide behind the term “God understands all things” to disguise his Deterministic position. He simply uses a deceptive word to describe Determinism, instead of a forthcoming term. Over and over again Tactic #32 use other words that hide your true meaning, disguise and hide what you really mean.
Once again you hit the bulls-eye GraceAdict.
Calvinism is 100% decretal theology
How unfortunate – that is the one key thing – so many Calvinists spend so much time trying to obfuscate.
And you are correct – cloaking determinism behind “understanding” to make it appear less deterministic – looks like the current strategy.
Dr. William James – classified as the Father of American psychology and the leading thinker of the nineteenth century.
– quote
Compatibilism is a quagmire of evasion.
The Compatibilist’s strategy relies on stealing the name of freedom to mask the 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.
And then there is Immanuel Kant
-quote
Compatibilism is a wretched subterfuge with which some persons…..think they have solved lives problems with petty word-jugglery.
How unfortunate for them!
br.d writes, “And you are correct – cloaking determinism behind “understanding” to make it appear less deterministic – looks like the current strategy.”
Apparently, you do not understand “understanding.”
Dr. William James sounds like a humanist philosopher and not a theologian.
rhutchin
Dr. William James sounds like a humanist philosopher and not a theologian.
br.d
Totally understandable response :-]
rhutchin: “Dr. William James sounds like a humanist philosopher and not a theologian.”
br.d: “Totally understandable response”
Especially since Wikipedia describes him that way.
rhutchin
Dr. William James sounds like a humanist philosopher and not a theologian.”
br.d
Totally understandable response”
rhutchin
Especially since Wikipedia describes him that way.
br.d
Oh that’s right – “leading thinker of the late nineteenth century, one of the most influential philosophers of the United States, and the “Father of American psychology” is to be dismissed as “humanist philosopher” because it doesn’t line up with a “scriptural theology” of square-circles and married-bachelors :-]
“GA — I think RH desperately wants Calvinism to not be deterministic and so he hopes it is the same as what Dr. Craig argues for BUT unfortunately Calvinism gives no such option. Everything is Pre-determined FOR humans in Calvinism.”
This because of God’s perfect understanding of His creation. Same for non-Calvinists who are not about to deny God’s perfect understanding.
Then, ‘RH keeps trying to hide behind the term “God understands all things” to disguise his Deterministic position.”
God’s perfect understanding establishes that a sovereign God necessarily decrees all that happens. The non-Calvinist cannot avoid this conclusion.
RH writes: “God’s perfect understanding establishes that a sovereign God necessarily decrees all that happens. The non-Calvinist cannot avoid this conclusion.”
GA: We absolutely can avoid the Calvinist Conclusion, that even moral evil is authored by God. God understanding all things is not the same as God CAUSING all things. God causing ALL things is what the honest Calvinist has to Boldly embrace, even moral evil. I am a non-Calvinist and I would agree with A.W. Tozer on this one: “The eternal decree of God decided not which choice man should make but that he should be free to make it. If in His absolute freedom God has willed to give man limited freedom, who is there to stay His hand or say, ‘What doest thou?’ Man’s will is free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereign could not bestow moral freedom upon His creatures. He would be afraid to do so.”
The most evil thing about Calvinism is it makes God out to be the author of Evil. That my friend is evil it is from the pit of darkness and evil is not good it is pure and simple darkness and does not glorify God, God himself says He has no part in it..
1Jn 1:5 This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is NO darkness at ALL.
To create a systematic and then try to support that systematic at the expense of God’s Moral Character is pure and simple darkness it does NOT come from the LIGHT.
Jas 1:13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one.
Jas 1:14 But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire.
Jas 1:15 Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.
Jas 1:16 Do not be deceived, my beloved brothers.
I think that the message for all of us is exactly what James says in vs 16 “Do NOT be deceived” Satan’s favorite tactic is to malign the Moral Character of God. This is happening through Calvinist teaching.
You can say cute things like one of our favorite Calvinists says RC “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.”
“God wills all things that come to pass…God desired for man to fall into sin.
I am suggesting that God created sin.” RC Sproul
John Piper’s ministry website, Desiring God:
“God . . . brings about all things in accordance with his will. In other words, it isn’t just that God manages to turn the evil aspects of our world to good for those who love him; it is rather that he himself brings about these evil aspects for his glory.”
John Calvin: “The hand of God rules the interior affections no less than it superintends external actions; nor would God have effected by the hand of man what he decreed, unless he worked in their hearts to make them will before they acted.” From “Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God
John Calvin himself taught:
“Creatures are so governed by the secret counsel of God, that nothing happens but what he has knowingly and willingly decreed.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 16, Paragraph 3)
Jonathan Edwards:
“God did from all eternity will or decree the commission of all the sins of the world.”
Zwingli:
“God makes angels and men sin.”
This fits very well into the Calvinist Worldview BUT it is rises up in opposition to Holy God and His Holy WORD. “Do not be deceived, my beloved brothers.” “God is light in Him is no darkness at all” “God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one.”
GA writes, ‘God understanding all things is not the same as God CAUSING all things.”
How do you handle Ephesians 1, “God works (ordains/causes) all things according to the counsel of His will…”
Those who have believed and God has placed (In Christ) there is a sure destiny for those. God’s counsel has pre-determined an absolute certain destiny for those who are (In Christ)…v12 “so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory.” Those who were the first to Hope in Christ….might be….to the praise of His glory.
This is nothing the same as the Calvinist claim that God authors evil.
Now the additional truth seen here is that God can take man’s evil intentions and even his evil actions and turn the outcome into a Good outcome. That speaks to God’s ability at taking man’s evil choices and turning ashes into a masterpiece for the praise of His glory. It is not the same as the Calvinist claim that “God authors the evil actions”.
One view makes God out to be worse than Satan, because all of the evil actions and even thoughts proceed from God through Satan, God becomes the Master evil creator.
The other view says:
Satan is evil and does his own evil things, God is not the author of them at all, they are darkness. Yet God is soooo wise and powerful that He can take that evil choice of Satan and by His wisdom work it together for a good end. Not because God authored the evil but because God is the divine artist that can take anything and work it into a breath taking masterpiece of His own. This shows His Grace, Love, Power and Wisdom. God is light in Him is NO darkness at all.
Two very different views of God. Calvinism profanes His Holy name, making every evil deed God’s deeds, WHILE the other Exalts God as the Most Wise and Absolutely Morally pure God of the Universe, who is the master Redeemer.
GA writes, “Those who have believed and God has placed (In Christ) there is a sure destiny for those. God’s counsel has pre-determined an absolute certain destiny for those who are (In Christ)…v12”
Then the issue is to explain how a person comes to be “in Christ.” Can this happen without the help of the Holy Spirit and faith or can it happen in the absence of the Holy Spirit and faith. Calvinism says that a person cannot come to be “in Christ” without the Holy Spirit and faith.
Then, ‘This is nothing the same as the Calvinist claim that God authors evil.”
God is the author of evil because He, as sovereign, is the final arbiter of all things – “God works all things according to the counsel of His will.” Adam cannot eat the fruit without God knowing that he will do it and decreeing that he do as he desires.
Then, “Calvinism profanes His Holy name, making every evil deed God’s deeds,”
Calvinism makes god the author of evil actions but those deeds are the works of Satan and man and not God. God wrote the book that has Adam eating the fruit and Satan tormenting Job, etc. – necessarily God is its author.
RH writes: “Calvinism makes God the author of evil actions but those deeds are the works of Satan and man and not God. God wrote the book that has Adam eating the fruit and Satan tormenting Job, etc. – necessarily God is its author.” End of quote
GA: Thanks RH for being honest about your god being the Author of Evil. But That is not the God of the Bible.
This is precisely why I reject Calvinism. I do not think you understand the moral character of God.
This is why I say Calvinism Blasphemes God’s Holy Character and Satan loves it, he applauds any system that will malign the Moral character of God. That is why I think it is so popular in these last days.
GA: I do appreciate your honesty RH in embracing this truth of your systematic and demonstrating that the moral character of your God cannot be Trusted to be Pure, Holy, Good, Honest and Loving. He is just as much Evil as he is Good for He is the Author of ALL evil that has ever existed or will exist. In Calvinism what we really have is a “totally fake battle” between evil and good. What appears in front of the curtain is evil vs good but when you remove the curtain and see behind it what we really find out is that the left hand of God is the “Evil actor” and the right hand of God is the “Good actor”. The pretend demonstration in front of the curtain LOOKED like a real conflict BUT in reality it is God just putting on a make believe show for His own glory…. Sounds much more like paganism Yin and Yang rather than biblical theology. Could it have it’s roots in Gnosticism?
However I do appreciate your honesty, you are hiding less than before.
The robot programmer is the AUTHOR of the evil actions the robots will consequently do – but those deeds are the works of the robots
GA writes, “Thanks RH for being honest about your god being the Author of Evil. But That is not the God of the Bible.”
So, your position is that God did not understand what He was doing when He created the universe and did not know the impact of His creation and the future that would come about because oft hat creation. That may not be your God but it is the God of the Bible.
Then, “I do not think you understand the moral character of God.”
I don’t think you understand God’s attributes – His infinite understanding, omniscience, omnipotence, wisdom, love etc. You cannot focus on one aspect of God’s attributes, His moral character, to the exclusion of His other attributes.
br.d writes, “An interesting adhoc theory – why don’t you refute Dr. Craig or perhaps Dr. Alvin Plantinga with it..”
Refute what? You quoted Craig to say, “…people can’t escape god knowing how they would use their Libertarian Freedom.” Plantinga also affirms God’s omniscience.
Then, ‘In Theological Determinism – Calvin’s god’s decrees EXCLUSIVELY determine *FOR* man “any action of man”.”
This applies to that Theological Determinism associated with your humanist philosophy. It does not apply to that Theological Determinism associated with a Scriptural theology.
Then, “And that as such “Libertarian” freedom doesn’t exist in that context any more than air exists in a perfect vacuum.”
OK. Libertarian freedom does not exist. Except in a humanist philosophy that ignores the Scriptures. Even then, no one can show it exists.
Then, “It appears what you failed to notice within Dr. Craig’s statement is the term *WOULD* ”
That’s the point of Molinism. Prior to creation, God understood what people would do were He to place them in different situations The world God actualizes is not a world of Libertarian free creatures. They were libertarian free (allegedly, but not proven) only until God chose one world to actualize. In that world, there is no “would,” only “shall” and this because, as Craig explained, “people can’t escape god knowing how they would use their Libertarian Freedom.” God’s knowledge of future actions turns “would” into “shall.”
br.d
An interesting adhoc theory – why don’t you refute Dr. Craig or perhaps Dr. Alvin Plantinga with it..”
rhuthin
Refute what? You quoted Craig to say, “…people can’t escape god knowing how they would use their Libertarian Freedom.” Plantinga also affirms God’s omniscience.
br.d
I said – In Theological Determinism Calvin’s god leaves NOTHING left over for anyone else to determine.
You responded “As does the non-Calvinist God”
That’s what you can take up with Dr. Craig – and/or Dr. Plantinga
Good luck with that! :-]
BTW:
You’ve consistently made 1001 arguments to disagree with the statement that Calvin’s god leaves NOTHING left over for anyone else to determine. And now you suddenly agree with it.
But wait – two posts from now you’ll be arguing against it again!
And SOT101 readers are supposed to see that as speaking with authority?
What a hoot! :-]
Also
In Theological Determinism – Calvin’s god’s decrees EXCLUSIVELY determine *FOR* man “any action of man”.”
rhutchin
This applies to that Theological Determinism associated with your humanist philosophy. It does not apply to that Theological Determinism associated with a Scriptural theology.
br.d
And you say I make claims!
*AS-IF* DOUBLE-MINDEDNESS and MAGICAL thinking are “scriptural theology” :-]
Also
And that as such “Libertarian” freedom doesn’t exist in that context any more than air exists in a perfect vacuum.”
rhutchin
OK. Libertarian freedom does not exist. Except in a humanist philosophy that ignores the Scriptures. Even then, no one can show it exists.
br.d
And I’m sure that in a “scriptural theology” air exists in a perfect vacuum :-]
Previous to this we have you arguing that with faith you have “Libertarian” freedom
Then after that “Libertarian” freedom is supposedly compatible with Theological Determinism
Good luck getting any reformed academic like Paul Helm’s for example to affirm that!
Then after that we have Dr. Craig’s understanding of “Libertarian” freedom and “compatibilist” freedom is muddled and he uses the term “Libertarian” but you – as the superior mind – knows that it doesn’t mean what he thinks it means,
And then after that “Libertarian” freedom doesn’t exist – except in a humanist philosophy – which for you means it doesn’t exist at all.
And that’s supposed to manifest a superior understanding!
What a hoot! :-]
rhutchin
the point of Molinism. Prior to creation, God understood what people would do were He to place them in different situations
br.d
In Molinism god *KNOWS* what every creature *WOULD* do – given the circumstance he places them in.
rhutchin
The world God actualizes is not a world of Libertarian free creatures.
br.d
And you say I make stuff up!
How many quotes have I given you from Dr. Craig – who is considered an international expert on Molinism – and yet your claims AUTO-MAGICALLY are correct and his statements are wrong. :-]
Try to read this a little more SLOWLY:
William Lane Craig:
-quote
The Reformed theologian might imagine God, surveying the range of feasible worlds, deciding that none of the worlds containing Libertarian free creatures is worth actualizing and therefore deciding to actualize a world in which he himself determines *EVERYTHING* that happens!
Molina, on the other hand, thought that God has decided to actualize a world of *LIBERTARIAN FREE* creatures and …such a way that his ultimate ends are achieved through creaturely free decisions, despite the sinful decisions they would make and the evils they would bring about.”
rhutchin
They were libertarian free (allegedly, but not proven) only until God chose one world to actualize. In that world, there is no “would,” only “shall” and this because, as Craig explained, “people can’t escape god knowing how they would use their Libertarian Freedom.” God’s knowledge of future actions turns “would” into “shall.”
br.d
Try to read this more SLOWLY
William Lane Craig
-quote
And so by means of his middle knowledge, God knows what *LIBERTARIAN FREE* agents *WOULD* freely do, in any set of *FREEDOM PERMITTING* circumstances that God might put them in.
So by creating those circumstances and putting the agent in them, God – sort of speak – takes *HANDS OFF* and lets the agent be the one to determine what he will choose”
-end quote
Dr. Craig’s language can’t be any more clear.
What Dr. Craig is enunciating here is called “mere” permission in Calvinist vernacular
Which John Calvin rejects!
Your problem is that you want “mere” permission to exist in Calvinism while claiming it doesn’t
I’ll take Dr. Craig’s understanding of Molinism any day. :-]
br.d writes, “You’ve consistently made 1001 arguments to disagree with the statement that Calvin’s god leaves NOTHING left over for anyone else to determine. And now you suddenly agree with it.”
No. I have argued that God is sovereign and necessarily determines all things. I have also that God made man in His image thereby incorporating human decision-making into His determinations. God has created a concurrent process whereby God concurs with man in the determinations He made in eternity past. Man will always be hampered by limited knowledge, even more limited understanding, even less wisdom, physical and mental incapacity, peer pressure, societal pressure, fleshly desires, jealousies, pride, etc. Man will always be subordinate to God and God’s will and only able to express his will will the concurrence of God. God was able to make man with the ability to choose independently of God but not to act autonomous from God.
Then, “Try to read this more SLOWLY
William Lane Craig -quote- …
So by creating those circumstances and putting the agent in them, God – sort of speak – takes *HANDS OFF* and lets the agent be the one to determine what he will choose” -end quote
LOL!!! Exactly. “God – sort of speak – takes *HANDS OFF* and lets the agent be the one to determine what he will choose.” Of course, God perfectly understands the agent and perfectly understands what the agent will determine. The agent is only able to determine that with which God concurs (e.g., God would not let Joseph’s brothers kill Joseph but concurred in their plan to sell Joseph).
Then, “Try to read this a little more SLOWLY:
William Lane Craig: -quote
The Reformed theologian might imagine God, surveying the range of feasible worlds,…”
The Reformed theological understands that God would have to create the range of feasible worlds and the circumstances of those worlds and would have the perfect understanding of all decisions made in those worlds (so technically, no worlds are actually created) God created one universe with one world with humans whom He understood perfectly.
br.d
You’ve consistently made 1001 arguments to disagree with the statement that Calvin’s god leaves NOTHING left over for anyone else to determine. And now you suddenly agree with it.”
rhutchin
No. I have argued that God is sovereign and necessarily determines all things.
br.d
Sorry!
Anyone looking at your responses to my statement that Calvin’s god determines *ALL* things leaving NOTHING left over for anyone else to determine will find you disagreeing with it.
rhutchin
God has created a concurrent process whereby God concurs with man in the determinations He made in eternity past.
br.d
That is simply another way of saying Calvin’s god concurs with what he determines man be/do
Nothing in that disagrees with my statement
rhutchin
Man will always be hampered by limited knowledge, even more limited understanding, even less wisdom, physical and mental incapacity, peer pressure, societal pressure, fleshly desires, jealousies, pride, etc. Man will always be subordinate to God and God’s will and only able to express his will will the concurrence of God.
br.d
All of which is EXCLUSIVELY determined *FOR* man
Which you (on and off at this point) agree with. :
rhutchin
God was able to make man with the ability to choose independently of God but not to act autonomous from God.
br.d
Well – here we have the word “independent” – which is just another ambiguous term.
Calvin’s god makes a person be/do [X] and that person will be/do [X] “independent” of what Calvin’s god has made him do?
Good luck proving that using LOGIC
rhutchin
Exactly. “God – sort of speak – takes *HANDS OFF* and lets the agent be the one to determine what he will choose.”
br.d
That is Dr. Craig’s enunciation of “Libertarian” freedom of course
Which for hims – and all academia is none existent in Theological Determinism
rhutchin
Of course, God perfectly understands the agent and perfectly understands what the agent will determine. The agent is only able to determine that with which God concurs (e.g., God would not let Joseph’s brothers kill Joseph but concurred in their plan to sell Joseph).
br.d
Well – since Calvin’s god concurs with what he determines a person be/do then nothing new there.
And yes – Calvin’s god understands what he makes agents be/do via immutable decrees
rhutchin
The Reformed theological understands that God would have to create the range of feasible worlds and the circumstances of those worlds and would have the perfect understanding of all decisions made in those worlds (so technically, no worlds are actually created) God created one universe with one world with humans whom He understood perfectly.
br.d
Dr. Craig is specific …..in the Reformed world – *EVERYTHING* is determined *FOR* the creature.
And he is clear – to state in the Molinist world he does not.
And you assert – that it all boils down to Calvin’s god determining *EVERYTHING* by virtue of understanding
So what you don’t want to acknowledge is that you disagree with Dr. Craig on that point.
Hi Kevin,
I wanted to share something with you – for your consideration – in regard to language patterns we find people using.
A few years ago – I read a book written by a retired FBI investigator who developed a training program for the FBI.
This FBI agent developed a system to scrutinize written testimonies from people questioned by investigators.
He had the reputation of being able to discern things in language that would aid in solving crimes.
He developed a training program for the FBI now classified as “Narrative Analysis”.
One of the “red-flags” he would look for, is the use of equivocal language patterns as indicators that a witness may be trying to hide incriminating information.
Take for example, a wife who witnesses her husband strike and kill another man. The FBI agent is asking the wife questions about what she witnessed at the scene of the crime. He notices a pattern in her language. For any answer to a question that would not implicate her husband in the crime – her statements follow a pattern of “Inference” that she was there as a direct witness.
The agent also notices – where any answer to a question that would implicate her husband in the crime – her statements follow a pattern of “inference” that she was not there as a direct witness.
He notes that her language follows a very consistent pattern – which he notes as “equivocal” language. And when he tries to get her to make EXPLICIT statements, he notes that she agrees to do so, but instantly reverts back to her “equivocal” language pattern whenever answering a question that would implicate her husband in the crime.
That language pattern serves as a “red-flag” that she is using “equivocal” language as a strategy to evade acknowledging information she does not want to divulge.
Why do I tell you about this?
Because I noticed that when you and I start discussing statements made by James White – my response to those statements is to notice the use of “equivocal” language patterns. Especially his references to “free will”.
In my observation he follows a language pattern.
Whenever he speaks of creaturely freedoms, he uses language that “infers” or allows for Libertarian functionality.
The language presents events *AS-IF* creaturely choices are:
1) UP TO US
2) We are granted alternative possibilities
3) We are permitted to be/do otherwise
In Theological Determinism – any one of these (1-3) above would constitute our ability to falsify or negate divine decrees concerning us – that were established at the foundation of the world. And Dr. White has got to be smart enough to know that that is a logical impossibility.
I would ask you to examine his language patterns for yourself – and consider the possibility that (like the wife described above) Dr. White is strategically using “equivocal” language patterns as a way to avoid communicating what he intuitively recognizes are logical consequences to determinism, because those are things he does not want to communicate.
I see what you are saying BRD.
But let me ask you about number 3.
“3) We are permitted to be/do otherwise”
Is this what you personally believe and always believe.
I thought you told me that people choose and do according to their strongest inclination.
That would mean they could not do otherwise. And why Dr. Flowers rejects this “strongest inclination concept by Johnathan Edwards.”
But you told me that you accept Johnathan Edwards on this point.
Unless you also believe that the autonomous LFW can over-ride the strongest inclination of a person too. That would be confusing to me for you to believe both.
That is the way I understood you, so if I am mistaken please correct and thanks BRD.
Great questions!
This is where we start getting into some of the finer points – and where we start to move into more theoretical considerations.
Dr. Robert Kane has a theory that he calls “Self-Forming Actions”
You may find this article of interest:
https://philosophypathways.com/essays/hayashida2.html
It is acknowledged by Christian Philosophers such as Kane – who lean towards the existence of LFW – that LFW comes with its own conundrums.
Peter Van Inwagen agrees.
And he simply says – when he weights all of the pros and cons he feels that he must lean towards the existence of LFW.
The considerations he uses are logical, ethical, and psychological considerations.
Psychological considerations for example:.
It is common for people to say they reject LFW – but actually when push comes to shove they really don’t.
They claim to reject it on a theoretical basis.
But they go about their lives acting and communicating *AS-IF* its actually exists
Here is a classic statement from Dr. Tomis Kapitan that describes this
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.
-quote:
“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.”
C’est La Vie! What will be – is what will be.
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. (The Philosophical Quarterly Vol. 36, No. 14 1986),
-end quote
So one of the questions a Christian would want to ask are:
1) How is it that God knows determinism is TRUE – but then acts, communicates, and treats people AS-IF* it is false
2) Why do people who believe determinism is TRUE – go about their daily lives acting, communicating and treating life *AS-IF* it is false
3) How is it that authors of scripture know determinism is TRUE – but then are inspired by the Holy Spirit to write *AS-IF* it is false
These are some of the psychological characteristics that are observed and which people take into consideration.
Thanks for making this interesting BRD, being patient and making me think. Sorry when I repeat myself with the same question. I think I am trying to put it another way or something like that.
But still interested in your response personally to the Strongest inclination issue and if one’s will always does what is his strongest inclination or can one’s will over-ride one’s strongest inclination.
I am going to take a break for a while. So not ignoring you. Will take a closer look at all of this later.
Did a lot of paper work yesterday and this morning with my wife to file a “Report of Marriage” with the Philippine Embassy in Washington. So my mind is shutting down now for a while.
God bless you always my friend
On your question about strongest inclination – you might look at that article link I sent on Dr. Robert Kane’s theory on “Self-Forming Actions”
Ok I will BRD,
Like I said I am kind of wiped out and did not read your comment closely like I usually do. But I intended to come back to it,
But still I would like to hear your understanding of the “strongest inclination” since you do agree with Johnathan Edwards on this issue in our previous discussions.
BRD, yeah here I am again. I am laughing real hard at something I am watching that I am going to recommend to you if you want to watch it. Not sure if God put you in the right determined circumstance so that you will.
AHH you have to let me have that one friend bc you say the same things and probably rightly so when Calvinist say all things are determined.
But I am watching a debate between a Molinist and a Calvinist.
The Calvinist you know. Matt Slick. He is very a very intelligent guy but I do not think he always has his ducks in a row.
You guys talk about Dr. James White being rude which I admit at times he can be. But I mostly chalk it up to his strong personality that God created him with and where people say he is being rude. I just do not always see it. But I do not deny. As I have seen with Dr. Flowers, Eric Kemp and (myself more than anybody) be rude. We are all guilty of this if we will admit it. But Matt Slick goes ballistic in a very hilarious way.
But this guy Matt Slick takes the cake when talking to Kirk Macgregor a Molinist. I think you have heard of him. At one point the moderator interrupts and tries to ask a question. Matt Slick goes ballistic, gets up out of his chair starts scolding the moderator (who is on his side) tells him if he keeps on doing that (the moderator had done it twice now) Matt said he was going to leave the room and stop the conversation. I felt sorry for the moderator.
He keeps interrupting the Molinist constantly so that I cannot understand what is being said.
It is more of a comedy show. Many of the comments below the video talk about the rudeness of Matt Slick. I called into his show one time and he was very impatient and rude with me. Someone on the side-chat told him so too.
But this is hilarious. At this point I have to say it seems the Molinist is winning the debate.
Yes I remember seeing that interview.
There is also an interview between Dr. Craig and Paul Helms – which if you haven’t see it might be informative
Yes I have watched that one and it is very interesting and I think since I have heard Dr. James White critique Dr. Craig I want to listen to that one again. Because the White video was a few years back. Dr. Craig may have changed some of his views since then.
You do know that Molina believed in Total Depravity right?
I’m not familiar enough about some aspects of Molinism to be able to speak with any kind of authority.
And the degree of human depravity Molina understood to exist is one of those areas I’m not familiar with.
So its possible he did – but I don’t really know.
Hey BRD,
I say this to be funny but not disrespectful to Mr. Brian Wagner
I bet you a hundred dollars Mr. Brian Wagner finds Molinism and Middle Knowledge to still be a little to Calvinistic for him 🙂 lol
Yes I think you’re probably right – its fair to say Brian find problems with both systems :-]
Kevin,
I’m listening again to the debate between Dr. Craig and Paul Helm’s and I think I described an aspect of Molinism that Dr. Craig would disagree with. He states that the conditions God puts a person in are not designed to determine a specific outcome. I’m sure that is going to raise more questions but I wanted to point out my mistake in not describing it correctly.
Kevin writes, “I would also like to see if maybe Rutchin will comment about his first comment and then how maybe what Dr. White said might connect or relate to what he said.”
I think Dr White and I are n the same page. God has infinite understanding and this understanding is the basis for the counsel of His will. Thus, Ephesians 1, “God works all things according to the counsel of His will.” That which God works (determines, ordains) then becomes His knowledge. The Open Theist says that God cannot know the future because the future does not exist. Yet, God understands the consequences of present actions and how they play out into the future, so God can know the future.
Molinism describes God’s position before Genesis 1 and before He creates the universe. By His understanding, God knows all the worlds He could create and each world is different based on God’s works. There are worlds where Adam does not sin because God opened his eyes to the consequences of that action. There are worlds where God does not flood the earth or destroy Sodom.Gomorrah. Then, we have the one unique world that, under Molinism, God does create. It is the world that Calvinism then describes. Under Molinism and Calvinism, God knows everything that will happen in this world from beginning to end.
When a Molinist points to the Scriptures to prove their point, they are saying that God could have created a world in which David did not leave the city or certain people would have submitted to the gospel – but God did not do that. God created the world in which we find ourselves.
Hi Eric,
I apologize I seem confusing. I am somewhat of a hybrid when it comes to all of this. You are an intelligent man and I am sure from my comment above you are able to understand this.
My comment above (which you did not reply to and I would very much like to see that) and what I am going to write here should give you understanding as to where I stand once and for all.
I just read a book by Oliver Crisp who is the author that BR.D introduced me to. He is a Calvinist. But in this book entitled, “Deviant Calvinism” the author talks about Calvinism Compatibilism and LFW and Calvinism Determinism and Calvinism Soteriology.
Oliver Crisp shows from history that there have been Calvinist who have held to Calvinist Soteriology and LFW. But they also have believed that there are some things that God did determine within the Word of God. Although the things of ordinary day life, like acting, desires, thinking are LFW.
I would say at this time until I hear a more cogent argument from a Calvinist who holds hardcore to that God has determined all that comes to pass I fall into that category above.
Even BR.D believes that some things within the Word of God are determined by God even in connection with people.
So do me a favor please, answer the questions above comment. I noticed you seemed to not reply to that one and you seem to think in your reply about John 6 that I answered your question. That is Eric once again being presumptuous.
So I hope this helps you understand where I am at this time on these issues. You may not be satisfied with the answer but there is nothing I can do to help you with that.
I have a response JUSKLNTIME2442, well, really, some thoughts from reading the thread.
This is a good time to also ask for prayer for my family.
My 7 year old granddaughter is fast progressing with a worst possible prognosis: FARA, know as Friedreich’s Ataxia disease. So. I have been morning her suffering in life(this worst news coming 2 days ago) and my daughter is also ‘spinning’ the discovery her other daughter also has a high statistical average of having the disease, but no signs at present. As to my granddaughters prognosis, if she does not expire from a heart issue, of which she is already mentioning pain now, she will come to be a body that is in a wheel chair with her intellect fully intact, but with also the lost of her hearing and her sight. This disease affects the speech, which was a first sign, but was misdiagnosed. She is not in a wheelchair, but is fast progressing, faster then usual statistics.
My daughter received this worst news 2 days ago so her heart is breaking for her daughter.( as we learned it is genetic) My daughter has been ‘questioning’ her faith from a time not long after leaving Wheaton College. Please pray for this life test to draw her back to truth about love in her pain and Jesus Christ being our only hope over death , where someday every tear will be wiped away and their will be no more pain. And yes, the Lord gives and the lord takes away. And yes, Satan has been given power to conquer the saints, and I will stand firm on the truth and promises of God. Who is guaranteed tomorrow? I will not be getting mad at God. I will be crying out that he save all those touched through this testing and stregthen us to serve, and to have grace and mercy , comforting the heart and mind of my granddaughter in the onslot of her suffering.
Thank you for whoever reads and holds this up in prayer.It is a time of ‘raw’ emotion as related to prognosis Prayers that God protects us from evil and the evil one.
God prepared me by teaching my heart and mind, using truth revealed through the book of Book. The Spirit of Christ is seen in Elihu: chapters 32-37 in Job….. until we reach the end, as we should live in the truth and live out His instruction for a friend and a neighbor.
He is for us in reality, as we put one thought, as one foot, right before the other. My faith is that God is for us, especially those who believe, both the believing and the lost having the choice to run to him or turn away, the faithful believing already crossed over from death to live. My prayer that God would save the self deceived and silence the believer who is preaching in error to our neighbors. ( I trust He knows every heart and mind, seeking to show love for our good, perfect in justice and mercy. God doesn’t play chess. He owns the speck that shines light on the devil’s schemes!)
——————————
God ‘SO loveD’ the world- How did He SO loveD?(https://biblehub.com/text/john/3-16.htm) He gave HIs only begotten son, see ‘so’ according to scripture NT in context of OT.John 12-21
Now, John 17, now public scripture to all, for those who will come through His people, Jesus prays not for the world, but the people he left in the world to seek the people of the world that they may/might come to be one with those who come to believe.
Of course Jesus does not pray for the world that he tells us elsewhere not to love. He prays for those who come to know, acknowledging the truth: Who is you neighbor? How do you love your enemies?
See also Jesus’ words to those he had chosen in Luke 22:
60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
64 But there
are some
of you who do not believe.”
(For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) 65 And he said,
“This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
66 After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him.
67 So Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you want to go away as well?”
68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, 69 and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”
70 Jesus answered them,
“Did I not choose you, the twelve? And yet one of you is a devil.” 71 He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was going to betray him.
————
26b:Rather, let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves. 27 For who is the greater, one who reclines at table or one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at table? But I am among you as the one who serves.
28 “You are those who have stayed with me in my trials, 29 and I assign to you, as my Father assigned to me, a kingdom, 30 that you
may
eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
31 “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he
might (well, https://biblehub.com/text/luke/22-31.htm)sift you like wheat,
32 but I have prayed for you
that your faith
may
not fail.
And when you have turned again(back),
strengthen your brothers.”
33 Peter said to him, “Lord, I am ready to go with you both to prison and to death.” 34 Jesus said, “I tell you, Peter, the rooster will not crow this day, until you deny three times that you know me.”
{God determined the means by which the Good News would spread: through faithful believers- I am determined to repeat the good news- 1Corinthians 15- according to the Holy Spirit , according to Scripture. This is my free will offering thinking for a reason through Genesis to the Book of the Apocalypse: God’s revealed how He works in things that are closed that he had opened, that we may understand our limits to what He revealed in the beginning about the end. You are free to give this some thought- See the human created in God’s image in genesis (.?) I am not an open theist or middle knowledge. holder I would simply say I believe God reveals truth in depth to those who seek it, as the mystery has already been revealed. As to our experience , about the promise of a resurrection to life and our Savior living with us face to face in the New Jerusalem on the new heavens and earth, it has been revealed to us that things have still not been made fully know to us :-). Hmmmmm, how does the determinist explain whether they have free will or no free will in a saved eternity. I wonder if they have philosophically worked out what I should be able to understand about God’s eternity as related to His power and our free will. …or not.
1 John 3:1-3
3 See what great love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! And that is what we are! The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know him. 2 Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when Christ appears,[a] we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. 3 All who have this hope in him purify themselves, just as he is pure.
According to Scripture, John is one of the greater gifts to be an authority for the assemblies. I am practically gonna take John at His Word… without twisting it with a duplicitous addition of philosophy about thinks I truly cannot explain. What I can understand is Jesus claimed to be God and I believe Him because He rose from the dead, evidence in history to the thinking, common to mankind.
(Satan really pulled over a scheme on humanity in public teaching for generations, in multiple countries: “Okay kids, what are your 5 senses?” Think about that…. who wants you to be deceived about freedom, what ever way evil spins it?)
One must keep in mind, when drawing conclusions from the book of Job, the way the story is constructed.
The characters; Job, Job’s wife, Job’s friends, are not seeing the whole of what is happening.
However, we see the whole story.
At various moments, ALL the characters, including Job, make statements that are false, because they don’t see what is happening in the supernatural realm.
For instance: Job says to his wife, ““Shut up you foolish woman, shall we not accept evil from the Lord and as we accept Good.” Job is mistaken. We know that the evil happening to Job is not from God, and would not have happened without Satan’s intervention.
Job never sees Satan’s part in what happens to him. He mistakenly attributes Satan’s activities to God. We need to stop doing this. (I’m talking to you, Calvinists)
If you ask for a fish, and get a rock in your plate, don’t say that God put it there. He didn’t.
Hi Carl,
I really really do understand your reasoning and wanting to protect the character of God for being blamed for evil. But I think you read much into Scripture that is not there. Yes we know Job’s so-called friends were lying when they were giving him advice. But for you to say the things that Job said about God and that he was just mistaking is going to far and reading into the Scriptures something that is not there. I will say what you said respectfully (I am saying this to you non-Calvinists)
Job1:1 There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was blameless and upright, and one who feared God and shunned evil.
We see the character of Job as being blameless, upright, one who feared God and shunned evil.
Now what is going to happen is the Non-Calvinists is going to use Divine Permission to try and get God off the hook of being involved in what happened to Job. This cannot be done without in my opinion being intellectually dishonest.
“I think people often want to try and get God “off the hook” by appealing to divine permission….. as if whatever God allows to happen, He is somehow less responsible because He “merely” allowed something to happen…. but if God had the ability to stop a given action from happening where He both knew that the action would take place (He is omniscient) and had the power to prevent it (He is omnipotent), in a sense, He is just as “culpable” as if He had caused it Himself”
This is something I have said before. Saying that all denominations have great difficulty with the existence of evil and sin. Saying God just gave permission as Eric and Carl does, does not solve the problem.
“I think your confusion starts as soon as you start with permission.
To choose to permit a thing is to demonstrate control not the lack of it , permission is not indifference , it is not the freedom to do anything , it is the freedom to do only that which God permits , nothing more and nothing less. PLEASE READ THIS. it is logical.
You seem to think Divine permission is God granting human independence , autonomy , self rule”
Nothing could have happened to Job who was blameless and upright until God told Satan he could murder Job’s children and destroy his property.
No God did not do it directly. But Satan could not do it until God gave him Divine permission, which is to “DEMONSTRATE CONTROL,NOT A LACK OF IT. PERMISSION IS NOT INDIFFERENCE, IT IS NOT FREE TO DO ANYTHING, IT IS THE FREEDOM TO DO ONLY THAT WHICH GOD PERMITS”
Who on here can honestly say that God had nothing to do with the murders of Job’s children and the destruction of Job’s property. Job knew this was ultimately coming from God. Not by God’s direct hand. But Job said this after the murder of his children,
“The Lord gives and the Lord takes away, blessed by the name of the Lord.”
Carl says that Job was mistaking and did not understand even thought this would not have happened without God giving Satan the go-ahead and Satan calling it God stretching out his hand.
Which part was Job mistaken about. God giving or God taking away. Does Carl mean that Job was just mistaking about half of what he said. Being that God does give and bless and Job can say blessed be the name of the Lord for that but not for the second part that the Lord takes away, through the means of Satan, the murder of Job’s children and destruction of His property.
We seem to be under the assumption that God only owes us good and blessings. Every man born deserves one thing and that is the wrath of God and damnation in hell. Even Job’s righteousness although pleasing to God, did not make him worthy of anything. It is all of grace of any blessing we get. So if God takes away anything, even through Satan, God has done us no wrong.
Then Carl says that when Job told his wife to basically shut up you foolish woman, shall we not receive evil from God as we receive good and blessings.
According to Carl Job only got part of this right also. God divinely allowed the evil through Satan to come into Job’s life. Job knew this as he knew blessings came into his life through God.
Carl, could anything evil have happened to Job without God giving his Divine permission.
God personally did not do the evil to Job but but he worked through the evil.
At the end Job put his hand over his mouth, and said I have heard of you by the hearing of the ear, now my eyes have seen you. God’s holy and good purpose had been accomplished even though it involved God working through the evil he allowed Satan to do.
Is it not true when someone we love dies in say a bad car accident. We say, “why did God let this happen?” Then someone will tell us, God is good, we do not understand now and may never understand completely until we are in Glory.
See the words of permission, “WHY DID GOD LET IT HAPPEN”
To choose to permit a thing is to demonstrate control not the lack of it , permission is not indifference , it is not the freedom to do anything , it is the freedom to do only that which God permits , nothing more and nothing less. PLEASE READ THIS. it is logical.
Carl writes, “For instance: Job says to his wife, ““Shut up you foolish woman, shall we not accept evil from the Lord and as we accept Good.” Job is mistaken. We know that the evil happening to Job is not from God, and would not have happened without Satan’s intervention.”
Yet, Satan cannot act without God’s consent. As God understands perfectly all impacts of giving Satan consent to torment Job, and gives His consent knowing the outcome, Satan is subordinate to God, and Job rightly attributes all that happens to God.
rhutchin
Yet, Satan cannot act without God’s consent.
br.d
We do love Calvinism’s DOUBLE-SPEAK.
John Calvin
-quote
“The devil,….can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived,….nor move a single finger to perpetrate……..unless in so far as He COMMANDS. that they are…..FORCED to do Him service.” Institutes I, 17, 11.
Calvinist Edwin H. Palmer
-quote
God…..DECIDES and CAUSES all things to happen that happen.
The moving of a finger….the mistake of a typist….[the specific] sin.
BR.D,
I read your comment and I want to thank you for your encouragement. I never in my wildest dreams thought I would be saying some of the things I am saying on here. I know you still disagree with a lot of what I am saying. But if everyone is honest they have to admit I have changed in what I believe concerning God determining all things that come to pass. That is the very thing I am writing now was decreed by God and it was “Not up to me”
I wanted to prove this argument wrong. Now it is not so much a want to as I just want to know the truth about the God of the Bible. No one I have presented this argument to can give me a cogent argument in response. They chalk it up to mere philosophy or they ignore the question and do not respond at all. So this is what I believe. I even gave your argument in reply to Rutchin.
So thanks and God bless. If I can just get you away from that Molinism stuff now 🙂
Thanks Kevin – appreciated.
And yes I’ve heard that “its just his philosophy” or “that’s a humanistic philosophy” argument before.
And you are correct to discern that that response is simply made by someone who doesn’t find a logical conclusion palatable – so they simply want to find a way to disregard it.
Dr. Paul Helms and Dr. Oliver Crisp are both classified as specialists in Theological Philosophy.
And I’m sure that the two of them have some points of disagreement here and there.
Its pretty much statistically impossible for two people to agree on everything.
Now Paul Helm’s is too much of a scholar to point his finger at Dr. Crisp and claim “that’s just his philosophy”.
And Dr. Crisp is too much of a scholar to do that to Paul Helms.
So I think it goes without saying that people use that argument when they find a logical conclusion distasteful.
I laughed when you mentioned the Molinism thing! :-]
Actually, I think if you read some of rhutchin’s posts you will find he’s been appealing to “Middle Knowledge” within the last couple of months. ts a strategy that allows one to create the APPEARANCE of LFW without actually having it.
For example – instead of arguing – the THEOS looks down the corridor of time and observes what the creature “WILL” do and thereby knows and decrees it. This argument is – the THEOS looks down the corridor of “Theoretical future events” and knows what the creature “WOULD” do given a certain circumstance – and given the creature “WOULD” do it with LFW.
The THEOS having that knowledge then simply decrees what the creature “WOULD” do using his LFW in that circumstance.
I think you can see that argument is based on the strategy of wanting LFW without really having it.
However, I believe the Westminster confession rules out this argument by certain statements
– In his sight all things are open and manifest his knowledge is infinite, infallible, and *INDEPENDENT* upon the creature
– without any foresight of faith or ….any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving him thereunto
So I think if a Calvinist appeals to “Middle Knowledge” he can expect other Calvinists to challenge him on that.
BRD my friend,
Now you know I have read this at least 5 times and I cannot understand what you are saying,
You are pulling a Brian Wagner on me 🙂 although Brian always did a good job at condescending to my level for the most part.
Could you give some examples (maybe Rhutchin’s) as to how they end up talking Molinism.
Then each section you wrote could you go back and clarify a little for me.
It is true what you said about your “not being up to argument” No one can answer that. They evade it or ignore it altogether. So I do not believe that most things or the majority of things have been determined by God.
I know you guys have got to work on me with Calvinist Soteriology. But that I see very clearly in Scripture. As far as the 5 points of Calvinism go. If I could find someone who could talk and be patient with me. Who knows what might happen. I will listen and change my mind if I see that a belief does not fit the Holy Scriptures.
You have to bring it down to my level. Condescend a little my friend. 🙂
Also are there any examples from Scripture that you can show me of God, people and Molinism in action. Thanks BRD as always.
I know I need to do more study on Molinism. That is probably why I am not understanding you.
I appreciate it and hope you are having a blessed day.
Hi Kevin,
I certainly didn’t mean to be condescending – so if I did that please forgive.
What was the part you wanted me to go over?
Hey BRD,
I did not mean condescending in a disrespectful way as I now it can be used that way.
But I meant for you to condescend to my level in your language so I can understand. In a good way.
I know you never mean to be disrespectful on purpose.
Its like the eternal God when he gave His Holy Word. I am sure he had to condescend to us as the Word says His ways are higher than our ways and His ways are past finding out.
So no disrespect was taken my friend. None at all. It is just you are a very intelligent individual and your way of stating things I sometimes do not understand.
So if you could read my last email again. Each section I would like for you to clarify.
Show me how you have seen some Calvinists use Molinism such as Rhutchin.
Also can you show some example from the Word of God of God Himself, with Individuals and this idea or theological theory of Molinism in action.
Thats all my friend. God bless and only when you have time. No rush.
One of the examples in scripture that Molina cited – is the story of David when he is fleeing from king Saul.
David and his men are staying in the wilderness, sleeping in caves and eating by camp-fire – which is a hard life to live.
David would like to give his men a break and stay a few nights in a city where they can sleep on beds and eat good food.
So David goes to the city of Kela – but he is taking a chance because if Saul finds him there – he could be trapped.
While David is there he enquirers of the Lord and asks him a theoretical question.
If Saul finds out I and my men are here and he attacks the city – will the people of the city give me over to Saul?
The Lord answers David “yes” – if Saul attacks the city – the people of the city will give you into Saul’s hands.
But this never happens because David ends up leaving the city.
But notice that David does not ask the Lord “what have you decreed the people of the city do”
One would think if David believed that every human action were the byproduct of a divine decree – then David would have asked the Lord what actions he had decreed the people of they city to do. But that is not what David asks.
What we see here is David is asking the Lord – a theoretical question.
David obviously believes that the Lord knows what the people of the city *WILL* do in the future.
But instead of asking that – he asks the Lord what the people *WOULD* do in the future – given certain circumstances.
And so David is asking the Lord a theoretical question.
And the Lord does know the answer to David’s theoretical question.
Molina considered this an example of divine “Middle-Knowledge”
Since this is not knowledge of what people *WILL* do
But rather knowledge of what people *WOULD* do given a theoretical circumstance.
Molina believed – that since there is divine and perfect knowledge of what people *WOULD* do given any circumstance – then this facilitates complete and comprehensive foreknowledge of future events without God having to decree what those events will be.
And based on that type of divine knowledge – Molina argued that logic does not require God to meticulously determine every event.
So God could create a world giving humans limited forms of LFW – without compromising divine foreknowledge.
Does that makes sense so far?
Just a quick reply BRD and then I will try and answer back more fully.
Is it not true that God’s Natural Knowledge/Necessary Truth, (Not Middle Knowledge) God knows everything that could logically happen? God’s knowledge of all possible and necessary truths (natural knowledge — of what could happen).
So would not the example you spoke of above be speaking of God’s Natural Knowledge? What the city logically would have done if David and His men had went there God knew?
But if I say this was God’s Natural Knowledge then it could not have been his free knowledge. I am just spouting off things I really do not know about. As far as I know the Calvinist probably understands Natural or Necessary knowledge working in relation with free knowledge.
None of this makes sense to me. Why does God have to have Natural knowledge if he has free knowledge (His Decree) and now there is Middle Knowledge.
I guess I am going to dive into this and wrap my head around it. I do know God’s knowledge of all feasible worlds (middle knowledge — of what would happen through free choices under certain circumstances, including counterfactuals).
To me Middle Knowledge and Natural Knowledge sound almost the same.
So no, nothing makes sense so far. Not because of you though. Because I do not understand the teaching or the definitions involved.
I do see what you are saying in a sense about David praying and asking God what the city would do. You mentioned why did he not just ask what his decree was? Good question
I am really ignorant of this BRD. But this philosophical thought or theological theory is really having a revival in Christianity right now. The two main people being William Lane Craig and Alvin Plantinga who also influenced Peter Van Inwagen.
I will start doing some research into it. First I want to read and study exactly what it is before I listen or read any rebuttals of it.
Very astute questions!
There is an article on Wikipedia you might want to look at concerning how the different types of divine knowledge are seperated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molinism
There is a paragraph there titled: “God’s types of knowledge”
A summary of the three types of knowledge:
1) Natural knowledge – or knowledge of necessary truths independent of God’s will – includes the knowledge of things that are non-contingent. e.g: logical possibilities and logical impossibilities. such as God cannot exist and not exist at the same time.
2) Middle knowledge – or knowledge of the range of possible things that would happen given certain circumstances.
3) Free knowledge – knowledge of contingent truths that are dependent upon God’s will
e.g. Things that God brings about or brings into existence – which he is not obligated to do
Other examples of scriptural passages are also cited in that article.
Let me know if you find that useful
Really dumb post by me BRD I know. I just do not understand enough about this issue yet.
Don’t criticize yourself Kevin – some of these things are pretty abstract – and they may take anyone a few times thinking through to get one’s head around them. That is totally very normal.
Thanks BRD and for the resource you gave me in your last reply
Kevin writes, “As far as the 5 points of Calvinism go. If I could find someone who could talk and be patient with me.”
The 5 points are built on the Calvinist doctrine of God (God is omni). Then:
T – Man has a corrupt nature and lacks faith so he has no spiritual desire for God or holiness and is unable and unwilling to seek salvation. The preaching of the gospel is foolishness to him. All mankind rejects God and Christ and the salvation offered.
U – God chooses (elects) whom He will save based only on the counsel of His will and nothing in, or about, the person.
L – God sends Christ to die for those He has chosen to save. Christs death is such that anyone could claim it as atonement for their sins.
I – God imparts a new birth and conveys faith to those He has chosen to save with faith then manifesting as a desire for holiness and belief in Christ.
P – God preserves His elect by giving His spirit to indwell the person.
Thanks Rhutchin,
But it was kind of a joke with BRD. I do understand and do hold to the 5 points of Calvinism when it comes to Soteriology.
It is Calvinistic Compatibilism I do not hold to as I once did.
I do see somethings determined by God in the Bible if you will read my post. Like the death of Christ, When God moved Egypt to hate Israel, When God moved David to number Israel when it was a sin but in the parallel passage it was Satan that God used as a second cause/agent to Number Israel.
In 2 Samuel where God moved David and in I think it is 1 Chronicles something where Satan moves David. David repents of his sin that he says was foolishly and ask God to forgive him.
And there are other places where it is obvious that God determined people to do things.
I just have a problem believing that everything we say, do, desire etc is determined by God.
I thought Dr. White’s comment that I also though was related to your comment to me going to the mail box would bring some answers. But not sure now that BRD has answered.
Thanks Rhutchin
Kevin writes, “I just have a problem believing that everything we say, do, desire etc is determined by God.”
God determines all things either by direct action (the flood of Noah, destruction of Sodom, impregnation of Mary) or by inaction (David’s adultery, the immediate events surrounding Christ’s death, the stoning of Stephen). When we say that God “determines” everything, we mean that God understood what was happening and could have changed the outcome had He wanted to do so. God’s understanding is such that he was able to decide how He would interact with His creation before He created.
Eric I asked you a couple of questions above and I am going to repeat them with your answers.
Eric in John 3 where Jesus says you must be born again/from above by the Spirit. Do you acknowledge the supernatural in what Jesus was saying here? And do you believe that the Jews of that time would understand what he was saying?
You said and I quote: “yes and no”
Kevin my Response
I asked you this for a reason bc it has been said on the internet, (at Dr. Sean Cole site in an interview of him) that you believed that “being born again by the Spirit” was just “kinship language or being put into the family” And that you seemed to remove the Supernatural and be more in line with N.T. Wright and his New Perspective on Paul.
And it was also said that you said that the Jews of that time would have understood what Jesus was saying when talking about “being born again by the Spirit”
I believe you probably said that. But noticed your mistake when you were told that “The Teacher of Israel, Nicodemus” Jesus said did not even understand.
I understand that we both have a different understanding of what it means to be “born again by the Spirit”
So what do you mean by being “born again by the Spirit? Is it Salvation?
That is not my real concern here but necessary for my next question.
John 3:3 -3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
What part do you believe the Spirit plays in a sinner being born again? What does it mean to see the kingdom of heaven?
John 6:7-8 – 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
Thank you Eric.
Kevin, “I asked you this for a reason bc it has been said on the internet, (at Dr. Sean Cole site in an interview of him) that you believed that “being born again by the Spirit” was just “kinship language or being put into the family” And that you seemed to remove the Supernatural and be more in line with N.T. Wright and his New Perspective on Paul.”
That’s true.
“And it was also said that you said that the Jews of that time would have understood what Jesus was saying when talking about “being born again by the Spirit”
That is a good clarification, thank you. They would have understood it was kinship language. They would not have assumed there was some sort of forensic, ontological “stuff your heart is made of” change that was added later. They would not have understood that Jesus meant “this is a new thing God is doing and it’s going to include the Gentiles being grafted into God’s family and you have to get with this program or even Jews will be left out of God’s family”. I hope that helps.
“So what do you mean by being “born again by the Spirit?” Is it Salvation?”
It’s specifically being brought into God’s family by the power of the Spirit. You are made a son of God, given an inheritance as you await for your eventual adoption.
“What does it mean to see the kingdom of heaven?”
Eph 1, there is a time that God is planning for, and he’s orchestrating all things to lead up to this point, where He will sum up all things in Christ, and it is the believers who will be heaped blessing upon blessing, including adoption into God’s family, at this time. “The Kingdom of Heaven” is mostly synonymous with the concept of “adopted into God’s family” in the sense that “God’s kinship group” establishes, partakes in, creates, maintains, and enjoys the Kingdom of Heaven.
I hope that helps.
Sigh. Everybody reads the very beginning of Job and the very end, ignoring the middle.
Job says alot of mistaken things.
Here is something else he says about God:
“It is all one; therefore I say,
‘He destroys both the blameless and the wicked.’
23 When disaster brings sudden death,
he mocks at the calamity[c] of the innocent.
24 The earth is given into the hand of the wicked;
he covers the faces of its judges—
if it is not he, who then is it?” Job 9
Is Job mistaken here or does God actually mock the innocent when disaster kills them?
Does God cover the faces of judges so that the wicked prevail in the courts?
“And were my head lifted up,[a] you would hunt me like a lion
and again work wonders against me.
17 You renew your witnesses against me
and increase your vexation toward me;
you bring fresh troops against me.” Job 10
Is God hunting us like a lion, sending fresh troops against us? Was God vexed with Job? Was that why these terrible things were happening? Or, is Job confusing Satan and God?
God is correcting the theology of both Job and his friends. They both mistakenly think everything that happens is caused or “permitted” by God.
For a better treatment of this, read, https://reknew.org/2018/10/the-point-of-the-book-of-job/
If we believe that God controls everything, the only logical conclusion is despair. Read what Job says. He got there. But he was mistaken. Job’s theology was incorrect. Great guy. Just goes to show, you can be a great guys, pleasing to God and have horribly mistaken theology at the same time. (I have to constantly remind myself of this when I see Calvinists who are great guys, whose actions are pleasing to God, but whose theology shipwrecks many people’s faith)
Carl writes, “If we believe that God controls everything, the only logical conclusion is despair. ”
Not according to Paul – “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.” Also, ” we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.” I see this as very encouraging. Of course, unbelievers should be in despair except that they don’t care and think the whole Jesus thing is foolishness.
Carl writes, “If we believe that God controls everything, the only logical conclusion is despair. ”
br.d
Carl:
Since Calvinism evolved as the synchronization of ancient Stoicism, Manichaeism, and NeoPlatonism into Catholic doctrine – it contains various constituents from those religions.
The ancient Stoics did not consider their adherence to Theological Determinism to bring them to a place of despair.
Some of them actually argued that it gave them a sense of assurance by the fact that the god’s were in control of everything.
However there were issues the Stoics had with everything being determined *FOR* them by the gods.
For those problems it was normal for them to find ways to deny aspects of their doctrine using subtle word tricks.
Calvinists – as did the Stoics – go through the same exact motions.
Hi Carl,
I think you may not be understanding what is being said when Job is speaking in these passages of Scripture and reading your own understanding into them.
Let’s start with Job 9:22 – It is all one thing;
Therefore I say, ‘He destroys the blameless and the wicked.’
What Job is saying here when he says “it is all one thing” means that what is true of the wicked is true of the blameless and what is true of the blameless is true of the wicked.
Barnes Commentary on Job 9:22 – “This may mean, “it is all the same thing. It makes no difference whether a man be righteous or wicked. God treats them substantially alike; he has one and the same rule on the subject. Nothing can be argued certainly about the character of a man from the divine dealings with him here.” This was the point in dispute, this the position that Job maintained – that God did not deal with people here in strict accordance with their character, but that the righteous and the wicked in this world were afflicted alike.”
Kevin
Did not God just destroy a blameless man, in stretching out His hand through the second cause/agent of Satan and murder Job’s children and destroy his property. Ultimately took away all that he had and even Job’s health.
Job said, “The Lord gives and the Lord takes away” and “shall we not accept evil from the Lord as we accept good from Him”.
Job knew nothing happens apart ultimately from God’s will. And in saying all this It was said Job did not sin with his lips in what he said about the Lord. Review my former comment on permission if you think that means God was not involved.
Heavy and sudden judgments do not necessarily prove that they who are cut off are especially guilty, and long prosperity is no evidence that a man is holy.
Barnes Commentary
“Calamity, by fire and flood, on a steamboat, or in the pestilence, does not demonstrate the unusual and eminent wickedness of those who suffer (compare Luke 13:1-5), nor should those who escape from such calamities infer that of necessity they are the objects of the divine favor.
Eccles. 9:2 – It is the same for all, since the same event happens to the righteous and the wicked, to the good and the evil, to the clean and the unclean, to him who sacrifices and him who does not sacrifice. As the good one is, so is the sinner, and he who swears is as he who shuns an oath.
Barnes Commentary on Job 9:23 – If the scourge slays suddenly,
He laughs at the plight of the innocent.
“He will laugh at the trial of the innocent – That is, he seems to disregard or to be pleased with their trials. He does not interpose to rescue them. He seems to look calmly on, and suffers them to be overwhelmed with others. This is a poetic expression, and cannot mean that God derides the trials of the innocent, or mocks their sufferings. It means that he seems to be inattentive to them; he suffers the righteous and the wicked to be swept away together as if he were regardless of character.”
Matthew Poole Commentary
“His outward carriage is the same to both; (The wicked and the good), he neglects the innocent, and seems not to answer their prayers, and suffers them to perish with others, as if be took pleasure in their ruin also. But withal, he intimates the matter and cause of his laughter or complacency which God takes in their afflictions, because to them they are but trials of their faith, and patience, and perseverance, which tends to God’s honor, and their own eternal advantage.
24 The earth is given into the hand of the wicked;
he covers the faces of its judges—
if it is not he, who then is it?” Job 9
Carl says and I quote: “Is Job mistaken here or does God actually mock the innocent when disaster kills them?
Does God cover the faces of judges so that the wicked prevail in the courts?
Kevin
I think Job who spoke rightly of God as the book of Job testifies to may have given you your answer in the very verse you quoted.
if it is not he (GOD), who then is it?”
Do you think you might be pushing your preconceived ideas of God or your image of God upon what Job said and then because Job said that which is opposite of how you see God you think he is mistaking. Job who was a blameless man and shunned evil (So he was very acquainted with the God of His Salvation)
Appreciate discussing this with you Carl, God bless
“And were my head lifted up,[a] you would hunt me like a lion
and again work wonders against me.
17 You renew your witnesses against me
and increase your vexation toward me;
you bring fresh troops against me.” Job 10
Carl
Is God hunting us like a lion, sending fresh troops against us? Was God vexed with Job? Was that why these terrible things were happening? Or, is Job confusing Satan and God?
I will say God was bringing trials and calamities into Job’s life even as Job testifies to a the beginning of Job 10.
10 “My soul loathes my life;
I will [a]give free course to my complaint,
I will speak in the bitterness of my soul.
2 I will say to God, ‘Do not condemn me;
Show me why You contend with me.
3 Does it seem good to You that You should oppress,
That You should despise the work of Your hands,
And smile on the counsel of the wicked?
4 Do You have eyes of flesh?
Or do You see as man sees?
5 Are Your days like the days of a mortal man?
Are Your years like the days of a mighty man,
6 That You should seek for my iniquity
And search out my sin,
7 Although You know that I am not wicked,
And there is no one who can deliver from Your hand?
8 ‘Your hands have made me and fashioned me,
An intricate unity;
Yet You would destroy me.
9 Remember, I pray, that You have made me like clay.
And will You turn me into dust again?
Of course Job was speaking out of great despair, sorrow and pain to God. He was being real and honest to God from his heart when he was praying to God. It was almost more than he could bear.
Job 42:11 is the Word of God and it says this: “Then came to him all his brothers and sisters and all who had known him before, and ate bread with him in his house. And they showed him sympathy and comforted him for all the evil that the LORD had brought upon him. And each of them gave him a piece of money and a ring of gold.
They comforted Job for all the evil the LORD had brought upon him.
Notice very close to Job 42:11 is verse 7 that God says of Job he had spoken what was right of Him. His theology was correct.
Job 42:7 – And so it was, after the LORD had spoken these words to Job, that the LORD said to Eliphaz the Temanite, “My wrath is aroused against you and your two friends, for you have not spoken of Me what is right, as My servant Job has.
Yes it was Satan and not God directly who afflicted Job. But it had to be God’s will or he could have stopped it from even happening.
Satan even said to God, if you would stretch out your hand, and destroy all that he has Job will curse you to Your Face.
Did Satan have the theology about God wrong to. No Satan did not. Immediately after Satan said that about the hand of God, God told Satan that all Job has is in your power, only do not touch Job’s person.
Job was that outstretched hand of God, that brought calamities and trials into Job’s life. Job recognized it was from God. Said the Lord gives and the Lord takes away.
Job says it again in Job 9:12 where you said Job was speaking falsehoods about God
Job 9:12 – 12 If He takes away, who can hinder Him?
Who can say to Him, ‘What are You doing?’
Job I would say in his finite understanding, due to the trials and calamities that God used and brought into his life through Satan, said in his distress, sorrow, suffering and pain. Things that he did not understand about what was happening to Him. He even seems to question God about it. But always acknowledged ultimately it was from the Lord.
The Lord Gives and the Lord takes away Job said right after his children are murdered and his property are destroyed.
I ask once again. Did Job only get part of that right, that the Lord only gives blessings and good things. And he got the last part wrong when he says about his children being murdered, The Lord takes away.
I do not think so, even as the Word of God says in the book of Job that Job spoke what was right of God and not his so-called counseling friends.
Job 42:11 is the Word of God and it says this: “Then came to him all his brothers and sisters and all who had known him before, and ate bread with him in his house. And they showed him sympathy and comforted him for all the evil that the LORD had brought upon him. And each of them gave him a piece of money and a ring of gold.
If you think this is just a one time example of God showing favoritism personally and protecting Job from Satan. Until God gives Job divine permission to touch Job with the Hand of God. I would say you are very much mistaken on that issue.
If God is not in control of Satan he would have murdered and done the most wicked things you can imagined to everyone who has ever lived, who is living, and ever will live.
Satan is God’s devil and does His bidding.
Should have read, “Satan was the outstretched hand of God.” and not Job was the outstretched hand of God.”
Probably more typos since I did not check. I should no better by now. Oh well, I think it can be understood what I am saying even if disagreed with.
Blessings to all
Well, R, As discussed many, many times in this forum, those verses do not prove that God controls everything.
When life isn’t all happy clappy, and evil slaps you in the face, and God seems to do nothing, concluding that evil is from God (God controls all things) leads to despair. Calvinistic determinism shipwrecks many people’s faith.
Carl
Calvinistic determinism shipwrecks many people’s faith.
br.d
It certainly seems to be the case now that a number of Calvinists brought in during the peak of the young-restless movement – have moved on – totally rejecting it.
And moved on to all sorts of things
Atheism, Catholicism, Greek Orthodoxy, and main-stream Christianity.
From what I understand – a few of them were considered heavy-hitters in that movement.
I guess it goes without saying – “easy-come-easy-go” is just as viable in Calvinism – as it is anywhere else
carl, “those verses do not prove that God controls everything. ”
They show that God is in control of the lives of His elect. The elect are not in despair.
R. Again, as discussed here many times, those verses do not show that God is in control of the lives of His elect. You are mistaken if you believe that.
A Bible teacher stands before the class and asks for a verse that proves Calvin’s god is the meticulous author of every creaturely impulse
A certain Calvinist who took pride in his ability to dig up proof-texts from scripture – proudly raised his hand
Teacher:
Yes John what is your verse that shows Calvin’s god is the meticulous author of every creaturely impulse?
John
And Kenan begat Mahalalel, and Mahalalel lived 65 years and begat Jared.
Teacher
Very good John!
This will earn you another “A” in proof-texting! :-]
carl writes, “those verses do not show that God is in control of the lives of His elect.”
They show that God takes a special interest in His elect so that there is no reason for despair.
rutchin
They show that God takes a special interest in His elect so that there is no reason for despair.
br.d
John Calvin
-quote
-He holds it [election] out as a savor of death, and as the occasion for severer condemnation
– He also causes those whom he illumines only FOR A TIME TO PARTAKE OF IT
– Then he …..strikes them with even greater blindness
(Institutes)
Nothing to despair about that – where can I sign up! :-]
br.d: John Calvin – quote –
-He holds it [election] out as a savor of death, and as the occasion for severer condemnation
– He also causes those whom he illumines only FOR A TIME TO PARTAKE OF IT
– Then he …..strikes them with even greater blindness(Institutes)”
The Scriptural authors are not as kind as Calvin.
– “…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…these dreamers defile the flesh, reject authority, and speak evil of dignitaries…These are spots in your love feasts, while they feast with you without fear, serving only themselves. They are clouds without water, carried about by the winds; late autumn trees without fruit, twice dead, pulled up by the roots; raging waves of the sea, foaming up their own shame; wandering stars for whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever.” Jude
– “…there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. 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;” 2 Peter 2
– “If anyone teaches otherwise and does not consent to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which accords with godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing, but is obsessed with disputes and arguments over words, from which come envy, strife, reviling, evil suspicions, useless wranglings of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain. From such withdraw yourself.” 2 Timothy 5
– “…the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.” 1 Timothy 2
Thanks RH for those scriptures….The big difference between what Calvin says and what the scriptures point out is one minor issue.
Calvin makes God the Author of the evil
Scripture makes Man the Author.
Just a minor issue.
Agreed! Just a tiny little difference! :-]
GraceAddict writes, “Calvin makes God the Author of the evil Scripture makes Man the Author.”
God is the ultimate author of evil because He creates and His creatures do evil. Man is the immediate cause of the evil he does, therefore its author. Nothing happens without God’s consent. Thus, Satan cannot touch Job without God’s consent. Satan cannot deceive Eve and Adam cannot eat the fruit without God’s consent.
rhutchin
God is the ultimate author of evil because He creates and His creatures do evil. Man is the immediate cause
br.d
Calvin’s god determines every PERCEPTION and every IMPULSE
And determines the *INSTRUMENT* within which that IMPULSE will be actualized.
John Calvin
-quote
Hence they are merely *INSTRUMENTS* into which god constantly *INFUSES* what energy he sees meet, and turns and converts to any purpose at his pleasure.
-quote
Men can deliberately do nothing unless he *INSPIRE* it.
(Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God pg 171–172)
br.d : John Calvin – quote – Hence they are merely *INSTRUMENTS* into which god constantly *INFUSES* what energy he sees meet, and turns and converts to any purpose at his pleasure.
– quote – Men can deliberately do nothing unless he *INSPIRE* it.
(Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God pg 171–172)
This is accomplished through the corrupt nature with which each person is born or in believers, with the assistance of the Holy Spirit given to indwell the believer.
The energy of which Calvin speaks is explained in Acts 17, ‘in God we live and move and have our being.” No one wakes each morning to life except God have decreed it for His purposes. This expressed by Paul in Romans 9, “What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?”
br.d :
John Calvin
– quote
Hence they are merely *INSTRUMENTS* into which god constantly *INFUSES* what energy he sees meet, and turns and converts to any purpose at his pleasure.
– quote
Men can deliberately do nothing unless he *INSPIRE* it.
(Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God pg 171–172)
rhutchin
This is accomplished through the corrupt nature with which each person is born
br.d
Sorry that doesn’t work
The same general nature common to all – does not account for each unique specific human IMPULSE occurring at its unique specific person – at each unique and specific time, and each unique specific location.
Each IMPULSE is unique to own specific purpose and thus is specifically AUTHORED by Calvin’s god.
Calvin’s god never takes his hands of the any wheel! :-]
rhutchin
with the assistance of the Holy Spirit given to indwell the believer.
br.d
Well that would be with compatiblist freedom
Which is freedom (or in this case “assistance”) compatible with a person’s IMPULSES 100% determined *FOR* them by Calvin’s god.
So that would simply be the “assistance” to be/do what one is programmed/determined to be/do.
rhutchin
The energy of which Calvin speaks is explained in Acts 17, ‘in God we live and move and have our being.” No one wakes each morning to life except God have decreed it for His purposes. This expressed by Paul in Romans 9, “What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?”
br.d
No sense in trying to “weasel language” something to replace Calvin’s own words.
“CONSTANTLY INFUSES with ENERGY” to sin and commit evils – is plain enough language – and speaks for itself :-]
br.d: John Calvin – quote –
-He holds it [election] out as a savor of death, and as the occasion for severer condemnation
– He also causes those whom he illumines only FOR A TIME TO PARTAKE OF IT
– Then he …..strikes them with even greater blindness(Institutes)”
rhutchin
The Scriptural authors are not as kind as Calvin.
br.d
Silly!
One would hope the reader of those texts is discerning enough to distinguish the fact that they EXPLICITLY describe the actions of humans – rather than the actions of a THEOS.
Kevin says:
“Satan is God’s devil and does His bidding.”. and “Satan was the outstretched hand of God.”
Kevin, that is an awful concept and makes a mockery of what the Bible teaches.
So…. in the Gospels Jesus is going around conquering the works of “God’s devil”. Every time he frees someone from an evil spirit he is undoing the work of God? Every time Jesus heals someone of a disease caused by an evil spirit He is just working against God? When Satan tempted Jesus in the desert that was just “Gods’ Devil” doing God’s bidding? When Jesus says lying is Satan’s native language that is really just God lying using Satan as a sock puppet?
Boggles the mind. Can you see that your position makes no sense?
And… you think that Job spoke rightly and God mockingly laughs when innocent people are struck down? Monstrous!
Luckily, I think that you have a reading comprehension problem when you read Job through the lenses of a Calvinistic mindset. One day, Kevin, I pray you will take off those glasses and be able to separate a good God from an evil Devil!
Anyway, thanks for the honest and straightforward replies. It is rare that someone will just come right out and say that the works of Satan are really God’s works.
Carl: “When Satan tempted Jesus in the desert that was just “Gods’ Devil” doing God’s bidding?”
Mark 1:12 – Immediately the Spirit drove Him into the wilderness.
Mark 1:13 – And He was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted by Satan, and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered to Him.
The word drove here in the Greek means Jesus was compelled by the Spirit.
Luke 4:1 – Then Jesus returned from the Jordan, full of the Holy Spirit, and was led by the Spirit in the wilderness
Luke 4:2 – for forty days to be tempted by the devil. He ate nothing during those days, and when they were over, he was hungry.
Well with my “reading comprehension problem by putting my Calvinist glasses on.” (By the way nice insult and why our conversation will come to an end. Not necessary.
I read in Mark that Jesus was “driven or compelled by the Spirit. But that is just my RCP with Calvinist glasses on. The Spirit drove Jesus where, to the desert where after 40 days of fasting he hungered and then was tempted by the Devil.
Luke tells us that the “Spirit led Jesus” into the wilderness TO BE TEMPTED BY THE DEVIL!! Man my reading comprehension is really acting up.
So yes the Spirit within Jesus gave Him an overwhelming impulse (Mark 1,Drove, argue with the Word Carl not me) that caused Jesus to cooperate with the Spirit and be led into the wilderness
TO BE TEMPTED BY THE DEVIL!!! So yes there is the Will of God that the Spirit took Jesus to the Wilderness and we are told why by the WORD OF GOD. God’s will, “SO THAT JESUS WOULD BE TEMPTED BY THE DEVIL IS WHY JESUS WAS DRIVEN AND LED BY THE SPIRIT INTO THE WILDERNESS.
I do not know, it looks like that is what it says to me. But I have a reading comprehension problem.
No problem Carl and thanks to you also. God Bless. Take care of yourself.
Hi Kevin,
Regarding Jesus being tested in the wilderness and being led by the Spirit to go there.I totally agree God led him there to be tested. Now let me throw something out there for you to consider. The why? and what that was all about.
Most manufacturers of items that are used by the public take their products through “stress tests” like a car seat for infants, I-beams for construction, airplane wings, even carpets are stress tested. These are all “stress tested” to PROVE that they are worthy of being on the market. Now they can have a label placed on their product saying this is “tested in the most severe circumstances and came out unscathed” it is worthy of your trust.
Yes Jesus was stress tested so that we can have confidence that He is worthy of our Trust.
To take that kind of a situation and then extrapolate it to mean that God is the author of evil and leading us into moral evil is not doing justice to the truth in scripture.
Jas 1:13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one.
Jas 1:14 But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire.
Kevin,
Yes. Reading comprehension. The spirit led Jesus to the desert where he was tempted by the devil.
That says nothing about God controlling the devil or the devil being the “hand of God”. Quite simple, really, for God to know that given the opportunity of a weak and hungry Jesus in the desert, Satan would show up to tempt Jesus. No controlling required.
Again, you are reading into the text your preconceptions.
Calvinist:
Everything Job says is true. He is commended by God.
Non Calvinist:
So when Job says,
“It is all one; therefore I say,
‘He destroys both the blameless and the wicked.’
23 When disaster brings sudden death,
he mocks at the calamity[c] of the innocent.
24 The earth is given into the hand of the wicked;
he covers the faces of its judges—
if it is not he, who then is it?” Job 9
There are blameless and innocent people?
Calvinist:
NO! Romans says nobody is blameless and innocent!
Non Calvinist:
A=Not A.
Calvinist:
This is “compatible” innocence and blamelessness! These people are innocent and blameless but in such a way that they are “filthy rags” and “worthless worms” at the same time.
Non Calvinist:
Oh sure. That makes sense. So, in the Calvi Dictionary, innocent and blameless means wicked and guilty. Got it. I’ll add that to free will meaning we are “free” to do the one thing God has determined we will do.
OK Calvinist.
Nice post Carl!
Calvinism is 99% SEMANTIC argumentation.
A classic money-changer trick
He reserves the right to re-define the value of the coin used in the exchange – in order to gain the advantage.
carl writes, ‘So when Job says, “It is all one; therefore I say, He destroys both the blameless and the wicked.’” etc.
The chapter starts out with Job saying, “But how can a man be righteous before God?” and later, “Though I were righteous, my own mouth would condemn me; Though I were blameless, it would prove me perverse. I am blameless, yet I do not know myself; I despise my life.” Then, we get into the section you cite. So, it does not matter if a person is blameless or wicked; God is in control and does as He pleases with both giving each life and then taking away life through any means He wants.. Thus, the life of Stephen is snuffed out but the life of Peter is preserved until it suited God’s purposes to take him home.
rhutchin
the ability to reason and make decisions
br.d
Which in Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) is not LOGICALLY possible.
Given the fact that the quintessential definition of rational reasoning is the ability to make a “Libertarian” choice between TRUE vs FALSE concerning any proposition.
Since in Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) all choices are made *FOR* the Calvinist by an external mind – it LOGICALLY follows the Calvinist is not permitted to make a “Libertarian” choice between TRUE vs FALSE on any proposition.
And we know that Calvin’s god determines the Calvinist brain to have FALSE perceptions perceived as TRUE.
As Dr. William Lane Craig and Calvinist Greg Koukle agree:
– quote
When you come to realize that your decision to believe in determinism was itself determined and that even your present realization of that fact right now is likewise determined, a sort of vertigo sets in. For *EVERYTHING THAT YOU THINK* even this very thought itself, is outside your control. Therefore determinism cannot be rationally affirmed, since its affirmation undermines the rationality of its affirmation.
IXNAY on rational-reasoning for any brain whose thoughts and perceptions are determined by an external mind! :-]
Br.d,
You have my personal email? If you are willing to send me an email account, I think I can send you something on audio you might find interesting.
Aidan.
I think so Aidan,
Let me take a look
Thanks
Thanks Br.d, looks like I got that.
Aidan
br.d writes, “Which in Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) is not LOGICALLY possible.”
Not under the Theological Determinism of your humanist philosophy. It is logically possible under the Theological Determinism of Scriptural theology.
Then, ‘Since in Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) all choices are made *FOR* the Calvinist by an external mind – …”
Only under your humanist philosophy. Under Scriptural theology, a man is made in God’s image and makes choices without coercion from the external mind.
Then, “As Dr. William Lane Craig and Calvinist Greg Koukle agree: – quote
“When you come to realize that your decision to believe in determinism was itself determined and that even your present realization of that fact right now is likewise determined, a sort of vertigo sets in. For *EVERYTHING THAT YOU THINK* even this very thought itself, is outside your control. Therefore determinism cannot be rationally affirmed, since its affirmation undermines the rationality of its affirmation.”
This must be read in context with Craig’s statement that, “……people can’t escape god knowing how they would use their Libertarian Freedom.” Everything the person with LFW thinks was already known to God and thereby determined. To get around this, Craig distinguishes between certainty and necessity as even the Calvinist does.
br.d
Which in Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) is not LOGICALLY possible.
rhutchin
Not under the Theological Determinism of your humanist philosophy. It is logically possible under the Theological Determinism of Scriptural theology.
br.d
Where “mere” permission exists and doesn’t exist at the same time.
We already know what kind of “scriptural theology” that is! :-]
Since in Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) all choices are made *FOR* the Calvinist by an external mind…”
rhutchin
Only under your humanist philosophy. Under Scriptural theology, a man is made in God’s image and makes choices without coercion from the external mind.
br.d
No one asserted anything about coercion – so that serves as nothing more than a “straw-man”
But you’re still saddled with the fact that everything that comes to pass (i.e. your every impulse) is decreed *FOR* you at the foundation of the world before you exist.
Be we know Calvinist’s are DOUBLE-MINDED about that! :-]
On the LOGICAL impossiblity of rational reasoning within Theological Determinism
As Dr. William Lane Craig and Calvinist Greg Koukle agree:
– quote
“When you come to realize that your decision to believe in determinism was itself determined and that even your present realization of that fact right now is likewise determined, a sort of vertigo sets in. For *EVERYTHING THAT YOU THINK* even this very thought itself, is outside your control. Therefore determinism cannot be rationally affirmed, since its affirmation undermines the rationality of its affirmation.”
rhutchin
This must be read in context with Craig’s statement that, “……people can’t escape god knowing how they would use their Libertarian Freedom.” Everything the person with LFW thinks was already known to God and thereby determined. To get around this, Craig distinguishes between certainty and necessity as even the Calvinist does.
br.d
Necessity vs certainty in this case is yet another superfluous red-herring.
The LOGICAL consequence of an external mind determining your every thought and perception *FOR* you – is that you don’t get to determine what your thoughts and perceptions are going to be concerning the truth value of any proposition.
“Libertarian” freedom in that context is eradicated just as air is eradicated by a perfect vacuum
IXNAY on rational-reasoning for any brain whose thoughts and perceptions are totally determined by an external mind! :-]
rhutchin
Everything the person with LFW thinks was already known to God and thereby determined.
br.d
Well – that depends upon WHO is doing the determining.
A “Libertarian” choice is defined as:
1) The ability to choose between multiple options
2) Those options all of which exist – and are all available to choose from
3) That choice not being predetermined *FOR* you
None of which exists in Theological Determinism – where everything is infallibly pre-determined *FOR* you before you exist.
Your freedom is limited to one single unique infallibly decreed option
And you are not permitted be/do otherwise – at pain of falsifying a divine infallible decree.
As Peter Van Inwagen states:
-quote
Determinism may now be defined: it is the thesis that there is at any instant exactly one physically possible future.
And that is why – in a fully predetermined world the “Libertarian” function of choosing between TRUE vs FALSE on any proposition doesn’t exist for you.
Sorry to say – you’re limited to whatever TRUE or FALSE thoughts/perceptions Calvin’s god decreed come to pass within your brain.
And when you post them – we get to see what he decreed them to be.
And that makes it fun! :-]
br.d writes, “A “Libertarian” choice is defined as:
1) The ability to choose between multiple options
2) Those options all of which exist – and are all available to choose from
3) That choice not being predetermined *FOR* you
None of which exists in Theological Determinism”
That’s because libertarian choice doesn’t exist.
br.d
A “Libertarian” choice is defined as:
1) The ability to choose between multiple options
2) Those options all of which exist – and are all available to choose from
3) That choice not being predetermined *FOR* you
None of which exists in Theological Determinism
rhutchin
That’s because libertarian choice doesn’t exist.
br.d
Well then you don’t have it then do you? :-]
rhutchin: “That’s because libertarian choice doesn’t exist.”
br.d: “Well then you don’t have it then do you?”
LOL!!! Neither do you.
rhutchin
That’s because libertarian choice doesn’t exist.
br.d
Well then you don’t have it then do you?
rhutchin
LOL!!! Neither do you.
br.d
Ok – we’ve established that (at least for you) you don’t have Libertarian choice – as defined
1) The ability to choose from a range of multiple options
2) Those options existing – and available for you to choose
3) That choice not being predetermined *FOR* you
Then it LOGICALLY follows – you don’t have “Libertarian’ functionality – since
1) You don’t have the ability to choose from that range of options
2) Only one (predestined at the foundation of the world) option is available to you
3) Your choice is predetermined (predestined at the foundation of the world) *FOR* you by an external mind
Welcome to Universal Divine Causal Determinism! :-]
br.d writes, ‘Then it LOGICALLY follows – you don’t have “Libertarian’ functionality – since
1) You don’t have the ability to choose from that range of options
2) Only one (predestined at the foundation of the world) option is available to you
3) Your choice is predetermined (predestined at the foundation of the world) *FOR* you by an external mind”
No it follows that the following is true.
1) A person choose from those options consistent with his desires even where other options are available and known.
2) Only one option (foreknown by God at the foundation of the world) will be chosen
3) A person will choose that which is predetermined (foreknown by God at the foundation of the world) and concurrent with his will and God’s will.
Since you assert Libertarian Freedom doesn’t exist for you – which is defined as:
1) You don’t have the ability to choose from that range of options
2) Only one (predestined at the foundation of the world) option is available to you
3) Your choice is predetermined (predestined at the foundation of the world) *FOR* you by an external mind”
rhutchin
No it follows that the following is true.
1) A person choose from those options consistent with his desires even where other options are available and known.
br.d
FALSE
In Theological Determinism – Calvin’s god obtains his “certainty” of which choice you will make by determining that choice *FOR* you.
Its a LOGICAL impossibility for you to have multiple options from which to choose when only one single option has been predestined *FOR* you to choose – from the foundation of the world.
In Theological Determinism – Alternative Possibilities from what is infallibly decreed is a LOGICAL impossibility.
As Peter Van Inwagen states it:
-quote
Determinism may now be defined: it is the thesis that there is at any instant exactly one physically possible future.
rhutcnin
2) Only one option (foreknown by God at the foundation of the world) will be chosen
br.d
TRUE
Because one single option was determined for you before you existed.
The other are not available for you to choose
And if you perceive them as OPEN options available to you to choose – then Calvin’s god has given you a FALSE perception
rhutchin
3) A person will choose that which is predetermined (foreknown by God at the foundation of the world) and concurrent with his will and God’s will.
br.d
TRUE
Because Calvin’s god determines *FOR* you what your choice will be
So DUH! Obviously your choice is going to be concurrent with what he determined it to be! :-]
Therefore what I stated stands:
Libertarian Freedom doesn’t exist for you – which means:
1) You don’t have the ability to choose from that range of options
2) Only one (predestined at the foundation of the world) option is available to you
3) Your choice is predetermined (predestined at the foundation of the world) *FOR* you by an external mind”
br.d writes, ‘But you’re still saddled with the fact that everything that comes to pass (i.e. your every impulse) is decreed *FOR* you at the foundation of the world before you exist.”
That’s the impact of God having perfect understanding of all things. That perfect understanding is the basis for the counsel of His will by which He works all things. Everyone is saddled with that.
Then, ‘As Dr. William Lane Craig and Calvinist Greg Koukle agree:
– quote
“When you come to realize that your decision to believe in determinism was itself determined and that even your present realization of that fact right now is likewise determined, a sort of vertigo sets in. For *EVERYTHING THAT YOU THINK* even this very thought itself, is outside your control. Therefore determinism cannot be rationally affirmed, since its affirmation undermines the rationality of its affirmation.”
As you quoted Craig, “…people can’t escape god knowing how they would use their Libertarian Freedom.”
Then, “The LOGICAL consequence of an external mind determining your every thought and perception *FOR* you – is that you don’t get to determine what your thoughts and perceptions are going to be concerning the truth value of any proposition.”
This is true under your humanist philosophy; not under a Scriptural theology.
br.d
But you’re still saddled with the fact that everything that comes to pass (i.e. your every impulse) is decreed *FOR* you at the foundation of the world before you exist.”
rhutchin
That’s the impact of God having perfect understanding of all things. That perfect understanding is the basis for the counsel of His will by which He works all things. Everyone is saddled with that.
br.d
It is fun to watch someone disagree 100 times – with a statement I’ve made 100 times – and then at some point find a need to affirm it.
Only to then later disagree with it again :-]
Then, ‘As Dr. William Lane Craig and Calvinist Greg Koukle agree:
– quote
“When you come to realize that your decision to believe in determinism was itself determined and that even your present realization of that fact right now is likewise determined, a sort of vertigo sets in. For *EVERYTHING THAT YOU THINK* even this very thought itself, is outside your control. Therefore determinism cannot be rationally affirmed, since its affirmation undermines the rationality of its affirmation.”
rhutchin
As you quoted Craig, “…people can’t escape god knowing how they would use their Libertarian Freedom.”
br.d
Is there supposed to be a LOGICAL thought here?
Then
The LOGICAL consequence of an external mind determining your every thought and perception *FOR* you – is that you don’t get to determine what your thoughts and perceptions are going to be concerning the truth value of any proposition.
rhutchin
This is true under your humanist philosophy; not under a Scriptural theology.
br.d
A theology that has a THEOS who determines *ALL* things which come to pass
While leaving *SOME* things left over for creatures to determine.
A “scriptural theology” that doesn’t pass simple math – what a hoot! :-]
br.d writes, “A theology that has a THEOS who determines *ALL* things which come to pass While leaving *SOME* things left over for creatures to determine. A “scriptural theology” that doesn’t pass simple math – what a hoot! ”
I guess that is why you seem to gravitate to humanist philosophy and not Scriptural theology.
br.d
A theology that has a THEOS who determines *ALL* things which come to pass While leaving *SOME* things left over for creatures to determine. A “scriptural theology” that doesn’t pass simple math – what a hoot! ”
rhutchin
I guess that is why you seem to gravitate to humanist philosophy and not Scriptural theology.
br.d
Not all people have a theology that fails simple math as their “scriptural” theology :-]
Does RH really think 10-10 = 3 left over?
That is what his reasoning tells us.
It is pure and simple silliness.
God determines 10 out of every 10 things ALL the time, yet 3 are not determined by God.
Square circles are very interesting indeed.
You got it GraceAdict!
That’s why I love logic!
Allows one to skip endless hours of wrangling over texts and quickly reveal MAGICAL thinking for what it is.
I commend you all for your comments.
You got R to move to name calling very quickly! (“humanist theology”)
Excellent!
carl, writes, “You got R to move to name calling very quickly! (“humanist theology”)”
Not “humanist theology” but “humanist philosophy.” No name calling but distinguishing a humanist philosophy that ignores any truth found in Scripture and a Scriptural Theology that reflects only the truth found in Scripture.
Nah!
Carl had it right.
Its just name calling
Kids do it as a last resort. :-]
UNDERSTANDING THE WIZARD OF OZ TACTIC
In the 1939 “Wizard of Oz” fiction, the young and vulnerable Dorothy and her feeble friends eventually find themselves standing face to face with THE AUTHORITY. A huge and powerful face – who looks down on them with eyes of judgment and thoroughly puts them in their place.
At first Dorothy and her friends do not recognize what is missing from this PRESENTATION.
The Wizard has subtly hid himself out of sight – and in so doing he has strategically pitted Dorothy and her friends against THE AUTHORITY.
Dorothy eventually discovers the ruse, and confronts the Wizard.
A savvy Non-Calvinist can learn how to recognize this model as the Calvinist’s favorite trick.
His strategy is to create a PRESENTATION of AUTHORITY and pit you against it.
THE AUTHORITY, in most cases is an image of a god and word, which he PRESENTS without blinking.
He who disagrees with Calvinism is PRESENTED as AUTO-MAGICALLY disagreeing with God and his divine attributes, or some attribute of scripture – rather than disagreeing with another human who knows all too well he is just as human as you, and no more infallible than you.
When the light-bulb goes off in your head – you will discover this simply as a tactic.
A spin-off of a very old trick.
rhutchin
how does it promote our understanding of the Scriptures? If at all!
br.d
rhutchin – no one here is fooled by the pretense games.
Everyone here has known a long time – you’re not here to -quote “promote our understanding of scripture”
You’re here to manufacture an image for Calvinism
And Harvey Weinstein’s defense attorneys are working to manufacture an image for him.
We’re all adults here – so we’re not fooled by the pretense. :-]
test
Note:
NLT = New Living Translation
WCT = Wishful Calvinist Thinking
From my daily reading…
Can we boast, then, that we have done anything to be accepted by God? No, because our acquittal is not based on obeying the law. It is based on faith. So we are made right with God through faith and not by obeying the law.
Rom 4:27-28 (NLT)
Because of our faith, Christ has brought us into this place of undeserved privilege where we now stand, and we confidently and joyfully look forward to sharing God’s glory.
Rom 5:2 (NLT)
————-
“Can we boast, then, that we have done anything to be accepted by God? No, because our acquittal is not based on our own faith, for this would be a work of our own. It is based on particular election which results in an irresistible demonstration of faith originating in God – not us. So we are made right with God through an impartation of faith from Him to His elect – and not by our own choice.”
Rom 4:27-28 (WCT)
“Because of our undeserved privilege, Christ has brought us into this place of faith where we now stand, and we confidently and joyfully look forward to sharing God’s glory.”
Rom 5:2 (WCT)
Wonderful mrteebs!! :-]
mrteebs writes, “Can we boast, then, that we have done anything to be accepted by God? No, because our acquittal is not based on our own faith, for this would be a work of our own. It is based on particular election which results in an irresistible demonstration of faith originating in God – not us. So we are made right with God through an impartation of faith from Him to His elect – and not by our own choice.” Rom 4:27-28 (WCT)
“Because of our undeserved privilege, Christ has brought us into this place of faith where we now stand, and we confidently and joyfully look forward to sharing God’s glory.” Rom 5:2 (WCT)
Very good job.
A couple minor quibbles. In Rom 4:27, you should have, “…acquittal is not based on our own faith we possessed prior to coming into contact with the gospel…” Then, “,,,demonstration of faith originating in God – not us – and conveyed to us when we heard the gospel.”
Otherwise, you have a good grasp of Calvinism (except for the “W” in WCT).
It’s truly remarkable that I can intentionally distort/invert scripture and this meets with your hearty approval. If that doesn’t cause you to pause, then apparently nothing will.
I hold it up as Exhibit A in my contention that Calvinists are far more diligent in adhering to TULIP than to the plain and unaided reading of scripture.
By the way, I plan to continue this practice of simply posting passages from my daily reading, along with the WCT “version”. This is to underscore my prior statement* that if one will simply read through the entirety of both Old and New Testaments, they will find an abundance of contradictions to TULIP in nearly every chapter.
* https://soteriology101.com/2017/09/22/is-calvinism-all-you-talk-about/#comment-48101
mrteebs writes, “It’s truly remarkable that I can intentionally distort/invert scripture and this meets with your hearty approval. If that doesn’t cause you to pause, then apparently nothing will. ”
How did you distort/invert Scripture? You amplified the truth of the verses by appeal to other Scripture. Nothing wrong with that.
Then, “I hold it up as Exhibit A in my contention that Calvinists are far more diligent in adhering to TULIP than to the plain and unaided reading of scripture. ”
Calvinism’s emphasis on faith is at issue here. In Calvinism, a person without faith is Totally Depraved. You claim otherwise. I think you would have the more difficult time proving your view on faith that the Calvinist would proving his view.
Then, “…if one will simply read through the entirety of both Old and New Testaments, they will find an abundance of contradictions to TULIP in nearly every chapter. ”
Is that true? I think a person will find that faith is exalted even as Calvinists claim.
From today’s reading…
God’s law was given so that all people could see how sinful they were.
Rom 5:20 (NLT)
—————-
“God’s law was given so that the elect could see how sinful they were. All others are so dead as to be unable to not just repent of their sinfulness, but to even be aware of it; corpses cannot respond, dead means dead.”
Rom 5:20 (WCT – R.C. Sproul Study Edition)
mrteebs writes, ““God’s law was given so that the elect could see how sinful they were. All others are so dead as to be unable to not just repent of their sinfulness, but to even be aware of it; corpses cannot respond, dead means dead.”
Rom 5:20 (WCT – R.C. Sproul Study Edition)
Should be, “God’s law was given so that all could see how sinful they were. ” Rom 5:20 (WCT – R.C. Sproul Study Edition)
This fits the context of the preceding v18, “…as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation,…” Then, we can add, “However, without faith, all are spiritually dead as to be unable not just to repent of their sinfulness, but even to be aware of it; corpses cannot respond, dead means dead,” even though not addressed in v20.
I don’t think you quite grasp the importance of faith in Calvinism. Faith separates the elect from the non-elect, the natural man from the spiritual man, the righteous from the wicked, the flesh from the spirit, those alive in Christ and those dead in sin.
rhutchin,
I see that both of you are wrong, using either the KJV o the NIVr.
Romans 5:20 New International Reader’s Version (NIRV)
20 The law was given so that sin would increase. But where sin increased, God’s grace increased even more.
I don’t see any evidence that the law was given to give knowledge of how bad we were at all.
Catholics can’t stand Martin Luther. One of the reasons is because of THIS verse, where Luther declares to SIN BOLDLY.
Jesus discuses a man who had very few sins, and another man that had an extreme amount of sins, where both are forgiven of their sins, then Jesus asks, WHO WILL LOVE ME MORE? The answer given was the one who had the most sins forgiven. So sin boldly, buddy.
The law was not given to show us how sinful we are, but so that sin would increase so that grace has a HUGE meaning. Grace increases based on the increase of sins.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “I don’t see any evidence that the law was given to give knowledge of how bad we were at all.”
In its entirety, the NLT has, “God’s law was given so that all people could see how sinful they were. But as people sinned more and more, God’s wonderful kindness became more abundant.” I think the NLT combined thoughts from other verses and put them in a more readable order.
Nonetheless, Galatians 3 has, “…the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.” Same thought here.
Then, “…Luther declares to SIN BOLDLY.”
Paul says, “What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?” Perhaps, Luther was being sarcastic.
rhutchin,
I think it would be wiser to use an actual Greek concordance to see the actual words used, because what you are showing me indicates that an exorbant amount of words were added that just isn’t there in the Greek, changing the whole meaning in order to fit both ya’lls theology.
chapmaned24 writes, ‘I think it would be wiser to use an actual Greek concordance to see the actual words used,…”
Agreed. Presumably the NLT translators had some Greek expertise, so they should know something.
rhutchin,
You had said:
“Presumably the NLT translators had some Greek expertise, so they should know something.”
My response:
Presumably is the problem. I think that if you did your own research of the Greek, you would be more of an expert than they were, because you would then prove that you know more than they knew.
The Jehovah’s Witnesses have their own bible, that they also claim are experts in Greek. Greek experts are a dime a dozen, and they all have differing opinions, hence the numerous “English” translations. One was just not enough, because out popped ANOTHER Greek expert.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “if you did your own research of the Greek, you would be more of an expert than they were, because you would then prove that you know more than they knew. ”
Doubt it.
rhutchin,
LOL. I think all of us Non-Cals would definitely agree with THAT comment! Just kidding!!!
Well so far what we’ve seen is – internationally recognized scholars said to be -quote “Philosopher dabbling in scripture” or a “humanist philosophy”, All who disagree constantly cited as inferior in some way.
So empirical evidence currently sides with chapmaned24’s statement. :-]
It needs to be advised that teams of Greek experts come together and make decisions on interpretations from the Greek to the English.
And quite typically on a verse-by-verse basis.
And there are certain political urgencies which also play a role in these decision making processes.
These teams are made up of people who inescapably lean towards certain traditions of interpretation.
The most pragmatic policy is to have at one’s disposal, a number of translations, as well as Greek Interlinear(s) which provide the original Greek text. This is why we have software programs designed to facilitate comparisons.
Even with all of that – there is no human alive who can escape the power of hidden personal investments.
And each tradition of interpretation contains the hidden personal investment of seeing itself as the golden standard.
That reality is built into being human.
I have no problem with your explanation of Galatians…I do have a problem with your Romans 6 reference, tho, but in either case, it does not equate to Romans 5:20
Ed,
Are you being sarcastic with this comment?
Jesus discuses a man who had very few sins, and another man that had an extreme amount of sins, where both are forgiven of their sins, then Jesus asks, WHO WILL LOVE ME MORE? The answer given was the one who had the most sins forgiven. So sin boldly, buddy.
If you are, fine. If you are not, then please read Romans 5:15. It’s crystal clear.
Also, I’m not a big fan of any variation of NIV including NIRV. I trust the NLT because one of the best Greek scholars I know (Rick Renner) trusts it. I also use the NASB extensively and occasionally the NKJV.
mrteebs,
You ask if I’m being sarcastic.
My response:
Most of the time, yes, sarcasm is my middle name. But not this time.
Luke 7:41-43 King James Version (KJV)
41 There was a certain creditor which had two debtors: the one owed five hundred pence, and the other fifty.
42 And when they had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave them both. Tell me therefore, which of them will love him most?
43 Simon answered and said, I suppose that he, to whom he forgave most. And he said unto him, Thou hast rightly judged.
Now, regardless of you not being of fan of the NIV, it’s plain English, not old English, no spin. However, I use the KJV pretty exclusive, and according to the KJV, Romans 5:20 states that the law was given so that sin may ABOUND.
Abound is the same as INCREASE.
In either case, BOTH of the versions that I mention does not indicate that the law was given to show how bad people are.
Ed Chapman
mrteebs,
Here is a reference to Martin Luther’s “Sin Boldly”, so that you may see that I was not being sarcastic.
http://scriptoriumdaily.com/sin-boldly/
Ed Chapman
Ed,
I meant Rom 6:15 (not 5:15).
mrteebs,
Romans 6:15 is also the same quote from Romans 6:1 thru the first 2 words of verse 2, using the KJV.
When you read the WHOLE chapter, you will see that the QUESTION of “shall we” is rhetorical, because outside of “God Forbid” (KJV), he answers the question that since we are DEAD TO SIN, we can’t sin under grace, all because we are not under the law.
I’m not fully aware of your complete conversation with rhutchin, but when I read what both of you quoted on Romans 5:20, which I know extremely well, I thought it wise of me to speak up, in that the law was given to increase sin, so that grace may increase, rather than to show how bad we are.
Ed Chapman
We do not disagree on the importance of faith: without it, we cannot please God and without it, there is no salvation. What we disagree on is where that faith originates and who can have it. Is it available to all, or only to the elect? I believe the former, you believe the latter.
Calvinists assert that faith originates in a divine decree for only particular individuals. Others cannot and will not because it has been so decreed. The biblical narrative supports a different theology: that God divinely decreed all men should be given both the choice and the capacity to freely exercise faith in Christ or to reject Him. Thus, faith is necessary for salvation but man is wholly responsible to exercise it if he is to be saved.
God votes for everyone by offering salvation to all; we alone cast the deciding vote by either accepting it on His terms or rejecting it.
mrteebs writes,
“God votes for everyone by offering salvation to all; we alone cast the deciding vote by either accepting it on His terms or rejecting it.”
Mark 16:15-16;- “And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.”
Point proven!
nrtweebs writes, ” What we disagree on is where that faith originates and who can have it. Is it available to all, or only to the elect? I believe the former, you believe the latter.”
We both agree that faith is available to all through the preaching of the gospel (obviously, faith is not available to those who never hear the gospel.).. However, experience shows that all who have the gospel preached to them do not exhibit faith. Why is that? Calvinists say it is because God does not give faith to all. How do you explain it?
Then, “Calvinists assert that faith originates in a divine decree for only particular individuals.”
Certainly, faith is a gift from God and Yes, God decided whom to give faith and did so before He created the world.
Then, “The biblical narrative supports a different theology: that God divinely decreed all men should be given both the choice and the capacity to freely exercise faith in Christ or to reject Him. ”
If all people receive the assurance and conviction of the gospel that is called faith, If a person has faith, he will exercise it in accepting Christ. It is only if a person does not have faith that he rejects Christ. It is only those who are without faith that Paul describes in 1 Corinthians 1 this way “…the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing,…” However, of those who have faith, Paul says, “the message of the cross is…to us who are being saved it is the power of God.”
Then, “Thus, faith is necessary for salvation but man is wholly responsible to exercise it if he is to be saved.”
Yet, a person who has faith (assurance and conviction) will always exercise that faith to be saved. It is only the person without faith who rejects salvation.
Then, “God votes for everyone by offering salvation to all; we alone cast the deciding vote by either accepting it on His terms or rejecting it.”
God also votes for His elect by giving them faith.
rhutchin
God decided whom to give faith and did so before He created the world.
br.d
This would be one invention one could manufacture – In order to be congruent with a 100% predetermined world (aka Calvinism)
Alternatively, faith can be an inherent human function, built into the human functionality of belief – and given to all humans along with the rest of their DNA. All human’s in this case would be “Merely” permitted to exercise their own functionality
But in Calvinism “mere” permission to be/do anything doesn’t exist
In Calvinism only Calvin’s god has “Authoring Agency”.
And humans and animals are reduced to “Instrumental Agency”
Humans are only permitted to be/do what Calvin’s god infallibly decrees
Nothing more and nothing less is permitted.
Consequently there is no such thing as a human function that isn’t predestined to infallibly occur exclusively controlled by an external mind. So it makes perfect sense that Calvin’s god would have “Authoring Agency” over the function of faith.
br.d writes, “Alternatively, faith can be an inherent human function,…”
Unless by “inherent human function, you mean that people have the capacity for faith while not actually possessing faith, then Paul disagrees with you writing in Romans 10, “…faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” Absent the “hearing by the word of God,” there can be no faith negating the conclusion that faith can be present even if an inherent human function. Peter writes, “Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained like precious faith with us…” When Peter writes, “…obtained…,” he also negates the conclusion that faith is inherently present as an inherent human function.
It is the OBJECT of ones Faith/Belief that makes the difference. Faith in the Gospel comes from hearing the Gospel. Before one hears the gospel they cannot have Faith in a message they have not heard. The idol worshipper has faith in his idols. He is not absent faith he is simply placing his faith in the WRONG OBJECT an Idol instead of Jesus.
Notice below the exact same greek word is used for Believing a Lie as is used for Believing the Truth that saves…. The object of ones Faith is critical thing.
2Th 2:10 and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because They Refused to love the truth and so be saved.
2Th 2:11 Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may BELIEVE what is false,
2Th 2:12 in order that all may be condemned who did not BELIEVE the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
Believing what is False and Believing what is True is the exact same greek word. It is also the same word used below. Nothing different. Same greek word below as well. Believe a Lie or Believe in Him and have eternal life.
Joh 3:15-16 that whoever BELIEVES in him may have eternal life. “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever BELIEVES in him should not perish but have eternal life.
Even in the Old Testament this same scenario is played out. Not the absence of the capacity to believe or have faith but having faith or believing the wrong thing. Calvinism is mistaken when it says people do not have the capacity to have faith or believe.
EVEN the O.T. proves it as well as the N.T.
In the verses below…ALL the passages use the exact same Hebrew word Believe strong’s concordance number H539. Nothing is different in any of the passages take careful note. One can BELIEVE the Truth or BELIEVE a falsehood, a lie. Same verb…
Gen 15:6 And he believed H539 in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.
Same Hebrew word regarding believing lies or false hoods as is used for Abraham believing and be counting righteous.
1Sa 27:12 And Achish believedH539 David, thinking, “He has made himself an utter stench to his people Israel; therefore he shall always be my servant.”
(Here David told Achish lies and Achish believed those lies. Achish had faith he just placed his faith in a lie that David told him. Exactly the same Hebrew word as Gen.15:6)
Pro 14:15 The simple believes H539 everything, but the prudent gives thought to his steps.
(Notice it is not the lack of ability to believe, it is believing the wrong thing.)
Pro 26:24 Whoever hates disguises himself with his lips and harbors deceit in his heart;
Pro 26:25 when he speaks graciously, believe H539 him not, for there are seven abominations in his heart;
br.d writes, “Alternatively, faith can be an inherent human function,…”
rhutchin
Unless by “inherent human function, you mean that people have the capacity for faith while not actually possessing faith,
br.d
That would be a non-sequitur :-]
rhutchin
then Paul disagrees with you writing in Romans 10, ….etc
br.d
Sorry – none of those verses EXPLICITLY state that man does not have the capacity to exercise faith.
They simply state that the exercise of faith is a requirement
And its a logical impossibility to exercise faith in something the mind has no awareness of.
Thus the preaching of the word.
CONCLUSION:
The claim that Paul disagrees with that is based on mechanisms designed to make scripture affirm Universal Divine Casual determinism.
br.d writes, “Sorry – none of those verses EXPLICITLY state that man does not have the capacity to exercise faith.”
So you are saying that “…faith can be an inherent human function,…” you mean that the person could have a capacity to exercise faith? Is that akin to saying that a person has a capacity to spend money – making it an inherent human function – even if he has no money and might never have any money?
When you said, ““Alternatively, faith can be an inherent human function,…” you didn’t mean to say that faith was an inherent human function but only that it could be. In other words, you weren’t really trying to say anything of substance.
br.d writes, “Sorry – none of those verses EXPLICITLY state that man does not have the capacity to exercise faith.”
rhutchin
So you are saying that “…faith can be an inherent human function,…”
you mean that the person could have a capacity to exercise faith? Is that akin to saying that a person has a capacity to spend money – making it an inherent human function – even if he has no money and might never have any money?
br.d
So you are saying in order for a Calvinist to have a rational thought – a Calvinist must first possess a rational thought
And Calvin’s god must give a Calvinist a rational thought.
And the world has been waiting for that to happen for a long long time! :-]
rhutchin
When you said, ““Alternatively, faith can be an inherent human function,…” you didn’t mean to say that faith was an inherent human function but only that it could be. In other words, you weren’t really trying to say anything of substance.
br.d
Well – since the world is still waiting for Calvin’s god to give a Calvinist a rational thought – then obviously that is another example of reverse attribution! :-]
Br.d, excellent response there with Divine Causal Determination been inherent in their thinking.
rhutchin
“So you are saying that “…faith can be an inherent human function,…”
you mean that the person could have a capacity to exercise faith? Is that akin to saying that a person has a capacity to spend money – making it an inherent human function – even if he has no money and might never have any money?”
Aidan
Is that akin to saying that a person has a capacity to eat an apple – even if he has no apple and might never have any apples?
Having no apple does not diminish the inherent ability to eat an apple! It just removes the opportunity to exercise that privilege. Just as never having heard the gospel does not diminish the inherent ability to believe in the gospel – It simply deprives them of the opportunity!
Enjoy your apples while you have ’em!
Aidan writes, “Just as never having heard the gospel does not diminish the inherent ability to believe in the gospel – It simply deprives them of the opportunity!”
So, not having faith does not diminish one’s ability to exercise faith once a person has faith. The inherent human function is the ability to exercise faith if faith is present and not the presence of faith itself. That is fine with me. I though br.d was saying that the inherent human function was faith and not the ability to exercise faith.
rhutchin
then Paul disagrees with you writing in Romans 10, ….etc
br.d
Sorry – none of those verses EXPLICITLY state that man does not have the capacity to exercise faith.
They simply state that the exercise of faith is a requirement
Aidan
Is he wrong? If not, then point out the verse! I would add – neither do any of those verses NECESSARILY IMPLY that man does not have the natural capacity to believe. As has been said, “They simply state that the exercise of faith is a requirement” – If not, then point out the verse!
Did you notice that instead of appealing to scripture to provide evidence he instead appealed to a philosophical argument?
After wrapping themselves in the flag of “scriptural theology” while pointing the finger at “human philosophy”
Sure looks like there’s some “human philosophy” hidden in there after all doesn’t it! :-]
For nothing is secret that will not be revealed, nor anything hidden that will not be known and come to light.
Yeah, its ridiculous! I would keep pushing back as you did, ‘ where is it IMPLICIT or EXPLICITLY STATED in the text’? Or at least give us a SCRIPTURAL EXAMPLE that we must follow! The more you do that, the more it will reveal whether its from men or from heaven.
Calvinists know that they can’t PHYSICALLY alter the text of scripture and get away with it.
So they use a work-around.
The mind is conditioned to automatically alter the text while reading the text.
Over centuries of practice the Calvinist’s strong-suit has become manipulating words.
So fussing over scripture with them is simply a waste of time.
But the Lord uses it for good
Because a certain person provides so many wonderful examples of irrational and often childish behavior. :-]
BR.D writes…
Calvinists know that they can’t PHYSICALLY alter the text of scripture and get away with it. So they use a work-around. The mind is conditioned to automatically alter the text while reading the text.
This is exactly the point I was trying to make with posting scripture and then using strikethrough / italics to show how they (apparently) unconsciously and automatically alter the text to fit TULIP rather than vice-versa. It is as though TULIP has been so thoroughly embraced that it is “settled science” and cannot be questioned – even by scripture itself, so the data must be altered to fit the hypothesis rather than vice-versa.
mrteebs writes, “This is exactly the point I was trying to make with posting scripture and then using strikethrough / italics to show how they (apparently) unconsciously and automatically alter the text to fit TULIP rather than vice-versa.”
All you did was to introduce Calvinist commentary on a verse without referencing the Scriptures from which that commentary was derived. Calvinists take verses exactly the way most people do. They differ in the way they understand the verses and individual words which seems what you sought to introduce.
rhutchin
Calvinists take verses exactly the way most people do. They differ in the way they understand the verses
br.d
BINGO! A wonderful example!
The gift that keeps on giving! :-]
Interestingly enough – there are Reformed thinkers who don’t like the TULIP
Some say its misleading
However when you look at Calvinist language – misleading is in fact what one finds.
So go figure!
I look at Calvinism as a house.
Every house needs a corner-stone and foundation.
And that for Calvinism is Universal Divine Causal Determinism
The TULIP evolved much later in the Reformed time-line.
And if one wants to figure out where it goes on the house – and examines it in light of the foundation – I think one discovers that it functions as nothing more than window dressing on the outside of the house.
I think prior to the TULIP Calvinism looked a little to much like STOIC determinism.
And I think perhaps the TULIP was developed to reduce that perception.
But that’s my take on it. :-]
If somebody is manipulating words when dealing with scripture, ultimately they are manipulating the word of God, either adding to it or taking away from it as Satan craftily does. You, I believe, know the Calvinist dictionary of words, whereas the word of God is the true standard to be measured against. How can the unsuspecting beware? I know of only one way to fight error – “If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. “And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”(John 8:31-32). Let the unsuspecting be more aware of the Calvinist’s game of words – but more importantly, use the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. Yes, fussing over scripture with them is a waste of time – but not for the sake of those who are honest.
Thanks Br.d
Aidan writes, “If somebody is manipulating words when dealing with scripture, ultimately they are manipulating the word of God, either adding to it or taking away from it as Satan craftily does. ”
Sometimes, it’s a difference of opinion. An example, John 6:37 – “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me,…”
The Calvinist defines “all” to mean each and every individual that God gives to Christ. Dr. Flowers defines “all” to mean the apostles that Christ had previously chosen enabling God to gift them to Christ and to come to Christ at some future date. Others would limit “all” to the Jews to whom Christ was speaking.
Why do you think that “fussing over scripture with [Calvinists] is a waste of time” or with Dr. Flowers or any others? Can you explain why you believe this with respect to John 6:37? Wouldn’t it be better to make everyone support their views on Scripture such as John 6:37 thereby allowing unsupported or poorly supported opinions to be rejected?
Rh writes,
“Sometimes, it’s a difference of opinion. An example, John 6:37 – “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me,…”
“The Calvinist defines “all” to mean each and every individual that God gives to Christ.”
Aidan,
And sometimes there’s a philosophy at the back of those opinions – where the philosophy is dictating the opinion. The Calvinist defining “all” to mean each and every individual that God gives to Christ sounds good on the surface, but you and I know that the emphasis should be on the words “gives Me” for Calvinist theology. And who are the ones that the Father “gives” Jesus in John 6:37?
Rh writes,
“Why do you think that “fussing over scripture with [Calvinists] is a waste of time” or with Dr. Flowers or any others?”
Aidan,
I don’t think it’s a waste of time, certainly not for the sake of those who are honest, who are not out to play games. Are you honest, or are you out to play games?
Aidan,
I don’t think it’s a waste of time, certainly not for the sake of those who are honest, who are not out to play games. Are you honest, or are you out to play games?
br.d
Very telling that you would ask that question Aidan!
Its not that difficult for a person to play-act honest intent in order to continue playing the game.
But after enough time – people are smart enough to see the signs – and eventually discover when that is simply an act.
Agreed Br.d, one can always continue to whitewash the outside, but eventually something will begin to smell off!
Aidan writes, “who are the ones that the Father “gives” Jesus in John 6:37?”
From 6:44, ““No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him;…” we see that those God draws to Christ are the same ones He gives to Christ. These are those in v35, “who have heard and learned from the Father…”
Then, “Are you honest, or are you out to play games?”
I am one of the honest ones. I never play games with the Scriptures.
Aidan writes, “who are the ones that the Father “gives” Jesus in John 6:37?”
Rh writes,
“From 6:44, ““No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him;…” we see that those God draws to Christ are the same ones He gives to Christ. These are those in v35, “who have heard and learned from the Father…””
Aidan,
And who are the ones who have heard and learned from the Father? You might answer ‘they who have been taught of God,’ for it is written, “‘And they shall all be taught of God’” 6:45. But notice the rest of the verse, “Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.”
Whoever they are – THEY are taught of God – THEY are the ones who have “heard” and “learned” from the Father. Vine says that this verb “learned” is (akin to mathetes, “a disciple”). – Knowledge of and from God! THEY are the ones who come to Jesus. The source of this learning is the word of God. That is HOW He draws them!
Aidan writes, “Whoever they are – THEY are taught of God – THEY are the ones who have “heard” and “learned” from the Father….THEY are the ones who come to Jesus. The source of this learning is the word of God. That is HOW He draws them!”
We agree. We should also agree that those who never hear the gospel have no ability to come to salvation. Then, the issue is whether a person must have spiritual ears to hear the gospel and be drawn to Christ or do all people who hear the gospel preached come to Christ.
rhutchin
Then, the issue is whether a person must have spiritual ears to hear the gospel and be drawn to Christ or do all people who hear the gospel preached come to Christ.
br.d
Actually the question is – whether or not the human capacity to believe (i.e., exercise faith) is built into the DNA of all NORMAL human beings, such that when a NORMAL baby learns that it is possible for him to walk – he can have faith that he can walk.
Its just matter of exercising what he already has
Then Jesus answered her, “O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire.”
And her daughter was healed instantly.
But for the ancient Gnostic Christians – faith and knowledge were both conceived as GNOSIS.
And only the elect are given GNOSIS
Rh writes,
We agree. We should also agree that those who never hear the gospel have no ability to come to salvation. Then, the issue is whether a person must have spiritual ears to hear the gospel and be drawn to Christ or do all people who hear the gospel preached come to Christ.
Aidan,
I would say – whoever hears the gospel is being given the opportunity to accept or reject the gospel. And that’s a matter of the heart, how much we allow it to be affected by the world. That determines how we hear! Notice this parable in Luke 8:11-15:
“Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.
“Those by the wayside are the ones who hear; then the devil comes and takes away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.” – DEVIL TAKES AWAY THE WORD OUT OF THEIR HEARTS, LEST THEY SHOULD BELIEVE AND BE SAVED!
“But the ones on the rock are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, who believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away. – RECEIVED THE WORD, BELIEVED AND WERE SAVED – THEN FELL AWAY!
“Now the ones that fell among thorns are those who, when they have heard, go out and are choked with cares, riches, and pleasures of life, and bring no fruit to maturity.” – RECEIVED THE WORD, BELIEVED AND WERE SAVED – BUT CHOKED AND DIED!
“But the ones that fell on the good ground are those who, having heard the word with a noble and good heart, keep it and bear fruit with patience.” – RECEIVED THE WORD, BELIEVED AND WERE SAVED, KEPT THE WORD AND BORE FRUIT UNTO ETERNAL LIFE!
Aidan writes, ‘I would say – whoever hears the gospel is being given the opportunity to accept or reject the gospel. ”
So, we seem to agree that whoever does not hear the gospel has no ability to come to salvation. Jesus ends Luke 8 like he does many parables, ““He who has ears to hear, let him hear!” What do you think Jesus meant by “ears to hear”? Could that mean that some people do not have “ears to hear”?
rhutchin
So, we seem to agree that whoever does not hear the gospel has no ability to come to salvation.
br.d
This is a good example of equivocal language in duplicate
1) “does not hear” could be interpreted as “cannot hear” – OR – it could be interpreted as “has not been presented with”.
2) “has no ability” could be interpreted as “is unable to hear” – OR – it could be interpreted as “inability due to not being presented with”
The Calvinist’s job is to somehow bridge the gap between these two contrary conceptions
Thus we see how equivocal language serves as manipulative language
br.d writes, “Sure looks like there’s some “human philosophy” hidden in there after all doesn’t it!”
Not really. Peter uses the term, “obtained” and Paul says “comes by” to describe how a person comes to have faith. Obviously, no one starts out with faith. Of course,human philosophy that depends on logic to use truth to discover truth has a Scriptural truth expressed in two ways with which it can introduce into its library of truth. I see you are still upset over my “human philosophy” reference to your system of belief.
rhutchin
Not really. Peter uses the term, “obtained” and Paul says “comes by” to describe how a person comes to have faith.
br.d
Nah! That’s just forcing words to conform to Gnostic NeoPlatonic thinking.
What people don’t have and must “obtain” is information.
People can then choose to believe that information or not.
rhutchin
Obviously, no one starts out with faith.
br.d
Here we have equivocal language which means it can be taken multiple ways
A baby does not start out having faith that it can walk.
But when the mind is presented with the idea of walking – then it can exercise God given faith to walk.
rhutchin
Of course,human philosophy that depends on logic to use truth to discover truth has a Scriptural truth expressed in two ways with which it can introduce into its library of truth. I see you are still upset over my “human philosophy” reference to your system of belief.
br.d
This is a great example of a gobble-dee-goop statement!
And since Calvin’s god infallibly decrees whatsoever comes to pass concerning your every false perception – then I don’t have much to worry about when it comes to your infallibly decreed false perceptions of truth.
So on that “upset” business – that – according to the doctrine would have to be Calvin’s god infallibly decreeing more reverse attribution error. Good luck with that! :-]
Aidan writes, “neither do any of those verses NECESSARILY IMPLY that man does not have the natural capacity to believe.”
The issue is not a capacity to believe. All agree that man has the capacity to believe. My point is that people are not born with “faith.” Peter writes of faith that is “obtained.” Paul writes of a faith that comes (is obtained) by hearing the word.
Notice I used the expression “NATURAL capacity”
Rh writes,
“Paul writes of a faith that comes (is obtained) by hearing the word.”
Aidan,
Yeah! But faith in what? THE GOSPEL! Paul means the OBJECT of faith, not faith itself.
Aidan writes, “Yeah! But faith in what? THE GOSPEL! Paul means the OBJECT of faith, not faith itself.”
Agreed. Without an object for its attention, there can be no faith even where one has a natural capacity for faith. Each person has the natural capacity for faith – such is the way God created people. Absent the hearing of the gospel, a person could never have faith in Christ..
Rh writes,
“My point is that people are not born with “faith.””
“Each person has the natural capacity for faith – such is the way God created people.”
Aidan,
The question then arises; If you are born with the natural capacity to drink milk, do you need to be gifted with the ability to drink milk later on in your life?
Aidan writes, ‘If you are born with the natural capacity to drink milk, do you need to be gifted with the ability to drink milk later on in your life?”
As you say, you need an object. A natural capacity to dink fluids enables one to drink milk when milk is provided – the milk then becomes the object of one’s capacity to drink fluids. So, God made people with a natural capacity for faith but where there is no object for faith, there is no faith.
The Object is then provided through the preaching of the Gospel, Jesus Christ and Him crucified, buried and risen.
GA writes, “The Object is then provided through the preaching of the Gospel, Jesus Christ and Him crucified, buried and risen.”
Thus, Paul says, “So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”
Aidan writes, ‘If you are born with the natural capacity to drink milk, do you need to be gifted with the ability to drink milk later on in your life?”
Rh writes,
“As you say, you need an object. A natural capacity to dink fluids enables one to drink milk when milk is provided – the milk then becomes the object of one’s capacity to drink fluids. So, God made people with a natural capacity for faith but where there is no object for faith, there is no faith.”
Aidan,
“Capacity” is defined in the Cambridge dictionary as: “someone’s ability to do a particular thing:” Merriam-Webster:- “The ability to do something.”
Okay, so you admit that you don’t need to be gifted with the ability to drink milk later on in your life – because you already have that preexisting ability to drink fluids from birth. The milk – among many other fluids – then becomes an object of your inborn gift to drink, but where there is no milk available – there is nothing provided to drink in that range.
Likewise, you don’t need to be gifted with the ability(capacity) to believe later on in your life – because faith is already a preexisting ability from birth. The gospel – among many other things – is simply another object of that inborn gift to believe, but without the gospel report – there is nothing to believe in for salvation.
In Romans 10: 16-17; it is interesting that the greek word for “Hearing” v.17, is the same greek word used earlier for the “Report” in v.16 – But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “LORD, who has believed our report? And so we choose to believe/obey the gospel, or not! Obviously we understand that Christ is the primary subject/object of our faith. Don’t want to leave anything for you to pick at!
Aidan writes, “And so we choose to believe/obey the gospel, or not!”
If a person has faith in Christ, will he choose not to believe?
Aidan writes, “And so we choose to believe/obey the gospel, or not!”
Rh writes,
“If a person has faith in Christ, will he choose not to believe?”
Aidan,
Not necessarily, but he might do!
Luke 8:12-13:
“Those by the wayside are the ones who hear; then the devil comes and takes away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.”
Notice: THE DEVIL TAKES AWAY THE WORD….LEST THEY SHOULD BELIEVE AND BE SAVED!
“But the ones on the rock are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, who believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away.”
Notice: THEY RECEIVED THE WORD… BELIEVED, AND WERE THEREFORE SAVED!
But: – They only BELIEVED FOR A WHILE…..AND THEN FELL AWAY!
Hence, he believed in Christ, but now he no longer believes.
Rh writes, “If a person has faith in Christ, will he choose not to believe?”
Aidan, “Not necessarily, but he might do!. Luke 8:12-13:…”
Luke 8 tells us that there is a belief that arises from the assurance and conviction of the gospel and then there is a belief that arises from one’s personal wants and desires. Some seed fell by the wayside or on the rock or among thorns. These three are contrasted with seed that fell on good ground. The seed that falls by the wayside are those that Satan rules. Those characterized as rock have no root. Those among the thorns are those who care more for this life than eternal life. It is the good ground (i.e., of faith) produces eternal life.
So, yes, people can “believe” but it is that belief that arises from faith that matters. Ephesians 2 tells us, “For by grace you have been saved through faith [in Christ],…” It is an internal faith in Christ that manifests as an external visual belief seen by others. Where there is no faith in Christ, a person may appear to believe in Christ when he does not. This is why Christ refers to both wheat and tares in the church. Paul, writes, “this occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in (who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage), to whom we did not yield submission even for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.” Peter writes, “there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you,…By covetousness they will exploit you with deceptive words; …They are spots and blemishes, carousing in their own deceptions while they feast with you, having eyes full of adultery and that cannot cease from sin, enticing unstable souls. They have a heart trained in covetous practices, and are accursed children.” Jude wrote, “certain men have crept in unnoticed…ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ….These are spots in your love feasts, while they feast with you without fear, serving only themselves. They are clouds without water, carried about by the winds; late autumn trees without fruit, twice dead, pulled up by the roots; raging waves of the sea, foaming up their own shame; wandering stars for whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever….These are grumblers, complainers, walking according to their own lusts; and they mouth great swelling words, flattering people to gain advantage.”
rhutchin
Luke 8 tells us that there is a belief that arises from the assurance and conviction of the gospel and then there is a belief that arises from one’s personal wants and desires
br.d
Nah! That’s just the way the Calvinist brain is conditioned to read the text.
All scripture must be forced into the mold of Universal Divine Causal Determinism.
(Luke 8: 11-15)
Sorry, but the devil only TAKES AWAY THE WORD out of the hearts of those by the wayside….LEST THEY SHOULD BELIEVE AND BE SAVED!
But those on the rock, the devil could not take away the word out of their hearts to prevent them from believing and being saved: – THEY RECEIVED THE WORD… BELIEVED, AND WERE SAVED! But they only believed for a while and then fell away!
But those in the thorny soil, the devil could not take away the word out of their hearts to prevent them from believing and being saved: – THEY RECEIVED THE WORD… BELIEVED, AND WERE SAVED! In fact, they were initially growing up together with the thorns and thistles, but the word was choked out of them – consequently, they brought no fruit to maturity (cf John 15:1-6).
Those on the good soil: THEY RECEIVED THE WORD… BELIEVED, AND WERE SAVED! Because they were the only ones who KEPT THE WORD and brought forth fruit with patience – unto eternal life (cf. John 15:1-6).
BTW, belief and faith are one and the same thing!
Aidan writes, ‘Sorry, but the devil only TAKES AWAY THE WORD out of the hearts of those by the wayside….LEST THEY SHOULD BELIEVE AND BE SAVED! ”
So, some people are lost because they never hear the gospel and this because Satan takes the word away.
Then, “THEY RECEIVED THE WORD… BELIEVED, AND WERE SAVED! But they only believed for a while and then fell away!”
So, you hold the position that people can lose their salvation. Correct?
Then, “the word was choked out of them – consequently, they brought no fruit to maturity (cf John 15:1-6).”
So…they were saved but unfruitful believers. But unfruitful believers are not abiding in Christ. Are you saying that a [erosn can be saved and not abide in Christ?
Then, ‘Because they were the only ones who KEPT THE WORD”
What caused them to keep the word that the others lacked?
Then, “BTW, belief and faith are one and the same thing!”
Yes and no. Faith is normally the English translation of the Greek noun denoting something a person possesses, while believe is normally the translation of the Greek verb denoting something a person does. Usually, the verb identifies with the noun as when Jesus says, “by their fruits you will know them.” He also said, “every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit.” So, faith (in Christ) always bears true belief.
Rh writes,
So, some people are lost because they never hear the gospel and this because Satan takes the word away.
Aidan,
That’s not what verses 11-12 says, read it again; “The seed is the word of God.” THE SEED WAS SOWN – “then the devil comes and takes away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.”
Aidan,
Then, “THEY RECEIVED THE WORD… BELIEVED, AND WERE SAVED! But they only believed for a while and then fell away!”
Rh,
So, you hold the position that people can lose their salvation. Correct?
Aidan,
That’s what Jesus said: – “when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, who believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away.”
Rh,
“So…they were saved but unfruitful believers. But unfruitful believers are not abiding in Christ. Are you saying that a [erosn can be saved and not abide in Christ?”
Aidan,
Notice again, what Jesus said…”and bring no fruit to maturity” doesn’t say ‘no fruit was involved’ but rather – brought no fruit to maturity! Hence, they became unfruitful because they did not hold fast to the word – they did not remain/abide in Christ.
Rh,
Then, ‘Because they were the only ones who KEPT THE WORD”
What caused them to keep the word that the others lacked?
Aidan,
What does the verse say? How do you read it?
Rh,
“Faith is normally the English translation of the Greek noun denoting something a person possesses, while believe is normally the translation of the Greek verb denoting something a person does.”
Aidan,
That’s right! So as long as a person is “believing” he has “faith.” They are one and the same, you possess faith as long as you are believing!
John 3:16 – YLT:
“for God did so love the world, that His Son — the only begotten — He gave, that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during.” In other words, THE BELIEVING ONE is the one who will be saved.
What does the UNBELIEVING ONE LACK? F…h
Aidan writes, ‘THE SEED WAS SOWN – “then the devil comes and takes away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.”
OK the seed was heard but not understood. When Jesus says, “Who has ears to hear…” I take Him to mean, Who can understand. Many people physically hear the gospel preached; a lesser number understand the gospel that they hear.
Then, Rh,: “So, you hold the position that people can lose their salvation. Correct?”
Aidan, “That’s what Jesus said: – “when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, who believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away.”
So, you won’t let anything else Jesus said, as recorded elsewhere in Scripture, to change how you understand this parable.
Then, Rh “What caused them to keep the word that the others lacked?
Aidan, “What does the verse say? How do you read it?”
I understand Jesus to say that the ones who kept the word were good soil.
Then, ‘Aidan, “That’s right! So as long as a person is “believing” he has “faith.” They are one and the same, you possess faith as long as you are believing!”
So, without faith, a person cannot believe. And without hearing the gospel, one cannot receive faith. If “good soil” identifies with faith, then we can see why Jesus said, “having heard the word with a noble and good heart.” Can a person have a noble and good heart without faith? The ones described as wayside, rock and thorns did not have faith; their hearts were evil as Jeremiah described.
Then, “John 3:16 – YLT:
“for God did so love the world, that His Son — the only begotten — He gave, that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during.” In other words, THE BELIEVING ONE is the one who will be saved.
What does the UNBELIEVING ONE LACK? F…h”
Yes. And faith is a gift from God to His elect. Without faith, a person has no ability to be saved contra the claim of Dr. Flowers (although he tends to play both sides on this speaking of grace-enabled faith.).
rhutchin
OK the seed was heard but not understood. When Jesus says, “Who has ears to hear…” I take Him to mean, Who can understand. Many people physically hear the gospel preached; a lesser number understand the gospel that they hear.
br.d
Again with the fallacy of false dichotomy
The NORMAL understanding is that a person understands something and exercises Gog given choice to reject/accept it.
But of course – in Calvinism – Calvin’s god AUTHORS all human choices FOR humans.
As John Calvin says:
-quote
Hence they are merely INSTRUMENTS, into which god constantly infuses what energy he sees meet, and turns and converts to any purpose at his pleasure.
br.d writes, “The NORMAL understanding is that a person understands something and exercises Gog given choice to reject/accept it.”
The Biblical understanding is that a person must have faith in order to understand, Paul explains this in 1 Corinthians, “the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God…it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe… 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.”
br.d
The NORMAL understanding is that a person understands something and exercises God given choice to reject/accept it.”
rhutchin
The Biblical understanding is that a person must have faith in order to understand
br.d
Correction: In the Calvinist (and Gnostic) mind the Biblical understanding is …..etc.
It is a Logical Impossibility to have “faith” in [X] without knowledge of [X].
Which requires knowledge sufficient for accurate understanding.
No one accuses Calvinist (and Gnostic) thinking as being NORMATIVE! :-]
Rh,: “So, you hold the position that people can lose their salvation. Correct?”
Aidan, “That’s precisely what Jesus said: – “when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, who believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away.”
RH,
“So, you won’t let anything else Jesus said, as recorded elsewhere in Scripture, to change how you understand this parable.”
Aidan,
Anything Jesus said elsewhere will not contradict His teaching – that one can lose their salvation.
RH,
I understand Jesus to say that the ones who kept the word were good soil.
Aidan,
I understand Jesus to say that “the seed in the good soil, these are the ones who have heard the word in an honest and good heart, and hold it fast, and bear fruit with perseverance.”
Aidan, “That’s right! So as long as a person is “believing” he has “faith.” They are one and the same, you possess faith as long as you are believing!”
RH,
“So, without faith, a person cannot believe. And without hearing the gospel, one cannot receive faith.”
Aidan,
Romans 1:16-17;
“For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God FOR SALVATION TO everyone WHO BELIEVES, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.”
“For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “BUT THE RIGHTEOUS man SHALL LIVE BY FAITH.”
Is that clear enough for you now? Can you see the interplay between the words “BELIEVES” and “FAITH?”
RH,
“Can a person have a noble and good heart without faith?”
Aidan,
What was the soil called BEFORE the seed(word of God) fell on it to produce faith? The GOOD SOIL!
RH,
“The ones described as wayside, rock and thorns did not have faith; their hearts were evil as Jeremiah described.”
Aidan,
Rom. 3:10 – as it is written,
“THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE; – And that includes those in the good soil beforehand.
The rock, the thorns, and the good soil all had faith; because they all received the SEED, and that seed germinated, and then they ALL GREW UP (vv.6-8). Jesus even acknowledges that the rocky ones believed for a while, and then fell away!
RH,
“Yes. And faith is a gift from God to His elect.”
Aidan,
That’s not what (Eph. 2:8-9) teaches!
rhutchin
“So, without faith, a person cannot believe. And without hearing the gospel, one cannot receive faith.”
br“
does notbelieve – does not auto-magically infer cannot believe.
I came across a Calvinist last year who does not believe the earth is round – he believes its flat.
It is fallacious however to auto-magically assume he cannot believe the earth is round.
And without “hearing the gospel”, one cannot know about the gospel
Try a little experiment:
Try having faith in something your mind doesn’t know exists
It would be interesting to know how that works for someone. :-]
Br.d writes,
“And without “hearing the gospel”, one cannot know about the gospel”
Aidan,
Let’s mention the gospel which Paul preached to the Corinthian’s in chapter 15:
Without having heard that gospel, they could not have received that gospel.
And without receiving that gospel, they could not stand in that gospel.
And they could not be saved through that gospel, IF they failed to hold fast the word.
1 Cor. 15:1-2; NASB:
“Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, IF you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.”
But the Calvinist CANNOT accept that the Corinthians would be saved – only IF they held fast the word which Paul had preached to them. But “cannot” does not connote “impossibility” to accept it – not if they choose to believe Paul.
Do you think that would be “permitted?” 🤣
Right!
When Calvin’s god Hypnotizes you with a gift of “faith” – your Hypnosis is rendered-certain ! :-]
Non-Calvinist:
So tell me – what mechanism does Calvin’s god use to make things “irresistible” – is it some kind of Divine Hypnotism?
Calvinist:
I don’t have any knowledge at all of what that mechanism is!
But I still have the divine authority to say what it isn’t 🙄
Are you talking about it being constantly revealed to them what it isn’t? Or are you just talking about logic being turned on it’s head?
Isn’t Calvinist thinking funny!
They have all the DIVINE GNOSIS! 😉
br.d writes, “[Calvinists] have all the DIVINE GNOSIS!”
Only that God has revealed in the Scriptures. As Moses wrote ““The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.”
rhutchin
br.d writes, “[Calvinists] have all the DIVINE GNOSIS!”
Only that God has revealed in the Scriptures.
br.d
The Jehovah’s Witnesses have the Scriptures also.
But their DIVINE GNOSIS is different from the Calvinist’s DIVINE GNOSIS!
What’s really cool is – every FALSE PERCEPTION which comes to pass within the Calvinist brain – is a gift of “faith” from Calvin’s god.
And it is logically impossible to have “faith” in [X] without GNOSIS of [X]
Arthur Versluis – What Is a Gnostic?
-quote
The awakening (i.e. the GNOSIS) of any individual is a cosmic event.
The Catholic authors were gnostic.
The Neoplatonists also were gnostic.
And the Reformation was gnostic.
Hegel is gnostic and Marx is gnostic.
All things and their opposite are equally gnostic.
(Gnosticism, Ancient and Modern, in Alexandria pp. 307-08)
Here’s something that has been revealed seeing that you view “faith” and “believing” as distinctly different.
“As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life.”
“He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”
No mention of the word “faith”, yet he who “believes in the Son” has eternal life. Why so? Because faith is believing. Faith is a noun, and believing is a verb. And just as you can’t have “stress” without “stressing,” neither can you have “faith” without “believing.”
And again we see, over and over, that despite all protests made to the contrary, the Calvinist is so heavily invested in TULIP that every verse of scripture must bow its knee and be conformed to this theology.
All does not mean all.
Every does not mean every.
Whosoever does not mean whosoever.
Any does not mean any.
The Calvinist pleads with us to understand and employ context, yet his own context is not the entirety of the Word of God, nor even the surrounding verses – it is a systematic theology that must be protected, defended, and preserved no matter the cost of the necessary violence it inflicts on language, logic, and scripture. If it violates “L” it must be jettisoned and re-explained. If it clearly contradicts “P” then it is not “P” that is wrong – it must surely be our faulty reading of that scripture.
mrteebs writes, ‘All does not mean all.
Every does not mean every.
Whosoever does not mean whosoever.
Any does not mean any. ”
Everyone knows that words can be constrained in their meaning by the context in which they are used. The issue is not how Webster’s Dictionary defines words but how those words may be constrained by the Scriptural context. Luke can write, “it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the [inhabited] world should be registered.” and people understand that “all” applies only to those areas controlled by Rome. Because of this, “The Calvinist pleads with us to understand and employ context,…”
mrteebs writes,
“The Calvinist pleads with us to understand and employ context, yet his own context is not the entirety of the Word of God, nor even the surrounding verses – it is a systematic theology that must be protected, defended, and preserved no matter the cost of the necessary violence it inflicts on language, logic, and scripture. If it violates “L” it must be jettisoned and re-explained. If it clearly contradicts “P” then it is not “P” that is wrong – it must surely be our faulty reading of that scripture.”
Aidan,
Bingo! He is doing a great job on incriminating himself as he protects his systematic theology at all costs. I just hope people are seeing through it and learning. I know I have.
Aidan writes, “No mention of the word “faith”, yet he who “believes in the Son” has eternal life. Why so?”
Faith is always present where one believes in Christ because, as you say, “neither can you have “faith” without “believing.””
I agree. Faith precedes believing. One must have assurance and conviction before they can act in belief However, one cannot act in belief without having assurance and conviction to act in belief. When Paul writes, “For by grace you have been saved through faith…” we know that faith comes from hearing the gospel and that it is assurance and conviction gained from the gospel and that assurance and conviction comes because the person is taught by God. Everyone who is taught by God comes to Christ because of the assurance and conviction gained by being taught by God.
Aidan
No mention of the word “faith”, yet he who “believes in the Son” has eternal life. Why so?”
rhutchin
Faith is always present where one believes in Christ because, as you say, “neither can you have “faith” without “believing.””
I agree. Faith precedes believing.
br.d
Oh but his statement did not say faith precedes believing – but a mind can auto-magically alter statements when reading them.
An indicator of how a conditioned mind can be trained to treat scripture. :-]
Faith is not a gift as you say, but a work we must do!
Interestingly enough there is a work in Calvinism
Its explained by Erich Fromm – Ph.D Social Psychologist – who did research on Reformed writings through out history
The publication is called “Escape from Freedom”
-quote
Fundamental doubts result in a person’s quest for certainty. But the doctrine of predestination gave such certainty and the doubt remained in the background of the believer’s mind, and had to be silenced again and again by an overgrowing, emphasis, that the religious community to which one belonged, represented that part of mankind which had been chosen by God.
In his conceptions, Calvin’s God, in spite of all attempts to preserve an idea of divine justice and love, has all the features of a tyrant, without any quality of certain or predictable love or justice.
And in blatant contradiction to the language of the New Testament, Calvin denies the supreme role of divine love, and says “For what the School-men advance concerning the priority of charity to faith and hope, is a mere reverie of a dis-tempered imagination.
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.
Thus, effort and work, in this sense, assume an entirely irrational character. They are not to change one’s eternal fate, which is predetermined by God regardless of effort on the part of the individual.
Human efforts, serve only as a means of forecasting one’s predetermined fate; while at the same time, the heightened effort served as an emotional reassurance…
Quote: Erich Fromm – “Escape from Freedom”
In his conceptions, Calvin’s God, in spite of all attempts to preserve an idea of divine justice and love, has all the features of a tyrant, without any quality of certain or predictable love or justice.
And in blatant contradiction to the language of the New Testament, Calvin denies the supreme role of divine love, and says “For what the School-men advance concerning the priority of charity to faith and hope, is a mere reverie of a dis-tempered imagination.
Aidan,
Wow! How could they not go around wondering if they are among the chaff. And, if a father’s love and assurances are so uncertain and unpredictable, how else would that affect the children, except that they spend their lives trying to please and appease the affections of a loveless man? It seems Calvin’s god is no better than the gods of the Greeks. Or is it just a mere reverie of a dis-tempered imagination to want a God who so loves us as He does? I don’t think so!
Aidan writes, “Faith is not a gift as you say, but a work we must do!”
So, we disagree whether faith is a gift. However, we seem to agree, that if faith is not a gift, then faith is a work that man must do. Of course, most non-Calvinists strenuously deny this conclusion.
You just need to show the verse that specifically says faith is a gift. And a gift in the manner you say its a gift! Lets just follow the scriptures on this one.
Aidan writes, “You just need to show the verse that specifically says faith is a gift.”
“For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,…For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.” Ephesians 2:8-10
If faith is not a gift of God, then we are not God’s workmanship.
Expositor’s Greek Testament
Θεοῦ τὸ δῶρον; it is the gift of God. Or, perhaps, “God’s gift it is”.
The salvation is not an achievement but a gift, and a gift from none other than God.
This declaration of the free, unmerited, conferred nature of the salvation is made the stronger not only by the contrast with the ἐξ ὑμῶν, but by the dropping of any connecting particle.
rhutchin
If faith is not a gift of God, then we are not God’s workmanship
br.d
Here we resort to a philosophical argument – which turns out to be a non-sequitur.
The ability to KNOW and the ability to BELIEVE are inherent gifts built into the design of every NORMAL human being.
However in Gnosticism – both KNOWLEDGE (i.e., GNOSIS) and faith in that knowledge – are reserved specifically for special elect ones
In most Gnostic systems, the sufficient cause of salvation is ….acquaintance with the divine.
It is an inward “knowing”, comparable to that encouraged by Plotinus (See – NeoPlatonism)
br.d writes, “Expositor’s Greek Testament…The salvation is not an achievement but a gift, and a gift from none other than God.”
To which all seem to agree. As a gift, salvation is not predicated on any act, or merit, by those who are saved so that it is also true that, we are God’s workmanship.
br.d
Expositor’s Greek Testament
Ephesians 2:8-10
The salvation is not an achievement but a gift, and a gift from none other than God.”
rhutchin
To which all seem to agree. As a gift, salvation is not predicated on any act, or merit, by those who are saved so that it is also true that, we are God’s workmanship.
br.d
Right – The Greek Expositor’s identifies the Greek as stating within this text “salvation” is the gift.
br.d
Right – The Greek Expositor’s identifies the Greek as stating within this text “salvation” is the gift.
Aidan,
Right again – within this text “salvation” is the gift – and nothing else!
Thanks Br.d
Yes – and as RH has been over this a 1000 times – he knows it too! :-]
Aidan writes, ‘Right again – within this text “salvation” is the gift – and nothing else!”
You are the one who insists on precise wording to make a point. The Greek Expositor’s does not support your conclusion ” and nothing else!” does it? Your claim, “and nothing else,” is your personal extrapolation isn’t it?
rhutchin
You are the one who insists on precise wording to make a point. The Greek Expositor’s does not support your conclusion ” and nothing else!” does it? Your claim, “and nothing else,” is your personal extrapolation isn’t it?
br.d
This is yet one more example of reverse attribution – how is anyone surprised!
The issue is scope concerning the notion of “gift” within a Greek text
The Greek Expositor notes the notion of scope is limited specifically to “salvation” in this text.
You then deployed a philosophical argument of extrapolation.
And based on that extrapolation – one can argue the parchments which Paul asks Timothy to bring him – would also be “gift”.
Never the less – in this text the scope is limited to “salvation”.
Why not simply find THE verse that EXPLICITLY gives you what you want?
Perhaps because there isn’t one?
br.d writes, “The Greek Expositor notes the notion of scope is limited specifically to “salvation” in this text.”
Yes – “limited specifically to “salvation” in this text” – and thereby did not address the issue of faith or even grace.
br.d
The Greek Expositor notes the notion of scope is limited specifically to “salvation” in this text.”
rhutchin
Yes – “limited specifically to “salvation” in this text” – and thereby did not address the issue of faith or even grace.
br.d
And since that text didn’t provide the evidence you needed – you proceeded into “extrapolation” as you call it.
But since the claim of faith being a gift is so critical an understanding – then surely you have a verse that unambiguously specifies that – right?
Not! :-]
Aidan writes, ‘Right again – within this text “salvation” is the gift – and nothing else!”
RH,
“You are the one who insists on precise wording to make a point. The Greek Expositor’s does not support your conclusion ” and nothing else!” does it? Your claim, “and nothing else,” is your personal extrapolation isn’t it?”
Aidan,
Not if you practice speaking where the scriptures speak, and being SILENT WHERE THE SCRIPTURES ARE SILENT. Then, and only then, can you say – nothing else!
Aidan,
Not if you practice speaking where the scriptures speak, and being SILENT WHERE THE SCRIPTURES ARE SILENT. Then, and only then, can you say – nothing else!
br.d
Well said!
Many Theologians have noted that Calvin enunciated this rule of thumb – but couldn’t even start to follow it himself
br.d writes, “Right – The Greek Expositor’s identifies the Greek as stating within this text “salvation” is the gift.”
And is silent on the issue of faith. As one is saved by “grace” through “faith” identifying salvation as the gift does not negate either, or both, grace and faith also being part of the gift In the immediate context does Paul does not intimate that man is the source of his faith but says, “we are God’s workmanship,” pointing us to God as the source of faith as well as grace.
br.d
Right – The Greek Expositor’s identifies the Greek as stating within this text “salvation” is the gift.”
rhutchin
And is silent on the issue of faith.
br.d
This would be conclusion 1 – based on sound evidence.
rhutchin
As one is saved by “grace” through “faith” identifying salvation as the gift does not negate either, or both, grace and faith also being part of the gift In the immediate context does Paul does not intimate that man is the source of his faith but says, “we are God’s workmanship,” pointing us to God as the source of faith as well as grace.
br.d
And of course it fails to show what is purported.
Because nothing in its conclusion provides evidence that NORMAL people don’t have a god given capacity for faith.
But here is the more important point
Again we see – an acknowledgement that scripture doesn’t provide sufficient evidence to prove a claim
So we must resort to a philosophical argument.
Thus providing the UNDERLYING MODEL for what is called a “scriptural theology”
It therefore makes perfect sense that Calvinism is considered a unique minority view. :-]
br.d writes, “Right – The Greek Expositor’s identifies the Greek as stating within this text “salvation” is the gift.”
RH,
“And is silent on the issue of faith.”
Aidan
You said it yourself!
RH,: “And is silent on the issue of faith.”
Aidan: “You said it yourself!”
OK, what do you say? Did the Greek Expositor’s address the issue of faith or was it silent on that? What do you say??
rhutchin
OK, what do you say? Did the Greek Expositor’s address the issue of faith or was it silent on that? What do you say??
br.d
Fallacy of Argument from silence
Example:
The bible doesn’t say that marry was born without sin – (immaculate conception) so we can extrapolate that she was.
br.d writes, ‘The bible doesn’t say that marry was born without sin – (immaculate conception) so we can extrapolate that she was.”
Neither does it say that Mary was born without sin. To extrapolate that conclusion from the Scripture is eisegesis. So, it can be done but we recognize eisegesis for what it is – one’s personal opinion.
br.d
FALLACY of Argument from silence:
‘The bible doesn’t say that marry was born without sin – (immaculate conception) so we can extrapolate that she was.”
rhutchin
To extrapolate that conclusion from the Scripture is eisegesis.
br.d
And following that same FALLACIOUS REASONING is otherwise ok! :-]
rhutchin
So, it can be done but we recognize eisegesis for what it is – one’s personal opinion.
br.d
And thus we see a Calvinist’s definition of – handling scripture RATIONALLY :-]
RH,: “And is silent on the issue of faith.”
Aidan: “You said it yourself!”
RH,
OK, what do you say? Did the Greek Expositor’s address the issue of faith or was it silent on that? What do you say??
Aidan,
You were the one that said it! I believe the text and context affirms that salvation is the gift in Ephesians 2:8-10, not faith! THE GIFT OF SALVATION is by grace through faith.
RH,: “OK, what do you say? Did the Greek Expositor’s address the issue of faith or was it silent on that? What do you say??
Aidan,: “I believe the text and context affirms that salvation is the gift in Ephesians 2:8-10, not faith! THE GIFT OF SALVATION is by grace through faith.”
OK. You don’t want to deal with the Greek Expositor’s comments. That’s fine.
rhutchin
rhutchin
OK. You don’t want to deal with the Greek Expositor’s comments. That’s fine.
br.d
Interpretation:
Extrapolate from a verse what it never said – and then claim that’s what the verse said :-]
br.d writes, “Expositor’s Greek Testament…The salvation is not an achievement but a gift, and a gift from none other than God.”
RH writes,
“To which all seem to agree. As a gift, salvation is not predicated on any act, or merit, by those who are saved so that it is also true that, we are God’s workmanship.”
Aidan,
Except that salvation is obtained by faith. And faith is not the gift of the context, but salvation is.
Aidan writes, “Except that salvation is obtained by faith. And faith is not the gift of the context, but salvation is.”
If faith is not included as part of the gift, how does Paul then say, “we are God’s workmanship”?
Aidan writes, “Except that salvation is obtained by faith. And faith is not the gift of the context, but salvation is.”
RH,
If faith is not included as part of the gift, how does Paul then say, “we are God’s workmanship”?
Aidan,
I’ve just explained that earlier! Paul says, “we are God’s workmanship” meaning God is the SOURCE OF SALVATION, vs.8-9, NOT FAITH! The text says nothing about faith being a gift! You need to speak where the scriptures speak, and be silent where the scriptures is silent (1 Peter 4:11).
Aidan writes, “Paul says, “we are God’s workmanship” meaning God is the SOURCE OF SALVATION, vs.8-9, NOT FAITH!”
Again, you are the one who insists on clarity in the text. The text says, “we are God’s workmanship”. To say that it means God is the source of salvation but that God is not the source of faith is your personal extrapolation. There is no reason we cannot take the meaning to be that God is the source of salvation, God is the source of grace, and God is the source of faith.
Given that faith comes from the word and God is the source of the word, then we have God as the ultimate source of faith with the word being the immediate source of faith. Yet two people hear the word and one has faith and one does not. To conclude that man is the source of faith does not explain this. To say that God is the source of faith does explain it.
rhutchin
To say that it means God is the source of salvation but that God is not the source of faith is your personal extrapolation.
br.d
Here we have the same reverse attribution “extrapolation” again – what a surprise!
The Greek N.T. declares certain things as “gifts”
1 Corinthians 12:8-10 – “the gift of healing
Romans 1:11 – Paul wants to impart “some spiritual gift”
Romans 6:23 – The “gift” of God is eternal life
Romans 12:6 – The “gift” of prophesy
So many Greek texts specifying “gifts”
And how is it that faith is not specifically stated as such – if that is the ALL IMPORTANT gift?
What does that tell us?
I searched this morning for every instance of “faith” in my bible (NASB). There is not a single instance that directly or indirectly implies that saving faith is a gift. Faith is actually an act of obedience. James makes this clear. This booked vexed Luther so much that he wanted it removed from the Canon.
The only instance of faith being a gift is in 1 Cor 12:9 where the context is faith to believe for miracles (see 1 Cor 13:2).
Eph 2:8-9 is clear that salvation is the gift of God – not faith. Faith is the means. It is within man’s capacity to believe or refuse to believe. Indeed, man can demonstrate faith in the wrong things and be harshly rebuked for it. Is wrong faith then a “gift” from God? See Isaiah 30, particularly v 12. Faith is an innate capacity to trust in something.
In John 6:45 the context should be clear that Jesus is saying those who truly understood and followed the Father would have recognized Jesus. It is not teaching irresistible grace, as Calvinists wrongly infer.
mrteebs writes, “Faith is actually an act of obedience.”
Faith is the inward condition of the person. Obedience is the outward expression of faith by the person. So, obedience is an act of faith. One must have faith before one can obey.
rhutchin
Faith is the inward condition of the person.
br.d
Well there are two kinds of faith
The NORMAL kind – the capacity to believe – which all NORMAL people are born with
And the GNOSTIC kind which is only reserved for the elect
“Faith is the inward condition of the person. Obedience is the outward expression of faith by the person. So, obedience is an act of faith. One must have faith before one can obey.”
Chapter and verse please.
Excellent points!
So Luther wanted to physically remove texts which didn’t align with his canon
Because at that time – Luther’s canon was not really scripture – it was AUGUSTINE.
So here we have the model.
When one cannot psychically remove texts of scripture which don’t fit with one’s canon – what does one do?
The mind can be conditioned – to alter words in the text – during the process of reading the text.
And we will occasionally see Calvinists post verses here
quoting them word by word – with the exact wording the mind has been conditioned to read it
And they are totally oblivious – that any form of mental conditioning took place.
br.d,
I think I should clarify Luther’s opposition to the book of James.
It had NOTHING to do with FAITH at all.
It had to do with the word “WORKS”, not faith. I say again, NOT FAITH.
He knew Romans 4 discusses NO WORKS.
So when he saw the book of James, requiring WORK to PROVE your faith…then he had a problem.
In short, THAT’S IT. Nothing more. He had no problem with faith. He had a problem with WORKS.
Faith without works is dead. Yet, Romans 4…No works needed.
So there needs to be an explanation to CORRECT the different uses of the word WORKS between Romans 4, and James 2.
Romans 4…works is the law of Moses.
James 2…works is LIVING WHAT YOU BELIEVE. Loving your neighbor as yourself is an action word. Walking to the bus stop because you have faith that the bus will arrive when the bus schedules states it will is a WORK, which is an example of the explanation of the book of James.
I’m not a Lutheran, but I understand Luther’s CONFUSION.
Ed Chapman
Thanks and good point Ed!
It wasn’t a concept concerning faith that Luther wanted to physically remove – it was a concept of works.
But I think that still fits within my observation of what one is inclined to do when scripture conflicts with one’s canon.
mrteebs,
I hereby second your conclusions about faith as an obedience issue, and NOT a gift, except as set forth by what you said regarding miracles…to clarify, I’d add, TO MOVE MOUNTAINS, TO WALK ON WATER…but not salvation. I agree a thousand percent TIMES a bazillion percent.
What I’ve found is that Calvinists are NOT GOOD at sentence structuring comprehension, so when they see “grace thru faith”, they think that faith is the gift, DUE TO, “and not of yourselves”. They can’t see that grace is the gift ONLY and it’s based on your faith, and Hebrews 11:1, broken down to the lowest common denominator tells you that faith is YOUR believing that you are going to get what you are waiting for. It’s YOUR faith. It’s YOUR trust. It’s YOUR belief. It’s not God INFUSING you to believe anything.
What they neglect, is that THAT DISCUSSION is a DISTINCTION ONLY about the law of Moses, which Abraham didn’t have, VS. TRUST AND BELIEF.
If people would concentrate on LAW vs. FAITH, then this whole argument would be ELIMINATED. But in much of christendom, not just Calvinism, they want LAW PLUS GRACE, when in reality, it’s LAW VS. GRACE.
The law REQUIRES you to WORK for your ETERNAL LIFE, AND IT IS THAT ALONE that is the “and not of yourselves” IS DISCUSSING. Nothing more.
Romans 3:21
But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
But I don’t just blame the Calvinists…the other reformers have some play in this, as well. SOME STILL WANT THE LAW…with some of those who only think that “ceremonial and food” laws were done away with, and THAT is a problem, too.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “[Calvinists] can’t see that grace is the gift ONLY and it’s based on your faith,…”
You say God’s grace is based on faith; Calvinists say, faith is based on God’s grace. Two ways to look at it.
Then, ” It’s YOUR faith. It’s YOUR trust. It’s YOUR belief. It’s not God INFUSING you to believe anything. ”
Based on Hebrews 11, we see that faith has two key components, assurance and conviction. Assurance and conviction only come through hearing the gospel. It is not your faith; it is assurance and conviction you gained from hearing the gospel. However, through the means of hearing the gospel, it is God who teaches you and it is from God’s teaching that you gain assurance and conviction. Take God out of the picture and you will never have assurance and conviction and never have faith.
rhutchin
It is not your faith…..
br.d
Chapter and verse please?
rhutchin
Take God out of the picture and you will never have assurance and conviction and never have faith.
br.d
And what else would be missing from that picture?
Too funny!
Calvin’s god functions as the Calvinist’s favorite magical disappearing rabbit.
When it comes to good events – PUFF! he magically appears into the picture.
When it comes to evil events – PUFF! he magically disappears from the picture.
Guess where the REAL sovereignty is! :-]
rhutchin states:
“Based on Hebrews 11, we see that faith has two key components, assurance and conviction. Assurance and conviction only come through hearing the gospel. It is not your faith; it is assurance and conviction you gained from hearing the gospel. However, through the means of hearing the gospel, it is God who teaches you and it is from God’s teaching that you gain assurance and conviction. Take God out of the picture and you will never have assurance and conviction and never have faith.”
My response:
GOSPEL has nothing to do with the definition as outlined in Hebrews 11:1.
Hebrews 11:1 (KJV)
11 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Substance:
Strong’s Concordance Greek Ref #5287: Assurance
Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition defines assurance as: Pledge, Guarantee
Romans 8:24-25
For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.
Hoped, Hope:
Strong’s Concordance Greek Ref #’s1679, 1680: Expectation or confidence
Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition defines hope as:
to expect with confidence; Expectation is defined as: Anticipation; Anticipation is defined as: The act of looking forward, and, visualization of a future event or state.
Hebrews 11:1
Now FAITH IS: The guarantee of things (substance/assurance) expected (hoped/waiting for).
Faith: Strong’s Concordance Greek Ref #4102:
Persuasion, i.e. credence. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition defines credence as: mental acceptance as true or real.
BOTTOM LINE:
Faith is KNOWING that you are gonna get what you are waiting for.
If you wait for a bus, you have faith that the bus will arrive, all because you BELIEVE the bus schedule.
That’s NOT A GIFT, let alone a gift from GOD.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “GOSPEL has nothing to do with the definition as outlined in Hebrews 11:1.
Hebrews 11:1 (KJV)
11 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”
Hebrews 11 defines the term, “faith,” and then gives several demonstrations of faith.
Romans 10 tells us that “faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God..” By this, we know the source of faith.
Then, ‘Faith is KNOWING that you are gonna get what you are waiting for….That’s NOT A GIFT, let alone a gift from GOD.”
We understand from Romans 10 that faith/knowing comes from the word. This is the faith Paul speaks of in Ephesians 2, “…you have been saved through faith…” That faith from which salvation comes is learned or known from the word. Is faith a gift from God? Ephesians 2 does not tell us that faith is derived from anything a person does; even hearing the word does not guarantee faith as we observe one person to hear the word and have faith while another person hears the word and has no faith. So, what accounts for this? If faith is a gift from God given to one and not another, then we can explain why one person has faith and another person does not.
rhutchin
If faith is a gift from God given to one and not another, then we can explain why one person has faith and another person does not.
br.d
Well there are two kinds of faith
The NORMAL kind – the human capacity to believe – which all NORMAL people are born with
And the GNOSTIC kind which is only reserved for the elect.
In Calvinism’s case:
A “gift” of TRUE faith/election/salvation is given to the wheat
A “gift” of FALSE faith/election/salvation is given to the tares
Has anyone noticed how many things come in GOOD-EVIL PAIRS in Calvinism?
– Election/Damnation
– Enunciated Will/ Secret Will
– True faith/False faith
– Determining everything in every part/ AS-IF nothing is determined in any part
– An infallible election that requires perseverance AS-IF it isn’t infallible
– Man’s every determination is predestined at a point in which he has no say in matter AS-IF “Self-Determining”.
– They come “most freely” being “Made to come” – AS-IF they are permitted to disobey the infallible decree that makes them come
All indicators of a theology containing GOOD-EVIL DUALISM
And that is not Gnostic?
rhutchin,
You had said:
“Based on Hebrews 11, we see that faith has two key components, assurance and conviction. Assurance and conviction only come through hearing the gospel. It is not your faith; it is assurance and conviction you gained from hearing the gospel. However, through the means of hearing the gospel, it is God who teaches you and it is from God’s teaching that you gain assurance and conviction. Take God out of the picture and you will never have assurance and conviction and never have faith.”
My second response:
Here is a major problem that I have, regarding your (Calvinsim’s) use and definition and explanation of faith:
There is ONLY ONE THING to believe (*your belief).
Here it is:
God promised ETERNAL LIFE, AND Jesus is the way to get there.
Hence, PROMISED LAND, AND PROMISED SEED, THE PROMISE GIVEN TO ABRAHAM.
We are the seed of Abraham, thru Jesus, receiving the INHERITANCE promised, which is ETERNAL LIFE. How hard is it to BELIEVE THAT on your own? It is our faith, NOT A GIFT OF FAITH.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “We are the seed of Abraham, thru Jesus, receiving the INHERITANCE promised, which is ETERNAL LIFE. How hard is it to BELIEVE THAT on your own? It is our faith, NOT A GIFT OF FAITH.”
You make two statements that you do not tie together. What does “We are the seed of Abraham, thru Jesus,…” have to do with “It is our faith, …”?
rhutchin asks:
You make two statements that you do not tie together. What does “We are the seed of Abraham, thru Jesus,…” have to do with “It is our faith, …”?
My response:
EVERYTHING!
I told you all that you have to believe.
Here it is again:
God made a PROMISE. WHAT WAS THAT PROMISE?
Promised Land, and PROMISED SEED.
That’s all ya gotta believe. THAT is what faith is BASED ON. Based on the PROMISE of ETERNAL LIFE THRU JESUS.
How does that tie in?
EASY.
Eternal life is the PROMISED LAND.
Jesus is the PROMISED SEED.
THAT’S how it ties in.
Galatians 3:16
Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
Galatians 3:29
And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
So, based on that last verse…I’m gonna ask YOU the following:
HEIRS TO WHAT PROMISE? What was the PROMISE?
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “I told you all that you have to believe.”
No disagreement there.
rhutchin,
You had said:
“chapmaned24 writes, “I told you all that you have to believe.”
No disagreement there.”
My response:
If there is no disagreements, then WHY do you conclude that faith is a gift, since all is REQUIRED is to believe in the promises?
Furthermore, you didn’t answer my question of “What was the promise?”
If you believe in the promise, then FOR GOODNESS SAKE, why do you insist that you CANNOT believe that without God infusing that as a gift? YOU CAN’T BELIEVE THAT ON YOUR OWN, WITHOUT IT BEING A GIFT?
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “If there is no disagreements, then WHY do you conclude that faith is a gift, since all is REQUIRED is to believe in the promises?”
I your comment, you never mentioned faith. You said that you told me all that I have to believe. I must also have faith in you to tell me the truth. My faith in you that you are telling me the truth is the cause of my acting on what you told me. If I believed you without faith, that would be foolish or if I believed you because I had confirmed what you said to be true, that would not be faith. I had faith because I had assurance and conviction that you would tell me the truth. Where did I get that faith? Beats me; someone must have given it to me.
Then, “you didn’t answer my question of “What was the promise?”
Doesn’t mater. My faith is in God who gave the promise regardless what the promise was.
rhutchin
My faith is in God who gave the promise regardless what the promise was.
br.d
Yes – but that could be a TRUE faith and it could be a FALSE faith.
John Calvin
-quote
He illumines only for a time to partake of it; then……strikes them with even greater blindness (Institutes)
-quote
He only gives them a MANIFESTATION of his present mercy. (Institutes)
rhutchin states:
“chapmaned24 writes, “If there is no disagreements, then WHY do you conclude that faith is a gift, since all is REQUIRED is to believe in the promises?”
I your comment, you never mentioned faith. You said that you told me all that I have to believe. I must also have faith in you to tell me the truth. My faith in you that you are telling me the truth is the cause of my acting on what you told me. If I believed you without faith, that would be foolish or if I believed you because I had confirmed what you said to be true, that would not be faith. I had faith because I had assurance and conviction that you would tell me the truth. Where did I get that faith? Beats me; someone must have given it to me.
Then, “you didn’t answer my question of “What was the promise?”
Doesn’t mater. My faith is in God who gave the promise regardless what the promise was.”
My response:
THIS shows the IGNORANCE of rhutchin COMPLETELY.
He doesn’t even KNOW what the PROMISE was.
Faith is KNOWING that you are gonna get what you are waiting for.
So, to Rhutchin, WHAT IS HE WAITING FOR? HOW DOES HE KNOW WHAT HE IS WAITING FOR? HE HAS NO CLUE WHAT HE’S WAITING FOR, AND HE HAS NO CLUE WHAT THE PROMISE WAS. Yet, he claims to have faith in God. In other words, he claims to KNOW what God promised, so he’s waiting for it, and then tells me that HIS God gave him that promise…REGARDLESS of what that promise is.
Hello? Faith in God? rhutchin has no faith in God at all, and for him to tell us that he does…NOT TRUE, because he cannot tell us what God promised him.
Ed Chapman
rhutchin had said:
” By faith, you only “know” what God told you. Only afterward after you get to your destination and your faith proves reliable…
and then: “Salvation is not derived from our believing.”
My response:
God PROMISED THAT Abraham’s seed…THRU ISAAC would inherit the PROMISED LAND.
Abraham BELIEVED THAT. That is the same exact thing as FAITH.
So, one day, got wants to TEST that faith. Why would God test someone’s faith if God gave that faith to begin with?
What was the test?
“Abraham, sacrifice (kill) Isaac.”
Was Abraham just being “obedient”, or was he EXERCISING his faith/belief that God PROMISED that his seed would continue thru Isaac, and that he was more than pleased to sacrifice Isaac, because he KNEW that God would raise Isaac from the dead to fulfill the PROMISE?
That is faith. Believing in the PROMISE is FAITH, because if he had no faith in the promise, if he did not BELIEVE the promise, then Abraham would NOT have been obedient to God.
So, I have NO IDEA why you conclude that salvation is not derived from our believing, because it’s the same thing. BELIEF AND TRUST.
God never told Abraham that he would resurrect Isaac from the dead after Abraham would sacrifice Isaac. But that is what Abraham believed, and trusted, all because of a PREVIOUS PROMISE that Abraham believed that his seed thru ISAAC would inherit the land.
And God TESTED that Abraham’s faith, which proves that it is not an imputed faith, since faith is TESTED.
Ed Chapman
Ed
Why would God test someone’s faith if God gave that faith to begin with?
br.d
Good point!
Calvinist conceptions for monergism and synergism apply perhaps?
They propose something is given to a person monergistically
But the testing of that thing would have to be monergistic as it would logically resolve to Calvin’s god testing himself.
So the Calvinist is probably going to say the testing part is synergistic
But I think the notion of synergism in Calvinism doesn’t exist
Because it presupposes some minimal degree of human autonomy.
And the fact that a person’s every perception occurs irresistibly within the brain.
And the fact that a person’s every neurological impulse occurs irresistibly within the brain.
What is Calvin’s god synergising with in that case – except those impulses he himself created?
In Calvinism the human brain is nothing but a box filled with biological cogs and gears – each of which Calvin’s god meticulously moves.
So I don’t see anything synergistic about that!
mrteebs writes, ‘Eph 2:8-9 is clear that salvation is the gift of God – not faith. Faith is the means.”
Paul wrote in v5 ‘(by grace you have been saved),” Salvation is by grace and thereby we know that salvation is a gift. Paul repeats the himself in v6 and then adds, “through faith,” so faith is the means. But then Paul adds the explanatory note, “and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God.” The term, “touto,” is neuter and we look backward to discover its antecedent. Both “grace” and “faith” are in the feminine form. Had Paul used the feminine form for touto, we would read back only to faith as the gift. Because touto is neuter, we read back to both grace and faith as gifts – and since grace and faith producing salvation, so obviously salvation is a gift, but already knew that from v5. Paul emphasizes the gift aspect of grace and faith by writing “not of yourselves,”
To say only that salvation is a gift is to ignore any grammatical consequences in the test.
rhutchin
Paul wrote in v5 ‘(by grace you have been saved),” Salvation is by grace and thereby we know that salvation is a gift.
br.d
Here we are again with the necessary “extrapolation” because there is no text which conclusively supports the claim.
And why is that?
It should be obvious who the we is in this case :-]
rhutchin: “Paul wrote in v5 ‘(by grace you have been saved),” Salvation is by grace and thereby we know that salvation is a gift.”
br.d: “Here we are again with the necessary “extrapolation” because there is no text which conclusively supports the claim.”
LOL!!!! br.d thinks that the statement, “by grace you have been saved” does not mean “you have been saved by grace.”
rhutchin
Paul wrote in v5 ‘(by grace you have been saved),” Salvation is by grace and thereby we know that salvation is a gift.”
br.d
Here we are again with the necessary “extrapolation” because there is no text which conclusively supports the claim.”
rhutchin
LOL!!!! br.d thinks that the statement, “by grace you have been saved” does not mean “you have been saved by grace.”
br.d
In Rational Reasoning – a conclusion in a statement is followed by an operator – in this case the word “thereby”
One who does not have Rational Reasoning will not know this.
Looks like Calvin’s god did not give you the gift of Rational Reasoning :-]
rhutchin states:
“To say only that salvation is a gift is to ignore any grammatical consequences in the test.”
My response:
Hence my previous comment a few moments ago, that:
Calvinists are NOT GOOD at sentence structuring comprehension…
Ed Chapman
Good one Ed!
“grammatical consequences in the text”
In a poker game – this would be called a “bluff”
And no one can accuse Calvinists of not playing shell games with words :-]
mrteebs writes, ‘In John 6:45 the context should be clear that Jesus is saying those who truly understood and followed the Father would have recognized Jesus. ”
Let’s look at John 6:45, ““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.” The implied context comes from the preceding v44, ““No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.” It is those who are “… taught by God….” and have “…heard and learned from the Father…” whom mrteebs describes as “those who truly understood and followed the Father would have recognized Jesus.” Obviously after having been “taught by God” a person would recognize Jesus. So, I don’t see mrteebs saying anything different than the Calvinists
Then, ‘It is not teaching irresistible grace, as Calvinists wrongly infer.”
All v45 teaches is that God is an effective teacher. That is what Calvinism concludes as we all should. There is nothing about irresistible grace here and Calvinists do not infer such from this verse..
10 easy lessons in how to turn a simple statement in scripture into a body of extrapolation. :-]
For this morning’s reading I finished the book of Acts and I spent some time in Chronicles.
I continue to assert that Calvinism is refuted on nearly every page of scripture. I don’t have to search diligently for it. It is prevalent on nearly every page. As such, I’m going to continue just posting excerpts from my daily reading. There are no cash and prizes. You can play along at home.
——————–
Acts 28:24-28 (NASB – caps indicate reference from OT)
Some were being persuaded by the things spoken, but others would not believe. And when they did not agree with one another, they began leaving after Paul had spoken one parting word, “The Holy Spirit rightly spoke through Isaiah the prophet to your fathers, saying,
‘GO TO THIS PEOPLE AND SAY, “ YOU WILL KEEP ON HEARING, BUT WILL NOT UNDERSTAND; AND YOU WILL KEEP ON SEEING, BUT WILL NOT PERCEIVE; FOR THE HEART OF THIS PEOPLE HAS BECOME DULL, AND WITH THEIR EARS THEY SCARCELY HEAR, AND THEY HAVE CLOSED THEIR EYES; OTHERWISE THEY MIGHT SEE WITH THEIR EYES, AND HEAR WITH THEIR EARS, AND UNDERSTAND WITH THEIR HEART AND RETURN, AND I WOULD HEAL THEM.”’
Therefore let it be known to you that this salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles; they will also listen.”
——————–
Notice in bold that it says “WOULD not” – not “COULD not”.
Notice also in bold that seeing and hearing without understanding was not the initial state of these people. It says “keep on” and this tells us they saw and heard and possessed the capacity to respond properly (just like Pharaoh) but because they were stubborn, God amplified what was already present (refusal – not inability) and hardened them as a just punishment for persistent stubbornness and stiffening of necks. God takes the same offering of salvation and goes to the Gentiles. Not all of them became saved, but they also were not living under the judgement of having been given so many opportunities — such a rich heritage as the Jewish people — and continually resisted.
——————–
2 Chron 20:4-33 (NASB)
Then in the midst of the assembly the Spirit of the Lord came upon Jahaziel the son of Zechariah, the son of Benaiah, the son of Jeiel, the son of Mattaniah, the Levite of the sons of Asaph; and he said, “Listen, all Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem and King Jehoshaphat: thus says the Lord to you, ‘Do not fear or be dismayed because of this great multitude, for the battle is not yours but God’s. Tomorrow go down against them. Behold, they will come up by the ascent of Ziz, and you will find them at the end of the valley in front of the wilderness of Jeruel. You need not fight in this battle; station yourselves, stand and see the salvation of the Lord on your behalf, O Judah and Jerusalem.’ Do not fear or be dismayed; tomorrow go out to face them, for the Lord is with you.”
Jehoshaphat bowed his head with his face to the ground, and all Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem fell down before the Lord, worshiping the Lord. The Levites, from the sons of the Kohathites and of the sons of the Korahites, stood up to praise the Lord God of Israel, with a very loud voice.
They rose early in the morning and went out to the wilderness of Tekoa; and when they went out, Jehoshaphat stood and said, “Listen to me, O Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem, put your trust in the Lord your God and you will be established. Put your trust in His prophets and succeed.” When he had consulted with the people, he appointed those who sang to the Lord and those who praised Him in holy attire, as they went out before the army and said, “Give thanks to the Lord, for His lovingkindness is everlasting.” When they began singing and praising, the Lord set ambushes against the sons of Ammon, Moab and Mount Seir, who had come against Judah; so they were routed. For the sons of Ammon and Moab rose up against the inhabitants of Mount Seir destroying them completely; and when they had finished with the inhabitants of Seir, they helped to destroy one another.
When Judah came to the lookout of the wilderness, they looked toward the multitude, and behold, they were corpses lying on the ground, and no one had escaped. When Jehoshaphat and his people came to take their spoil, they found much among them, including goods, garments and valuable things which they took for themselves, more than they could carry. And they were three days taking the spoil because there was so much.
Then on the fourth day they assembled in the valley of Beracah, for there they blessed the Lord. Therefore they have named that place “The Valley of Beracah” until today. Every man of Judah and Jerusalem returned with Jehoshaphat at their head, returning to Jerusalem with joy, for the Lord had made them to rejoice over their enemies. They came to Jerusalem with harps, lyres and trumpets to the house of the Lord. And the dread of God was on all the kingdoms of the lands when they heard that the Lord had fought against the enemies of Israel. So the kingdom of Jehoshaphat was at peace, for his God gave him rest on all sides.
Now Jehoshaphat reigned over Judah. He was thirty-five years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem twenty-five years. And his mother’s name was Azubah the daughter of Shilhi. He walked in the way of his father Asa and did not depart from it, doing right in the sight of the Lord. The high places, however, were not removed; the people had not yet directed their hearts to the God of their fathers.
——————–
Here we see that salvation came through obedience. They were told to face their enemies and not to fear. They did that. Indeed, the people had not directed their hearts to the God of their fathers. They had the capacity to obey (i.e. respond properly) even though their hearts were not right.
Nice Post mrteebs!
Its clear to us.
But does the Calvinist system have a special way of dealing with such texts?
To take those specific terms within the text which give it its NORMATIVE meaning – and redefine those specific terms with Calvinistic meaning.
By redefining terms they are able to bend the meaning of the text to give them what they want.
But does the Calvinist system have a special way of dealing with such texts?
Yes, of course they do. But I comment here not because I am trying to sway the Calvinists. I comment primarily for the benefit of recovering Calvinists and those who harbor doubts about Calvinism and lurk / read here without commenting.
When reading at any site challenging Calvinism you will immediately notice several things:
1) Calvinists must pee on every bush. They are never content to just stay in their own yard. They territory mark and actively pick fights. RH is submitted as Exhibit A. They will of course deny they are doing this. They’ll claim they are helping. Providing a public service. But have you noticed that RH is not — as he suggests — just correcting misconceptions about Calvinism. He is actively challenging every post and nearly every comment. He isn’t so much clarifying what he believes as challenging what we believe. It isn’t helpful and he should kneel tonight and be thankful I am not a moderator on this site. He would quickly have to find some other full-time job.
2) They are frequently uncharitable, arrogant, and dismissive. I listened to some interviews with Daniel Gracely on YouTube and the written comments by Calvinists there are disgraceful. This is not a guy making his living by camping on Calvinist sites and throwing rocks. It is a guy sharing his experiences and reasons for rejecting the theology in a thoughtful, articulate manner. But Calvinists just can’t abide by that. They have a scorched earth policy. I could perhaps understand if non-Calvinists descended like fire ants on Calvinist sites and there was an auto-immune response by the Calvinist herd. That’s peeing in the neighbor’s yard. As a general rule non-Calvinists do not behave that way. They disagree but adapt more of a “live and let live” approach and don’t feel the need to troll. I am not saying that trolling is exclusively the domain of Calvinists, but I am saying it is predominantly the domain of Calvinists. Refer to #1 above.
3) The insistence that “you don’t understand it” or “you’re explaining it all wrong” is so prevalent as to be worthy of an internet meme and a 30-minute weekly sitcom. As we’ve seen from RH, he’s not above dismissing Calvin himself in the quest for deterministic purity. Semantics is taken to a level that requires partial differential equations and string theory. It truly is wrangling over words in an attempt to sugar coat turds. There is also this strange “pride” thing going on in some that boast in being able to accept “hard truths”. Yeah, my God may seem arbitrary and capricious. But I’m man enough to accept that. I’m man enough to give God His proper place of glory and sovereignty even if it turns out He IS arbitrary and capricious – so stick that in your pipe and smoke it, pansie boy. We Calvinists will stick to real cigars and microbrews and tats and f-bombs. Because ”P”.
Totally agreed on all 3 points! :-]
Aidan writes, “Paul says, “we are God’s workmanship” meaning God is the SOURCE OF SALVATION, vs.8-9, NOT FAITH!”
RH,
“Again, you are the one who insists on clarity in the text. The text says, “we are God’s workmanship”. To say that it means God is the source of salvation but that God is not the source of faith is your personal extrapolation. There is no reason we cannot take the meaning to be that God is the source of salvation, God is the source of grace, and God is the source of faith.”
Aidan,
All I’m saying is that “the gift” in the context is about the source of SALVATION – not the source of faith. Yes, the text does say, “we are God’s workmanship” – but that text has a context!
rhutchin
If faith is not included as part of the gift, how does Paul then say, “we are God’s workmanship”?
br.d
Hence – with the lack of scriptural evidence – one must resort to a philosophical approach.
This model is handed down by Augustine.
Augustine argues
1) Not all babies are baptized (i.e., brought to salvation) by a Catholic priest.
2) Everything that comes to pass does so by infallible decrees
CONCLUSION
Infallible decrees CAUSE some babies not to be brought to salvation
rhutchin: “If faith is not included as part of the gift, how does Paul then say, “we are God’s workmanship”?”
br.d: “Hence – with the lack of scriptural evidence – one must resort to a philosophical approach.”
When looking for evidence lacking in one Scripture, look for that evidence in other Scripture.
rhutchin
If faith is not included as part of the gift, how does Paul then say, “we are God’s workmanship”?”
br.d
Hence – with the lack of scriptural evidence – one must resort to a philosophical approach.”
rhutchin
When looking for evidence lacking in one Scripture, look for that evidence in other Scripture.
br.d
More precisely – when extrapolation – when one verse doesn’t work – try more extrapolation using a less likely verse.
You see – the Holy Spirit intended people to use “extrapolation” – to derive the CRITICAL truths in scripture!
Cuz he doesn’t know how to communicate some things using unambiguous statements. :-]
Excellent stuff.
Aidan writes, “You just need to show the verse that specifically says faith is a gift.”
RH,
“For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,…For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.” Ephesians 2:8-10
“If faith is not a gift of God, then we are not God’s workmanship.”
Aidan,
The context is about salvation wherein he says, “For by grace you have been SAVED through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;” – The gift here is salvation, not faith! The fact that salvation is a gift of God means that we are not the source of it – God is! Hence, God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them. Not faith alone, but a faith that walks in the good works commanded by God Himself.
“For by grace you have been saved THROUGH FAITH;” – In the context, the salvation is God’s part, but the faith is man’s part. But nowhere in this context is it said that faith the gift. You’ll have to look for another passage!
Happy Easter to all.
A saying my boss used to tell me comes to mind. It is not biblical, but it is true nonetheless: you cannot teach a man until he is ready to learn.
I think you know who I am talking about here. By his own admission he is not here to learn. He is a self-appointed gatekeeper that is here to “…correct misconceptions about Calvinism.” That is not learning. And it is noteworthy that he said “Calvinism.”
Not the Gospel.
Not the Bible.
On the one hand it is sad, but on the other it is refreshingly honest, for it reveals the motivation.
He has demonstrated that it is not even beyond the pale in this endeavor to correct Calvin himself, dismissing statements as “Calvin’s opinion” whenever convenient.
I know it is highly tempting to engage in his wrangling, but in my opinion he has been allowed to hijack this site and deter it from what could be its primary purpose: a platform for the like-minded to share and encourage one another. The error of our friend’s ways and his inability to wield a sword without cutting himself is evident. It is not iron sharpening iron. It is the sport of watching one conduct himself foolishly, like watching Elaine Benes dance.
Agreed MrTeebs,
I have come to think this guy is paid by some body to do this day in and day out. 8 hrs a day.
It is not an encouragement to anyone.
mrteebs writes, “By his own admission he is not here to learn. ”
Poor mrteebs. He conflates his refusal to teach to my lack of desire to learn. If you are ready to teach, I am ready to learn.
rhutchin
Poor mrteebs. He conflates his refusal to teach to my lack of desire to learn. If you are ready to teach, I am ready to learn.
br.d
As if anyone here can’t see through that!
What a hoot! :-]
Aidan
In the context, the salvation is God’s part, but the faith is man’s part. But nowhere in this context is it said that faith the gift. You’ll have to look for another passage!
br.d
And this serves as a perfect example of how Calvinists argue from scripture!
You asked for scriptural evidence
What was posted was a verse followed by an additional philosophical argument
Why would there be a need for a philosophical argument if the scripture provided sound evidence ?
Because RH knows that Greek scholars – examining the Greek in this verse – point to “salvation” as the referent of the gift.
RH knew this about that verse – but he wasn’t sure if you knew it.
So just in case you did know it – it would be quite natural to follow-up with a philosophical argument.
This serves as a perfect example of how Calvinism gets what it wants from scripture!
They use verses which have some association with one of the system’s philosophical propositions.
But they know that that text does not provide uncontroversial evidence.
So they have to fortify the position by using philosophical arguments.
Thus we see – the process which is is labeled as “scriptural theology” is in fact mostly “human philosophy”
Aidan writes, ‘…the salvation is God’s part, but the faith is man’s part….”
That faith is man’s part does not mean that faith is not a gift from God. God gives man faith and man is able to exercise faith to believe and abide in Christ. One person hears the gospel and has faith; another person hears the gospel and has no faith. Both people are the same. Why does one gain assurance and conviction from the gospel and the other does not? It is because, “everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Christ.”.
That faith is the bio-robot’s part – does not mean that that faith is not a gift – given to the bio-robot by the divine programmer.
RH writes,
“That faith is man’s part does not mean that faith is not a gift from God.”
Aidan,
I agree that faith on man’s part does not negate God having anything to do with it – nor does it imply that it IS a special gift from God, Calvinisticly speaking!
RH,
“Why does one gain assurance and conviction from the gospel and the other does not?”
Aidan,
Have you ever truly considered the parable of the sower? I think it has something to do with the soil.
“Those beside the road are those who have heard; then the devil comes and takes away the word from their heart, so that they will not believe and be saved.”
rhutchin
“Why does one gain assurance and conviction from the gospel and the other does not?”
br.d
Calvinism Curriculum – 2nd semester:
10 easy lessons in how to present a trick question
Lets rephrase the question:
“Why does one person exercise his God given capacity to believe upon the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved – and the other does not?”
br.d writes, “Lets rephrase the question: “Why does one person exercise his God given capacity to believe upon the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved – and the other does not?”
Let’s use your question. What is your answer?
br.d
Lets rephrase the question: “Why does one person exercise his God given capacity to believe upon the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved – and the other does not?”
rhutchin
Let’s use your question. What is your answer?
br.d
I exercised my God given capacity for Rational Reasoning
You didn’t because Calvin’s god didn’t give that to you as a gift :-]
When the question is phrased like this:
Why does one gain assurance and conviction from the gospel and the other does not?
you know the real question is really this:
Are you better than your friend who refused to believe?
What exactly am I missing in the Calvinist belief that this question is such a “gotcha”? I know that Dr. Flowers felt it was a highly effective question (see link above), but I guess my mind works differently and I would not have felt somehow trapped by just answering honestly: “I CHOSE to do what God said. He gave me that capacity. I may not be better than my friend – but I am certainly wiser and the ability to be wise versus foolish is part of the capacity that He gave all sentient beings with moral agency.” Only a Calvinist would allow such an answer to be a showstopper and cause for shrill protest. A normal-thinking person that has not been infected with that theology will just shrug and go, “Yup. Choices have consequences. Stupid people make bad choices. Wise people make good choices.” Indeed, it is precisely those consequences that incentivize us to be wise. But a Calvinist apparently can’t abide that. God is not sufficiently sovereign if He attaches a dog to a leash. The dog must have his every impulse and action controlled from eternity. A leash allows far too much latitude. Because God isn’t big enough to allow some degree of freedom? I ask again: whose God is truly sovereign – the petulant control-freak or the one that is so big that He can give man choice without losing control?
You only need to get four chapters into the Bible to see this in action (well, actually only 3 chapters, but we’ll skip the Fall for right now).
Gen 4:3-7 (NASB)
So it came about in the course of time that Cain brought an offering to the Lord of the fruit of the ground. Abel, on his part also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their fat portions. And the Lord had regard for Abel and for his offering; but for Cain and for his offering He had no regard. So Cain became very angry and his countenance fell. Then the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it.”
Hmmm. Do what God says (without shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins) and you are accepted. Do it your own way (vegetables) and you are rejected. You choose. You reap the consequences.
Now, let’s replay this with Calvin’s god calling the shots:
“Then the Lord said to Cain, ‘Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, is it not because I have decreed it and will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, is it not because I have decreed that also? Your brother is one of the elect. You are not. Suck it up.”
Abel was wiser because he obeyed. Cain was foolish because he disobeyed. Both had the choice. God certainly felt one was wiser/better, and it was because of the choices each made.
Was Able “better” than his friend (brother)? God certainly thought so, and He thought so because of the choices each made – not because of some divine decree they were each destined to fulfill.
Excellent!!!
My version:
And the THEOS decreed that Adam would infallibly eat the fruit
And the THEOS knew that he would not permit Adam to disobey the infallible decree
And the THEOS then commanded Adam not to eat the fruit – deceiving him to believe he was permitted to obey
But the THEOS kept it a secret that he would never permit Adam to disobey the infallible decree
And the THEOS decreed that Cain would infallibly kill his brother
And the THEOS knew that he would not permit Cain to disobey the infallible decree
And the THEOS mislead Cain to believe he was was free to do well and not kill his brother
But the THEOS kept it a secret that he would never permit Cain to disobey the infallible decree
Ditto from Genesis to Revelations
br.d: “Lets rephrase the question: “Why does one person exercise his God given capacity to believe upon the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved – and the other does not?”
rhutchi: “Let’s use your question. What is your answer?”
LOL!!!! br.d cannot answer his own question? Even if you let a non-Calvinist have his way, he still can’t explain himself.
Oh I think I provided a lot more information in that answer – then just answering that question! :-]
br.d writes, “I think I provided a lot more information in that answer – then just answering that question!”
LOL!!!! Yeah, you talked about anything other than an answer to your own question. br.d cannot answer his own question? Even you must find that just a little funny – that you would pose a question that you could not answer.
rhutchin
LOL!!!! Yeah, you talked about anything other than an answer to your own question. br.d cannot answer his own question? Even you must find that just a little funny – that you would pose a question that you could not answer.
br.d
What you don’t see in that answer simply represents what you don’t see :-]
br.d writes, “What you don’t see in that answer simply represents what you don’t see ”
LOL!!! Yeah, I don’t see an answer to the question you posed. Don’t you find it just a little funny that you still can’t answer your own question?
rhutchin
LOL!!! Yeah, I don’t see an answer to the question you posed. Don’t you find it just a little funny that you still can’t answer your own question?
br.d
The conception of “cant” in this context is presupposed by yourself.
Perhaps another example of Calvin’s god giving you another gift of false perception?
But that doesn’t mean I can find what you don’t see humorous. :-]
RH,: “Why does one gain assurance and conviction from the gospel and the other does not?”
Aidan,: {Have you ever truly considered the parable of the sower? I think it has something to do with the soil.’
I think that has been established already. So, why is one person “good soil” and another is not? There are two possible answers: (1) It depends on God, or (2) it depends on man. What do you think is the answer?
So the secret things belong to the Calvinist (Deut. 29:29)?
Aidan writes, “So the secret things belong to the Calvinist (Deut. 29:29)?”
As Moses puts it, “The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.”
Br.d wrote,
So Calvin’s god must give the Calvinist the gift of knowledge.
And that is in fact a core premise in Gnosticism.
And in Gnosticism only the elect have the true GNOSIS.
Aidan,
Okay Rh, where did Calvin get the idea that He determined from eternity that most Calvinists who believe they are the elect, which would of course include faith in all the tenets of Calvinism, would in fact be lost? Where does it say that this was determined from eternity?
Aidan asks, “Where does it say that this was determined from eternity?”
Acts 15:18 – “Known to God from eternity are all His works.
Isaiah 40:28 – “Have you not known? Have you not heard? The everlasting God, the LORD, The Creator of the ends of the earth, Neither faints nor is weary. His understanding is unsearchable.”
Aidan asks, “Where does it say that this was determined from eternity?”
RH,
Acts 15:18 – “Known to God from eternity are all His works.
Isaiah 40:28 – “Have you not known? Have you not heard? The everlasting God, the LORD, The Creator of the ends of the earth, Neither faints nor is weary. His understanding is unsearchable.”
Aidan,
Lol 🤣 – These passages are too general and don’t answer my specific question, proving that you don’t have a verse showing where THIS was determined from eternity!
Aidan writes, “These passages are too general and don’t answer my specific question,…”
Your question was, “where did Calvin get the idea that [God} determined…Where does it say that this was determined from eternity?” Where did Calvin get the idea that anything was determined from eternity. The verses I cited tell us where Calvin got the idea that anything, and everything, is determined from eternity. To Calvin, “God works all things according to the counsel of His will,” per Ephesians 1. Given that God works all things and God has known all His works from eternity, then Calvin concluded that all things are determined by God from eternity. Just because you are not convinced that this is true does not mean that Calvin was not. Your question related to why Calvin drew this conclusion. You now argue that you are not convinced. So what, Calvin was convinced and you aren’t. A difference of opinion.
RH writes,
“The verses I cited tell us where Calvin got the idea that anything, and everything, is determined from eternity.”
Aidan,
And yet, not a one of them specify that God determined that most Calvinists would be Chaff and destined for hell – and you know it! Where’s the verse that says this? I never argued that God was unable to determine whatever He desired to determine from eternity. I just want to know the verse where God specifically determined that most Calvinists would be Chaff and destined for hell.
rhutchin
The verses I cited tell us where Calvin got the idea
br.d
Calvin got his ideas from Augustine
Augustine got his ideas from Plotinus – Catholicism, and from a Latin translation of scripture.
NeoPlatonism in Christianity – Wikipedia
-quote
Due to Augustine of Hippo, Neoplatonism was a major influence on Christian theology throughout Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages in the West.
What is Gnosticism – Arthur Versluis
-quote
The Catholic authors were Gnostic
The Neoplatonic also
And the Reformation was Gnostic
(Gnosticism Ancient and Modern in Alexandria pp. 307-08)
So it makes perfect sense that Calvinism teaches knowledge (i.e., GNOSIS) and faith are gifts reserved for the elect.
Thanks Br.d, this really is helpful information. And it goes to show what happens when we put our trust in men more than we do in scripture.
GNOSIS BY OSMOSIS – the process of gradual or unconscious assimilation of ideas, knowledge, etc..
Very much my pleasure Aidan!
And what you bring to the table I appreciate very much!
That certainly goes both ways! I appreciate your kind words Br.d.
Aidan writes, “And yet, not a one of them specify that God determined that most Calvinists would be Chaff and destined for hell – and you know it!”
So, that means we should take Calvin’s conclusion on this as his opinion and nothing more. That’s fine with me.
RH writes,
“So, that means we should take Calvin’s conclusion on this as his opinion and nothing more. That’s fine with me.”
Aidan,
And therein lies your problem – taking the mere opinion of a man over the word of God!
Aidan
And yet, not a one of them specify that God determined that most Calvinists would be Chaff and destined for hell – and you know it!”
rhutchin
So, that means we should take Calvin’s conclusion on this as his opinion and nothing more. That’s fine with me.
br.d
Fallacy of “just an opinion”
This fallacy occurs when a reasoned statement is discredits by simply claiming it someone’s opinion.
This fallacy typically occurs when there is insufficient RATIONAL reasoning to counter the argument.
John Calvin’s interpretation of the wheat and the chaff – is logically consistent with his belief system.
It is – as you so often say – his explanation of a scriptural conception – and how that conception is can be construed congruent with Universal Divine Causal Determinism.
br.d writes, “John Calvin’s interpretation of the wheat and the chaff – is logically consistent with his belief system.”
br.d claimed, “Calvin teaches that in the Calvinist church there are a FEW grains of wheat hidden within a HUGE pile of chaff.”
This is Calvin’s actual language:
“We must thus consider both God’s secret election and his inner call. For he alone “knows who are his” [2 Timothy 2:19], and, as Paul says, encloses them under his seal Ephesians 1:13], except that they bear his insignia by which they may be distinguished from the reprobate. 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. It is not sufficient, indeed, for us to comprehend in mind and thought the multitude of the elect, unless we consider the unity of the church as that into which we are convinced we have been truly engrafted.”
br.d seems to have edited that which Calvin wrote to support his claim. Guess that is what non-Calvinists have to do. There must be a logical fallacy in doing that.
I see nothing wrong with Calvin’s statement as truly stated and not as corrupted by br/d.
rhutchin
br.d seems to have edited that which Calvin wrote to support his claim. Guess that is what non-Calvinists have to do. There must be a logical fallacy in doing that.
I see nothing wrong with Calvin’s statement as truly stated and not as corrupted by br/d.
br.d
Anyone reading the quote you posted can see the exact same words which I posted.
-quote
a few grains of wheat are covered by a pile of chaff
Providing the exact words from a quote is not considered a corruption! :-]
And my statement was not moral by LOGICAL in nature.
So your assumption of something being “wrong with it” misses the point.
Therefore my statement still stands:
John Calvin’s interpretation of the wheat and the chaff – is logically consistent with his belief system (i.e., Universal Divine Causal Determinism)
For Calvin – the “MANY” are specifically designed for eternal torment in the lake of fire.
And that includes the population of the Calvinist fold.
They are “a few grains of wheat hidden under a huge pile of chaff”
But I do understand a lot of Calvinists find Calvin’s logical consistency to be a camel to big to swallow! :-]
Hey BR.D…only a Calvinist would think that the fuller quote was any better. It still clearly says:
“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.”
What we also know from Calvin is all that chaff, the huge pile of chaff is by the Calvi-god’s design and it is by His design that they are in churches and it is by His design that they think they are saved and it is by His design that they are deceiving the elect into thinking they too are saved. It is by His design that they cover the few grains, the elect. And it is by His design that the elect cannot know they are actually chaff. Wow !!! NOW I see how the whole quote makes the Calvi-god look so much better.
GraceAdict – I loved this post!!!
GraceAdict
Wow !!! NOW I see how the whole quote makes the Calvi-god look so much better.
br.d
Yea!
A THEOS who deceives the majority of Calvinists with a false faith/election/salvation.
Because he designed all of those Calvinists specifically for eternal torment in a lake of fire!
How does that sound – for a great marketing advertisement?
I just can’t wait to run out and get me sum of that eternal torment right now! :-]
They must constantly rebuild the mound. It must be a lot of work when there is only a single ant versus a colony.
mrteebs
They must constantly rebuild the mound. It must be a lot of work when there is only a single ant versus a colony.
br.d
It makes perfect sense then – for Calvinists to focus their “evangelism” programs predominantly on rounding up sheep from non-Calvinist folds.
A sheep who is already born-again – has a much higher probability of meeting the criteria of being “elect”.
So if one is going to spend precious resources on rounding up sheep – then one naturally looks for the highest return on investment
And this is why we see Calvinist pastors deceiving church boards in order to infiltrate non-Calvinist churches.
And this is why churches have documents like: “How to smoke out a Calvinist interviewing for a position”
Br.d it sure does seem like it…. and why would any pastor EVER not be honest about their credentials??? RED Flag….red flag….
Exactly!!
Didn’t Jesus call that – entering into the sheep-fold by the back door?
GA writes, “What we also know from Calvin is all that chaff, the huge pile of chaff is by the Calvi-god’s design and it is by His design that they are in churches…”
There is no reason to think that “chaff” is inside the church. Opposing this conclusion is Calvin’s immediate preceding statement that “a small and contemptible number are hidden in a huge multitude…” an obvious reference to the church. The “few grains of
wheat” would then refer to believers in the world at large where they “are covered by a pile of chaff.”
rhutchin
The “few grains of wheat” would then refer to believers in the world at large where they “are covered by a pile of chaff.”
br.d
To much contrary evidence:
1) This would contradict Jesus’ depiction of the TRUE ELECT who are not HIDDEN under a bushel.
2) Calvin’s doctrine of the SECRET CHURCH – is logically coherent with a population that is HIDDEN
3) Calvin describes the church as having a LARGE MIXTURE of false elect
The math here is pretty easy! :-]
rhutchin: “The “few grains of wheat” would then refer to believers in the world at large where they “are covered by a pile of chaff.”
br.d: “To much contrary evidence:”
Seems like you have given up trying to support your position from the immediate context of your quote.
Then, ‘3) Calvin describes the church as having a LARGE MIXTURE of false elect”
That’s fine. That does not conflict necessarily with his comparison in the paragraph from which you quoted, “…a small and
contemptible number (non-elect) are hidden in a huge multitude (of elect)…” There is a “large mixture” of the non-elect who are hidden in a huge multitude (of elect).
So we have altogether
1) A LARGE MIXTURE of non-elect within the Calvinist Church
2) The SECRET Church – which obviously means they are HIDDEN
3) Which constitute a FEW GRAINS
Not to difficult to do the math! :-]
br.d writes, “Anyone reading the quote you posted can see the exact same words which I posted.
-quote- “a few grains of wheat are covered by a pile of chaff”
Let’s look at the context of what Calvin wrote:
“… [God’s elect} bear his insignia by which they may be distinguished from the reprobate [the non-elect]. But because a small and contemptible number [the non-elect] are hidden in a huge multitude [the elect] 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. It is not sufficient, indeed, for us to comprehend in mind and thought the multitude of the elect, unless we consider the unity of the church as that into which we are convinced we have been truly engrafted.”
The key phrase is “But because a small and contemptible number [the non-elect] are hidden in a huge multitude [the elect] 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, what did Calvin mean when he wrote, “and a few grains of wheat are covered by a pile of chaff,’? Not what br.d said because Calvin had just written, “a small and contemptible number [the non-elect] are hidden in a huge multitude [the elect]…”
I’ll give what I think Calvin meant. Calvin describes the church as “a small and contemptible number [the non-elect] are hidden in a huge multitude [the elect].” However, in the world, “a few grains of wheat [the elect] are covered by a pile of chaff [the reprobate].
When br.d says, “that includes the population of the Calvinist fold. They are “a few grains of wheat hidden under a huge pile of chaff,” he mistakes Calvin’s point. Calvin did not mean that few Calvinists within the church are saved but that few are elect and saved in the world.
rhutchin
When br.d says, “that includes the population of the Calvinist fold. They are “a few grains of wheat hidden under a huge pile of chaff,” he mistakes Calvin’s point. Calvin did not mean that few Calvinists within the church are saved but that few are elect and saved in the world.
br.d
Silly argument!
John Calvin
-quote
In this CHURCH there is a VERY LARGE mixture of hypocrites, who have nothing of Christ but the name and outward appearance.
-quote
But the Lord…….. INSTILLS INTO THEIR MINDS such a sense of his goodness as can be felt without the Spirit of adoption (Institutes)
-quote
When he shows himself propitious to them, IT IS NOT AS IF HE TRULY RESCUED THEM from death, and taken them under his protection. He only gives them a MANIFESTATION of his present mercy. (Institutes)
Pretty obvious – in Calvinism – the vast majority of Calvinists are given a FALSE faith/election/salvation
Hence: a “few grains of wheat hidden under a pile of chaff”
br.d writes, “Pretty obvious – in Calvinism – the vast majority of Calvinists are given a FALSE faith/election/salvation
Hence: a “few grains of wheat hidden under a pile of chaff”
Let’s read this in context:
“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.”
“..a small and contemptible number (i,e, non-elect) are hidden in a huge multitude (i.e., elect)…” This does not support br.d ‘s conclusion that “the vast majority of Calvinists are given a FALSE faith/election/salvation.” Quite the opposite.
Then follows, “…and a few grains of wheat are covered by a pile of chaff,…” and this cannot negate that which Calvin wrote immediately preceding. The contrast in this paragraph is between the elect and the reprobate. In that context, the few seeds are the elect and the chaff is the reprobate and all the world is in view..
Your too late rhutchin – I already posted the other quotes from Calvin.
Since Calvin declares a -quote VERY LARGEmixture in the Church
I leave it to the SOT101 reader to discern how VERY LARGE and HUGE PILE are to be interpreted.
Perhaps leaving SOT101 readers free to come to their own conclusion is not to someone’s liking? :-]
br.d writes, “I leave it to the SOT101 reader to discern how VERY LARGE and HUGE PILE are to be interpreted.”
And what Calvin meant when he wrote, “a small and contemptible number are hidden in a huge multitude and a few grains of wheat are covered by a pile of chaff, …”
Well Calvin’s god gives them faith as a gift.
And per limitations of the human brain – faith of [X] is impossible without knowledge of [X]
So Calvin’s god must give the Calvinist the gift of knowledge.
And that is in fact a core premise in Gnosticism.
And in Gnosticism only the elect have the true GNOSIS.
Over the years – Calvinists are careful to use terminology that doesn’t connect them with Gnosticism.
But when we look under the hood – guess what we find :-]
Especially since there is no verse in the bible which says, “Calvin’s god gives them faith as a gift” in such a manner as that!
Aidan
Especially since there is no verse in the bible which says, “Calvin’s god gives them faith as a gift” in such a manner as that!
br.d
Exactly Aidan
Which shines a flashlight on the fact that all of RH’s huffing and puffing about a so-called “scriptural Theology” vs a “humanist philosophy” is all just one big huge bluff.
The only way Calvinist get what they want out of scripture is to interpret it through the lens of their “philosophy”.
The irony there – is every time the Calvinist points the finger of “philosophy” at someone he is showing how blind he is
He can’t see he has 4 fingers pointing back at himself!
I think God gave Calvinism to mankind as a form of entertainment! :-]
br.d writes, “a so-called “scriptural Theology” vs a “humanist philosophy” is all just one big huge bluff.”
Scriptural Theology incorporates the truth found in the Scriptures to form its theology. A humanist philosophy purposely avoids incorporating the truth found in Scripture. So, no bluff, just a basic understanding of the two.
Then, “The only way Calvinist get what they want out of scripture is to interpret it through the lens of their “philosophy”.”
Is that what you have been reduced to proclaiming? Even you know that Calvinism is built on common sense understanding of the Scriptures, 40-50 verses in particular as FOH notes and as many as a few hundred as mrteebs has noted.
Don’t flatter yourself rhutchin. I said several hundred merely so that I would never be accused of purposely underestimating the true number. I purposely inflated the number beyond what I believed was even reasonable. In fact, I believed it to be more like 30-40 and threw out a number that was 5X as large.
40-50 is the number given by FOH. Even at 50, this represents 0.16% of the entirety of the Bible’s 31,103 verses. Less than one-sixth of one percent! And, that 0.16% of verses that appear to lend credence to Calvinism can be very capably harmonized and explained within the context of free-will and outside the constraints of TULIP.
mrteebs writes, “I said several hundred merely so that I would never be accused of purposely underestimating the true number. I purposely inflated the number beyond what I believed was even reasonable.”
I stand corrected. I am always happy to see people clarify their remarks.
Then, ” Even at 50, this represents 0.16% of the entirety of the Bible’s 31,103 verses.”
Surely, even you know that such an argument proves nothing. Maybe if you included only those verses that are doctrinal, you might have a better argument even if it stilled proved nothing – at least it would sound better.
Then, ‘that 0.16% of verses that appear to lend credence to Calvinism can be very capably harmonized and explained within the context of free-will and outside the constraints of TULIP.”
To oppose Calvinism, the non-Calvinist has been forced to embrace something called Libertarian Free Will. As they cannot define LFW in a way that distinguishes it from Calvinist free will, those verses emphasized in Calvinism have yet be harmonized with LFW. They have been harmonized with a general view of free will, but this is what Calvinism also does and this reflected in TULIP.
Many verses that are not considered “doctrinal” lend indirect support to one’s theology and are either puzzling or clear depending on the theological lens through which viewed. So, I am not ready to concede that the non-Calvinist has only a small number of “doctrinal” verses at his disposal as does the Calvinist.
My estimate is that there is at least a 10:1 ratio of direct, clear verses the Calvinist must refute verses those the Calvinist employs to come to his aid. Take the “whosoevers” (and their synonyms) used throughout scripture specifically as it pertains to salvation. There is a tremendous amount of support that in the context of salvation, “all means all”. There is relatively little support that it means “only the elect.”
The relatively few verses that the Calvinist enlists to say “it doesn’t mean what it says” have all be dealt with on this site quite extensively. For every John 6:37 there are at least 10 that can be given to refute your understanding of it, and indeed it has been dealt with repeatedly here and explained: Jesus is referring to his disciples.
As to context, we are in agreement. In fact, I took great pains to point out the importance of context in my comment. The question is where we appeal to and what we enlist for context. The verse you gave in Luke is perfect. The verse itself contains the context – it is a Roman census and thus we can safely conclude that “all” is understood to mean “all the Roman world”. I.e., the perimeter of the Mediterranean. Not the Americas. Not Antarctica. Not Australia. Not most of Africa. They had no authority to conduct a census elsewhere. We also both understand that verses saying “man” must be understood in context. Sometimes they are directed to males. Other times they are more all-encompassing and clearly comprise mankind. Verses like “under the sun” are understood to mean “all human endeavors” and not simply the part of the globe currently facing the sun. Many other examples could be given of context, and we would both be in agreement.
My point remains, however. The Calvinist is forced far more often than the non-Calvinist to reach far beyond the surrounding verses or chapters or even the Bible itself to explain the contradictions inherent in their theology.
As I noted previously, you have had five long years to state your case and cannot seem to do so convincingly or coherently. I estimated that you have posted close to 4,000 times on this site and spend upwards of five hours per week composing rebuttals. If I am in error about that, then I welcome you to tally the accurate score and convince us why the “simplicity” of Calvinism requires so many blows of the hammer to drive the nail home.
I will again say it: you are in the wrong place to be expending so much watt-less energy. Go to where there are like-minded people. If we desire to learn more about Calvinism’s fine points there are hundreds of resources out there, ranging from monergism.com to ligonier.org to desiringgod.org to many, many others. Spend your time with those who actively are pursuing more knowledge about Calvinism rather than those that have examined it thoroughly and found it lacking.
You have yet to answer my key questions honestly:
– why are you here?
– what have you accomplished in the last five years by posting here?
– have any of your own views – or those of others – been altered as a result of these interactions? If not, then why is it a good use of your time?
– at what point is “enough” considered “enough”. 4000 posts? 10,000? 40,000?
You love to endlessly wrangle over words. I’m not going to do that with you. But as long as you persist here, I am going to keep peppering you to answer honestly why you are here and what kind of fruit you are producing in the process.
meteebs writes, “You have yet to answer my key questions honestly:
– why are you here?”
To correct a false understanding of Calvinist doctrine and thereby promote lively debate about the Scriptures.
Then, “– what have you accomplished in the last five years by posting here?”
I have corrected many false understandings of Calvinist doctrine.
Then, “– have any of your own views – or those of others – been altered as a result of these interactions? If not, then why is it a good use of your time?”
Educating people is always a good use of anyone’s time.
Then, “– at what point is “enough” considered “enough”. 4000 posts? 10,000? 40,000?”
When people get Calvinist doctrine right and need no more correction, then we can go on to lively debate about Calvinism vs other theologies and their use of the Scriptures. I liked to think that such could occur quickly, but that does not seem to be the case.
In summation – crafting 1001 non-malevolent masks – designed to hide the underlying face of malevolence :-]
mrteebs writes, “My estimate is that there is at least a 10:1 ratio of direct, clear verses the Calvinist must refute verses those the Calvinist employs to come to his aid.”
I think the simplest answer I have offered is that the verses alleging free will are said by the Calvinist to be based on a presumption of faith.
Then, ‘Take the “whosoevers” (and their synonyms) used throughout scripture specifically as it pertains to salvation. There is a tremendous amount of support that in the context of salvation, “all means all”. There is relatively little support that it means “only the elect.””
Good example. Here, the Calvinist would say “all means all who first receive faith.” We are able to define a point of disagreement. The Calvinist says that “whosoever believes” requires that “whosoever first have faith in order to believe” while a non-Calvinist would say that whosoever can believe even without faith. If faith is a requirement, then those with faith (the elect) will believe and those without faith (the non-elect) will not believe. The issue of faith, so much emphasized in Calvinist doctrine, is one of the key points of disagreement between Calvinist and non-Calvinists. I think the issue of faith would be an interesting topic for discussion but no one seems to want to go there.
Then, ‘The relatively few verses that the Calvinist enlists to say “it doesn’t mean what it says” have all be dealt with on this site quite extensively.”
Maybe. But don;t you find it interesting that for John 6:37, “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me,…” it is the Calvinist who says “all means all” and the non-Calvinist who says “all means all (the disciples)” or something other than “all means all.”
Look at Dr. Flowers explanation of John 6:44, “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him;…” Dr, Flowers changes “him” (the singular) to “them” (the plural) to support his understanding of the verse. Is that kosher??
Then, ‘The Calvinist is forced far more often than the non-Calvinist to reach far beyond the surrounding verses or chapters or even the Bible itself to explain the contradictions inherent in their theology. ”
So, there is room for discussion. Obviously, I think that is a false conclusion on your part
Then, ‘Spend your time with those who actively are pursuing more knowledge about Calvinism rather than those that have examined it thoroughly and found it lacking.”
My experience is that no one here has examined Calvinism thoroughly – at least after considering the many false statements that have been made about what Calvinism teaches or does not teach.
rhutchin
I think the simplest answer I have offered is that the verses alleging free will are said by the Calvinist to be based on a presumption of faith.
br.d
10 easy lessons in how to create virtual bridges between the philosophy of Universal Divine Causal Determinism and scriptural concepts like faith.
rhutchin
My experience is that no one here has examined Calvinism thoroughly – at least after considering the many false statements that have been made about what Calvinism teaches or does not teach.
br.d
Any theology containing DOUBLE-THINK – will quite naturally find its outward expression in a language of DOUBLE-SPEAK.
Which will require endless maintenance in the form of more subtle DOUBLE-SPEAK – in order to cover up what careful scrutiny discovers.
As ex-Calvinist Daniele Gracely explains:
-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.”
br.d
The so-called “scriptural Theology” vs a “humanist philosophy” is all just one big huge bluff.
For every time the Calvinist points the finger of “human philosophy” he is blind to 4 fingers pointing right back at himself.
rhutchin
Scriptural Theology incorporates the truth found in the Scriptures to form its theology.
br.d
AH but all data requires interpretation – unless you to argue that the Calvinist interpretation is CANNON?
Good luck with that. :-]
rhutchin
A humanist philosophy purposely avoids incorporating the truth found in Scripture.
br.d
AS-IF the truth found in scripture can’t be forced into the mold of Calvinism’s philosophy! :-]
Thus the bluff still stands
rhutchin
Even you know that Calvinism is built on common sense understanding of the Scriptures,
br.d
Well there is a “sense” that is “common” to Calvinists for sure!
And here are a few examples:
-Go about your office *AS-IF* nothing (e.g. a Calvinist’s sense) is determined in any part by an external mind
– [X] minus 100% of [X] equals some numeric value less than [X]
That’s what one would expect from a “common sense” infallibly decreed by an external mind! :-]
br.d
“Exactly Aidan
Which shines a flashlight on the fact that all of RH’s huffing and puffing about a so-called “scriptural Theology” vs a “humanist philosophy” is all just one big huge bluff.”
Aidan,
Not that I haven’t seen you use arguments from scripture, there’s one or two not far from the bottom here. But it’s because he can’t get you on the logical arguments, the “humanist philosophy” accusation against you becomes a ploy to get you to move in the direction he wants you to go! Not realizing that Calvinism is based upon human thinking and speculation – not actual scriptural truth. Your logical arguments are not “humanist philosophy” but logic, which serves to expose this doctrine as human, NOT divine!
Once again – you hit the bulls-eye Aidan!
So glad you are here!!!
Thanks Br.d, I hope it helped.
Aidan writes, “the “humanist philosophy” accusation against you becomes a ploy to get you to move in the direction he wants you to go!”
br.d’s humanist philosophy specifically ignores God’s creation of man in His image and ignores the impact of God’s understanding as the basis for His works.
rhutchin
br.d’s humanist philosophy specifically ignores God’s creation of man in His image and ignores the impact of God’s understanding as the basis for His works.
br.d
Gnostic NeoPlatonist interpretations are designed to ensure Scripture conforms into the mold of a “Human Philosophy”.
And Calvinist ad-hoc inventions are all based on the urgency to make determinism APPEAR In-deterministic. :-]
I don’t know what Br.d’s philosophy is, but I do know that Calvinism’s false doctrine of total depravity denies God’s creation of men in His own image! You need to read Ezekiel 18 sometime, perhaps it will help you to see the truth on this issue.
I suspect RH has been told that a thousand times.
How does indoctrination work?
Br.d writes,
I suspect RH has been told that a thousand times.
How does indoctrination work?
Aidan,
From Webster’s dictionary: Did you know?
“Indoctrinate simply means “brainwash” to many people. But its meaning isn’t always so negative. When this verb first appeared in English in the 17th century, it simply meant “to teach”-a meaning that followed logically from its Latin root. The “doc” in the middle of indoctrinate derives from the Latin verb docēre, which also means “to teach.” Other offspring of “docēre” include “docent” (referring to a college professor or a museum guide), “docile,” “doctor,” “doctrine,” and “document.” It was not until the 19th century that “indoctrinate” began to see regular use in the sense of causing someone to absorb and take on certain opinions or principles.”
I suppose on the negative side we could talk about group identity, and belonging to an elect community chosen by God, etc..etc..! But if people stopped exalting men, putting them on a pedestal – we wouldn’t have so much sectarianism, or be led down the garden path.
1 Cor. 3:4-7; NKJV –
“For when one says, “I am of Paul,” and another, “I am of Apollos,” are you not carnal? Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers through whom you believed, as the Lord gave to each one? I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase. So then neither he who plants is anything, nor he who waters, but God who gives the increase.”
And, “I am of Calvin” etc..! – Seems like this is the spirit of the day, and there are plenty of false prophets out there to take advantage of it! But of course, there are plenty of people who have itching ears too!
Good points Aidan.
Yes – I know that many psychologists don’t like the term “brainwashing” because it really is misleading.
I don’t know if you are familiar with the sociological experiments done by Dr. Solomon Asch.
But he proved through experiments that social dynamics if done systematically have the power to modify a person’s sense of truth.
A powerful innate need for acceptance is part of the human psychological makeup.
br.d writes, “But [Dr. Solomon Asch] proved through experiments that social dynamics if done systematically have the power to modify a person’s sense of truth.”
That is why Paul instructs, “do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.”
br.d writes, “But [Dr. Solomon Asch] proved through experiments that social dynamics if done systematically have the power to modify a person’s sense of truth.”
rhutcin
That is why Paul instructs, “do not be conformed to this world,….
br.d
Every day I read Calvinist posts – I thank the Lord why my mind has not be re-shaped by Calvinism’s social system.
So that’s why you haven’t been brainwashed by Rh, you just don’t need his acceptance😁❗
Aidan writes, “I do know that Calvinism’s false doctrine of total depravity denies God’s creation of men in His own image! ”
Total Depravity says that Adam’s sin corrupted the original condition of Adam (as made in God’s image). You deny that Adam’s sin had any effect on Adam or his descendants (in terms of God making man in His image), so you conclude that Total Depravity (with its focus on the corruption of man’s heart and loss of faith brought about by Adam’s sin) is a false doctrine. OK, we disagree on this point.
rhutchin
Total Depravity says that Adam’s sin corrupted the original condition of Adam….etc
br.d
No alternative of what is infallibly decreed is permitted or made available – at pain of compromising the infallible decree
John Calvin
-quote
For it did not take place BY REASON OF NATURE that, by the guilt of one parent, all were cut off from salvation . . . . Since this CANNOT BE ASCRIBED TO NATURE, it is perfectly clear that it has come forth from the….plan of God (Institutes)
RH writes,
“Total Depravity says that Adam’s sin corrupted the original condition of Adam (as made in God’s image).”
Aidan,
Okay, so that’s what total depravity says, but what about what the scriptures say? Where’s the verse? That’s all that matters!
RH: “Total Depravity says that Adam’s sin corrupted the original condition of Adam (as made in God’s image).”
Aidan: “Okay, so that’s what total depravity says, but what about what the scriptures say? Where’s the verse?”
We know from Romans 10 that faith comes from hearing. the word. Prior to hearing the word, a person would not have faith. So, Total Depravity recognizes that faith cannot exist outside the hearing of the word allowing the conclusion that people are not born with faith but must have faith conveyed to them through the hearing of the word. Your issue seems to be that the Scriptures do not say that Adam had faith and lost that faith when he sinned. You may be correct that Adam had no faith to lose. Thus, TD is not false in characterizing man as not having faith but Calvinists are wrong in attributing the loss of faith to the consequence of Adam’s sin. Let’s accept that for now.
However, you said “Calvinism’s false doctrine of total depravity denies God’s creation of men in His own image!” The doctrine cannot be a false doctrine given that no one is born with faith, and a person can only receive faith by hearing the word.
Even though the TD doctrine is true based on it’s characterization of a person as being without faith, does this deny God’s creation of men in His own image? I don’t see how TD, even if false, denies God’s creation of men in His own image. How do you join those two together – TD and God’s creation of men in His own image?
RH writes,
“Even though the TD doctrine is true based on it’s characterization of a person as being without faith, does this deny God’s creation of men in His own image? I don’t see how TD, even if false, denies God’s creation of men in His own image. How do you join those two together – TD and God’s creation of men in His own image?”
Aidan,
Total depravity, which is the teaching that men are born with a corrupted nature, is by its very definition a denial that we are made like God – unless you believe that God has a corrupt nature. If that’s how Calvinism views the nature of a child when it comes into the world – then it denies God’s creation of men in His own image. Need I remind you, that whatever our human fathers are in relation to our flesh, God is the Father of our spirits (Heb. 12:9). And that’s the part of us that is created in His image. You couldn’t get a more innocent and beautiful creation than that of a child. That’s why Jesus could say, “For of such is the kingdom of heaven.” Whether its total depravity, partial depravity, or a tiny bit of depravity – its nothing but a total lie of the devil.
I have a question:
Since man functions like a puppet in Calvinism – Calvin’s god determining his every neurological impulse
What need is there for a doctrine of Total Depravity?
Perhaps it is simply a FACADE doctrine designed to make Calvinism APPEAR congruent with scripture?
br.d writes, ‘Since man functions like a puppet in Calvinism – Calvin’s god determining his every neurological impulse”
Under Calvinism, God made man in His image making him a self-determining person and not a puppet. That does not negate God’s infinite understanding of the person and God’s ability to know what the man will think before he thinks it.
rhutchin
Under Calvinism, God made man in His image making him a self-determining
br.d
Yea we know – like sugar-pops can be advertised as sugar free! :-]
It just depends on how one defines sugar.
Since in Calvinism man’s every neurological impulse is meticulously determined at the foundation of the world
That gives us a clear indication of how Calvinism defines: “in his image” and “self-determined” . :-]
Yep! Perhaps TULIP is a diversionary tactic from the fact that Calvin’s god determined man’s every neurological impulse! On the other hand, proving how unscriptural TULIP is, you open up the door to teaching the true gospel of salvation. In my estimation, its a matter of salvation!
Aidan
Yep! Perhaps TULIP is a diversionary tactic from the fact that Calvin’s god determined man’s every neurological impulse!
br.d
I think so!
The problem – as you can see – is that it resolves to a form of DOUBLE-THINK.
Take “U” in Unconditional election for example
How much of concerning the creature is in fact Unconditional in Calvinism?
Election is determined by an infallible decree at the foundation of the world – just like everything else is.
Every aspect of the creature is also infallibly decreed at the foundation of the world
So there really is no aspect of the creature is conditioned upon the creature?
And how about the “I” Irresistible grace
Since every perception a person will ever have is infallibly decreed to come to pass
How is it logically possible for the human brain to resist a perception that is infallibly decreed?
I think at some point in time – Christianity started to see Calvinism as simply a form of STOIC DETERMINISM.
And Reformed thinkers needed a way to make it APPEAR Biblical.
Aiden writes, “Total depravity, which is the teaching that men are born with a corrupted nature, is by its very definition a denial that we are made like God…”
Yeah, if you leave out Adam’s sin. It was Adam’s sin that resulted in the corruption of the nature in those born to him and that sin that resulted in people being born without faith. God made Adam in His image with a perfect nature that was corrupted when he sinned.
Then, “If that’s how Calvinism views the nature of a child when it comes into the world…”
Calvinism views children as being born with a corrupted nature. Thus, the Calvinist desire to immediately baptize the newborn baby.
Then, “You couldn’t get a more innocent and beautiful creation than that of a child.”
Only Adam and Eve were innocent and beautiful creations of God. Following his sin, Adam’s children inherited his corruption.
Then, “Whether its total depravity, partial depravity, or a tiny bit of depravity – its nothing but a total lie of the devil.”
Perhaps the lie of the Devil is that Adam’s sin was innocent and beautiful so Adam could produce innocent and beautiful children.
rhutchin
God made Adam in His image with a perfect nature that was corrupted when he sinned.
br.d
John Calvin
-quote
God not only foresaw the fall of the first man, and in him the ruin of his posterity; but also AT HIS OWN PLEASURE ARRANGED IT. (Institutes)
-quote
For it did not take place BY REASON OF NATURE that, by the guilt of one parent, all were cut off from salvation . . . .
-quote
Since this CANNOT BE ASCRIBED TO NATURE, it is perfectly clear that it has come forth from the….plan of God (Institutes)
rhutchin AND Adian,
Has anyone of you read 1 Corinthians 15:42-end…
If you read and study that, you will see that since HUMANS are formed of the DIRT, Adam was NEVER without a corrupted nature.
Adam was just IGNORANT of that corrupted nature, and THAT ignorance is what gave him INNOCENCE.
Once he got knowledge of good and evil, based on the tree that he ate from, THEN that ignorance/innocence was lost.
We all go thru that same process of IGNORANCE/INNOCENCE, then KNOWLEDGE/GUILTY.
1 COR 15:42-46 (PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO THE WORD “PLANTED”)
Adam was PLANTED as:
1 Dishonorable
2 WEAK
3 DIES
AND THAT IS WHAT CAME “FIRST”.
VERSE 36
What you plant doesn’t come to life unless it dies.
AND…verse 50
Bodies made of flesh and blood can’t share in the kingdom of God.
If it’s got BLOOD in it, then it dies. The life of the flesh is in the blood.
Adam was gonna die anyway. But some preach incorrectly that Adam LOST eternal life. He can’t lose what he never had. So, instead, he never OBTAINED eternal life.
Conclusion…Adam became a sinner when he FIRST SINNED…and YOU become a sinner when you FIRST SIN.
I’d sure like to know WHY you Calvinists conclude that David was a sinner from the womb, when that verse does not say that, and when you study Jewish history, you will see that the night that David was conceived, it was his MOTHER that was “in sin”. She deceived her husband.
So again, I go back to that Calvinists have no clue about sentence structuring, and to also conclude that they refuse to get knowledge from the Jews, cuz they think, being a Gentile, that they have the INSIDE ADVANTAGE over the Jews.
Ed Chapman
rhutchin states:
“Perhaps the lie of the Devil is that Adam’s sin was innocent and beautiful so Adam could produce innocent and beautiful children.Perhaps the lie of the Devil is that Adam’s sin was innocent and beautiful so Adam could produce innocent and beautiful children.Perhaps the lie of the Devil is that Adam’s sin was innocent and beautiful so Adam could produce innocent and beautiful children.”
My response:
WHAT WAS THE DEVIL’S LIE? Last I recall, the devil TOLD ADAM THE TRUTH, that his eyes would be open. OPEN TO WHAT?
God confirmed that truth, when he said that man has become as us, to know good and evil.
So, did God want them to have knowledge or not? Knowledge of WHAT, by the way? THEIR OWN SINS, THAT WHAT.
br.d writes, “So Calvin’s god must give the Calvinist the gift of knowledge.”
This accomplished by the Holy Spirit through the preaching of the gospel.
br.d
So Calvin’s god must give the Calvinist the gift of knowledge – because the human mind cannot have “faith” in what is unknown
rhutchin
This accomplished by the Holy Spirit through the preaching of the gospel.
br.d
AS-IF in Calvinism (and Gnostic Christianity) – the gift of faith is not accomplished by the Holy Spirit.
The MEANS or MECHANICS of how Calvin’s god gives the gift of GNOSIS is entirely up to him.
br.d writes, “The MEANS or MECHANICS of how Calvin’s god gives the gift of GNOSIS is entirely up to him.”
Who would God consult in deciding whom to give gifts – of gnosis or faith, etc.?
br.d
The MEANS or MECHANICS of how Calvin’s god gives the gift of GNOSIS is entirely up to him.
rhutchin
Who would God consult in deciding whom to give gifts – of gnosis or faith, etc.?
br.d
Perhaps he looks into his infinite understanding of what people WOULD desire
And gives gifts in accordance to that
*AS-IF* he didn’t meticulously determine every nano-desire *FOR* them! :-]
Aidan writes, “But the Calvinist CANNOT accept that the Corinthians would be saved – only IF they held fast the word which Paul had preached to them.”
Calvinists understand from Paul’s other letters that it requires faith to hold fast the word. Those with faith hold fast the word; those without faith do not hold fast the word. So, Calvinist DO accept that the Corinthians would be saved – only IF they held fast the word which Paul had preached to them.
rhutchin
Calvinists understand from Paul’s other letters that it requires faith to hold fast the word.
br.d
Of course! In order to make scripture conform to Universal Divine Causal Determinism.
Thus “faith” in every FALSE PERCEPTION which comes to pass in the Calvinist’s brain – is a gift – given directly from Calvin’s god.
As John Calvin says:
-quote
When he shows himself propitious to them, it is not as if he had truly rescued them from death, and taken them under his protection. He only gives them a MANIFESTATION of his present mercy. (Institutes)
-quote
He also causes those whom he illumines only for a time to partake of it; then he…….strikes them with even greater blindness (Institutes)
WOW what a wonderful gift! :-]
1 Cor. 6:11; NASB-
“Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.”
I think we can safely say that the Corinthians had been justified by faith when they accepted the gospel. Which would have required “faith” from the start, in order to obtain sanctification and justification in His name. Hence, they had been saved!
But again, notice 1 Cor. 15:1-2; NASB-
“Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.”
Notice: Paul had preached the gospel to them. They had received that gospel, and they were standing in the gospel. Hence they presently saved! The verb (to save) here is a present passive verb. It refers to a continuative process. Every Christian is still working out his own salvation. The Corinthians will be saved through the gospel, IF they hold fast to what Paul preached. The verb “to hold fast” is a present tense verb. Hence, salvation is made dependent upon “holding fast” the gospel which they had received.
This necessarily implies that if one failed to hold fast the gospel which Paul preached, he would no longer be saved; indicating that one can definitely fall from grace. This, of course, denies Calvinism, but is nevertheless true to the text.
Aidan writes, “This necessarily implies that if one failed to hold fast the gospel which Paul preached, he would no longer be saved; indicating that one can definitely fall from grace. This, of course, denies Calvinism, but is nevertheless true to the text.”
Perhaps, not all have faith. Paul likely understood that every time he preached the gospel, that gospel attracted both wheat and tares so that not all received faith. I don’t see that this denies Calvinism nor the heavy emphasis Calvinism places on faith in the process of bringing a person to salvation.
rhutchin
Perhaps, not all have faith. Paul likely understood that every time he preached the gospel, that gospel attracted both wheat and tares
br.d
Per Calvin’s god’s nano-second by nano-second AUTHORSHIP of whatsoever comes to pass.
He DESIGNS of the vast majority of Calvinists to FALSE faith, election, salvation and then later eternal torment in a lake of fire.
As John Calvin states it:
-quote
The Lord…….. INSTILLS INTO their minds such a sense of his goodness as can be felt without the Spirit of adoption.
(Institutes)
RH writes,
“Perhaps, not all have faith. Paul likely understood that every time he preached the gospel, that gospel attracted both wheat and tares so that not all received faith.”
Aidan,
In Calvinism if they were not regenerated and given faith, how would they have been attracted to the gospel? But in 1 Corinthians 15, Paul tells us that these people had indeed believed (v2). Notice also v.11 – “Therefore, whether it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.” And v.17 – “And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins!”
But you go ahead and believe what you want despite the evidence to the contrary!
Aidan writes, “In Calvinism if they were not regenerated and given faith, how would they have been attracted to the gospel?”
Many people want to escape the consequences of their sin and find the gospel attractive. The health and wealth preachers know this. How else are we to explain the presence of tares in the church?
Then, “But in 1 Corinthians 15, Paul tells us that these people had indeed believed (v2).”
Paul says, “unless you believed in vain.” If they had “believed in vain” then they would not “hold fast that word which [Paul] preached …” and thereby would not have been saved. If their belief sprung from their faith, they would hold fast the word as holding fast to the word is the natural result of one’s assurance and conviction of that word.
Then, ‘But you go ahead and believe what you want despite the evidence to the contrary!”
What evidence – your presumption that those who “believe in vain” are saved (“had indeed believed”)? Maybe you can explain the evidence you seem to think you have presented.
rhutchin
How else are we to explain the presence of tares in the church?
br.d
John Calvin
-quote
When he shows himself propitious to them, it is not as if he had truly rescued them from death, and taken them under his protection.
He only gives them a MANIFESTATION of his present mercy. (Institutes)
-quote
He illumines only for a time to partake of it; then he…..strikes them with even greater blindness (Institutes)
-quote
Whatever CONCEPTIONS we form in our minds, they were directed by the secret INSPIRATION of God”. (Institutes)
rhutchin: “How else are we to explain the presence of tares in the church?”
br.d: “John Calvin,,,”
Calvin explained how he thinks it happens. Do you know how the non-Calvinist explains it? probably an appeal to man being autonomous and outside God’s control and thereby able to exercise his free will any way he wants.
rhutchin: “How else are we to explain the presence of tares in the church?”
Calvin explained how he thinks it happens. Do you know how the non-Calvinist explains it? probably an appeal to man being autonomous and outside God’s control and thereby able to exercise his free will any way he wants.
br.d
That would be what you would call “self-determining” :-]
I don’t think you would consider “The health and wealth preachers” as part of the true church, would you? I just thought in terms of your doctrine of total depravity, that a reprobate would not want to touch the kingdom of God with a ten foot pole!
RH writes,
“What evidence – your presumption that those who “believe in vain” are saved (“had indeed believed”)? Maybe you can explain the evidence you seem to think you have presented.”
Aidan,
In the opening two verses we learn that, Paul had preached the gospel to them, they had believed what Paul had preached, stood firm in it, and says, “by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you” – Question: Would they be saved if they held fast to that word Paul preached to them?
Then Paul finishes his statement by saying, – “Unless you believed in vain” confirming that they had believed – but seemingly concerned over whether they had believed in vain. I’m not sure I understand all that Paul meant by that statement, except to say that if they stopped holding fast that word preached to them – they would have believed in vain and would be lost. In the context, that would seem to have to do with the threat of abandoning the teaching concerning the resurrection.
v.11 “Therefore, whether it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.”
v.17 “And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins!”
Question: Did they believe?
Aidan writes, ‘Then Paul finishes his statement by saying, – “Unless you believed in vain” confirming that they had believed – but seemingly concerned over whether they had believed in vain.”
I take “unless you believed in vain,” to be a caveat. Paul is speaking the gospel to those who “received and in which you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you…” Then Paul adds – the caveat. “unless you believed in vain.,” In other words, Paul says that this does not apply to those who had believed in vain or had not really believed and this condition would be demonstrated in their not holding fast the word.
Given that Paul writes in Romans 8, “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 God predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.” There is an unbroken chain of actions by God – God predestined, called, justified, and sanctified His elect. Then, we have Ephesians 1, “In Christ 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,…” Here, the Holy Spirit is “the guarantee of our inheritance.” I don’t think Paul would then intend us to think that salvation could so easily be lost by a believer by not holding fast the word.
Then, ‘v.11 “Therefore, whether it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.”
v.17 “And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins!”
Question: Did they believe?”
Paul changes context between v1-2 and v11;17. in the former, the issue is having a vain belief in a true gospel. The latter deals with vain belief in a false gospel. Those who believe in vain would be comparable to the seed that fell by the wayside, on rock, or in thorns where true faith was not present.
There are too many verses where God guarantees the salvation of His elect to now conclude that Paul would teach otherwise in 1 Corinthians 15 or anywhere else.
RH writes,
“I take “unless you believed in vain,” to be a caveat. Paul is speaking the gospel to those who “received and in which you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you…” Then Paul adds – the caveat. “unless you believed in vain.,” In other words, Paul says that this does not apply to those who had believed in vain or had not really believed and this condition would be demonstrated in their not holding fast the word.”
Aidan,
Okay, so you have two groups here. In group one – “you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you.” But notice, you still must – “hold fast that word which I preached to you” to be saved – thus putting the responsibility on them to do so! – “Unless you believed in vain” putting them into a group who believed, but believed in vain. But which group they fell into, was totally their own choice!
RH,
“Given that Paul writes in Romans 8, “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 God predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.” There is an unbroken chain of actions by God – God predestined, called, justified, and sanctified His elect. Then, we have Ephesians 1, “In Christ 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,…” Here, the Holy Spirit is “the guarantee of our inheritance.” I don’t think Paul would then intend us to think that salvation could so easily be lost by a believer by not holding fast the word.”
Aidan,
Your verses in Romans 8 and Ephesians 1 ARE referring to believers who hold fast the word of God – the faithful.
RH,
“Paul changes context between v1-2 and v11;17.”
Aidan,
Its all related. The chapter may be divided as follows:
The resurrection of Christ as an historical fact (vs.1-11)
The resurrection of Christ as related to the general resurrection (vs.12-34)
Answering possible objections (vs. 35-57)
Concluding words of triumph (v.58).
RH,
“There are too many verses where God guarantees the salvation of His elect to now conclude that Paul would teach otherwise in 1 Corinthians 15 or anywhere else.”
Aidan,
On the other hand, there are too many verses where God only guarantees salvation to the faithful believer for us to ignore or teach otherwise. And the beauty of it all, is that these verses are found from beginning to end in the word of God. This is hard for you to see, because you believe that faith is a special gift to an elect group.
Aidan writes, “Anything Jesus said elsewhere will not contradict His teaching – that one can lose their salvation.”
What about John 6 where Jesus said, “For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 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.”
Aidan writes, “Anything Jesus said elsewhere will not contradict His teaching – that one can lose their salvation.”
Rh,
“What about John 6 where Jesus said, “For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 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.”
Aidan,
I don’t see any evidence in John 6 to show that God’s children can’t turn and rebel against His will and be lost. There’s just too much evidence in scripture to show that they can – in spite of His will.
What about Matthew 23:37, where Jesus said, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!”
Ezekiel 18:23-24;
“Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?” says the Lord GOD, “and not that he should turn from his ways and live? “But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and does according to all the abominations that the wicked man does, shall he live? All the righteousness which he has done shall not be remembered; because of the unfaithfulness of which he is guilty and the sin which he has committed, because of them he shall die.”
Aidan writes, “I don’t see any evidence in John 6 to show that God’s children can’t turn and rebel against His will and be lost.”
So when Jesus says, “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…I will raise him up at the last day…Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day,” you don’t see that as evidence of Jesus’ ability to preserve those whom the Father gives to Him?
Then, “What about Matthew 23:37,…”
What about it? The religious leaders hated Christ were unwilling for the people to be gathered to Christ. The religious leaders were not believers, as a rule, – certainly not the ones Jesus was addressing.
What does Ezekiel have to do with anything. It speaks of the law and not faith in Christ. Once Jesus comes on the scene, the whole system is turned upside down.
Aidan writes, “I don’t see any evidence in John 6 to show that God’s children can’t turn and rebel against His will and be lost.”
RH,
“Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day,” you don’t see that as evidence of Jesus’ ability to preserve those whom the Father gives to Him?”
Aidan,
Of course I do! They are the ones who by faith continue to imbibe Jesus. Those who choose to remain faithful will always abide in Jesus and have eternal life, and they will be raised up at the last day.
Aidan,
Then, “What about Matthew 23:37,…”
RH,
“What about it?”
Aidan,
The point being that God’s will for Jerusalem, His people, was to come to Jesus and be saved. But they were able to defy His will and be lost. They were cut off because of unbelief, just like the Christian can be cut off because of unbelief – Romans 11. And yet still be grafted back in again, if they do not continue in unbelief – this also applies to the Christian – Romans 11.
RH,
“What does Ezekiel have to do with anything.”
Aidan,
Ezekiel 18 is just further confirmation of the above principle. And it has always being about faith, even under the law.
Aidan writes, “They are the ones who by faith continue to imbibe Jesus. ”
I agree with your emphasis on faith. What about the other statements made by Jesus?
Aidan writes, “The point [in Matthew 23″27] being that God’s will for Jerusalem, His people, was to come to Jesus and be saved. But they were able to defy His will and be lost.”
I think you and I are reading two different Bibles. My version says, “How often I wanted to gather your children together…but you were not willing!”
Then, “Ezekiel 18 is just further confirmation of the above principle. And it has always being about faith, even under the law.”
I agree; it is all about faith. Ezekiel 18 speaks of those who have faith and those without faith. Those with faith continue to imbibe in Jesus and those without faith do not. Are you agreeing with the Calvinists on the importance of faith in salvation?
Aidan writes, “They are the ones who by faith continue to imbibe Jesus. ”
RH,
I agree with your emphasis on faith. What about the other statements made by Jesus?
Aidan,
Its never been once you have believed you are saved forever. It has always been about continuous believing!
RH,
“I think you and I are reading two different Bibles. My version says, “How often I wanted to gather your children together…but you were not willing!”
Aidan,
What do you think that might imply then?
RH,
“Are you agreeing with the Calvinists on the importance of faith in salvation?”
Aidan,
I agree on the absolute necessity of consciously continuing to walk by faith! But there is a faith that saves, and a faith that does not save (James 2:14-26).
rhutchin
“Are you agreeing with the Calvinists on the importance of faith in salvation?”
br.d
Examples of survey questions designed to trap the respondent.
Question
Are you agreeing with the importance of a women’s right to control her body?
Aidan writes, “Its never been once you have believed you are saved forever. It has always been about continuous believing!”
Salvation is not derived from our believing. As no one has any ability to come to Christ but must be drawn to Christ by God, we see that God initiates salvation even as Paul wrote, “God who has begun a good work in you…” Then Jesus promised, “I will raise up at the last day that person God draws to me.” If that were not enough, Paul adds. “God who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ;”
Then, RH: ““I think you and I are reading two different Bibles. My version says, “How often I wanted to gather your children together…but you were not willing!”
Aidan: “What do you think that might imply then?”
We first identify who Jesus means when He says, “O Jerusalem.” Once we do that, we can identify the children of Jerusalem. It is Jerusalem that was not willing for Jesus to gather her children. I say Jerusalem is comprised of the religious leaders and her children are the common people entrusted to them by God for safe-keeping.
Who do you say Jerusalem is? Who are her children?
Then “there is a faith that saves, and a faith that does not save”
One faith is that described by Paul when he writes, “by grace you have been saved through faith,” The other is described by James, “faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.” This is confirmed by Paul when he wrote, “we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.”
rhutchin states to Aidan,
“Salvation is not derived from our believing. ”
My response:
What an IGNORANT statement.
It is indeed derived from our believing. BUT, believing WHAT?
The PROMISES. WHAT WAS THE PROMISES?
rhutchin states:
Yeah, if you leave out Adam’s sin. It was Adam’s sin that resulted in the corruption of the nature in those born to him and that sin that resulted in people being born without faith. God made Adam in His image with a perfect nature that was corrupted when he sinned.”
My response:
If it’s made of DIRT, it dies. Adam was made of dirt. If you can SEE IT, it’s temporal. If you CAN’T see it, it’s ETERNAL.
Calvinism makes it sound as if THIS EARTH was gonna be the PERMANENT home of all Human Beings, beginning with Adam, until he screwed up.
WHERE DO THEY GET SUCH AN IDEA FROM?
2 Corinthians 4:18
While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.
Remember, the life of the flesh is in the blood.
Remember, Jesus said, of his NEW BODY, flesh and bones…never said anything about blood.
Adam had blood from the beginning of his life. To say otherwise, would negate out 1 Cor 15:36-50, and 2 Cor 4:18
Ed Chapman
RH writes,
“How often I wanted to gather your children together…but you were not willing!”
Aidan: “What do you think that might imply then?”
RH,
“I say Jerusalem is comprised of the religious leaders and her children are the common people…”
“Who do you say Jerusalem is? Who are her children?”
Aidan,
I agree with you, but how were they able to go against God’s will when He wanted them to come to Christ? Or do you have a different interpretation on that passage?
Aidan,
“there is a faith that saves, and a faith that does not save”
RH,
“One faith is that described by Paul when he writes, “by grace you have been saved through faith,” The other is described by James, “faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.”
Aidan,
James says, “What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?” The obvious answer he is looking for is, No! “For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead”(v.26).
So if faith without works cannot save, can faith at its inception, if it does not yet have works – can that faith save?
Aidan: “How often I wanted to gather your children together…but you were not willing! – What do you think that might imply then?”
RH,
“I say Jerusalem is comprised of the religious leaders and her children are the common people…”
br.d
Did RH actually answer the question regarding implications – or was the question avoided by a tangential fact?
Aidan
how were they able to go against God’s will when He wanted them to come to Christ?
Or do you have a different interpretation on that passage?
br.d
Did this question ever really get answered?
Yes, the answer has indeed been avoided and the passage twisted!
Aidan writes, “…how were they able to go against God’s will when He wanted them to come to Christ? Or do you have a different interpretation on that passage?”
Rephrased: “…how were [the children] able to go against God’s will when He wanted them to come to Christ?” The “children” did not want to go against God’s will; it was the religious leaders who did not want the children to hear about Christ that were going against God’s will. How were the religious leaders able to resist God – by their lack of faith. When the children were able to hear Christ, many believed in Him.
Then, “So if faith without works cannot save, can faith at its inception, if it does not yet have works – can that faith save?”
Faith at its inception, even without works, still saves. Paul says, “we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.” Given that we were created in Christ for good works, we know that works always follow those who have faith. James warns people to look at their faith to see if works are following. This agrees with Paul who wrote. “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.” If we say we have faith yet it appears that God is not working in us, then we need to rethink out faith and cry out to God for a living faith..
rhutchin
it was the religious leaders who did not want the children to hear about Christ that were going against God’s will.
br.d
Interpretation:
Calvin’s god’s infallible decree did not permit the religious leaders to obey Calvin’s god’s ENUNCIATED will – by not allowing the children to be gathered. And use this as his secondary means to not permit the children to be gathered.
And that – according to Calvinism – is what Jesus meant by “Oh Jerusalem how I would have gathered you”
Can anyone spell DOUBLE-SPEAK! :-]
And as we all know, the whole of Jerusalem did see Him, and hear Him, and witness His great works – and then rejected Him! They were without excuse!
Calvin’s god is pretty interesting!
He blames others for things which come to pass – that would-not and could-not have come to pass – without him first conceiving them and then infallibly decreeing them.
That would be like China making a virus come to pass – and then blaming it on the U.S.
Hmmmmmm – I wonder if China is Calvinism – trying to be: “holy as your heavenly father is holy”! :-]
Chinavirism!!
RH writes,
“The “children” did not want to go against God’s will; it was the religious leaders who did not want the children to hear about Christ that were going against God’s will. How were the religious leaders able to resist God – by their lack of faith. When the children were able to hear Christ, many believed in Him.”
Aidan,
Jerusalem wasn’t the religious leaders, it was the whole city comprised of the leaders and the people. Did not most of the people reject Him and only a remnant believe? And yet Jesus mourns over the whole city! Was not the whole city of Jerusalem, including the common people, destroyed in 70 A.D. – which in turn pretty much represents a judgment on the nation? So, it was the people who rejected Him. And, did they not get plenty of opportunity to hear Him, and see His many miracles, signs and wonders? The raising of Lazarus was pretty famous, not to mention His own resurrection? No! The people had every opportunity to believe in Him!
Luke 24:19; – “And He said to them, “What things?” So they said to Him, “The things concerning Jesus of Nazareth, who was a Prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people,”
Aidan writes, “Jerusalem wasn’t the religious leaders, it was the whole city comprised of the leaders and the people.”
We read in Luke 13, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem…How often I wanted to gather your children together…” If You are correct, then what is the identity of “your children”?
rhutchin
We read in Luke 13, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem…How often I wanted to gather your children together
br.d
Interpretation:
As an example of Calvin’s god’s ENUNCIATED will – we read in Luke 13
“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem…How often I wanted to gather your children together.”
Calvin’s god’s ENUNCIATED will often functions as a FALSE PRESENTATION of his SECRET will.
And whatsoever comes to pass – is always CAUSED by Calvin’s god’s SECRET will.
CONCLUSION:
Calvin’s god often speaks with forked-tongue
Aidan writes, “Jerusalem wasn’t the religious leaders, it was the whole city comprised of the leaders and the people.”
RH,
“We read in Luke 13, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem…How often I wanted to gather your children together…” If You are correct, then what is the identity of “your children”?”
Aidan,
The city and its Jewish inhabitants!
You are correct, then what is the identity of “your children”?”
Aidan,
The city and its Jewish inhabitants!
br.d
The city and its Jewish inhabitants – which Calvin’s god said he wanted to gather – which was a FALSE representation of his SECRET intentions.
Who can trust – if what Calvin’s god says about himself is really true?
It is not humanly possible to trust someone’s intentions – when those intentions are kept SECRET.
Can’t trust what one does not know.
You are right Br.d, this is simply putting one’s trust in the word of someone who is not trustworthy!
And if one is willing to put their trust in a lie, what does that say about them? This reminds me of the fact that even though Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead not long before His crucifixion, the Jewish leaders having acknowledged that a great miracle had taken place, still refused to believe the truth! It really exposes the madness that can be in our hearts, if we are not careful.
Proverbs 4:23 – “Watch over your heart with all diligence,
For from it flow the springs of life.”
Aidan
Proverbs 4:23 – “Watch over your heart with all diligence,
For from it flow the springs of life.”
br.d
Well said Aidan!
Did you notice how Proverbs 4:23 is one of those verses that must be twisted into an irrational pretzel in Calvinism?
In Calvinism the only thing a person can “watch” is whatever Calvin’s god has predestined to infallibly come to pass.
In Calvinism people don’t have any say in the matter of what will come to pass with their hearts any more than they have a say in the matter of the infallible decree that caused any given movement of their heart.
Its no wonder Calvinists are so DOUBLE-MINDED
br.d writes, ‘In Calvinism the only thing a person can “watch” is whatever Calvin’s god has predestined to infallibly come to pass.”
In Calvinism, the only thing a person will “watch” is that which he desires to watch as God has predestined the expression of a person’s desires to infallibly come to pass.
br.d
‘In Calvinism the only thing a person can “watch” is whatever Calvin’s god has predestined to infallibly come to pass.
In Calvinism people don’t have any say in the matter of what will come to pass with their hearts any more than they have a say in the matter of the infallible decree that caused any given movement of their heart.
Its no wonder Calvinists are so DOUBLE-MINDED
rhutchin
In Calvinism, the only thing a person will “watch” is that which he desires to watch as God has predestined the expression of a person’s desires to infallibly come to pass.
br.d
“Expressions of desires” infallibly set to irresistibly come to pass.
This is the “I” in the TULIP
“I” Irresistible Human Functionality
All human functionality, including morally significant functionality, is produced by impulses infallibly actualized within the human brain which occur as irresistible.
Which affirms my original statement:
The only thing a person can “watch” (after it comes to pass) is whatever Calvin’s god has predestined to infallibly come to pass.
Since Whatsoever came to pass within the heart was (past tense) predestined to infallibly come to pass.
As an observer, the Calvinist can “watch” (past tense) “expressions” of things infallibly decreed – after they come to pass.
But the Calvinist has no say in the matter of – and no power to resist – things infallibly set to come to pass.
And that’s why the Calvinist brain must be conditioned as John Calvin instructs:
-quote
“go about your office *AS-IF* nothing (perceptions, impulses, desires, etc) are predetermined in any part.
Its no wonder Calvinists are so DOUBLE-MINDED! :-]
br.d writes, “‘Expressions of desires’ infallibly set to irresistibly come to pass.”
This coming about by God’s infinite understanding of His creation that enables God to understand all future events and infallibly know all that is to come to pass.
br.d
Expressions of desires’ infallibly set to irresistibly come to pass.
rhutchin
This coming about by God’s infinite understanding of His creation that enables God to understand all future events and infallibly know all that is to come to pass.
br.d
Calvinists do love their DOUBLE-SPEAK!
In this case:
Calvin’s god’s infinite understanding of what he DESIGNED each vessel to infallibly and irresistibly be/do.
But with DOUBLE-SPEAK the Calvinist goes about his office:
*AS-IF* he has a say in the matter of what Calvin’s god DESIGNED him to infallibly and irresistibly be/do.
That’s their “scriptural theology” and their stick-en to it! 😆
Calvinist version of Proverbs 4:23
Observe whatsoever Calvin’s god must have infallibly decreed to irresistibly come to pass through your heart
For you have no say in the matter of any desire infallibly decreed to irresistibly come to pass.
However through DOUBLE-THINK – you can go about your office *AS-IF* predestined desires are “UP TO YOU”. 😉
Aidan
Proverbs 4:23 – “Watch over your heart with all diligence,
For from it flow the springs of life.”
br.d
Well said Aidan!
Did you notice how Proverbs 4:23 is one of those verses that must be twisted into an irrational pretzel in Calvinism?
Aidan,
Besides determinism, I’m not sure how they deal with verses like this in view of their teaching on total depravity? For if men are born totally depraved, what would be the point of such an exhortation as this? How could a reprobate heart watch over their own heart, and what would be the need? But on the other side of the coin, even if one is regenerated, then you have to deal with the same question, namely – what’s the point in watching over your heart with all diligence? After all, hasn’t the Spirit unconditionally taken care of the soil? Now it’s just a matter of whether the crop will be, thirty, sixty, or a hundred fold!
That verse only makes sense if men are born with a good heart, and have the power of choice and free will, even after conversion.
Aidan
That verse only makes sense if men are born with a good heart, and have the power of choice and free will, even after conversion.
br.d
Yes!
So along with Peter Van Inwagen we must ask the question:
Since in Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) before man is created, whatsoever comes to pass within man, is totally predestined to infallibly and irresistibly come to pass. Then what about anything is ever UP TO MAN in a true sense?
The answer is nothing!
And that applies to every man – whether Totally Depraved or not.
And on Calvinism’s version of free-will:
When you steer your car to make a left-hand turn, your car has a degree of freedom to make that left hand turn.
The freedom your car has is compatible with it being determined to take a left-hand turn.
That is compatiblist freedom.
And that is the form of “Free Will” found within Calvinism.
You are free to be/do what Calvin’s god infallibly decrees.
Nothing more – and nothing less is permitted.
Br.d,
“The freedom your car has is compatible with it being determined to take a left-hand turn.”
Aidan,
About as compatible as calling “evil good, and good evil;
Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness;
Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!”
About as compatible as those who exchange the truth of God for the lie!
br.d writes, “That is compatiblist freedom. And that is the form of “Free Will” found within Calvinism.”
Compatibilist freedom says that People make choices for specific reasons or causes that reflect their desires.
Libertarian freedom says that people make choices (can choose otherwise) without a reason and without regard to one’s desires.
So far, br.d cannot find an example of a choice a person might make that does not reflect his desires and for which their is no reason for the choice.
rhutchin
Compatibilist freedom says that People make choices for specific reasons or causes that reflect their desires.
br.d
Never expect a Calvinist to tell the WHOLE truth.
Calvinist Compatibilist freedom – is the freedom to be/do what Calvin’s god infallily decrees
Nothing more and nothing less is permitted
Obviously this includes desires which come to pass infallibly and irresistibly
rhutchin
Libertarian freedom says that people make choices (can choose otherwise) without a reason and without regard to one’s desires.
br.d
What a wild imagination! :-]
Libertarian choice:
1) The ability to make a choice from a range of options
2) Those options all being LOGICALLY available from which to choose
3) That choice not being made *FOR* you by an external mind
4) That choice being compatible with one’s nature
rhutchin
So far, br.d cannot find an example of a choice a person might make that does not reflect his desires and for which their is no reason for the choice.
br,d
So far rhutchin can’t get past his own logical fallacies. :-]
rhutchin: “Libertarian freedom says that people make choices (can choose otherwise) without a reason and without regard to one’s desires.”
br.d: ” What a wild imagination!…Libertarian choice:…”
br.d defines LFW as “4) That choice being compatible with one’s nature.” If, by this, he means that LFW reflects the person’s desires then he has not distinguished LFW from compatibilism. Yet, the purpose for LFW is to counter compatilbilism and the notion that a person’s desires determine the choices he makes. Does anyone understand what br.d is trying to do here?
Then, rhutchin “So far, br.d cannot find an example of a choice a person might make that does not reflect his desires and for which their is no reason for the choice.”
br,d: “So far rhutchin can’t get past his own logical fallacies.”
So, br.d cannot think of an example of a human choice that does not reflect the person’s desires. Can anyone help him with an example.
RH writes,
“So, br.d cannot think of an example of a human choice that does not reflect the person’s desires. Can anyone help him with an example.”
Aidan,
It depends how you want to define a person’s desires. In 1 Cor 9, Paul talks about the athlete who is able to make all sorts of choices contrary to his natural desires. Most people would understand what he is talking about. And that that is precisely what the Christian must do according to Paul’s analogy. But you’ll probably say that the athlete still made his choices because of a greater desire to win his crown. Yes! But that is precisely what the Christian must do to win his crown. Which is proof that even people who belong to the world can overcome their fleshly appetites for the sake of winning an earthly crown.
In Calvinism, human choice is limited to the dark side, because that’s where they say the person’s desires lie. But in true freedom, our choices are not limited in this way. We are born free to choose darkness or light as we go through this life. That choice depends on whether we want to serve our fleshly appetites, or whether we want to serve God. Our nature is not limited by the Calvinist’s false doctrine of total depravity, and determinism. Those principles do not exist!
rhutchin
Libertarian freedom says that people make choices (can choose otherwise) without a reason and without regard to one’s desires.”
br.d
What a wild imagination – – (i.e., STRAWMAN definition)
rhutchin
br.d defines LFW as “4) That choice being compatible with one’s nature.” If, by this, he means that LFW reflects the person’s desires then he has not distinguished LFW from compatibilism.
br.d
FALSE
Unless you want to argue that Calvin’s god’s choices are determined factors outside of his control (i.e. his nature)
Not much of a god if his choices are all made *FOR* him by a nature he has no control over.
rhutchin
Yet, the purpose for LFW is to counter compatilbilism
br.d
Total irony!
And yet libertarian choice is what every Calvinist secretly wants (including you) while claiming to reject! :-]
That is why you spend so much time trying to MASQUERADE Calvinism as having “mere” permission.
And that is one of the reasons Calvinism is so saturated with DOUBLE-SPEAK
“Mere” permission LOGICALLY equates to Libertarian choice
rhutchin
So, br.d cannot think of an example of a human choice that does not reflect the person’s desires.
br.d
Here you fall into your STRAWMAN fallacy again.
Since choice is compatible with one’s nature – then they both reflect each other.
Unless you want to argue that Calvin’s god’s choices don’t reflect his nature.
Good luck with that! :-]
rhutchin: “br.d defines LFW as “4) That choice being compatible with one’s nature.” If, by this, he means that LFW reflects the person’s desires then he has not distinguished LFW from compatibilism.”
br.d: “FALSE”
Maybe you could explain what you mean by “4) That choice being compatible with one’s nature.” Later, you write, “Since choice is compatible with one’s nature – then they both reflect each other.” But that says nothing new other than suggesting that desire is in view here – but how can that be since LFW is supposed to be an alternative to compatibilism.
rhutchin: “Yet, the purpose for LFW is to counter compatilbilism”
br.d: “Total irony!”
But no denial – this after crying “FALSE” earlier.
rhutchin: “So, br.d cannot think of an example of a human choice that does not reflect the person’s desires.”
br.d: “Here you fall into your STRAWMAN fallacy again.”
Unable yo come up with an example, br.d cries strawman. Maybe someone else can come up with an example. Probably not – at least, we can conclude that a salvation decision is not a LFW decision given the role of one’s desire in that decision
rhutchin
Maybe you could explain what you mean by “4) That choice being compatible with one’s nature.”
br.d
Do you deny that Calvin’s god’s choices are compatible with his nature?
Yes or No?
Do you assert that Calvin’s god’s choices are determined by factors beyond his control (i.e. his nature)
Yes or No?
rhutchin:
So, br.d cannot think of an example of a human choice that does not reflect the person’s desires.
Unable yo come up with an example,….br.d calls a strawman
br.d
If your definition is not a STRAWMAN then – Calvin’s god’s choices are not compatible with – but rather determined by factors of outside his control (i.e. his nature)
Why don’t you come up with an example for that.
Good luck! :-]
br.d writes, “Do you deny that Calvin’s god’s choices are compatible with his nature? Yes or No?”
No. As God made man in his image, we know that a man’s choices are compatible with a man’s nature (and because of sin incompatible with God’s nature).. So incorporating ““4) That choice being compatible with one’s nature.” into a definition of LFW makes LFW no different than compatibilistic free will.
Then, “Do you assert that Calvin’s god’s choices are determined by factors beyond his control (i.e. his nature) Yes or No?”
No. God’s choices are determined through the counsel of His will. Thus, His purpose incorporates his nature (e.g., His infinite understanding). For people, their lack of knowledge and understanding provides the foundation for sinful choices.
Then, rhutchin:: “So, br.d cannot think of an example of a human choice that does not reflect the person’s desires.
Unable yo come up with an example…”
br.d: “f your definition is not a STRAWMAN then …”
br.d is still unable to provide an example of a choice people could make that would fit the definition of LFW. No one else has jumped in to provide an example. This helps us to understand the problem with LFW. People know from experience that they make choices that reflect their desires. As we read in 1 John 2, the things that influence behavior are “the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life.” Certainly, the choice to accept salvation is not an LFW decision since that decision is driven by a person’s desires to deal with their sin.
br.d
Question-1
Do you deny that Calvin’s god’s choices are compatible with his nature? Yes or No?”
rhutchin
No. ….etc
br.d
Good we’re half way to establishing a clear delineation between Compatibilist and Libertarian Choice
Question-2
Do you assert that Calvin’s god’s choices are determined by factors beyond his control (i.e. his nature) Yes or No?”
rhutchin
No……etc
br.d
Good – now we’ve established a full delineation between Compatibilist and Libertarian choice
And it thus logically follows Libertarian Choice does exist.
And thus you’re definition is a STRAWMAN
rhutchin
God’s choices are determined through the counsel of His will. Thus, His purpose incorporates his nature (e.g., His infinite understanding).
br.d
Thus his choices are compatible with his nature – but not determined by his nature.
Which fits the correct definition of Libertarian choice
Libertarian choice:
1) The ability to make a choice from a range of options
2) Those options all being LOGICALLY available from which to choose
3) That choice not being made *FOR* you by an external mind
4) That choice being compatible with one’s nature
rhutchin
As God made man in his image, we know that a man’s choices are compatible with a man’s nature (and because of sin incompatible with God’s nature).. So incorporating ““4) That choice being compatible with one’s nature.” into a definition of LFW makes LFW no different than compatibilistic free will.
br.d
Now you contradicting yourself – as you acknowledged Question-2 as No.
And you’ve also acknowledged that Calvin’s god’s choices are not determined *FOR* him by something or someone else – such as antecedent factors outside of his control (e.g. his nature). So that rules out determinism.
rhutchin
For people, their lack of knowledge and understanding provides the foundation for sinful choices.
br.d
All of which is a red-herring for two reasons
1) People still have the ability to make choices from a range of options – even if those options are sinful.
2) And you’ve already acknowledged that Determinism entails a future with a “fixed trajectory” established in the past by an infallible decree – which permits no alternative at pain of falsifying that infallible decree – which is logically impossible.
As Peter Van Inwage states:
-quote
Determinism may now be defined: it is the thesis that there is at any instant exactly one physically possible future.
Therefore Theological Determinism rules out (1-3) of those points delineated as Libertarian choice.
And no intelligent person will say Libertarian and Compatibilist choice are the same.
But the fact that you would say they are the same serves as an example that the very choice you want to say doesn’t exist – is the very choice you are always trying to MASQUERADE as exiting within Calvinism – SMUGGLED IN – in the form of “mere” permission.
You need Libertarian choice in order to have normalcy
And you need Libertarian choice in order to remain aligned with certain narratives within scripture.
And that is why you follow Calvin’s instructions
Going about your office *AS-IF* nothing (including your perceptions of reality) is determined in any part – by an external mind.
If Theological Determinism is true – then all of human perceptions which come to pass – were established at the foundation of the world – by an external mind – who decrees you to have FALSE perceptions infallibly perceived as TRUE perceptions.
Which makes you unable to discern a TRUE perception from a FALSE perception.
And that is not a reality depicted within the narratives of scripture.
And that is why you go about your office *AS-IF* nothing (your perceptions) is determined in any part.
Welcome to Calvi-Fornia
You can check out any time you like – but you can never leave! 😉
Aidan writes, “Proverbs 4:23 – “Watch over your heart with all diligence, For from it flow the springs of life.” That verse only makes sense if men are born with a good heart, and have the power of choice and free will, even after conversion.”
The verse makes sense regardless whether a person has faith or not. Proverbs 4:23 is a warning to those with faith that is ignored by those without faith.
rhutchin
Proverbs 4:23 is a warning to those with faith that is ignored by those without faith
br.d
The Calvinist – whose every neurological impulse within his brain – comes to pass infallibly and irresistibly – is going to watch over his desires *AS-IF* they aren’t.
Can anyone spell DOUBLE-THINK! 😉
RH writes,
“The verse makes sense regardless whether a person has faith or not. Proverbs 4:23 is a warning to those with faith that is ignored by those without faith.”
Aidan,
Yet you believe the soil(heart) has been made good by the Spirit, and cannot be made bad again – hence no reason to watch over your heart with all diligence!
RH writes,
“Faith at its inception, even without works, still saves.”
Aidan,
Let me sum up what you’ve just said – So faith, “even without works, still saves!” That means one is saved by a dead faith. If we at least repent, that is a faith that is doing something. If we repent and confess Him that is a faith that is doing something. If we repent, confess Him, and are baptized – that is a faith that has acted. And if one is doing the good works that God has prepared for him to do, working out his salvation with fear and trembling, that too is a faith that is alive with works. Don’t you see that a man is not justified by faith alone – James 2:24? It would be good to take off those glasses and see that when the bible speaks of being saved through faith – it is not talking about “faith alone.”
RH writes,
“Faith at its inception, even without works, still saves.”
br.d
Excerpts from The Gnostic Society – on faith
The distinction between faith (pistis) and knowledge (gnosis) is a very important one in Valentinianism.
As the Gospel of Philip says, “No one can receive without faith”
In Valentinianism and other forms of “Gnostic” Christianity, the object of pistis is gnosis.
If faith is a gift, would they have to believe that faith at its inception came without knowledge? And how does that square with Rh’s favorite verse – “So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” – if faith is a gift? Perhaps I’m being a bit unfair! Perhaps “hearing” is the real gift and faith is secondary?
One cannot believe that faith is a gift – without being given faith as a gift – in order to believe that faith is a gift.
Dr. William Lane Craig
-quote
There is a sort of dizzying, self-defeating character to determinism. For if one comes to believe that determinism 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.
Aidan writes, “If faith is a gift, would they have to believe that faith at its inception came without knowledge?…Perhaps “hearing” is the real gift and faith is secondary?”
The “hearing” incorporates knowledge. Faith consists of assurance and conviction. That assurance and conviction is gained through hearing the word – the gospel.
However, two people can hear the gospel preached and one has ears to hear and the other does not. Either faith was a gift to the one and not to the other or the one had some characteristic not possessed by the other. So, you explain it. How do two people hear the gospel preached and one comes out with faith and the other does not?
rhutchin
The “hearing” incorporates knowledge.
br.d
Interpretation:
The “hearing” incorporates the gift of GNOSIS
rhutchin
Faith consists of assurance and conviction.
br.d
Interpretation
The gift of faith – consists of the gift of assurance and the gift of conviction.
And when Calvin’s god has designed the believer as a “tare” the gift is a FALSE (faith/assurance/conviction)
rhutchin
So, you explain it. How do two people hear the gospel preached and one comes out with faith and the other does not?
br.d
Survey questions are often designed to manipulate the recipient towards a strategic answer.
Simply rephrase the question:
How do two people – given the possibility of multiple options open to them to choose from – their choice not being made *FOR* them by an external mind – come to two different conclusions?
Answer:
One person chooses the option to believe – the other person chooses the alternative option.
But we know in Calvinism there is no such thing as ALTERNATIVE POSSIBILITIES (i.e. human choices) from that which is infallibly decreed by an external mind.
And nothing about what was infallibly decreed at the foundation of the world is ever UP TO US.
RH writes,
“However, two people can hear the gospel preached and one has ears to hear and the other does not. Either faith was a gift to the one and not to the other or the one had some characteristic not possessed by the other. So, you explain it. How do two people hear the gospel preached and one comes out with faith and the other does not?”
Aidan,
Again, you seem to confirm that “hearing” is the gift here that enables a person to hear and have faith through the message preached! So, is it in that sense you believe faith is a gift? To answer your question, I suppose I could say that Jesus explains a lot in the parable of the Sower. The ground or the soil represents the condition of the heart. Some are wayside and therefore hardened, some soil is rocky and shallow, some soil is full of thorns and thistles, other soil is free from all those things and is therefore good soil for bearing a crop. But I don’t see any soil described as dead soil incapable of either accepting or rejecting the seed. And what’s even more interesting – none were given a special gift to receive the seed!
Aidan writes, “you seem to confirm that “hearing” is the gift here that enables a person to hear and have faith through the message preached!”
If one person has ears to hear and another does not, then we know that it is a gift from God as all people start out without ears to hear – this a byproduct of Total Depravity as Paul explains in 1 Corinthians. When a person has ears to hear then faith can come by hearing,
Then: ‘How do two people hear the gospel preached and one comes out with faith and the other does not?”
Aidan: “I suppose I could say that Jesus explains a lot in the parable of the Sower…But I don’t see any soil described as dead soil incapable of either accepting or rejecting the seed. And what’s even more interesting – none were given a special gift to receive the seed!”
So, you have no answer. In the parable, we have three instances where people do not have ears to hear. In one instance, good soil, a person has ears to hear. The issue is not whether one receives the seed but whether one understands (has ears to hear) what they receive. As Paul describes in 1 Corinthians, many people receive the gospel through preaching or other means and to them, it is foolishness. An example would be the Greeks on Mars Hill to whom Paul preached. So, how does one soil become “good” if that quality of being “good” is not from God?
rhutchin
If one person has ears to hear and another does not, then we know that it is a gift from God as all people start out without ears to hear
br.d
Here is wisdom:
When a Calvinist presents a philosophical argument in lieu of an EXPLICIT statement from scripture – its because he has no EXPLICIT statement from scripture.
One more unfounded human philosophical argument – it can’t hurt to try! :-]
RH writes,
“If one person has ears to hear and another does not, then we know that it is a gift from God as all people start out without ears to hear – this a byproduct of Total Depravity..”
Aidan,
And where in this verse, or in 1 Corinthians, does it explicitly state that having ears to hear is a special gift from God? Or where is there any mention of Total Depravity in any scripture? Surely then it is presumptuous to speak in such terms!
Aidan: “I suppose I could say that Jesus explains a lot in the parable of the Sower…”
RH,
“So, you have no answer.”
Aidan,
You mean you are not satisfied with Jesus’ answer??
RH,
“In the parable, we have three instances where people do not have ears to hear. In one instance, good soil, a person has ears to hear. The issue is not whether one receives the seed but whether one understands (has ears to hear) what they receive. As Paul describes in 1 Corinthians, many people receive the gospel through preaching or other means and to them, it is foolishness. An example would be the Greeks on Mars Hill to whom Paul preached.”
Aidan,
Those who “received” the gospel were saved in Acts 2:41-42; – NASB
“So then, those who had RECEIVED his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls. They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.”
What about in Acts 8:14:
“Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had RECEIVED the word of God, they sent them Peter and John,”
Receiving in John is associated with believing in:
John 1:12; – NASB – “But as many as RECEIVED Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name,”
And what about in Luke 8:13 where receiving is associated with believing?
“Those on the rocky soil are those who, when they hear, RECEIVE the word with joy; and these have no firm root; they BELIEVE for a while, and in time of temptation fall away.”
Aidan writes, “And where in this verse,…”
In Romans 10, we read, “faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” We understand that faith does not, and cannot, exist apart from a person hearing the word. Faith is the means by which a person believes and obeys God – we see this by the examples in Hebrews 11. Calvinism takes this to mean that people without faith are those described by Paul in Romans 8, “the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be.” It is such people that Calvinism describes as Totally Depraved with the absence of faith being a key component of TD.
Then, ” in 1 Corinthians, does it explicitly state that having ears to hear is a special gift from God?”
“we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery,…God has revealed [The things which God has prepared for those who love Him] to us through His Spirit….no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God…we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God…the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”
Then, “You mean you are not satisfied with Jesus’ answer??”
I think Jesus presumes that a person will understand that it is the one who has ears to hear who is represented by the good soil. He doesn’t come out and say that is so many words so you don’t accept it. Rather than explain this, you claim that I am not satisfied with Jesus answer.
Then, “Those who “received” the gospel were saved…”
The parable told by Jesus and its explanation use “received” in this context, “he who received the seed on stony places, this is he who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy; yet he has no root in himself, but endures only for a while. For when tribulation or persecution arises because of the word, immediately he stumbles.”
So, the person “receives” the word but has no root. That qualification distinguishes this parable from those verses you cite where people are said to receive and believe. We should not take the example of the seed sown in stony places as one who receives and believes as the opposite result is clearly indicated by the words, “has no root.”
Aidan,
“And where in this verse, or in 1 Corinthians, does it explicitly state that having ears to hear is a special gift from God? Or where is there any mention of Total Depravity in any scripture? Surely then it is presumptuous to speak in such terms!”
RH,
“We understand that faith does not, and cannot, exist apart from a person hearing the word…“the carnal mind is enmity against God;…It is such people that Calvinism describes as Totally Depraved with the absence of faith being a key component of TD.”
Aidan,
So, as I said, you have to presume that “hearing and faith” are a special gift from God in Romans 10. And you also have to presume the existence of total depravity for Romans 8 and 1 Corinthians 1; because none of it is explicitly taught in scripture!
RH,
“We should not take the example of the seed sown in stony places as one who receives and believes..”
Aidan,
Did you know that Jesus said that the stony ground hearers “received the word and believed”? And did you know that the greek word for “receive” (déchomai) in Luke 8:13, is the same greek word that’s used in Acts 8:14, and Acts 11:1? WERE THEY NOT SAVED EITHER?
Luke 8:13 – “Those on the rocky soil are those who, when they hear, RECEIVE the word with joy; and these have no firm root; they BELIEVE for a while, and in time of temptation fall away.”
Acts 8:14 – “Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had RECEIVED the word of God, they sent them Peter and John,”
Acts 11:1 – “Now the apostles and brethren who were in Judea heard that the Gentiles had also RECEIVED the word of God.”
I stand by my claim that you are not satisfied with Jesus’ answer in the parable of the Sower!
Aidan writes, “So, as I said, you have to presume that “hearing and faith” are a special gift from God in Romans 10. And you also have to presume the existence of total depravity for Romans 8 and 1 Corinthians 1; because none of it is explicitly taught in scripture!”
Most people would understand Romans 10, “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?…Faith comes by hearing the word,” to state explicitly that faith, and belief in Christ, cannot exist apart from hearing the word.
Then; “Did you know that Jesus said that the stony ground hearers “received the word and believed”?”
You continue to ignore the qualification attached to this – “these have no firm root;” What does “no firm root mean”? It certainly carries the meaning that assurance and conviction are missing.
Elsewhere, Jesus said, “As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in Me.” To have no firm root is the same as not abiding in Christ – a situation that exists when one has no faith (i.e., assurance and conviction).
rhutchin
“these have no firm root;” What does “no firm root mean”? It certainly carries the meaning that assurance and conviction are missing.
br,d
Silly!
No conviction equal no root. :-]
Secondly: The assurance Calvinist’s have – is the assurance of the possibility of election.
As John Calvin states it:
-quote
But the Lord…….. instills into their minds such a sense of his goodness as can be felt without the Spirit of adoption.
(Institutes)
-quote
When he shows himself propitious to them, it is not as if he had truly rescued them from death, and taken them under his protection. He only gives them a manifestation of his present mercy. (Institutes)
-quote
He illumines only for a time to partake of it…..and then strikes them with greater blindness”(Institutes)
How about that for assurance! 😳
RH writes,
“Most people would understand Romans 10,..to state explicitly that faith, and belief in Christ, cannot exist apart from hearing the word.”
Aidan,
And yet no explicit statement of the man made doctrine of total depravity, or that consequently the hearing and faith are a special gift from above. You’ve got to prove total depravity first. I believe that doctrine is a special gift from below!
Aidan,
“Did you know that Jesus said that the stony ground hearers “received the word and believed”?”
RH,
“What does “no firm root mean”? It certainly carries the meaning that assurance and conviction are missing…as not abiding in Christ – a situation that exists when one has no faith (i.e., assurance and conviction).”
Aidan,
RH says that the stony ground hearers had no faith/belief. But Jesus said, “when they hear, receive the word with joy;.. who believe..” So who should we believe, you Rh, or Jesus? Notice, they RECEIVED THE WORD AND BELIEVED in Luke 8:13. Which means that they were saved according to Acts 8:14, and Acts 11:1. Something which you willfully choose to ignore! Therefore, according to Jesus, “having no firm root” clearly does not mean having no faith/belief, but rather, having no root IN THEMSELVES (Mat. 13:21; Mark 4:17). This is given as the explanation for why they “fall away” so soon.
Aidan writes, “You’ve got to prove total depravity first.”
It is necessary to show that people are not born with faith and this is the conclusion of Romans 10. TD is a shorthand label to represent this condition and that presented in other Scriptures. It is like the label, Trinity. The term, Trinity, is a label that represents the conclusion that God is three persons. So, TD is a term that represents the conclusion that people are born without faith and all the ramifications of that condition.
Your position – “I believe that doctrine (TD) is a special gift from below!” – means that your position is that people are born with faith. I think your position is at odds with Romans 10.
Then, “according to Jesus, “having no firm root” clearly does not mean having no faith/belief, but rather, having no root IN THEMSELVES (Mat. 13:21; Mark 4:17). This is given as the explanation for why they “fall away” so soon.”
You seem to be saying that “no root IN THEMSELVES” does not mean that they do not have faith. However, “no root IN THEMSELVES” does explain “why they “fall away” so soon.” That idea is not incorporated into the other references you cite regarding receive and believe.
So, what did Jesus mean in qualifying those represented as stony ground as “no root IN THEMSELVES.” I guess we will have to disagree on the relationship of this to faith in Christ.
rhutchin
It is necessary to show that people are not born with faith and this is the conclusion of Romans 10
br.d
More precisely, – the Gnostic/NeoPlatonic Christian’s conclusion of Romans 10 – per Augustine’s Syncretism.
THE FOUNDATION OF AUGUSTINIAN CALVINISM – Dr. Kenneth Wilson
-quote
Scholars have identified Stoicism, Neoplatonism, and Gnostic Manichaeism as important influences on Augustine.
Augustine himself singled out (Stoic) Providence as the one belief he never doubted throughout his diverse philosophical-religious journey (Comb-5,7; cf- Ord.2-12).
Stoic determinism cannot be reconciled with a genuine free choice. As a result, “The Stoics faced a serious challenge in their attempt to reconcile moral responsibility with determinism” which they tried to evade by rhetorically redefining assent: the “internal cause which is the locus of responsibility is assent,” and viewed assent as “an unfailing cause of impulses.”
Divine infusion is required because ‘the will’ (Stoic “willer”) has been bound by innate universal wickedness (Enn.3.2.1o). Evil produced a totally incapacitating fall, imprisoning us against our wills and creating an (Stoic “evil willer”) (Enn.1.8.5). Thus, paradoxically, souls have neither genuine free will nor act by compulsion (Enn- 4-3.13). Humans are free to choose only what our totally corrupted (Stoic ‘willer’) desires (again, borrowed from Stoicism).
Aidan writes, “You’ve got to prove total depravity first.”
RH,
“It is necessary to show that people are not born with faith and this is the conclusion of Romans 10. TD is a shorthand label to represent this condition”
Aidan,
Faith in Romans 10 is not meant to be a generic term, but specific faith in a particular message! No one can be born with faith in a specific message they have not yet heard! Therefore, Romans 10 does not show that people are born totally depraved and as a consequence with no faith! That’s just wildly reading into the passage what you want it to mean! And besides, no baby could have the ability to believe the gospel message, even if they did hear it. That ability naturally comes later in life! Many just simply choose to reject it.
RH,
“You seem to be saying that “no root IN THEMSELVES” does not mean that they do not have faith. However, “no root IN THEMSELVES” does explain “why they “fall away” so soon.” That idea is not incorporated into the other references you cite regarding receive and believe.”
Aidan,
Again, Luke 8:13 Jesus clearly affirms that they “received the word and believed.” But you deny this! Then in (Mat. 13:21; Mark 4:17) Jesus also clearly explains why they soon fell away, it was because they had “no root IN THEMSELVES.” Which you also deny! And how do you know if anyone didn’t soon fall away after (Acts 8:14; 11:1)? The parable of the Sower shows this to be one of the sad realities of the kingdom of heaven. And another truth you reject! I guess I’ll just stick with Jesus’ explanation, and let you stick with your own!
RH wants to argue that “no root ” equates to “no plant” which is totally irrational.
Just because a plant has not grown roots – doesn’t mean there is no plant.
Notice how a plant needs to grow its own roots.
The Gnostic version of this would be Calvin’s god giving every plant roots as a supernatural gift! :-]
Br.d,
“RH wants to argue that “no root ” equates to “no plant” which is totally irrational.
Just because a plant has not grown roots – doesn’t mean there is no plant.”
Aidan,
Yep! I think it probably goes in this order: “no root ” equates to “no faith” which in turn equates to “no plant.” But Jesus makes it clear that something “sprang up” or ‘sprouted’ (Luke 8:6) and then “withered.” It is exactly the same greek word used in (Luke 8:8) for that which “sprang up” in the good soil. RH makes the mistake of completely ignoring Jesus’ explanation that the rocky soil hearers “received and believed” the word. No root – simply equates to the condition of the heart being shallow. This is like a ledge of rock just underneath the surface of the soil, making it impossible for the plant to establish deep roots. Which of course makes for a very vulnerable plant!
Jesus’ use of these metaphors apparently don’t fit into a Gnostic world unless you twist them into a Gnostic Pretzel! :-]
Aidan writes, “I think it probably goes in this order: “no root ” equates to “no faith” which in turn equates to “no plant.””
In terms of the parable, “no root” equates to “no faith in Christ.” It does not equate to “no plant” as Jesus describes it this way, “Some fell on stony ground, where it did not have much earth; and immediately it sprang up because it had no depth of earth. But when the sun was up it was scorched, and because it had no root it withered away.” So, a plant springs up, but soon withers away. Jesus explains the meaning this way, ““These likewise are the ones sown on stony ground who, when they hear the word, immediately receive it with gladness; and they have no root in themselves, and so endure only for a time. Afterward, when tribulation or persecution arises for the word’s sake, immediately they stumble.”
Then, “RH makes the mistake of completely ignoring Jesus’ explanation that the rocky soil hearers “received and believed” the word. No root – simply equates to the condition of the heart being shallow.”
We understand Jesus differently here. I understand Jesus to say that those on stony ground receive the word but Jesus says nothing about them believing the word. You understand Jesus to say that the person both receives and believes. By introducing “believe” you necessarily introduce “faith” that I claim to be absent. So, obviously, we draw different conclusions from the parable. While I conclude that “no root means no faith in Christ,” you take it to mean, “No root – simply equates to the condition of the heart being shallow.” That distinction is possible by your introduction of “belief” (thus, faith) into the parable and my exclusion of belief and faith. So, naturally, we disagree on the meaning of the parable.
RH,
“But when the sun was up it was scorched, and because it had no root it withered away.” So, a plant springs up, but soon withers away.”
Aidan,
So we agree that the rocky ground produced a plant!
RH,
“..but Jesus says nothing about them believing the word. You understand Jesus to say that the person both receives and believes. By introducing “believe” you necessarily introduce “faith” that I claim to be absent.”
Aidan,
There two constants in this parable, namely, “the sower” and “the seed.” In this analogy the seed fell on the rocky soil, and then germinated producing a plant. You are forgetting that the word of God is the seed here, and the soil is the hearts of men! Therefore, the word of God germinated in their hearts and produced something! What was that something? Jesus said that it was faith; Luke 8:13 – “..who believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away.” So contrary to what you said, Jesus did indeed declare that they were believers! And by your own admission above, that necessarily meant “faith.”
Look, this isn’t rocket science, all you have to do is follow the verses!
Aidan
Look, this isn’t rocket science, all you have to do is follow the verses!
br,d
But without making it conform to Augustine’s Stoic/NeoPlatonist philosophy – it wouldn’t be a “scriptural theology”! :-]
Aidan
Look, this isn’t rocket science, all you have to do is follow the verses!
br,d
But without making it conform to Augustine’s Stoic/NeoPlatonist philosophy – it wouldn’t be a “scriptural theology”! :-]
Aidan,
It seems men have been doing this sort of thing from the beginning!
Col. 2:8;- “Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.”
Gnostic philosophy being passed off as scripture!!
br.d writes, ‘RH wants to argue that “no root ” equates to “no plant” which is totally irrational Just because a plant has not grown roots – doesn’t mean there is no plant.”
That seems to be in line with your humanist philosophy. In the Scriptures, we see that the root is Christ as Christ tells believers, “I am the vine; you are the branches.”. The seed sown on stony ground was a plant without a root. – or one who received the word but did not root himself in Christ – something a person without faith would be unable to do.
Then, ‘The Gnostic version of this would be Calvin’s god giving every plant roots as a supernatural gift! ”
The Calvinist version is God giving His chosen plant roots (in good soil – in Christ) as a supernatural gift!
rhutchin
The Calvinist version is God giving His chosen plant roots (in good soil – in Christ) as a supernatural gift!
br.d
You’re in good company!
Gnostic Christians Basilides and Valentinus totally agree with that interpretation of scripture.
Gnostic Society Library
-quote
In Valentinianism and other forms of “Gnostic” Christianity, the object of pistis (faith) is gnosis
The teaching about faith and gnosis is at the heart of the dispute between the Valentinians and Irenaeus of Lyon (against heresies)
br.d writes, “Gnostic Society Library -quote – In Valentinianism and other forms of “Gnostic” Christianity, the object of pistis (faith) is gnosis”
In Calvinism it is knowledge (the hearing of the gospel) that gives rise to faith and the object of faith is Christ. A good distinction brought out here.
br.d
Gnostic Society Library
-quote – In Valentinianism and other forms of “Gnostic” Christianity, the object of pistis (faith) is gnosis”
rhutchin
In Calvinism it is knowledge (the hearing of the gospel) that gives rise to faith and the object of faith is Christ. A good distinction brought out here.
br.d
And thus we see how pistis and gnosis are interrelated in both systems!
Basilides and Valentinus – having continuity with Calvinism more than any other form of Christianity – would give a hearty “amen brother”!
RH,
“The Calvinist version is God giving His chosen plant roots (in good soil – in Christ) as a supernatural gift!”
Aidan,
Anyone who reads the parable of the Sower knows that the faith responses to the word are natural and not miraculous, i.e. ” a supernatural gift.”
RH,
“The seed sown on stony ground was a plant without a root. – or one who received the word but did not root himself in Christ – something a person without faith would be unable to do.”
Aidan,
But what about the thorny ground hearer? Jesus doesn’t say that this plant had no roots! The seed falls on the soil, germinates, and springs up along with the thorns! Therefore, the word reached the heart of this man and caused faith to grow. But alas, the thorns eventually choke it, and it brings no fruit to maturity!
Notice the following verses on that line of thought – Luke 8:7:- ““And some fell among thorns, and the thorns sprang up WITH IT and CHOKED IT. Mark 4:7:- “And some seed fell among thorns; and the thorns grew up and CHOKED IT, and it yielded no crop.” Luke 8:14:- “Now the ones that fell among thorns are those who, when they have heard, go out and are choked with cares, riches, and pleasures of life, and BRING NO FRUIT TO MATURITY.”
So the order of events was:
1. Seed was sown.
2. It germinated and sprung up with the thorns.
3. The thorns grew up and choked it.
4. Consequently, it brought no fruit to maturity – it became unfruitful.
In other words, this person was saved, but did not remain in Christ. The word was eventually choked with the cares, riches, and pleasures of life, and he brought no fruit to maturity. Sadly, there are probably a lot of Christians who become like this and lose their salvation.
Aidan writes, “Anyone who reads the parable of the Sower knows that the faith responses to the word are natural and not miraculous, i.e. ” a supernatural gift.””
Faith responses to the gospel are natural and predictable. It is the distinction where two sinners who both hear the gospel, and one evidences faith and the other does not that points to a miraculous understanding and the conclusion that faith is a gift. Another indicator of faith is that the believer persist sto the end. As Paul wrote. “as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you, so that you come short in no gift, eagerly waiting for the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ, who will also confirm you to the end, that you may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
rhutchin
Faith responses to the gospel are natural and predictable. It is the distinction where two sinners who both hear the gospel, and one evidences faith and the other does not that points to a miraculous understanding and the conclusion that faith is a gift.
br.d
An endless stream of philosophical arguments
All following the fallacy mode of question begging
Along with SEMANTIC representations designed to make determinism appear in-deterministic.
That’s my “scriptural theology” and I’m sticken to it! 😉
Aidan writes, “Anyone who reads the parable of the Sower knows that the faith responses to the word are natural and not miraculous, i.e. ” a supernatural gift.””
RH,
“.. two sinners who both hear the gospel, and one evidences faith and the other does not that points to a miraculous understanding and the conclusion that faith is a gift.”
Aidan,
Seeing that you cannot point to any supernatural event in the parable is proof enough! And the fact that you used the word “sinners” above, also proves my point, namely, that you made your conclusion from “total depravity” which comes from the traditions of men! it would be better if you simply made your conclusions from the scriptures, and not from the teachings of men.
Aidan writes, “Seeing that you cannot point to any supernatural event in the parable is proof enough! ”
It is a parable and Jesus does not distinguish between natural and supernatural events. However, we should wonder how the “good soil” comes to be good if not be a work of God (thus, a supernatural event). The other soils describe events that we observe over the course of time to come about here and there. The first soil, which represents Satan stealing the seed away would be a supernatural event also.
Then, “And the fact that you used the word “sinners” above, also proves my point, namely, that you made your conclusion from “total depravity” which comes from the traditions of men!”
If I describe sinners as Totally Depraved, then you seem to understand a little about what is meant. When Paul writes to Timothy, he says, “I obtained mercy because I did it ignorantly in unbelief…” So, we can take the terms “ignorant” and “unbelief” and use those to define Total Depravity. So, no need to depend on “traditions of men.”
rhutchin
we can take the terms “ignorant” and “unbelief” and use those to define Total Depravity. So, no need to depend on “traditions of men.”
br.d
Nah!
Calvinists use Total Depravity as an accordion concept.
They shrink its scope for one context and expand its scope for another.
Whatever definition works for them at the given moment is how they will define it.
So lets make the “T” in the TULIP more intellectually honest:
Totally Predestined Nature:
The underlying foundation of the doctrine stipulates that whatsoever comes to pass concerning all things are infallibly decreed before creation. Whatever the state of man’s nature is at any instance in time, is therefore totally determined before man is created. Since on this view, 100% of whatsoever comes to pass is exclusively up to a divine mind, it goes without saying that absolutely nothing about the condition of man’s nature at any instant in time, is ever up to man.
So, it is more forthcoming or truth-telling, for the “T” in TULIP to stand for “Totally Predestined Nature”.
“T” Totally Predestined Nature:
The state of man’s nature at any instance in time is totally predestined prior to creation, and therefore absolutely nothing about any part of man’s nature – or anything else for that matter – is ever up to man.
RH,
“we should wonder how the “good soil” comes to be good if not be a work of God (thus, a supernatural event)…The first soil, which represents Satan stealing the seed away would be a supernatural event also.”
Aidan,
You say Jesus doesn’t distinguish between natural and supernatural in parables, yet that hasn’t stopped you! Where in the parable does it say that the “good soil” came to be good? Is there somewhere it states that the soil was bad, and then became good? And, Satan using supernatural means to steal away the seed? How would Satan have that power? And could he not use natural secondary means to steal away the seed from men’s hearts?
RH,
“So, we can take the terms “ignorant” and “unbelief” and use those to define Total Depravity. So, no need to depend on “traditions of men.”
Aidan,
The term and concept of “Total Depravity” is itself a tradition of men. The fact that Peter talks about “having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust” is proof positive that “Total Depravity” is a man-made doctrine.
RH
we should wonder how the “good soil” comes to be good if not be a work of God
br.d
Break up your unplowed ground; for it is time to seek the LORD
The Calvinist brain changes the words in this verse to read:
Calvin’s god breaks up unplowed ground using infallible neurological impulses that the fallible human brain cannot resist.
But that is only for a few
The vast majority of the human population are designed for eternal torment in a lake of fire for his good pleasure.
So Calvin’s god gives those people totally depraved infallible neurological impulses which the fallible human brain cannot resist.
RH
we should wonder how the “good soil” comes to be good if not be a work of God
Aidan,
Did you notice there was an assumption here that the heart was not good and honest to begin with? Total depravity has to be proven before it can be assumed. But he prefers to accuse God of showing partiality!
It is funny to watch.
While he calls his system a “scripture theology” – I’m looking for signs of scripture in his posts – and finding philosophical arguments instead.
I think they just co-opt scripture and make it conform to their philosophy.
And then convince themselves scripture is the starting point – when its obvious the philosophy actually is.
Its been fun to watch! :-]
Br.d,
“I think they just co-opt scripture and make it conform to their philosophy.
And then convince themselves scripture is the starting point – when its obvious the philosophy actually is.”
Aidan,
That’s exactly it! And then they just keep going around in circles believing the same old lie. If that’s what you want – that’s what you’ll get! Talk about wayside soil – The birds of their philosophy keep swooping down to eat up that seed every time!
Yes!
And RH has his dancing boxer routine also.
Where he just keeps on dancing – the strategy to eventually wear someone out – so he can claim victory.
What a hoot! :-]
Or, until he becomes punch drunk!
Aidan writes. “Did you notice there was an assumption here that the heart was not good and honest to begin with?”
No. The assumption is that the “good soil” is different from the other soils and the conclusion is that the difference in the “good soil” accounts for the final result. When Jesus crafted the parable, He intended for us to notice that the soils were different – and the people they represented were different. Then Jesus intended for us to notice that the type of soil (or person) determined the final result.
The question you bring up is what caused the soils to be different in the first place. That is not addressed in the parable.
Then, “Total depravity has to be proven before it can be assumed. But he prefers to accuse God of showing partiality!”
Total Depravity is a short-hand label that is used to facilitate discussion. We can define Total Depravity to encompass the actions of the first three soils and then we can use the term, Total Depravity, in discussion rather than going through the three soils every tome (plus Romans 8, Ephesians 2, etc.). We do the same thing when we use the term, Trinity, which, if you are consistent, you don’t like either.
However, your objection seems to be the Calvinist defining Total Depravity to represent the absence of faith in the person. You don’t seem to believe that people are born without faith despite Romans10 saying that faith comes by hearing the gospel and not be birth.
We will just have to disagree on the appropriateness of the Calvinist creating a term, Total Depravity, as a shorthand way to describe the unsaved.
Aidan writes. “Did you notice there was an assumption here that the heart was not good and honest to begin with?”
RH,
“No…Jesus intended for us to notice that the type of soil (or person) determined the final result.”
“The question you bring up is what caused the soils to be different in the first place. That is not addressed in the parable.”
Aidan,
Yes, you did indeed assume that the heart was not good an honest to begin with. And you had God, not the person, determine the soil and the final result! Here’s what you said; RH writes, “we should wonder how the “good soil” comes to be good if not be a work of God (thus, a supernatural event).” Why can’t you simply be honest and admit that this statement has Determinism and Total depravity written all over it?
In fact, it has TULIP written all over it! So please don’t pretend that you are saying otherwise.
RH,
“Total Depravity is a short-hand label that is used to facilitate discussion.”
Aidan,
“Total depravity has to be proven before it can be assumed in any discussion.” I don’t think you are capable of doing that without using circular reasoning!
RH,
“You don’t seem to believe that people are born without faith despite Romans10 saying that faith comes by hearing the gospel and not be birth.”
Aidan,
You fail to understand that Romans 10 is not speaking of generic faith. It’s about a specific message! How can one believe in a message they’ve never heard? I don’t believe you’ve ever done a proper exegesis on that passage!
RH
“No…Jesus intended for us to notice that the type of soil (or person) determined the final result.”
br.d
This is where the Calvinist fails 5th grade math.
Calvin’s god determined 100% of whatsoever comes to pass at the foundation of the world.
That doesn’t leave much left over for “a person” to determine
Wouldn’t it be fun to watch a Calvinist pay off 100% of his mortgage – and yet never get that mortgage down to zero! :-]
Br.d,
“This is where the Calvinist fails 5th grade math.
Calvin’s god determined 100% of whatsoever comes to pass at the foundation of the world.
That doesn’t leave much left over for “a person” to determine”
Aidan,
Well, when people keep adding and subtracting from the word of God – they will always come up with the wrong answer!
Calvinists come up with terms or concepts not found in the scriptures, define it, and then add it to the word of God!
For example:-
Total Depravity = the absence of faith.
The absence of faith = Total Depravity.
Romans 10:17;- “..faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”
Calvinist proof that Total Depravity is scriptural.🤣
Aidan writes, “Yes, you did indeed assume that the heart was not good an honest to begin with.”
I concluded that from the results.
Then, “And you had God, not the person, determine the soil and the final result!”
Yep. The heart is deceitful and at enmity with God. What outcome could you get except for rejection?
Then, “You fail to understand that Romans 10 is not speaking of generic faith.”
In context, we read, “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?” The faith that results from hearing is that which produces salvation.
RH writes,
“I concluded that from the results.”
Aidan,
You concluded that God made his heart good by supernatural means from the results? How so?
Aidan,
“And you had God, not the person, determine the soil and the final result!”
RH,
“Yep. The heart is deceitful and at enmity with God.”
Aidan,
I wish you’d make up your mind! One minute you’re saying, “…. that the type of soil (or person) determined the final result.” Then the next minute you admit that God, not the person, determined the soil and the final result?
RH,
“The faith that results from hearing is that which produces salvation.”
Aidan,
Is that faith generic or specific? “For Isaiah says, “LORD, who has believed our report?” (Rom. 10:16). I heard a “report” the other day about Covid-19. If I believe that “report,” is my faith generic or specific? I think you know that it’s that same answer you should give to Romans 10:16.
Aidan asks “You concluded that God made his heart good by supernatural means from the results? How so?”
In the parable, Jesus said. “he who received seed on the good ground is he who hears the word and understands it, who indeed bears fruit and produces: some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.” The key is that they understand. In Luke 24. we read, “Then opened Jesus their understanding, that [the two disciples] might understand the scriptures,…” Romans, quoting the psalms, says of men in general, “There is none that understand…” In Proverbs, we read, “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, And the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.” Also, “If you seek [wisdom] as silver, And search for her as for hidden treasures; Then you will understand the fear of the LORD, And find the knowledge of God.” So, Jesus associates the seed (word) being sown on good soil with understanding. The “good soil” is in contrast to the two soils that are not accompanied by understanding – the stony ground and the thorns. I conclude that God made the heart good so it could receive the word – you conclude that the heart was good by some other means. Thus, we disagree.
Then, “I wish you’d make up your mind! One minute you’re saying, “…. that the type of soil (or person) determined the final result.” Then the next minute you admit that God, not the person, determined the soil and the final result?”
I don’t see your issue. I say that God makes the soil (the person) good thereby enabling it to receive the word and become fruitful. Putting this in the context of salvation, we see that the process of sanctification is a cooperative process whereby God makes the person good and the person receives the word and then becomes fruitful through obedience to word.
Then, “Is that faith generic or specific? “For Isaiah says, “LORD, who has believed our report?””
Faith is always specific – Hebrews 11 defines it as assurance and conviction. If one hears the word and receives assurance and conviction about that word, then he believes the word. If you hear a report about Covid-19, and you have assurance and conviction that the report is true, then you believe the report. I can’t think of an example of something in which one has assurance and conviction is something that is a generic assurance and conviction.
rhutchin
In Luke 24. we read, “Then opened Jesus their understanding, that [the two disciples] might understand the scriptures,
br.d
Jesus and the disciples spend 2+ years together – with Jesus teaching his disciples.
He could have “opened their understanding” in one hour if he wanted to.
But he instead spent 2+ years communicating with them.
And in all of that time, the preponderant model of informing his disciples is found in normal communication building on conceptions which the disciples already understood.
This instance with the two disciples on the road to Emmaus stands out as unusual circumstance.
The fallacy in thinking here is to assume an unusual circumstance as normative.
It is the same fallacy in thinking consistent with a gambler who assumes he will always win.
It is the same fallacy in thinking consistent with a girl who glances a look from a man and assumes he wants to marry her.
RH writes (May 1@11:07 am)
“one evidences faith and the other does not that points to a miraculous understanding”
(May 2) – “we should wonder how the “good soil” comes to be good if not be a work of God (thus, a supernatural event)”
(May 4) – “The key is that they understand….So, Jesus associates the seed (word) being sown on good soil with understanding.”
Aidan,
So, you believe the key is that they understand, and assume that it must be a miraculous understanding? Let’s look to the parable itself, and see what Jesus says was the cause of their inability to “understand.”
Matthew 13:13-15; NASB:
“Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.
“In their case the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled, which says,
‘YOU WILL KEEP ON HEARING, BUT WILL NOT UNDERSTAND;
YOU WILL KEEP ON SEEING, BUT WILL NOT PERCEIVE;
FOR THE HEART OF THIS PEOPLE HAS BECOME DULL,
WITH THEIR EARS THEY SCARCELY HEAR,
AND THEY HAVE CLOSED THEIR EYES,
OTHERWISE THEY WOULD SEE WITH THEIR EYES,
HEAR WITH THEIR EARS,
AND UNDERSTAND WITH THEIR HEART AND RETURN,
AND I WOULD HEAL THEM.’”
In 2 Timothy 4: 3-4, “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, AND WILL TURN AWAY THEIR EARS FROM THE TRUTH and will turn aside to myths.”
Notice in the parable, they themselves had closed their eyes, and ears to the truth – “OTHERWISE THEY WOULD SEE WITH THEIR EYES, HEAR WITH THEIR EARS, AND UNDERSTAND…RETURN, AND I WOULD HEAL THEM”! You can’t get much clearer than that! The fault was their own, it had not been determined! They could have returned of their own volition and been healed, except they themselves were preventing it! All they had to do was, open their eyes and turn their ears AGAIN to the truth – RETURN, and God would take care of the rest! No miraculous intervention was spoken of here, nor was it needed!
Aidan writes, “So, you believe the key is that they understand, and assume that it must be a miraculous understanding?”
If one person hears the word and responds positively and another hears the word and responds negatively, than one explanation is that God gave the one person understanding (ears to hear) and not the other. You may explain the difference in another fashion.
Then, “The fault was their own, it had not been determined! They could have returned of their own volition and been healed, except they themselves were preventing it!”
The issue has been the role of faith in the reactions of the various soils – not determinism. In Romans 8, Paul describes the person without faith this way, “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.” To be in the flesh is to be without faith (as opposed to being in Christ, or in the spirit) You conclude, “No miraculous intervention was spoken of here, nor was it needed!” OK, what generates faith? If merely a physical ability to hear the gospel when it is preached is sufficient to generate faith, then all who hear the gospel preached should have faith. But all who physically hear the gospel preached do not have faith. Thus, hearing the gospel preached is necessary to faith but not sufficient to produce faith. What else is needed? I conclude that God must do something for Paul says, “God has begun a good work in you.”
RH writes,
“If one person hears the word and responds positively and another hears the word and responds negatively, than one explanation is that God gave the one person understanding (ears to hear) and not the other. You may explain the difference in another fashion.”
Aidan,
Yes, unless otherwise stated, I would take it to mean that something non-miraculous occurred.
RH,
“The issue has been the role of faith in the reactions of the various soils – not determinism.”
Aidan,
The issue is always about determinism on your side of the fence – especially when you talk about miraculous interventions! The real issue is about the role of the various hearts(soils) in their reception to the word(seed).
RH,
“.. hearing the gospel preached is necessary to faith but not sufficient to produce faith.”
Aidan,
Paul disagrees with you – “So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”
And so does Isaiah –
“So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth;
It will not return to Me empty,
Without accomplishing what I desire,
And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it.”
RH,
“The issue has been the role of faith in the reactions of the various soils – not determinism.”
br.d
Here is the classic Calvinist move to OBFUSCATE the underlying template of Calvinist doctrine.
The TULIP is designed to hide Stoic/NeoPlatonic determinism behind a mask of biblical terminology.
Who does the Calvinist think he’s fooling! 😛
He’s fooling nobody but himself. Everything he says is about determinism, especially when he uses the word “faith”. He has himself going around in circles with his own circular reasoning. The Calvinist does what a lot of groups do. They invent terms and concepts not found in scripture, define them, and then look for passages that say nothing of the subject at hand. But isn’t it amazing to see the hoops they jump through to get there? Some call it mental gymnastics, I just call it – mental!
Aidan
The Calvinist does what a lot of groups do. They invent terms and concepts not found in scripture, define them, and then look for passages……
br.d
Well – I guess the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Scientologists do the same thing then.
Perhaps what they didn’t do was develope their own TULIP :-]
The Jehovah’s Witnesses, as you know, invented their own version of the Bible. The Mormons went even further with all sorts of crazy revelations. Catholicism has been creating new concepts and terms to impose on, and supersede the Bible longer than anybody. And that too, is a danger with the creeds of men. TULIP is probably the most obvious creed of terms and definitions that Calvinists impose on scripture. Otherwise, as far as I can see, they tend to be more subtle in their approach. It can take a bit more time to unveil the double meanings of a false teacher.
Aidan writes, “TULIP is probably the most obvious creed of terms and definitions that Calvinists impose on scripture. Otherwise, as far as I can see, they tend to be more subtle in their approach.”
Calvinists are more subtle because they actually drew TULIP from the Scriptures and people have a hard time undoing the Scriptures they used.
RH writes,
“Calvinists are more subtle because they actually drew TULIP from the Scriptures and people have a hard time undoing the Scriptures they used.”
Aidan,
People make that same scriptural argument for many things like, “infant baptism”, “Transubstantiation,” “Consubstantiation,” to imposing the “washing of feet”. So, what does that prove?
RH writes,
“Calvinists are more subtle because they …….
br.d
The serpent in Genesis was the most subtle beast in the field.
And it is interesting how Calvinists perennially win the prize of being the most subtle beast in the field of protestant Christianity! :-]
br.d
The serpent in Genesis was the most subtle beast in the field.
And it is interesting how Calvinists perennially win the prize of being the most subtle beast in the field of protestant Christianity! :-]
Aidan,
Indeed, and he too could use scripture!
Aidan,
Indeed, and he too could use scripture!
br.d
Yes – stand over Eve’s shoulder and tell her what god means by what he says.
br.d
Yes – stand over Eve’s shoulder and tell her what god means by what he says.
Aidan,
And – stand before Jesus to tell Him what was “determined” according to scripture.
For it is written:
‘He shall give His angels charge over you,’
and,
‘In their hands they shall bear you up,
Lest you dash your foot against a stone.’ ”
Very interesting!
There appears to be more implication in here than meets the eye.
Thanks for this quote!
Whatever one might conclude from this passage, Jesus’ response is the greater lesson. For me, He reveals that I must be careful about making conclusions or determinations, without knowing more fully what the word of God teaches. To carefully learn to handle accurately the word of truth! And there’s no more dangerous snake than Satan to put one on the wrong path!
Aidan writes, “So, what does that prove?”
It proves that people can cherry pick selective Scriptures to make a point. Calvinists do a comprehensive exegesis of the Scriptures to support their doctrines and that is why I said, “people have a hard time undoing the Scriptures they used.”
rhutchin
It proves that people can cherry pick selective Scriptures to make a point. Calvinists do a comprehensive exegesis of the Scriptures
br.d
Nah!
They just cherry pick selective verses – and then call that process: “comprehensive exegesis”
And thus – they end up with a theology of square-circles, married-bachelors, and good-evil
Where Calvin’s god determines 100% of whatsoever comes to pass
But man must also have some percentage of whatsoever comes to pass left over to determine.
Thus 100% subtract 100% doesn’t equal zero.
John Calvin
-quote
Go about your office *AS-IF* nothing (in particular) is determined in any part
The most sacred/divine proposition within scripture is to be held as TRUE
But you are to go about your office *AS-IF* the most sacred/divine proposition within scripture is FALSE.
Cuz the bible says so! 😆
RH writes,
“It proves that people can cherry pick selective Scriptures to make a point. Calvinists do a comprehensive exegesis of the Scriptures to support their doctrines and that is why I said, “people have a hard time undoing the Scriptures they used.”
Aidan,
And do you think they would agree that theirs is not comprehensively supported by an exegesis of Scripture? The problem people have is not the scriptures, but rather – the closed eyes, and the closed ears! Like them, you are making inferences from scripture that are not necessary inferences. Kinda like those who say, ‘These passages say the whole household, therefore they must have baptized babies.’ Like them, you make similar erroneous conclusions.
rhuthin
Calvinists are more subtle because they actually drew TULIP from the Scriptures and people have a hard time undoing the Scriptures they used.
br.d
Nah!
The TULIP is just a cosmetic mask designed to cover what’s underneath – Stoic/NeoPlatonic Determinism :-]
Yes – well it seems that within protestant Christianity – Lutheranism and Calvinism have retained the most from Catholicism.
N.T. Write calls John Calvin a Catholic with a small “c”
Br.d,
N.T. Write calls John Calvin a Catholic with a small “c”
Aidan,
Yes, Augustinian style!
Aidan writes, “TULIP is probably the most obvious creed of terms and definitions that Calvinists impose on scripture. Otherwise, as far as I can see, they tend to be more subtle in their approach.”
Examples:
Unconditional Election – “All that the Father gives [Jesus] will come to [Jesus],…” and “(for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls)”
Total Depravity – “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.” and “without faith it is impossible to please God.” and “the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing.”
The elect – “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.” and “at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work.”
God’s preservation of His elect – “God who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ;”
Very subtle use of Scripture by the Calvinists to get their doctrines.
Making the T in TULIP more Intellectually honest
Total Depravity vs Totally Predestined Nature:
The underlying foundation of the doctrine stipulates that whatsoever comes to pass (i.e., all created things and all movements of nature at any instance in time) are infallibly decreed before creation. Whatever the state of man’s nature is at any instance in time, is therefore totally determined before man is created. Since on this view, 100% of whatsoever comes to pass is exclusively up to a divine mind, it goes without saying that absolutely nothing about the condition of man’s nature at any instant in time, is ever up to man. So, its more forthcoming and truth-telling, for the “T” in TULIP to stand for “Totally Predestined Nature”.
“T” Totally Predestined Nature:
The state of man’s nature at any instance in time is totally predestined prior to creation, and therefore absolutely nothing about any part of man’s nature – or anything else for that matter – is ever up to man.
RH writes,
“Very subtle use of Scripture by the Calvinists to get their doctrines.”
Aidan,
The devil too is a very subtle creature, and he uses the word of God.
RH,
Unconditional Election – “All that the Father gives [Jesus] will come to [Jesus],…” and “(for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls)”
Aidan,
Nowhere did Jesus use the word “Unconditional.”
But He did make conditions:
1: Believe – (Jn. 3:15) “that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.”
2: Repent – (Lk. 13:3) “I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.”
3: Confess Him – (Mt. 10:32) “whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father…”
4: Be Baptized – (Mk 16:16) “He who believes and is baptized will be saved;..”
RH,
Total Depravity – “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.” and “without faith it is impossible to please God.” and “the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing.”
Aidan,
Nowhere did it mention birth, or a concept called TD in your verses above.
Totally Uncorrupted, Innocent, Pure – (Ezk. 18:20) “The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.”
(Matt.19:14) All little children are promised the kingdom of heaven – “But Jesus said, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven.”
RH,
“God’s preservation of His elect – “God who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ;”
Aidan,
God’s preservation of His elect is also CONDITIONAL on their continued FAITHFULNESS!
“So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.”
“Therefore, brethren, be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you; for as long as you practice these things, you will never stumble;”
“Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life.”
As you said yourself, it is a COOPERATIVE EFFORT!
RH: “Total Depravity – “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.” and “without faith it is impossible to please God.” and “the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing.”
Aidan: “Nowhere did it mention…a concept called TD in your verses above.”
That’s OK. Whenever you see the term, “Total Depravity,” you can mentally replace it with the following, “the carnal mind, enmity against God; not subject to the law of God, nor can be, cannot/impossible to please God, the message of the cross is foolishness.” Rather than use the shorthand term, TD, you can explain it in detail every time you want to explain the Calvinist doctrine concerning the sinfulness of man to someone.
rhutchin
Whenever you see the term, “Total Depravity,” you can mentally replace it with the following, “the carnal mind, enmity against God;
br.d
This shows us how the Calvinist mind is conditioned to think.
Totally Predestined Nature:
The underlying foundation of the doctrine stipulates that whatsoever comes to pass (i.e., all created things and all movements of nature at any instance in time) are infallibly decreed before creation. Whatever the state of man’s nature is at any instance in time, is therefore totally determined before man is created. Since on this view, 100% of whatsoever comes to pass is exclusively up to a divine mind, it goes without saying that absolutely nothing about the condition of man’s nature at any instant in time, is ever up to man. So, it would be more forthcoming or truth-telling, for the “T” in TULIP to stand for “Totally Predestined Nature”.
“T” Totally Predestined Nature:
The state of man’s nature at any instance in time is totally predestined prior to creation, and therefore absolutely nothing about any part of man’s nature – or anything else for that matter – is ever up to man.
RH writes,
Whenever you see the term, “Total Depravity,” you can mentally replace it with the following, “the carnal mind, enmity against God; not subject to the law of God, nor can be, cannot/impossible to please God, the message of the cross is foolishness.”
Aidan,
In other words – Whenever you see the terms, “the carnal mind, enmity against God; not subject to the law of God, nor can be, cannot/impossible to please God, the message of the cross is foolishness” – you see something inherited from birth, “Inherited Total Depravity.”
This is what I was talking about when I said, “you are making inferences from scripture that are not necessary inferences. Kinda like those who say, ‘These passages say the whole household, therefore they must have baptized babies.’” Or like in Catholicism, when you see the priest lifting up the “bread” your mind sees it to be the literal body of Christ. Therefore, the words Communion, and Bread, and the Cup, are terms that come to mean the literal body and blood of Christ.
In other words, the mind can be trained to see things in a certain way through word association, and that’s whats happened yours! Do you even know the difference between an inference and a necessary inference? For example, when you see “carnal mind” as “Inherited Total Depravity,” is it an inference for you, or a necessary inference?
RH,
Unconditional Election – “All that the Father gives [Jesus] will come to [Jesus],
br.d
A man took a sheet of white paper and sprinkled a few tiny flakes of black on it which looked like black pepper sprinklings.
He then asked a Calvinist and a non-Calvinist to look at it and describe what they see
Non-Calvinist:
“I see a lot of white with a few specks of black”
Calvinist:
“I see no white at all – I only see black”
The Calvinist mind is trained to take a few verses (i.e. black specks) that seem to give the mind what it wants to see
And the mind is conditioned to not not see the rest.
That is the Calvinist way of reading scripture.
Spock quote: “In critical moments, men sometimes see exactly what they wish to see.”
Aidan writes, “He did make conditions: 1: Believe …Repent…Confess Him…Be Baptized…”
These are not conditions for election. Do you know any conditions placed on God’s grace.
RH: “God’s preservation of His elect – “God who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ;”
Aidan,: “God’s preservation of His elect is also CONDITIONAL on their continued FAITHFULNESS!”
Paul is still valid, “God who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ;” That which God began, God will complete.As Jesus said, “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.”
Aidan
He did make conditions: 1: Believe …Repent…Confess Him…Be Baptized…”
rhutchin
These are not conditions for election. Do you know any conditions placed on God’s grace.
br.d
Here we have the fallacy of question begging.
Conditions for salvation are established by grace.
NOT placed on grace.
br.d writes, “Conditions for salvation are established by grace.”
If conditions are established by grace then it is not grace.
RH writes,
“If conditions are established by grace then it is not grace.”
Aidan,
Then what does these verses mean?
Titus 2:11-12:-
“For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, TEACHING US that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age,”
Aidan writes, “Then what does these verses mean?
Titus 2:11-12:-
“For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, TEACHING US that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age,”
Is it your belief that Titus is providing conditions for salvation?
First of all, here we have conditions established by grace! Is it still your belief that if conditions are established by grace, then it is not grace?
br.d: “Conditions for salvation are established by grace.”
rhutchin: “If conditions are established by grace then it is not grace.”
Aiden: “Then what does [Titus 2:11-12 mean?
Irhutchin: “Is it your belief that Titus is providing conditions for salvation?”
Aidan doubles down: “First of all, here we have conditions established by grace! Is it still your belief that if conditions are established by grace, then it is not grace?”
The context for this discussion is salvation. Apparently, Aiden does not follow context well, because when I wrote, “If conditions are established by grace then it is not grace,” he thought that I had ignored context. So, let me rephrase my original response so that even Aiden can understand it:
If conditions for salvation are established by grace then it is not grace.”
RH,
“If conditions are established by grace then it is not grace.”
Aidan,
Refutes that contention!
RH,
Let me rephrase – “If conditions for salvation are established by grace then it is not grace.”
Aidan,
Oh, now I get it:
“If conditions for SALVATION are established by grace THEN it is not grace.”
But..
“If conditions for ANYTHING ELSE are established by grace THEN it is still grace.”
Does that sound about right?
Aidan writes, “Oh, now I get it:
“If conditions for SALVATION are established by grace THEN it is not grace.”
Does that sound about right?”
Yes. Any conditions on the receipt of salvation are legal requirements a person must meet in order to qualify for salvation. That is not grace. If their are no conditions on a person’s qualifying for salvation, then salvation is by grace. The conditions are by grace since God did not have to provide any conditions whereby a person could qualify himself for salvation.
Then,“If conditions for ANYTHING ELSE are established by grace THEN it is still grace.”
Does that sound about right?”
In Titus 2, we read that the grace of God that brings salvation teaches us. So, by grace God brings salvation and by grace God teaches how one is to live. So, following Ephesians 2, by grace God provides salvation and by faith a person lives as God has taught them to live.
I’ll assume that you realize that Titus 2 is not speaking of conditions God places on people to qualify for salvation but how people are to live once God saves them. If a person were to do the things identified in Titus 2, he would be a fine person, but nothing he would be doing would atone for his sin and he would still be dead in sin.
rhutchin
Yes. Any conditions on the receipt of salvation are legal requirements a person must meet in order to qualify for salvation.
br.d
FALSE
The 10 lepers who believed Jesus and were healed did not have to qualify for their healing.
It was a gift of grace.
And there certainly wasn’t any legal requirement involved.
And the woman whose daughter was healed did not have to qualify for her daughter’s healing.
And again, there certainly wasn’t any legal requirement involved.
And yet Jesus said to her:
Woman, you have great faith!
And her daughter was healed at that moment.
No Christian in their right mind is going to argue that that woman earned the gift she was given.
The word “grace” simply means “unmerited favor.” Grace, therefore, identifies what God does for man that needs to be done, and which man cannot do for himself. “Faith” identifies what man does in obedience to God. This involves submission to God’s “law of faith.” Hence, “by grace…through faith” man is saved (Eph. 2:8,9). Therefore, there is no conflict in the system of salvation by grace through God’s law of faith. The conflict exists in a system of salvation by law alone (meritorious works) and grace (Rom. 4:4; 11:6).
Rom. 4:4:- “Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt.”
Rom. 11:6:- “And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work.”
rhutchin
br.d writes, “Conditions for salvation are established by grace.”
rhutchin
If conditions are established by grace then it is not grace.
br.d
Here we have two fallacies – question begging and false dichotomy.
Conditions do not logically entail merit.
But they do logically entail requirements
For example public bathrooms are designated for men and women.
And the condition for a person to use a women’s bathroom is that person must be a woman
That woman who uses the bathroom does so because she was given the gift of being created as a woman.
She did nothing to earn being created a woman.
Therefore that bathroom as designated for her – is not based on merit.
br.d writes, “Conditions do not logically entail merit.
But they do logically entail requirements
For example public bathrooms are designated for men and women.
And the condition for a person to use a women’s bathroom is that person must be a woman
That woman who uses the bathroom does so because she was given the gift of being created as a woman.
She did nothing to earn being created a woman.
Therefore that bathroom as designated for her – is not based on merit.”
Great example of Double-Talk.
rhutchin
Great example of Double-Talk.
br.d
So Grace establishes the provision of a bathroom as available to a woman as long as she meets the condition of being a woman.
Can you show how that is double-talk?
br.d writes, “So Grace establishes the provision of a bathroom as available to a woman as long as she meets the condition of being a woman. Can you show how that is double-talk?”
Let me help you understand what you are saying – “So Grace establishes the provision of a bathroom as available to a woman as long as she meets the [legal requirement] of being a woman.”
Grace built the bathroom. Grace made women. Then, the legal requirement was enacted that one had to be a women to use the bathroom. You had said, “Therefore that bathroom as designated for her – is not based on merit.” This is DOUBLE-TALK.
br.d writes, “So Grace establishes the provision of a bathroom as available to a woman as long as she meets the condition of being a woman. Can you show how that is double-talk?”
rhutchin
Let me help you understand what you are saying – “So Grace establishes the provision of a bathroom as available to a woman as long as she meets the [legal requirement] of being a woman.”
br.d
FALSE
Being born with a certain gender is not a legal requirement – it is a gift.
rhutchin
Grace built the bathroom. Grace made women. Then, the legal requirement was enacted that one had to be a women to use the bathroom. You had said, “Therefore that bathroom as designated for her – is not based on merit.” This is DOUBLE-TALK.
br.d
Your thinking is a complete non sequitur!
How am I not surprised!
Here it is in syllogism for you:
Major Premise:
You have the gender of male – a gift which you did not earn.
Minor Premise:
The men’s bathroom is available to you – based on the condition you were given the gift of male gender
CONCLUSION:
The men’s bathroom is available to you based on the condition of a gift you did not earn.
RH,: “The issue has been the role of faith in the reactions of the various soils – not determinism.”
Aida: “The issue is always about determinism on your side of the fence – especially when you talk about miraculous interventions! The real issue is about the role of the various hearts(soils) in their reception to the word(seed).’
OK – The real issue. Given that, “The real issue is about the role of the various hearts(soils) in their reception to the word(seed), “then faith would be a driver in that reception. The good soil shows the reception that involves faith. The other soils; without faith.
RH: “.. hearing the gospel preached is necessary to faith but not sufficient to produce faith.”
Aidan: “Paul disagrees with you – “So then faith comes by hearing,…”
As Jesus said, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear!”
RH writes,
“Given that, “The real issue is about the role of the various hearts(soils) in their reception to the word(seed), “then faith would be a driver in that reception. The good soil shows the reception that involves faith. The other soils; without faith.”
Aidan,
That word for reception – “receive” – is found in John 1:12, and Matthew 13:20. The Greek word is “lambano,” in which those who “received” Him, who “believe,” are given the right to become children of God – John 1:12. Notice that the same words are used to describe the rocky soil, where it says – “believe” and “receive” with joy. If the rocky soil were “without faith,” then those described in John 1:12 were – without faith! You can’t have it both ways.
John 1:12:- “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name:”
Matt. 13:20:- “But he who received the seed on stony places, this is he who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy;”
Luke 8:13:- “But the ones on the rock are those who,.. believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away.”
As Jesus said, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear!”
rhutchin
If one person hears the word and responds positively and another hears the word and responds negatively, than one explanation is that God gave the one person understanding (ears to hear) and not the other. ….etc
br.d
If – for the numerous times – a Calvinist has a FALSE perception within his brain – which he perceives as TRUE
Then one explanation (i.e., the Calvinist explanation) is that Calvin’s god gave that Calvinist numerous gifts of FALSE perceptions infallibly decreed to be perceived as TRUE.
CONCLUSION:
The Calvinist is predestined to have a subset of FALSE perceptions infallibly perceived as TRUE
He also has a subset of TRUE perceptions infallibly perceived as TRUE.
And since his FALSE perceptions are infallibly decreed to be perceived as TRUE – it logically follows he does not have the ability to discern his subset of FALSE perceptions from his subset of TRUE perceptions.
And it goes without saying – his mind doesn’t have the libertarian function of choosing between TRUE vs FALSE on any proposition.
Therefore:
Calvinists are not given the liberty to discern whether or not any proposition is TRUE or FALSE.
But they at least have cognizance of the perceptions Calvin’s god infallibly decrees to actualize within their brains. :-]
RH writes,
“Faith is always specific – Hebrews 11 defines it as assurance and conviction. If one hears the word and receives assurance and conviction about that word, then he believes the word. If you hear a report about Covid-19, and you have assurance and conviction that the report is true, then you believe the report. I can’t think of an example of something in which one has assurance and conviction is something that is a generic assurance and conviction.”
Aidan,
Okay, so you believe faith is always specific. I would agree, because faith in the gospel comes from hearing a specific report. “Lord who has believed our report? So faith comes by hearing..” – Even the word “hearing” means a report! Just like the report about Covid-19, that specific report or message, has to go out into all the world for people to hear it and believe it. “..And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? But I say, have they not heard? Yes indeed:
“Their sound has gone out to all the earth,
And their words to the ends of the world.”
Therefore, it is illogical to assume that one is born without faith in that report simply because they are totally depraved! Maybe it’s more reasonable to assume that it’s because they haven’t been able to hear the report yet! As Paul says, “And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard?” But once we’ve heard, or are old enough to hear – then we can believe in Him.
Aidan writes, ‘Therefore, it is illogical to assume that one is born without faith in that report simply because they are totally depraved!”
It is logical to assume that those who do not respond positively to the gospel are without faith as Paul tells us, “you have been saved through faith” and “In Christ you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation;” Faith is a prerequisite to salvation and faith comes through hearing the gospel and necessarily after one is born. Thus, at birth, no one has faith and it is this absence of faith that then defines Total Depravity.
As you say, “Maybe it’s more reasonable to assume that it’s because they haven’t been able to hear the report yet!” That is the point. If a person has not heard the gospel, he cannot have faith. If a person does not have faith, he is totally depraved.
Then, “But once we’ve heard, or are old enough to hear – then we can believe in Him.”
Or as Jesus would say, ““He who has ears to hear, let him hear!”
RH writes,
“Thus, at birth, no one has faith and it is this absence of faith that then defines Total Depravity. If a person does not have faith, he is totally depraved.”
Aidan,
It is illogical to assume that a person is totally depraved at birth! And it is equally absurd to assume that the absence of faith, at birth, in a message one has never heard evidences total depravity! If one is born totally innocent and pure and good, it would still be impossible for them to have faith in a message they have never yet heard. Therefore, your statement that the “absence of faith at birth” means total depravity, is refuted by mere logic and common sense.
When someone hears a specific message and rejects it, they do so because they don’t believe what they’ve heard. It may turn out years later that they hear it again, and choose to accept it. It may turn out that those who don’t believe in the reports about Covid-19, may in the future have a change of mind and choose to believe those reports.
He who has ears to hear, let him hear.
Aidan writes, “it is equally absurd to assume that the absence of faith, at birth, in a message one has never heard evidences total depravity!”
Since the term, “Total Depravity,” can be defined as the absence of faith, the real issue is whether a person is born with faith. As you even state, “in a message one has never heard ,” means that the person could not have faith at birth. Paul says, “whatever is not from faith is sin,” and “Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.” Then Romans 8 has “the carnal mind is enmity against God…those who are in the flesh cannot please God.’ A person is born in the flesh and without faith so they are enemies of God. I don’t see any logic to your statement, “[rhutchin’s] statement that the “absence of faith at birth” means total depravity, is refuted by mere logic and common sense.” By common sense, you seem to be relying on a humanist philosophy and not the Scriptures. Certainly, you made no attempt to introduce Scriptural truth into your comments.
Then, “When someone hears a specific message and rejects it, they do so because they don’t believe what they’ve heard.”
This because they lack faith. You seem confused in your argument.
rhutchin
Since the term, “Total Depravity,” can be defined as the absence of faith, the real issue is……..
br.d
Since the term “solar system” can be defined as the sun rotating around the earth, the real issue is…….
RH writes,
“Since the term, “Total Depravity,” can be defined as the absence of faith, the real issue is whether a person is born with faith.”
Aidan,
Since the term, “Total Depravity,” cannot be found in scripture, the real issue is that it’s man made. Consequently, so is your definition!
RH,
“A person is born in the flesh and without faith so they are enemies of God.”
Aidan,
“A person is born in the flesh and without faith so they are enemies of God” – Translation = Babies are born enemies of God! Poor babies, how can the kingdom of heaven belong to such faithless and depraved enemies of God?
RH,
“By common sense, you seem to be relying on a humanist philosophy and not the Scriptures. Certainly, you made no attempt to introduce Scriptural truth into your comments.”
Aidan,
You mean Romans 10 and Matthew 13 are not scriptural truth? Everybody knows logically and by common sense that one cannot believe in a message they have never heard! Everyone, except you, that is! And since you cannot show scriptures proving inherited sin, or inherited depravity, you condemn yourself for relying on humanist philosophy.
Aidan,
“When someone hears a specific message and rejects it, they do so because they don’t believe what they’ve heard.”
RH,
“This because they lack faith. You seem confused in your argument.”
Aidan,
Mark 16:16 – “He who BELIEVES and is baptized will be saved; but he who does NOT BELIEVE will be condemned.”
John 3:15 – “that whoever BELIEVES in Him should not perish but have eternal life.”
Rom 1:16 – “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who BELIEVES, for the Jew first and also for the Greek.”
None of these verses mention anything about having faith BEFORE they believed the gospel. Therefore, you are the one who seems to be confused by your own definitions! This is what happens when you rely on your human Calvinistic traditions and philosophies, and not on the scriptures!
RH,
“By common sense, you seem to be relying on a humanist philosophy and not the Scriptures. Certainly, you made no attempt to introduce Scriptural truth into your comments.”
br.d
I almost fell out of my chair when I read this!
90% of RH’s posts have been all human philosophy – obviously due to the lack of scriptural support!
If the Calvinist had a verse that EXPLICITLY stated what he wants it to say – he wouldn’t need to waste endless hours dreaming up fallacious arguments.
And fallacious arguments don’t come from scripture – so that makes them “humanistic”! 😎
Here’s what Spock might say to that:
“In critical moments, men sometimes see exactly what they wish to see”
Aidan writes, “Everybody knows logically and by common sense that one cannot believe in a message they have never heard! Everyone, except you, that is! ”
I think we agree here. No one can believe in Christ for salvation until they hear the gospel. We seem to agree that people are enabled to believe through a faith conveyed to them as they hear the gospel.
Then, “None of these verses mention anything about having faith BEFORE they believed the gospel.”
Are you arguing that people first believe the gospel and then are enabled to hear the gospel to receive faith? Or is your point that both faith and belief come through hearing the gospel but belief precedes faith in the logical order.
rhutchin
Are you arguing that people first believe the gospel and then are enabled to hear the gospel to receive faith?
br.d
More precisely: Hear the gospel – and at liberty to exercise normal human god given ability of belief.
But Gnostic people are not normal!
So in order to have a rational thought – it must be given to them as a special gift!
The then problem is – Calvin’s god gives them a-lot more irrational thoughts than anything else.
But he’s just toying with them! :-]
RH writes,
“We seem to agree that people are enabled to believe through a faith conveyed to them as they hear the gospel.”
Aidan,
You know quite well I don’t agree with your deterministic statement above!
Aidan,
“None of these verses mention anything about having faith BEFORE they believed the gospel.”
RH,
“Are you arguing that people first believe the gospel and then are enabled to hear the gospel to receive faith? Or is your point that both faith and belief come through hearing the gospel but belief precedes faith in the logical order.”
Aidan,
Why don’t you answer the question, “None of these verses mention anything about having faith BEFORE they believed the gospel?” Therefore it is up to you to prove otherwise! You believe that people are enabled to believe – “through a faith conveyed to them as they hear the gospel?” Seeing that you follow the scriptures, show the verses that spell it out that way!
RH writes: “We seem to agree that people are enabled to believe through a faith conveyed to them as they hear the gospel.”
Aidan,: “You know quite well I don’t agree with your deterministic statement above!”
OK – I believe what Paul said, “faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” You don’t. At least, we know where we disagree.
RH: “Are you arguing that people first believe the gospel and then are enabled to hear the gospel to receive faith? Or is your point that both faith and belief come through hearing the gospel but belief precedes faith in the logical order.”
Aidan: “Why don’t you answer the question, “None of these verses mention anything about having faith BEFORE they believed the gospel?” Therefore it is up to you to prove otherwise! ”
How about revealing your position, so I can address that context?
rhutchin
OK – I believe what Paul said, “faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”
You don’t. At least, we know where we disagree.
br.d
Interpretation:
Ok – my brain has been conditioned to see Universal Divine Causal Determinism in every verse of scripture”
And your mind hasn’t
At least we know the difference in the condition of our brains. 😀
Hey BR.D…Have you seen Hitler’s rant against FLOWERS. It is quite funny.
Oh!!! I just found it and fell out of my chair laughing!!
“When a non-Calvinist shows you how idiotic your system is using logic
Just tell him: ‘you don’t understand Calvinism’
Its the best answer we have!!
Gerda – how long has he been in cage stage?
Who are we kidding anyway – Flowers prunes our tulips every day over at SOT101!
I love it!!! 😆
rhutchin
It is logical to assume that those who do not respond positively to the gospel are without faith as Paul tells us,
br.d
Here we have two fallacies:
1) Equivocation
2) Question begging
First “without faith” can be interpreted as “a person choosing to not apply god given ability of belief”
Or it can be interpreted as “a person lacks normal god given ability of belief”
Secondly:
The question begging assumes the latter and not the former.
No one accuse Calvinism of not being 90% human philosophy! 😉
rhutchin
We will just have to disagree on the appropriateness of the Calvinist creating a term, Total Depravity, as a shorthand way to describe the unsaved.
br.d
Well the “T” standing for Total Depravity is just a Half Truth anyway.
It does a good job of hiding the what’s really going on underneath.
Here is a more intellectually honest “T” for the TULIP
The underlying foundation of the doctrine stipulates that whatsoever comes to pass (i.e., all created things and all movements of nature at any instance in time) are infallibly decreed before creation. Whatever the state of man’s nature is at any instance in time, is therefore totally determined before man is created. Since on this view, 100% of whatsoever comes to pass is exclusively up to a divine mind, it goes without saying that absolutely nothing about the condition of man’s nature at any instant in time, is ever up to man. So, its more forthcoming or truth-telling, for the “T” in TULIP to stand for “Totally Predestined Nature”.
“T” Totally Predestined Nature:
The state of man’s nature at any instance in time is totally predestined prior to creation, and therefore absolutely nothing about any part of man’s nature – or anything else for that matter – is ever up to man.
.
Aidan writes, “That means one is saved by a dead faith.”
No, It just means that works follow faith. I don’t think James had repentance in mind when he wrote, “Faith w/o works is dead.” He was talking about the believer’s treatment of others – loving your neighbor as yourself.
Aidan writes, “That means one is saved by a dead faith.”
RH,
“No, It just means that works follow faith. I don’t think James had repentance in mind when he wrote, “Faith w/o works is dead.” He was talking about the believer’s treatment of others – loving your neighbor as yourself.”
Aidan,
You say that one is saved by faith, and then works follow faith, but you contradict James, who said, “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.” And then you say, “I don’t think James had repentance in mind.” Can faith without repentance save? But finally you said, James was talking about – “loving your neighbor as yourself.” You mean like sacrificing your son?
There was no one else on the mountain before God, except Abraham and his soon to be sacrificed son. It was his works before God that justified Abraham (v.21) not by faith alone (v.24). The words that James uses are, Save, Justified, and Righteousness. When the bible talks about being saved by faith, we should take off those glasses which are seeing, “faith alone.” I’m afraid people are confused by Romans, because they think Paul is trying to exclude works from salvation – which is sad! Salvation is not by “faith alone”, nor by “works alone”, but by “faith plus works” together as one (v.22).
Aidan writes, “finally you said, James was talking about – “loving your neighbor as yourself.” You mean like sacrificing your son? ”
Let’s read James and let him tell us: “…if there should come into your assembly a man with gold rings, in fine apparel, and there should also come in a poor man in filthy clothes, and you pay attention to the one wearing the fine clothes and say to him, “You sit here in a good place,” and say to the poor man, “You stand there,” or, “Sit here at my footstool,” have you not shown partiality among yourselves, and become judges with evil thoughts?…If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you do well; but if you show partiality, you commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors….What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.”
Aidan writes, “finally you said, James was talking about – “loving your neighbor as yourself.” You mean like sacrificing your son? ”
RH,
“What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?”
Aidan,
When James asks, “What does it profit” he qualifies it – “Can that faith save HIM?” – NASB: Hence, the main subject is SALVATION!
RH,
“If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit?”
Aidan,
When James now asks – “what does it profit?” He simply means – what does it profit THEM? All talk and no action is of no advantage to – the naked and destitute! It is totally useless to THEM! Everybody understands how useless that would be.
“THUS ALSO faith by itself, if it does not have works, is DEAD” – and “USELESS” (v.20). In other words, back to the main subject, namely, – “Can that faith save HIM?” Can faith without works save YOU?
Nope! That’s his point in this passage.
Then, “Is that clear enough for you now? Can you see the interplay between the words “BELIEVES” and “FAITH?”
I see the interplay that arises from the translation of the Greek noun as “faith” and the Greek verb as “believe,” Faith is a tangible quality that a person possesses – it is described in Hebrews 11 as assurance and conviction. It is the presence of faith (assurance and conviction) that results in a person behaving in a certain way – ie, believing.
When we read, “THE RIGHTEOUS man SHALL LIVE BY FAITH.” we see that faith is the basis for the way the righteous lives. Thus, Hebrews 11 says, “By faith Abel offered…By faith Noah,…prepared an ark…By faith Abraham obeyed…These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but…confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.”
rhutchin
Faith is a tangible quality that a person possesses
br.d
Understandable – as that forces “faith” to conform to Universal Divine Causal Determinism.
You have no capacity to a proposition is true – until Calvin’s god gives you the gift of “faith” in order to believe it
And that of course includes all of the FALSE PERCEPTIONS of truth – Calvin’s god gives as gifts of “faith” also. :-]
RH, writes,
“When we read, “THE RIGHTEOUS man SHALL LIVE BY FAITH.” we see that faith is the basis for the way the righteous lives. Thus, Hebrews 11 says, “By faith Abel offered…By faith Noah,…prepared an ark…By faith Abraham obeyed”
Aidan,
Hebrews 11 simply shows the kind of faith that saves, namely an – active obedient faith. Which contradicts those who claim that salvation is by faith alone. Notice the obedience of faith – “By faith Abel offered…By faith Noah,…prepared an ark for the saving of his household …By faith Abraham obeyed”
Aiden writes, “Hebrews 11 simply shows the kind of faith that saves,…”
Hebrews 11 shows the faith produces obedience.
Aiden writes, “Hebrews 11 simply shows the kind of faith that saves,…”
RH,
“Hebrews 11 shows the faith produces obedience.”
Aidan,
How so?
RH,: “Hebrews 11 shows the faith produces obedience.”
Aidan,:How so?”
Hebrews 11 has, “By faith Abel offered…; By faith Noah…prepared an ark…; By faith Abraham obeyed…;” Wd see the association of faith with action: faith-offered; faith-prepared; faith-obeyed. None of those actions would have occurred without faith.
rhutchin
Hebrews 11 has, “By faith Abel offered… By faith Noah…prepared an ark… By faith Abraham obeyed…” Wd see the association of faith with action: faith-offered; faith-prepared; faith-obeyed. None of those actions would have occurred without faith.
br.d
NORMAL VERSION:
By exercising the NORMAL human capacity of faith designed into humans – Abel, Noah, Abraham obeyed
GNOSTIC VERSION:
Like a SUPRAnatural divine spark – a SUPRA-natural faith was implanted into Abel, Noah, Abraham – and that faith obeyed.
Looks like a robot getting a new program! :-]
br.d
NORMAL VERSION:
By exercising the NORMAL human capacity of faith designed into humans – Abel, Noah, Abraham obeyed
GNOSTIC VERSION:
Like a SUPRAnatural divine spark – a SUPRA-natural faith was implanted into Abel, Noah, Abraham – and that faith obeyed.
Aidan,
EXCELLENT! – I LOVE IT👍
RH writes,
“Hebrews 11 has, “By faith Abel offered… By faith Noah…prepared an ark… By faith Abraham obeyed…” Wd see the association of faith with action: faith-offered; faith-prepared; faith-obeyed. None of those actions would have occurred without faith.”
Aidan,
Matthew 6:1
“Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven.” Lots of seemingly good actions can occur for the wrong motives!
In these instances when faith-offered; and faith-prepared; and faith-obeyed, how did they know what God wanted? How did they know what would please God?
Heb. 3:18-19;
“And to whom did He swear that they would not enter His rest, but to those who did not obey? So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.” John 3:36; – “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.” Its interesting how the word “belief” is used interchangeably in contrast with the word “disobedience”
Aidan writes, “Lots of seemingly good actions can occur for the wrong motives! ”
Wrong motives means no faith. Then, you say, “Its interesting how the word “belief” is used interchangeably in contrast with the word “disobedience.” This is true. Could we not then conclude that faith/belief is necessary for good actions (as listed in Hebrews 11)? Can any good actions occur in the absence of faith?? Could we conclude that faith/belief is a prerequisite for good actions/obedience?
rhutchin asks Aidan:
“Could we conclude that faith/belief is a prerequisite for good actions/obedience?”
My response:
If the car you drive gets 30 MPG, and you have 10 gallons of gas in your car, you have FAITH that your car will get you 300 miles before it runs out of gas. Therefore, you drive your car 300 miles, and it runs out of gas.
You had faith in your car’s ability to get you 300 miles on ten gallons of gas.
Is that YOUR faith? What “good actions” are based on that?
You trust a drug dealer to deliver 10 grams of crack. You have faith in that drug dealer. Good actions? Obedience?
Ed Chapman
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “If the car you drive gets 30 MPG, and you have 10 gallons of gas in your car, you have FAITH that your car will get you 300 miles before it runs out of gas. Therefore, you drive your car 300 miles, and it runs out of gas.”
If you “know” that the car you drive gets 30 MPG, etc. then that is not faith. If you don’t know that the car you want to drive gets 30 MPG, etc, but you find that you have assurance of the hope you have in the car and are convicted of things that you have not not seen, because God gave you a piece of paper that gave you this information, then with that faith in what God said, you will get into the car and drive off. By faith, you only “know” what God told you. Only afterward after you get to your destination and your faith proves reliable would you then know that the car you drive gets 30 MPG, etc. Prior to that, you drive on faith that it will do as God said it would. Without faith, you would not get into the car in the first place.
rhutchin
Without faith, you would not get into the car in the first place.
br.d
Yup – the NORMAL capacity of faith for all NORMAL people.
But Gnostics are not born NORMAL people with NORMAL human capacities.
So they need NORMAL human capacities to be given to them as special gifts :-]
rhutchin states:
“If you “know” that the car you drive gets 30 MPG, etc. then that is not faith. ”
Really? First of all, HOW DO YOU KNOW that your car gets 30 MPG? You just BOUGHT the car without driving it, from the car dealer.
The sticker on the car told you that the car gets 30 MPG.
But even if you did already know, based on EXPERIENCE, then you STILL have faith that the car will get you 300 miles on ten gallons.
So, please, you cannot conclude that is not faith.
BELIEF is the same as FAITH. TRUST is the same as faith. So, you TRUST AND BELIEVE, and that means you have faith. WHY do you want to TWIST the meaning of faith?
Faith is KNOWING that you will get what you are waiting for (HEBREWS 11:1). You can’t get around that definition no matter how hard you try.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “You just BOUGHT the car without driving it, from the car dealer.”
At least you recognize that you need to provide additional information to allow for faith. That’s good.
Then, “The sticker on the car told you that the car gets 30 MPG. But even if you did already know, based on EXPERIENCE, then you STILL have faith that the car will get you 300 miles on ten gallons. So, please, you cannot conclude that is not faith.”
So, now you must rely on the sticker and what it says. We can like that to reading the Scripture and believing what it says. So, you have created the conditions for faith. I have no problem with your example with the changes you made. With faith in the sticker, the person buys the car and drives it.
Then, “BELIEF is the same as FAITH. TRUST is the same as faith. So, you TRUST AND BELIEVE, and that means you have faith. WHY do you want to TWIST the meaning of faith?”
I have no problem with trust or belief being equated to faith. I have made is that faith is an internal attribute of a person and is a prerequisite for good actions/obedience? People act according to their faith/belief/trust.
However, in the Greek text, faith is translated from a noun and believe is translated from the verb (same Greek word in each case). The distinction I make is that one must possess the noun (faith) before he can act (believe).
rhutich states:
“At least you recognize that you need to provide additional information to allow for faith. That’s good.”
My response:
I have been all along. You haven’t been listening.
The information provided that you keep missing is THE PROMISE. But you don’t even know what God promised people. That information that you say that I did not provide, was provided by God to Abraham. WHAT WAS THE PROMISE GIVEN TO ABRAHAM THAT APPLIES TO ALL HUMANS.
They are:
Promised Land and Promised seed. But you need God to give you faith to know what that is? And you claim to have faith, yet, you have no clue what God promised?
The source of Faith is what God promised. If you believe that promise, you will live that belief. THAT IS FAITH. If you don’t believe that promise, then you don’t trust God, and that is no faith. BELIEF AND TRUST GO HAND IN HAND.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “I have been all along. You haven’t been listening. The information provided that you keep missing is THE PROMISE.’
The issue to which I referred was your car example. With your changes, that issue has been cleared up. The promise issue was a separate issue.
rhutchin states:
“The issue to which I referred was your car example. With your changes, that issue has been cleared up. The promise issue was a separate issue.”
My response:
NO, it’s not a separate issue. The promise is that the car will get 30 MPG.
God’s promise is
1. PROMISED LAND AND PROMISED SEED.
SAME ISSUE. PROMISE.
THE DICTIONARY BREAKDOWN OF HEBREWS 11:1 IS ABOUT ASSURANCE, WHICH IS DEFINED AS A PLEDGE, A GUARANTEE.
Therefore, it’s the same. If you believe the promise, that’s faith. If you trust the promise, that’s faith.
The source is the pledge or guarantee of the one who gave it.
How is it that you don’t get this stuff? Hebrews 11:1 broken down to the lowest common denominator defines what faith is, and it is NOT what you describe it to be, in that it is given by God. It’s not given by God. All that is given by God is a PROMISE, and all you can do is to believe the promise, or to not believe the promise. FREE WILL CHOICE.
Ed Chapman
Then he (Abraham) believed the LORD and He reckoned it to him as righteousness. (Gen 15:6)
The Bible is clearly establishing cause and effect here, but the Calvinist simply will not abide this because it violates “T”. The faith to believe God’s promise must be a gift to only the elect in the Calvinist rubric. There is no scriptural support for this, Eph 2:8 notwithstanding. Let’s break it down…
For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
WHAT: salvation (you have been saved)
HOW: by grace, through faith
“…it is the gift” grammatically and logically refers to WHAT – not HOW. “It” is singular. “Grace and faith” are plural. Grammatically if Paul were referring to grace and faith he would have to say “…they are the gifts…”.
Now, pop some popcorn and watch RH’s head explode with a flurry of pounding keys.
mrteebs
Now, pop some popcorn and watch RH’s head explode with a flurry of pounding keys.
br.d
Human philosophy posturing as “scriptural theology”
Ex Calvinist Daniel Gracely calls Calvinism Pseudology – which means – the art of misleading language. :-]
mrteebs,
Popcorn, yes!
Notice that your reference of Genesis does not say, Believed IN God, but believed God. That indicates that God said something, and Abraham believed what was said.
I’m trying to get rhutchin to recognize that Abram believed what was said, which is what gave Abraham righteousness, and that it is not believing IN God that gave him righteousness. It didn’t say that God gave him righteousness THEN Abraham believed God. It’s the other way around. WHY can’t rhutchin see the order of events like non-Calvinists can?
But, in any case, rhutchin can’t even tell me what God promised Abraham. He points me to John, instead. LOL.
All of hell believes “in” God. Most humans (atheists and agnostics aside) believe “in” God. The demons also believe and shudder (Ja 2:19). But if we keep reading to the next verse, we see that real faith is accompanied by works. This infuriated Luther, for example, and he sought unsuccessfully to have the book of James purged from the canon of scripture. He called it “Epistle of Straw”.
The five Solas are another example. They sound good superficially, but when taken to their (il)logical conclusions, some lead astray and say that which God has not said. “Grace Alone” sounds wonderful, but if not received it does the intended recipient no good. God offers His grace. He does not open the recipient’s mouth and ram it down. “Faith alone” sounds good but James tells us there will be an accompaniment of works. “Scripture Alone” is fantastic – if only Calvinists would actually live up to that ideal. I acknowledge that they try, but the place way to much faith in their reasoning faculties and exhibit a lot of pride that they are the only “thinking” ones because they have a systematic theology that purports to account for everything in a neat, tidy, and internally consistent way. One small problem: it’s neat, tidy, internally consistent, but wrong.
Belief will result in not just mental ascent, but in action. Repentance is an action of changing one’s mind. It is what the thief on the cross did. It is what Lydia did. What Saul (Paul) did. This is how James can tell us that faith without words is dead. True faith is accompanied by works. Abraham did not prove his faith until he raised the knife. Although his understanding of “how” was incorrect (that God would raise a dead Isaac rather than prevent his death), God does not ask us to have faith in the HOW – He asks us to have faith in the WHAT.
mrteebs
All of hell believes “in” God
br.d
So in Calvinism that would equate to Calvin’s god giving each demon a “gift” of faith! :-]
br.d
you had said:
“So in Calvinism that would equate to Calvin’s god giving each demon a “gift” of faith! :-]”
My response:
Be sure to tip your waitresses, br.d will be here all week!
That was funny. I really did laugh out loud.
Ed
mrteebs,
You had said:
“Although his understanding of “how” was incorrect (that God would raise a dead Isaac rather than prevent his death), God does not ask us to have faith in the HOW – He asks us to have faith in the WHAT.”
But…
Hebrews 11:17-19 states:
17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,
18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:
19 Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.
THIS is what I am discussing that expositors don’t grasp, in that Isaac was a TYPE AND A SHADOW of Jesus, and Abraham was a type and a shadow of the Father (God) sacrificing his only begotten son (VERSE 17…ONLY BEGOTTEN SON). And verse 19 shows that Abraham accounted that God would raise up Isaac from the dead. Jesus was raised from the dead.
Galatians 3:16 shows that Isaac is the type/shadow of Jesus in this case. The seed of Abraham. Yes, Isaac is the seed of Abraham. But, that is the expository. Jesus is the spiritual ONE SEED of Abraham.
Galatians 3:16
16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
But in the expository, it is INDEED “as of many. In the spiritual, it is INDEED “as of one”.
I say this because the story of Abraham sacrificing his son, and Abraham’s understanding of the son being resurrected from the dead if he sacrificed his only begotten son…it’s prophesy of Jesus.
But the whole point is that Abraham believed that God would raise him from the dead IF Abraham HAD TO go thru with killing him. And that was the test that Abraham passed with flying colors, which is why God relented, so that Abraham would not kill him. Cuz Abraham was gonna do it. Bottom line, Abraham believed the PROMISE of his seed continuing thru Isaac, and not anyone else. So Abraham had no problem being, what is word, obedient? Hence, faith without works is dead.
And again, I must re-iterate that Luther had no problem with the word FAITH. He had a problem with the word WORKS, because he was comprehended that the word WORKS has nothing to do with salvation as it so states in the book of Romans chapter 4. So when he saw the word WORKS in James, and that WORKS is what justifies a person, but in Romans 4, no one is justified by WORKS, he got confused.
Give Luther a little slack for his confusion!!
Ed Chapman
We are in agreement, Ed. Thanks for sharing that observation.
Paul makes it clear that it is not the children of Abraham that are children of the promise (because Ishmael was also a child of Abraham as well as those listed in Gen 25:1-6) but rather the children of Isaac.
The Jews boasted that they were children of Abraham. Jesus put them in their place quickly, saying that “…from these stones God is able to raise up children to Abraham…” (a truly remarkable statement to ponder).
And I love the rich symbolism that Paul exposes for us in Romans regarding Abraham and Isaac. I truly believe that these truths were not evident to him because of his studies at the school of Gamaliel, but rather via direct revelation from Christ Himself (2 Cor 12:1-4, Gal 1:11-12).
Personally, one of the most moving things for me about the love of God is what the Father did by sending His Son. I have only one child (a son that I adore) and this hits very close to home. I don’t know how I could have done what Abraham did, and the measure of faith he demonstrated is huge. Can you imagine what he was feeling as he loaded the firewood on that boy’s back and they ascended the mountain? The son was kept ignorant for the entirety of the journey but the father knew with every step what was to occur. The symbolism of the father sacrificing his only son is also huge, as you correctly noted. The symbolism of the nation that resulted from Isaac is also huge, just like the “true Israel” nation of believers that resulted not from the physical seed of Abraham, but the spiritual seed of Jews and Gentiles that believed (Rom 9:8).
mrteebs,
I can tell you with certainty that i would not have had the same faith that abraham had. I would have been lacking, for sure. In addition, if i walked the earth when Jesus did, i probably would have rejected him as well. Why? A human claiming to be God? I would have laughed at that. I would have failed. It’s sad to admit.
Ed Chapman
I often have the same thoughts, Ed. Would I have been a soft-hearted Simeon? Would I have been an over-analytical Thomas? Would I have been a hell-fueled-but-sincere Paul? Would I have been an unfiltered Nathanael (can anything good come from Nazareth?) Would I have been a cowardly and timid Nicodemus (“secret” believer)? Would I have recognized Him at all or would I have simply chased signs and miracles until He became unpopular – waving palm branches one week and waving my fist the next?
Aren’t you glad that all of them made heaven their home and that God is gracious to all – usually with multiple chances and with turning up the volume (as with Paul and Thomas) until it absolutely demands a response? Hallelujah!
This Passover has had special meaning for all of us as we ask for a literal plague to pass over. I plead the blood of Jesus daily over my home and my family – literally praying that Jesus will apply His blood to the doorposts of my home and this plague will not come near us while we look on only with our eyes – in accordance with Ps 91. Is 26:20 is also very timely.
mrteebs,
Interesting that the virus and Passover intersect, isn’t it?
I’ve had my anger lately at Christians who are defiant, creating conspiracy theories of the government taking away liberties, keeping Christians from “gathering”.
I remind them of a few things. Deu and Lev where the infectious were quarentined, outside the camp, and the were forbidden to gather UNTIL they were deemed clean.
Then there is the very first Passover.
DON’T GO OUTSIDE. It didn’t matter if there was blood on the door post. If you went outside, you died.
So here we have a deadly contagious virus going around, and Christians think that God will protect them from it, so they gleefully defy government officials.
Some others with a conscience state that this is a Romans 13 issue, and we should OBEY PUBLIC SAFETY RULES.
And I’m like, WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT…RULES? What about common sense? COMMON….COMMON sense. They really need someone to INSTRUCT them with RULES to stay home if there is a deadly virus?
SLAP PALM TO FOREHEAD!!
One thing for sure, Christians don’t seem to realize how stupid they can be. Pro life for the unborn, but screw it for OLD UNCLE CHARLIE.
Christians are gonna die due to their own stupidity, and they are gonna unwittingly pass on a virus to other people. All because they want to be defiant, because God will PROTECT THEM, and the government is taking away their right to gather.
WHEN 2 OR MORE ARE GATHERED…If you are married, there is your two. Are they gathered? Of course. STAY HOME is common sense.
None of us gets out of here alive. Life is a deadly disease. If ya live, you are gonna die. God does not want us to be careless. But Christians are being careless. Shame on them. IF ya go outside, you are gonna die…whether there is blood on the door post or not.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. I think we need to get back to the basics, instead of Christians thinking that they are SO SMART.
Just my thoughts on Passover and Virus intersecting like it is.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “A human claiming to be God? I would have laughed at that.”
“the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved..” (1 Corinthians 1)
To add to my comment about what the Father felt when He gave His only begotten Son, this video came to mind:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJOeiT1IkhY
It chokes me up every time.
Don’t pick it apart theologically, because the analogy is inexact. God’s Son wasn’t an unwitting participant – He went in with eyes wide open. There are probably other nuances that are imperfect as well. But that does not negate the overall message or its impact.
But it does strike me that in Calvinism there must be two trains: one for which no provision exists, and one (as in this video) for which provision exists. A green “elect” train and a red “don’t care about them” train.
Do Calvinists believe God loves everyone, or only the elect? If everyone, I must get a ringside seat to see the language twisting on full display. And popcorn. Don’t forget the popcorn.
mrteebs
Do Calvinists believe God loves everyone, or only the elect? If everyone, I must get a ringside seat to see the language twisting on full display. And popcorn. Don’t forget the popcorn.
br.d
A young man takes a girl up to lover’s lane and she soon discovers his intent.
As he reaches, she puts up her hand making a “Stop” motion. “Before we do this I need to know if you love me” she says sternly.
The young man knows what the girl’s definition of the word love is. He knows she defines love as monogamous commitment. If he speaks honestly, and answers her question using her definition for the word love his answer will be “no”.
In such case, his quest will be foiled.
So, he reasons within himself, that he must mislead her. Of course, I love you he says.
But the caveat is; he won’t tell her what type of love he has in mind.
This is called INSIDER LANGUAGE
He knows what her definition for love is, so he creates an ad hoc definition for the word, and retains his definition as INSIDER.
Dr. DA Carson is asked by a group of young Calvinist pastors “Is it honest for us to tell people god loves them?
His answer: Of course you can tell them god loves them – you just can’t tell them what type of love god has for them
br.d,
Your lovers lane example reminds me of an old Meatloaf song, where Meatloaf sings… let me sleep on that!!
Ed Chapman
mrteebs asks, “Do Calvinists believe God loves everyone, or only the elect?”
Because God has the authority and power to save all people but chooses to save some (called the elect) and pass over all others (called the non-elect), then we can conclude that God’s love for the elect is not the same as His love for the non0elect.
rhutchin
Because God has the authority and power to save all people but chooses to save some (called the elect) and pass over all others (called the non-elect), then we can conclude that God’s love for the elect is not the same as His love for the non0elect.
br.d
Not to be tricked by misleading language – the we in this case is Calvinists of course.
However one should be able to discern how “Pass Over” in this case is EUPHEMISTIC language
Calvin’s god SPECIFICALLY DESIGNING humans for eternal torment in a lake if fire for his good pleasure – is called “Passing Over” them.
Aren’t Calvinism’s language games fun! :-]
br.d,
That was another good one…Passover became PASS OVER. How is that celebrated? Roasting Marshmellows? Burn baby (literally) burn!
Ed
Perhaps watching the non-elect burn in the lake of fire – will be a form of entertainment for Calvinists in heaven?
That would make sense in how they interpret the command “be ye holy as your heavenly father is holy”.
br.d writes, “Not to be tricked by misleading language – the we in this case is Calvinists of course.”
Even br.d would draw the same conclusion given his claim to have an aptitude for logical discourse.
Let’s rephrase it to see if you get it: “Because IRS has the authority and power to audit any taxpayer at random but chooses to audit certain taxpayers and pass over the rest, then we can conclude that IRS views those it chooses to audit differently than it views those it chooses not to audit.”
rhutchin
Even br.d would draw the same conclusion given his claim to have an aptitude for logical discourse.
br.d
NOPE!
Because it is fallacious thinking to draw conclusions from ambiguous statements
But like the boy who takes the girl to lovers lane – and tells he loves her – while obfuscating the KIND of love he has in mind,
I understand why Calvinists follow the same language model.
In Calvinism – there is a KIND of love which DESIGNS people for eternal torment in a lake of fire – for one’s good pleasure.
rhutchin
Let’s rephrase it to see if you get it: “Because IRS has the authority and power to audit any taxpayer at random but chooses to audit certain taxpayers and pass over the rest, then we can conclude that IRS views those it chooses to audit differently than it views those it chooses not to audit.”
br.d
How is anyone surprised that this analogy is an inversion
In this case the IRS would be targeting certain tax payers and not-targeting the rest.
I don’t think an Intellectually honest tax payer would call that “Passing Over”.
A better analogy for Calvinism’s use of “Pass Over” would be: Adolf Hitler “Passed Over” 11 million Jews
chapmaned24 writes, “I’m trying to get rhutchin to recognize that Abram believed what was said,…”
That which was said was from God and that which God said was the source of the faith by which Abraham then acted (believed).
rhutchin states:
“That which was said was from God and that which God said was the source of the faith by which Abraham then acted (believed).”
Where do you get such nonsense?
God is the source of the promise, NOT THE FAITH. And, you are completely off base thinking that BELIEF is an action!
NO…BELIEF WITHOUT WORKS IS DEAD (James 2:26).
Belief is NOT an action word. Moving your feet is the action. Belief is in the head, without action.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “God is the source of the promise, NOT THE FAITH. And, you are completely off base thinking that BELIEF is an action!”
The word, “belief,” is not found in any translation of the Greek text except where it reads, “belief in the truth.” Normally, we find the verb translated as “believe,’ and the noun translated as “faith.” You are using “belief” as a synonym for faith and then arguing that they are the same. OK, they are. I was discussing the unique way in which the verb is translated (believe) vs the noun (faith).
rhutchin states:
“chapmaned24 writes, “God is the source of the promise, NOT THE FAITH. And, you are completely off base thinking that BELIEF is an action!”
The word, “belief,” is not found in any translation of the Greek text except where it reads, “belief in the truth.” Normally, we find the verb translated as “believe,’ and the noun translated as “faith.” You are using “belief” as a synonym for faith and then arguing that they are the same. OK, they are. I was discussing the unique way in which the verb is translated (believe) vs the noun (faith).”
My response:
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL ALL DAY LONG LAUGHING AT YOU.
You are reaching and it ain’t working. You are just another one of them dime a dozen Greek experts, trying to be the teacher. Sorry, buddy, it’s NOT GONNA WORK with me.
So let’s try this again.
LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR OF HEBREWS 11:1
FAITH IS…
FAITH IS KNOWING THAT YOU ARE GONNA GET WHAT YOU ARE WAITING FOR.
So, what are you waiting for and WHY are you waiting?
THAT IS WHAT FAITH IS. NOTHING MORE. Why are you making a huge erroneous definition for faith that just isn’t there?
Hebrews 11:1 (KJV) FAITH IS:
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Substance:
Strong’s Concordance Greek Ref #5287: Assurance
Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition defines assurance as: Pledge, Guarantee
Romans 8:24-25
For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.
Hoped, Hope:
Strong’s Concordance Greek Ref #’s1679, 1680: Expectation or confidence
Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition defines hope as:
to expect with confidence; Expectation is defined as: Anticipation; Anticipation is defined as: The act of looking forward, and, visualization of a future event or state.
Hebrews 11:1
Now FAITH IS: The guarantee of things (substance/assurance) expected (hoped/waiting for).
Faith: Strong’s Concordance Greek Ref #4102:
Persuasion, i.e. credence. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition defines credence as: mental acceptance as true or real.
****************************
MENTAL ACCEPTANCE AS TRUE OR REAL.
That isn’t BELIEF?
Still not convinced? I’m pretty good at this ya know! So let’s DIG DEEPER
Let’s use the word BELIEVE.
Let’s use a STRONG’S CONCORDANCE.
Believe:
Hebrews Reference #539
539 ‘aman aw-man’ a primitive root; properly, to build up or support; to foster as a parent or nurse; figuratively to render (or be) firm or faithful, to trust or believe, to be permanent or quiet; morally to be true or certain; once (Isa. 30:21; interchangeable 541) to go to the right hand
English words used for the HEBREW #539
:–hence, assurance, believe, bring up, establish, + fail, be faithful (of long continuance, stedfast, sure, surely, trusty, verified), nurse, (-ing father), (put), trust, turn to the right.
DING DING DING
ASSURANCE, TRUST.
Abraham BELIEVED God, and THAT is what got him RIGHTEOUSNESS.
You want more? I got all day, I ain’t going anywhere ya Greek Scholar, dime a dozen! I can play with word game with ya all day. I’d like to buy a vowel.
Man, dude…you never fail to AMUSE me.
Ed Chapman
rhutchin:
WORD GAME, PART 2
You had said:
“chapmaned24 writes, “God is the source of the promise, NOT THE FAITH. And, you are completely off base thinking that BELIEF is an action!”
The word, “belief,” is not found in any translation of the Greek text except where it reads, “belief in the truth.” Normally, we find the verb translated as “believe,’ and the noun translated as “faith.” You are using “belief” as a synonym for faith and then arguing that they are the same. OK, they are. I was discussing the unique way in which the verb is translated (believe) vs the noun (faith).”
My response:
HEBREW WORDS ROOTED FROM “BELIEVE” (Hebrew Ref #539)
STRONG’S CONCORDANCE HEBREW REFERENCE #529
529 ’emuwn ay-moon’ from 539; established, i.e. (figuratively) trusty; also (abstractly) trustworthiness
English words used:
:–faith(-ful), truth.
Hebrew Scriptures use of #529 FOR THE ENGLISH WORD “FAITH”.
Deu 32:20
And he said, I will hide my face from them, I will see what their end shall be: for they are a very froward generation, children in whom is no faith.
CONCLUSION:
The word FAITH (529) is from the word BELIEVE (539).
Another way of saying it:
Hebrews Ref #529 is from Ref #539
RELATED.
Ed Chapman
RH certainly has a bee in his bonnet this morning, doesn’t he?
So many intricacies of Calvinism to explain/correct – so little time. Must. Not. Let. Anyone. Else. Have. Last. Word.
mrteebs
RH certainly has a bee in his bonnet this morning, doesn’t he?
br.d
Its always entertaining to watch a certain Calvinist we know and love – distressfully trying to make 10 fingers point in 20 directions! :-]
mrteebs,
You had said:
RH certainly has a bee in his bonnet this morning, doesn’t he?
So many intricacies of Calvinism to explain/correct – so little time. Must. Not. Let. Anyone. Else. Have. Last. Word.
My response:
Oh, he’ll redirect, of course, as if he has ADHD or something. An old Calvinist trick, he’ll change the topic and go off the rails on philosophy stuff, using BIG COLLEGE words that no one has ever heard of, except the academics.
I read both him and br.d having their conversations and they both lose me at the first use of a big academic word, that I’ve never seen before, can’t pronounce, let alone know how to spell it. And this is NORMAL for them.
I also see that it is normal for most, if not all Calvinists. Then I gotta learn all them CATCH PHRASES that they invented, too.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “CONCLUSION: The word FAITH (529) is from the word BELIEVE (539).”
The root meaning of the word is that of assurance or certainty as depicted in Hebrews 11. Whether the derivatives are translated as “believe” or “faith” the idea of certainty is the understanding. In the NT, we have the unique translation of the noun form as “faith” and the verb form as “believe.” So, what’s your point? That the Hebrew does not allow us to make the distinction that the Greek does?
rhutchin,
You had said:
The root meaning of the word is that of assurance or certainty as depicted in Hebrews 11. Whether the derivatives are translated as “believe” or “faith” the idea of certainty is the understanding. In the NT, we have the unique translation of the noun form as “faith” and the verb form as “believe.” So, what’s your point? That the Hebrew does not allow us to make the distinction that the Greek does?”
My response:
You don’t NEED any GREEK education or Hebrew education to DETERMINE what the word FAITH means, because Hebrews 11:1 spells it out what it is.
So all ya gotta do is BREAK IT DOWN to the lowest common denominator, in that you KNOW (how do you know?) that you are going to get (WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO GET?) what you are waiting for (WHY ARE YOU WAITING?)
However, let’s take the Greek word for faith, without Hebrews 11:1 explaining what it is…
Faith: Strong’s Concordance Greek Ref #4102:
Persuasion, i.e. credence. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition defines credence as: mental acceptance as true or real
CONCLUSION…ALL ROADS LEAD TO ROME…SAME MEANING NO MATTER HOW YOU SLICE IT, IT IS YOUR FAITH, THAT ORIGINATED IN YOUR MIND BASED ON A PLEDGE/PROMISE GIVEN BY SOMEONE ELSE. A BUS SCHEDULE IS A FORM OF THAT. ALL YOU DO IS TO BELIEVE THE PROMISE OF THE BUS SCHEDULE.
But you people in Calvinism convolute the word faith to give it STRANGE meaning that does NOT COMPUTE. You people have a habit of doing that to almost EVERY WORD in the Bible. The use of the word DEAD is one of them. Born dead? Is that how it works? NO.
chapmaned24 writes, “you people in Calvinism convolute the word faith to give it STRANGE meaning that does NOT COMPUTE.”
Calvinists see a distinction being made in Scripture between the use of the noun and the verb forms of a word that you do not accept. That’s just the way it is.
rhutchin states:
“Calvinists see a distinction being made in Scripture between the use of the noun and the verb forms of a word that you do not accept. That’s just the way it is.”
My response:
NO YOU DON’T. You people MAKE THINGS UP AS YOU GO ALONG.
Ed Chapman
rhutchin
Calvinists see a distinction being made in Scripture between the use of the noun and the verb forms of a word that you do not accept. That’s just the way it is.
br.d
Conclusion:
The end justified the means
br.d writes, “Conclusion: The end justified the means”
Then you misunderstand, It is the observation that the noun form is translated as “faith” and the verb form is translated as “believe” that then leads to the conclusion that a distinction is being made between faith and belief by the original author which the translators sought to maintain by using one word (faith) to translate the noun and another word (believe) to translate the verb. Not the other way around.
rhutchin states:
“Then you misunderstand, It is the observation that the noun form is translated as “faith” and the verb form is translated as “believe” that then leads to the conclusion that a distinction is being made between faith and belief by the original author which the translators sought to maintain by using one word (faith) to translate the noun and another word (believe) to translate the verb. Not the other way around.”
My response:
No matter how you slice it, THIS is the definition of FAITH in the Greek
4100. pisteuo pist-yoo’-o from 4102; to have faith (in, upon, or with respect to, a person or thing), i.e. credit; by implication, to entrust (especially one’s spiritual well-being to Christ):–believe(-r), commit (to trust), put in trust with.
CONCLUSION, RHUTCHIN, IS THAT FAITH IS A NOUN AS YOU SAY, BUT THE DEFINITION IS FULL OF VERBS.
So it’s EQUAL, not different.
Ed Chapman
chspsmsned24 writes, “CONCLUSION, RHUTCHIN, IS THAT FAITH IS A NOUN AS YOU SAY, BUT THE DEFINITION IS FULL OF VERBS.”
Definitions often use words to illustrate the noun. In this case faith involves what: believing something; committing to someone, entrusting one’s self to someone. A person without faith (a noun) does not take certain actions expressed in verbs, does not believe anyone, commits to no one and trusts no one.
rhutchin
A person without faith (a noun) does not take certain actions expressed in verbs, does not believe anyone, commits to no one and trusts no one.
br.d
Yup – and that’s why NORMAL people have the capacity to believe – i.e., have faith.
But Gnostics are not NORMAL – they need NORMAL human capacities to be given to them as gifts :-]
Basilides (Greek: Βασιλείδης) – an early Christian Gnostic religious teacher – who taught that faith is a special gift reserved only for the ELECT.
rhutchin,
To add to my last, since 4100 is FROM 4102…
4102. pistis pis’-tis from 3982; persuasion, i.e. credence; moral conviction (of religious truth, or the truthfulness of God or a religious teacher), especially reliance upon Christ for salvation; abstractly, constancy in such profession; by extension, the system of religious (Gospel) truth itself:–assurance, belief, believe, faith, fidelity.
DO YOU SEE BELIEVE IN THAT? DO YOU SEE FAITH IN THAT? Both of those two words are used in the Bible for the SAME EXACT GREEK WORD…
4102, the words FAITH AND BELIEVE IS USED INTERCHAGEABLY
he KJV translates Strong’s G4102 in the following manner: faith (239x), assurance (1x), believe (with G1537) (1x), belief (1x), them that believe (1x), fidelity (1x).
Ed Chapman
br.d
Conclusion: The end justified the means”
rhuthcin
Then you misunderstand, ……
br.d
No I understand completely – how things work in Calvinism :-]
rhutchin,
To add to my last, since 4102 is from 3982…
πείθω peíthō, pi’-tho; a primary verb; to convince (by argument, true or false); by analogy, to pacify or conciliate (by other fair means); reflexively or passively, to assent (to evidence or authority), to rely (by inward certainty):—agree, assure, believe, have confidence, be (wax) conflent, make friend, obey, persuade, trust, yield.
Oh, my, there is that word BELIEVE again.
rhutchin,
Your problem is that you don’t TRACE the words to EACH of their root words, down to the very last.
Faith, in it’s definition, IS FULL OF VERBS, and one of them VERBS is believe. So you can’t tell me that they aren’t the same. They are interchangeable words.
Ed Chapman
rhutchin
That which was said was from God and that which God said was the source of the faith by which Abraham then acted (believed).
br.d
In Calvinism – Calvin’s god is the source of everything that comes to pass
br.d writes, “In Calvinism – Calvin’s god is the source of everything that comes to pass”
By “Source,” Calvinists mean that God exercises absolute sovereign control over all that happens; not that God initiates all that happens.
rhutchin
By “Source,” Calvinists mean that God exercises absolute sovereign control over all that happens; not that God initiates all that happens.
br.d
*AS-IF* an infallible decree that [X] infallibly comes to pass – is not what “initiates” [X] coming to pass. :-]
Ex Calvinist Daniel Gracely – A Closer Look At Calvinism
-quote
When scrutinizing Calvinist language, I take a cue from George Orwell, and refer to his description of double-think.
In layman’s terms, this means that every one of Calvinism’s definitions, describing the nature of god, man, good, and evil will eventually be self-contradicting.
If one reads long enough, all forthright statements about a given assertion are eventually withdrawn by another statement of QUALIFICATION which under scrutiny resolves to appose the original thought
And so under Calvinism all terms of individuation are lost in favor of an ILLUSORY one.”
-end quote
mrteebs writes, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
WHAT: salvation (you have been saved)
HOW: by grace, through faith
“…it is the gift” grammatically and logically refers to WHAT – not HOW. “It” is singular. “Grace and faith” are plural. Grammatically if Paul were referring to grace and faith he would have to say “…they are the gifts…”.
What happened: You have been saved – an action (by God) denoted by the verb.
Through what means grace and faith – denoted by the noun
Then, “this…it is the gift” – “this…it (implied)” uses pronouns that refer back to a preceding antecedent noun. The pronouns “this…it,” can only grammatically refer back to the nouns, grace and faith.
You converted the verb, “have been saved” to a noun, “salvation,” to make your argument. Had the Calvinist done this, you would accused him of deception
The thought train employed on nouns and verbs in your response is not correct. The below decomposition* is correct, and any English teacher can verify it. Common sense, reading more slowly and carefully, and properly applying the rules of grammar will allow you to verify it as well.
FIRST: Deconstruct the complex sentence to the simplest possible form, without modifiers, consisting of the subject and the verb such that it is still a sentence. I will do this by means of bold type.
For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
subject = you (noun)
verb = have been (past tense)
Not much of a sentence, but a stand-alone sentence nonetheless.
SECOND: Add additional information slowly, one piece at a time such that the sentence still makes sense and we can ascertain what modifies what…
you have been grace (doesn’t work grammatically)
you have been faith (doesn’t work grammatically)
you have been saved (bingo – works grammatically)
THIRD: Add in the additional modifiers…. (the kernel sentence is still in bold; the first modifier is in bold italics; he other modifiers are non-italics.)
For by grace you have been saved through faith
“by grace” is a prepositional phrase. “by” is the preposition and “grace” is the object of the preposition. It modifies the “what” by telling us “how”: by grace
“through faith” is also a prepositional phrase. “through” is the preposition and “faith” is the object of the preposition. It also modifies the “what” by telling us even more about the “how”: through faith
Grace and faith modify “you have been saved”. It cannot work any other way grammatically.
FOURTH: Now that we have established the kernel, and what modifies what, we can continue with our deconstruction to the portion of the sentence after the semicolon.
and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God
“it” is singular. “It” cannot grammatically refer to “grace and faith” because grammar would demand the sentence read as follows:
“For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves,
it isthey are the gifts of God;”Neither can you selectively say that “it” refers to “faith” and not “grace”. Not only would it be grammatically incorrect, it would suggest that grace is not a gift, and I don’t think that’s a rathole you want to go down.
Please just concede that you are wrong grammatically on this one. I understand your desperation to make the sentence say what you want it to say, but you can’t suspend the rules of grammar to achieve your ends.
You can appeal to other translations if you wish, but we must stick to the rules of English grammar for the translation at-hand.
*NOTE: I was a magazine editor for 10 years so I had to use such tools regularly.
mrteebs writes, “FIRST: Deconstruct the complex sentence to the simplest possible form, without modifiers, consisting of the subject and the verb such that it is still a sentence. I will do this by means of bold type.
For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
subject = you (noun)
verb = have been (past tense)
Not much of a sentence, but a stand-alone sentence nonetheless.”
The Greek is este seswsmenoi.
este – you are
seswsmenoi.- having been saved (the verb)
This makes your point (2) unintelligible.
Your point (3) is accurate – “Grace and faith modify “you have been saved”. It cannot work any other way grammatically.”
Then, ‘“it” is singular. “It” cannot grammatically refer to “grace and faith” because grammar would demand the sentence read as follows:”
The word, “it,” is inserted by the translators because of the previous “that.” So, “that” is the term on which you need to focus.
Then, ‘Neither can you selectively say that “it” refers to “faith” and not “grace”. Not only would it be grammatically incorrect, it would suggest that grace is not a gift, and I don’t think that’s a rathole you want to go down.”
The Greek has “that (touto)” in the neuter form while both grace and faith, (the closest nouns) are feminine. Normally, gender matches; a feminine pronoun points back to a feminine noun. That has been the cause of much discussion. As you correctly note, “it would suggest that grace is not a gift,” and that is obvious even to you to be false. So, Paul.s reference to “a gift” necessarily refers to Faith – That faith is not of yourselves. Otherwise, what purpose is served by Paul in writing “and that not of yourselves” given that the word, “that,” is a pronoun looking for an antecedent.
Then, ‘Please just concede that you are wrong grammatically on this one.”
Since you screwed up the Greek at the beginning, I think the burden of proof still rests with you to get the Greek text correct and then explain it.
Your beef is not with me, it is with the Lockman Foundation and their translation team for the NASB. I took the version I use, verbatim, and explained the English grammar to you. When you could not refute that, you switched to Greek, faulting my command of that language. Why am I not surprised when you take the offramp and fault me for not taking a different (Greek) road?
I freely admit I am not a Greek scholar, but you could have pointed out that you refuse to recognize the NASB translation before parsing the English, failing in that endeavor, and then punting and switching to Greek.
Your proof text that faith is a gift will have to find more fertile ground. I don’t think anyone here is finding your arguments convincing. And I’m certainly willing to let your knowledge of Greek be accepted at face value. I don’t trust you, RH – plain and simple.
I made it very clear in my comment that if you didn’t like the translation I use, we could discuss others, but that you didn’t get to break English grammatical rules in the process. So rather than play by the rules, you switch languages.
mrteebs writes, “I took the version I use, verbatim, and explained the English grammar to you. When you could not refute that, you switched to Greek, faulting my command of that language.”
You explained the English grammar and not the Greek grammar. You don’t see that as a problem??
You said, ““It” cannot grammatically refer to “grace and faith” because grammar would demand the sentence read as follows:
“For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, they are the gifts of God;”
The Greek text reads, “…and this not of you, of God the gift.” You make a big deal about a word, “it,” that is not in the Greek text and base your whole argument around that one word that was added by the translators to give a smoother reading of the text. You ignore the presence of gift (singular) and do not even look back to its grammatical counterpart (i.e., “that”) and then do not look for the antecedent for “that.” Then, you want people to believe you conducted a proper grammatical analysis. You don’t see that as a problem??
Of course I don’t see it as a problem that I did not parse the Greek. I am not fluent in that language and not qualified to fancy myself as even an entry-level practitioner. I used what I thought would be agreeable (NASB) and you readily started down that road with me, attempting to critique the English. Then you switched to Greek.
Hmmmm.
Methinks thou dost protest too much.
mrteebs writes, ‘ I used what I thought would be agreeable (NASB) and you readily started down that road with me, attempting to critique the English.”
Sometimes the English translation makes a grammatical analysis difficult.
Let’s take another example, John 3:16 reads, “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” Does it make a difference in our understanding of the phrase “whosoever believes” if we know that “whosoever believes” is one word in the Greek and that word is a present participle. What do your editorial skills tell you?
rhutchin states:
“Let’s take another example, John 3:16 reads, “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” Does it make a difference in our understanding of the phrase “whosoever believes” if we know that “whosoever believes” is one word in the Greek and that word is a present participle. What do your editorial skills tell you?”
My response:
I have NO IDEA what you are talking about regarding “whosoever believes” is ONE GREEK WORD. It’s not.
Whosoever in the Greek is: G3956 (it is an ADJECTIVE)
πᾶς pâs, pas; including all the forms of declension; apparently a primary word; all, any, every, the whole:—all (manner of, means), alway(-s), any (one), × daily, + ever, every (one, way), as many as, + no(-thing), X thoroughly, whatsoever, whole, whosoever.
The KJV translates Strong’s G3956 in the following manner: all (748x), all things (170x), every (117x), all men (41x), whosoever (31x), everyone (28x), whole (12x), all manner of (11x), every man (11x), no (with G3756) (9x), every thing (7x), any (7x), whatsoever (6x), whosoever (with G3739) (with G302) (3x), always (with G1223) (3x), daily (with G2250) (2x), any thing (2x), no (with G3361) (2x), not translated (7x), miscellaneous (26x).
Believe in the Greek is: G4100 (it is a VERB)
From G4102
G4100
πιστεύω pisteúō, pist-yoo’-o; from G4102; to have faith (in, upon, or with respect to, a person or thing), i.e. credit; by implication, to entrust (especially one’s spiritual well-being to Christ):—believe(-r), commit (to trust), put in trust with.
BELIEVE IS TO HAVE FAITH. TRUST,
G4102
πίστις pístis, pis’-tis; from G3982; persuasion, i.e. credence; moral conviction (of religious truth, or the truthfulness of God or a religious teacher), especially reliance upon Christ for salvation; abstractly, constancy in such profession; by extension, the system of religious (Gospel) truth itself:—assurance, belief, believe, faith, fidelity
This is FURTHER PROOF that faith is NOT IMPUTED. It’s YOUR TRUST IN, IT’S YOUR BELIEF IN, IT’S YOUR CONFIDENCE IN, IT’S YOUR ASSURANCE IN.
I swear, man, you Greek scholars are a dime a dozen and ya don’t know a thing. Ask 20 Greek scholars what something means, and ya get 20 completely different answers. I don’t trust any of them.
So here above is DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS of the Greek words, and it states what WE ALL say it states. There is no such thing as the PHRASE “WHOSOEVER BELIEVES”, BUT THERE IS 2 words with two different Greek words representing the two English words, and they both have different definitions defining EACH WORD separately.
Nener nener nener!
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “I have NO IDEA what you are talking about regarding “whosoever believes” is ONE GREEK WORD. It’s not.”
Oooops! In the Greek text, “whosoever believes” is the translation of the Greek text, πας ὸ πιστευων. It is πιστευων that is the present participle and πας is translated as “whosoever.” The loose translation is, “the believing ones.” I hope mrteebs reads this.
Brian Abasciano:
There is an untenable grammatical argument contending that John 3:16 supports limited atonement by certain Calvinists
The construction in question is the Greek phrase πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων, which can be reasonably translated as “everyone who believes” or “whoever believes.” But even if one translates it as “everyone who believes” (or if one prefers, “everyone believing”), the sense of “whoever” is still there in the Greek text.
As Daniel Wallace observes, “The πᾶς ὁ ἀκούων (or ἀγαπῶν, ποιῶν, etc.) formula is always or almost always generic. As such it is expected to involve a gnomic idea. Most of these instances involve the present participle.”
Wallace goes on to specifically identify πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων in John 3:16 as gnomic6 and elsewhere notes that a substantival participle with πᾶς, which is what we have in John 3:16, is especially indicative of a generic subject.7
Greek scholar William Mounce declares this an obvious aspect of the grammar.
br.d,
Greek scholar William Mounce declares this an obvious aspect of the grammar.
My response:
Well, there ya go…a dime a dozen. EVERYBODY is a Greek scholar, and NONE OF THEM can agree on anything…hence, our thousands of denominations that the Catholics always accuse us of having!!
But they are ALL correct, right? Or are they only correct based on which denomination you belong to?
Why don’t we have any HEBREW scholars around? This whole thing began with Hebrews. What is YHVH in Greek? LORD. Not Jehovah. LORD. ONLY ONE LORD, right? Jesus is LORD, right? So, is the Father no longer LORD?
But we got them Greek scholars, huh? Ya, sure…whatever!
Ed
You might want to check out Michael Heiser
He is a scholar in ancient languages.
For example – check out Youtube title: Michael Heiser how High Calvinism is the same as Gnosticism
br.d writes, Apparently quoting Brian Abasciano:. “There is an untenable grammatical argument contending that John 3:16 supports limited atonement by certain Calvinists”
The idea is that those who believe, and only those who believe, have everlasting life and those who do not believe do not. God gave His son so that the believing ones would have everlasting life. God did not give His son so that non-believing ones would have everlasting life. So, God gave his son for the one group and not the other – the sense of limited atonement. Nothing is implied within the verse or the surrounding context about the means by which one believes and another does not. Is that an untenable idea? Doesn’t seem so to me.
I think Calvinists would agree with Wallace, ““The πᾶς ὁ ἀκούων (or ἀγαπῶν, ποιῶν, etc.) formula is always or almost always generic. As such it is expected to involve a gnomic idea. Most of these instances involve the present participle.” As Wallace states, the verse provides a generic statement – thus a gnomic idea – and stated without specifics.
Brian Abasciano: seems to presuppose that a person believes because he exercises free will to believe. So does the Calvinist. The Calvinist just adds the presupposition that faith makes the free will decision possible without which a person would not believe.
rhutchin,
I’ve been showing time and time and time and time again that faith and believe is the same thing. Why do you separate them?
chapmaned24 writes, “I’ve been showing time and time and time and time again that faith and believe is the same thing. Why do you separate them?”
Because the translators were consistent in translating the noun term as “faith” and the verb term as “believe.” I separate them by the use as a noun or a verb.
rhutchin
Brian Abasciano: seems to presuppose that a person believes because he exercises free will to believe
br.d
Well that is a human philosophical approach – in response to what scholarship acknowledges concerning the text
How am I not surprised :-]
RH writes,
“Oooops! In the Greek text, “whosoever believes” is the translation of the Greek text, πας ὸ πιστευων. It is πιστευων that is the present participle and πας is translated as “whosoever.” The loose translation is, “the believing ones.” I hope mrteebs reads this.”
Aidan,
You see, Rh, continuous action – not a once off!
rhutchin
Sometimes the English translation makes a grammatical analysis difficult.
Let’s take another example…..
br.d
TRANSLATION:
The NASB Greek experts don’t explain it the way it should be explained
And since I’m superior to them – I will continue to play-act speaking with authority :-]
Typo.
Should say: “And I’m certainly not willing to let your knowledge of Greek be accepted at face value.”
chapmaned24 writes, “Promised Land and Promised seed. But you need God to give you faith to know what that is? And you claim to have faith, yet, you have no clue what God promised? ”
The promise to people today is found in John 3:16, “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” It is the promise of everlasting life.
rhutchin states:
The promise to people today is found in John 3:16, “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” It is the promise of everlasting life.
My response:
And, WHERE DO YOU FIND THAT PROMISE IN THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES? When was that promise FIRST GIVEN in the Hebrew scriptures?
And to whom?
Ed Chapman
rhutchin is not going to give up trying to draw you in – inch by inch
By finding some terminology he can get you to accept.
The power of Calvinism is totally seen in its SEMANTIC strategies
Aidan,
The only interaction I have had with Calvinists on this point (abiding) was that the elect abide (persevere) and everyone else was never really saved to begin with. Thus “falling away” is impossible. It is the “P” in TULIP. They love to quote “I never knew you: depart from me” not realizing that this describes one category of lost people – not all categories.
I have heard the arguments for eternal security but reject them because I see warning after to warning to abide. Calvinists claim this only refers to our “rewards” and that we can enter heaven with no rewards, but cannot be denied access. I do not find this in scripture at all.
I have also seen many non-Calvinist adherents to Eternal Security use it as a license to sin, living in perpetual gross sin with the false assurance that their wallet contains an irrevocable ticket through the pearly gates.
If that is true, I somehow have to reconcile all of the following (there are many others – I have only chosen these five):
John 8:31
Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, “If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed”
Notice the words in bold.
Col 1:23
if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister.
Notice the words in bold. Keep in mind that this was written to the church in Colossae (i.e., believers). You do not “continue” in something that you were never part of to begin with.
Luke 8:13
Those on the rocky soil are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no firm root; they believe for a while, and in time of temptation fall away.
Notice the words in bold.
Ez 18:24-26
But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity and does according to all the abominations that a wicked man does, will he live? All his righteous deeds which he has done will not be remembered for his treachery which he has committed and his sin which he has committed; for them he will die. Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not right.’ Hear now, O house of Israel! Is My way not right? Is it not your ways that are not right? When a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity and dies because of it, for his iniquity which he has committed he will die.
Notice the words in bold. God calls the man righteous, but yet says he turns away and dies as a result. This does not describe one that God “never knew”.
1 Tim 1:19-20
keeping faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and suffered shipwreck in regard to their faith. 20 Among these are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan, so that they will be taught not to blaspheme.
Notice the words in bold. These are not people that never had faith – you don’t keep what you never possessed. These are men that had faith but left it, and Paul must now teach them the error of their ways by giving them over to Satan to suffer consequences in this life that will turn them around.
Yep! These are excellent passages, plain and simple to understand – for those looking for the truth! Over and over again, the scriptures show the conditional nature of salvation, but many are blinded by their theology. That passage in Ezekiel 18 is a principle seen right throughout the bible, from old to new testament. God hasn’t changed!
What about this passage:
Rom. 11: 19-22,
“You will say then, “Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.” Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off.”
In the context of the chapter, those who were “cut off because of unbelief” were lost.
And then in keeping with the principle of Ezekiel 18: Notice,
Rom. 11:23
“And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.”
This passage reminds me of John 15:1-6, in terms of what will happen to the branch “in Him” that does not bear fruit (v.2). And how it will be “cast out” and burned in the fire if he does not “remain in Me,” says Jesus in (v.6).
Cast out – not in Christ – burned in the fire – Hmmm! I wonder what that could mean?
mrteebs
The only interaction I have had with Calvinists on this point (abiding) was that the elect abide (persevere) and everyone else was never really saved to begin with. Thus “falling away” is impossible. It is the “P” in TULIP.
br.d
Excellent point mrteebs!
In Calvinism a person’s election is either TRUE or FALSE
Since when does TRUE have to “persevere” in order to keep from being FALSE?
Does god’s holiness have to “persevere” against being unholy?
Calvin’s god establishes one’s election as Immutable
Does immutable have to “persevere” against being mutable?
Perseverance is thus a way for Calvinism to create a VIRTUAL BRIDGE between their doctrine and scripture.
Hey BR.D,
Let’s deconstruct this one a bit…
rhutchin: “If ‘Christ Himself is the propitiation for our sins,’ then the ‘our’ have their sins propitiated and are saved.”
Our friend rhutchin cannot see what is plainly before him because his mind automatically goes to the “L” (Limited Atonement) in TULIP and he refuses to question it. He probably does this unconsciously. It is immutable to him, and thus it doesn’t even get a second’s thought.
The equation for salvation looks like this: P + F = S
Where
P = Propitiation
F = Faith
S = Salvation
Propitiation is what we call “necessary but not sufficient”. Ditto for faith. Without Christ’s death, there is no salvation. Without faith there is no salvation. It requires BOTH. This is how propitiation can be offered to all, but they must “cash the check” so to speak, by believing in Christ’s propitiation and demonstrating this belief by repentance.
Now, Calvinists will object stridently to this because they wrongly assume (and have been taught rigorously) that “cashing the check” is a work. Or equally erroneously that “cashing the check” means we save ourselves. But if there are no funds to cover the check, signing it is worthless. We cannot save ourselves. We can accept or reject what Christ has done.
The analogy I most often give is that of a man adrift in an infinite ocean with sharks circling. There is no possible way of saving himself. None. A ship sails by and throws out a rope. The captain screams “grab it!” and the man complies. He is hauled to safety and is reunited with his family and friends.
Later, the man appears on TV amidst microphones and cameras flashing, the man’s family and the ship’s captain and crew are in the background with footage of the rescue playing.
The man steps to the podium, clears his throat, looks at the camera and says, “I’m very proud of the way I saved myself by grabbing that rope.”
You would never hear those words. Never. Yet Calvinism has somehow convinced its adherents that grabbing a rope is salvation by works. It’s truly perverse.
Nice analysis mrteebs!
I think your totally right on recognizing that his doctrine forces him to automatically limit the word “ours” there to
Did you also notice the omission of the rest of the verse: “and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world”
So yes – its obvious he can’t see it any other way.
The irony is that in Calvinism – he has no certainty if he is within the company of the “ours” or not.
He could be one of John Calvin’s -quote “Huge Pile of Chaff” who are given a – quote “Manifestation” of election.
If he wakes up some day soon – in eternal torment – in the lake of fire – then he’ll have certainty then!
I also liked your equation – sharp thinking!
And your analogy about being pulled out of the ocean and then bragging AS-IF you pulled yourself out is spot on!
mrteebs writes, “Propitiation is what we call “necessary but not sufficient”.”
mrteebs here seems to have left 1 John 2 and is off in a different direction,
In 1 John 2, we read, “if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.”
Christ is the believer’s advocate before God when they sin. Christ is able to be the believer’s advocate because He provided himself as the sacrifice for their sins – Christ is the propitiation for our (believer’s) sins. This propitiation was both necessary and sufficient for Christ to be the believer’s advocate. Is Christ also the advocate for unbelievers? If He were the propitiation for their sins, he would now be their advocate as His sacrifice was both necessary and sufficient to establish Himself as their advocate. However, Christ is not an advocate for unbelievers as He did not offer Himself as the propitiation for the sins of those who were not given to Him by God.
John uses the terms, “we,” and “our” to personalize this for the immediate audience for his letter. So, to extend this message to all who would become believers, including those in every era, John adds, “…and not for ours only but also for the whole world.” By this John means that Christ is the advocate for those believers to whom John wrote the letter but also to believers in the whole world. That Christ is their advocate does not depend on faith but on His sacrifice for their sins. These are those God gives to Christ and those who are then taught by God and by that means receive the assurance and conviction that we call faith. That faith cannot fail, so those with faith most assuredly come to Christ.
rhutchin
The issue is not a capacity to believe. All agree that man has the capacity to believe.
br.d
Bingo! And with that the capacity to exercise a human function – i.e. faith which already exists.
But faith needs something to believe in.
Hence the preaching of the word.
rhutchin
My point is that people are not born with “faith.”
br.d
AS-IF faith is not the capacity to believe :-]
rhutchin
Peter writes of faith that is “obtained.”
Paul writes of a faith that comes (is obtained) by hearing the word.
br.d
The idea that faith is a possession like money to be exchanged between partners who don’t have any is a very GNOSTIC PLATONIC idea
So sorry – again verses do not EXPLICITLY say that the capacity to believe (i.e. faith) is a possession certain people don’t have
But the ancient Gnostics and NeoPlatonists would say exactly that! :-]
rhutchin: “My point is that people are not born with “faith.””
br.d “AS-IF faith is not the capacity to believe ”
Or the capacity to believe cna result in faith if an object for faith exists. Then, following Aidan, let’s refer to this as “Faith in Christ.” as this is the intent of the Biblical writers. Absent a Christ in which to believe, there can be no “faith” in Christ. So, the Biblical writers are to be admonished because they would often refer only to “faith” even though everyone in the world, except br.d and Aidan understood that they meant Christ as the object of faith.
Well – lets see how this works for you
Knowledge is “obtained”
Knowledge “cometh by” learning
And that would include the knowledge of simple math.
This simple math problem for example
Since Calvin’s god determines 100% of “Whatsoever comes to pass” what numerical percentage does that leave left over for man to determine?
Since you haven’t exhibited the capacity of the knowledge of the answer to that question – then it follows:
You don’t have the inherent capacity to know simple math without it being given to you as a gift.
You’re still waiting for Calvin’s god to give you knowledge of simple math
Thus it follows – when it comes to simple math – you are totally depraved. :-]
Wonderful post Aidan!
Calvinist thinking does get pretty hilarious doesn’t it!
I knew a little girl who when she was just learning to talk – use to say she had bottom burps.
So on Calvinist thinking:
In order for a Calvinist to have a bottom burp he must first posses a bottom burp.
So Calvin’s god must first give that bottom burp to him as a gift
Cuz the Bible says so! :-]
Yep! I think they have more of a chance of finding a verse on bottom burps than they do on any Calvinistic doctrine.
OH! Way too funny!! 😀
OK. Let’s try a third time. The underline HTML tag wasn’t recognized. I’ll use italics instead.
This time, strikethrough will show the words being omitted from the translation I am reading (NLT), and italics will show the words being substituted or added. This should make it more clear how I intentionally distorted/inverted the original text to arrive at a Calvinist reading of the scripture. This is what I mean by a “plain reading” of the scripture versus a continual, unwarranted imposition of TULIP upon the scripture.
Can we boast, then, that we have done anything to be accepted by God? No, because our acquittal is not based on
obeying the lawour own faith, for this would be a work of our own. It is based onfaithparticular election which results in an irresistible demonstration of faith originating in God — not us. So we are made right with God through an impartation of faith from Him to His elect and not byobeying the lawour own choice.Rom 4:27-28 (NLT –> WCT)
Because of our
faithundeserved privilege, Christ has brought us into this place ofundeserved privilegeirresistible faith where we now stand, and we confidently and joyfully look forward to sharing God’s glory.Rom 5:2 (NLT –> WCT )
God’s law was given so that
all peoplethe elect could see how sinful they were. All others are so dead as to be unable to not just repent of their sinfulness, but to even be aware of it; corpses cannot respond, dead means dead.Rom 5:20 (NLT –> WCT – R.C. Sproul Study Edition)
Sounds like you write HTML script – very cool mrteebs! :-]
mrteebs writes, “This is what I mean by a “plain reading” of the scripture versus a continual, unwarranted imposition of TULIP upon the scripture.”
You are confusing translation with commentary. Your changes reflect Calvinist commentary on a verse; commentary that reflects the whole counsel of Scripture. Your presentation of an alleged “WCT” is unwarranted as Calvinists accurately translate the Scriptures and then explain the Scripture in light of all Scripture. You are trying to create a false portrayal of the Scriptures by Calvinists that I’ll guess is because you cannot argue against Calvinism.
mrteebs
“This is what I mean by a “plain reading” of the scripture versus a continual, unwarranted imposition of TULIP upon the scripture.”
rhutchin
You are confusing translation with commentary…….etc
br.d
Actually Calvinists occasionally provide dead-give-aways – revealing the mind is conditioned to alter the text automatically.
They will quote scripture verses with the exact altered wording their mind have been conditioned to read it.
The mind can learn to automatically read sentences in accordance to how it was taught to read it
This serves as a dead-give-away the mind automatically alters the text accordingly.
Now some Calvinists are aware that people will be on the look-out for this.
So they are careful to quote verses verbatim.
We read this exact process in Luke 10 – with the expert in the law who tempted Jesus
Jesus asked him two questions
1) What does scripture say?
2) How do you read it?
The lawyer answered Jesus’ first question by quoting the text verbatim
But he refused to answer Jesus’ second question
And the Calvinist can be subtle enough to follow that strategy.
Please be assured that I am not confusing commentary with translation. What I was demonstrating (and it seems that it was understood by all except yourself) is that a Calvinist will read the same scripture as a non-Calvinist, but will mentally transpose phrases, adjust clear intent and commonly understood definitions, etc. in order to reconcile what they read with unwavering commitment to TULIP instead of the very simple and useful practice of asking “What if I am wrong? What does the Bible itself say?”. Whether this substitution and adjustment is done wittingly or unwittingly, I cannot say. I suspect it is done subconsciously; nevertheless, by whatever mechanism, it is indeed done. Calvinists are willing to place far more credence in the John McArthurs, R.C. Sprouls, and John Pipers of the world than to just put away what they have been taught and read the bible with a fresh set of eyes and an open mind. The Holy Spirit can be our teacher if we will let Him. But it is hard when the closet is packed with so many Calvinist artifacts.
This doesn’t mean that neither camp is saved. But it does mean that one camp is deceived. Calvinists have the burden of taking very simple and plain texts like…
“Christ died for all”
(2 Cor 5:14)
“not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance”
(2 Pet 3:9)
“so loved the world”
(John 3:16)
“to all men”
(Tit 2:11)
“to all men”
(Rom 5:18)
“For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all.
(Rom 11:32)
etc. etc. etc.
and explaining why they do not mean what they plainly say instead of taking the occasional verse like John 6:37 (which by the way was dealt with very thoroughly here and here and here) and harmonizing it with the vast majority of other verses that state something different, reconciling both without doing violence to either. Calvinists distort language and definitions, endlessly insist that the non-Calvinist doesn’t understand the nuances properly, etc. A more honest intellectual approach is to admit that those who disagree on this site understand the Calvinist view fully (many having held it and taught it at one time) and simply reject precisely because they do understand it so well.
As I have pointed out before, there are really only a handful of verses (like John 6:37) that Calvinists latch onto as “proof texts”, while ignoring or explaining away the evidence to the contrary on nearly every page of the Bible. Each and every day as I go through the Bible and cover perhaps 3-5 chapters, the fallacy of Calvinism is reiterated.
I realize its proponents are sincere. They are simply sincerely wrong.
I would further strongly encourage you to go elsewhere to spend your time. You have known for years that you are investing dozens of hours per week amongst a group of people that are here because they are looking for like-minded people – not contrarians like yourself. Frankly, you embody 2 Tim 2:14, endlessly wrangling over words with people that are not here to debate Calvinism. They are here to discuss why they left (or never accepted it). It seems you cannot resist the temptation, as I have said before, to read nearly every comment and endless wrangle over it.
Please go somewhere else with your endless commentary and contentions. It is years past its “good when used by” date. There is a time and place to defend and clarify your perspective. This is not it. Those of us that want to explore Calvinism know where we can go to ask questions and get clarifications. But almost without exception, those on this site are here precisely because we have already spent years searching these matters out, not because we don’t understand them or because there are insufficient spokespeople or resources to convey the Calvinist position.
Ask yourself honestly, “why am I spending so much time on this site, endlessly wrangling over words?” It is a compulsion. It is divisive. It is foolish. It is the wrong group of people. It is the wrong place. And it is contrary to 2 Tim 2:14.
When the image of dagon fell over with its face in the dirt – the priests of dagon were obligated to pick it back up, clean it off, and polish it.
Keeping a theologies image looking the way they need it to look is a full time job. :-]
Dog-gone Dagon! Stop falling in the dirt, will ya!
Aidan
Dog-gone Dagon! Stop falling in the dirt, will ya!
br.d
Calvinism eventually shows itself to be intrinsically irrational
Manufacturing new inventions to masquerade as something it isn’t – is the burden every serious Calvinists must bear.
Pick up the image – clean it – polish it.
As FOH says: “Rinse Repeat – Rinse Repeat” :-]
2 Peter 2:22: – Of them the proverbs are true: “A dog returns to its vomit,” and, “A sow that is washed returns to her wallowing in the mud.”
That’s less bold Mrteebs!
Dagon can be (re)set upright, but he no longer has a head or palms. See 1 Sam 5:4
In that case – what one does is manufacture semantic masks
To make it appear to have what it doesn’t have.
And Calvinism’s strong suit is semantics.
mrteebs writes,
“Dagon can be (re)set upright, but he no longer has a head or palms. See 1 Sam 5:4”
br.d,
“In that case – what one does is manufacture semantic masks
To make it appear to have what it doesn’t have.”
Aidan,
What he means is that they keep – losing the head – and can’t – hand-le the truth.
AH! I get it!
Thanks!
Totally predestined impulses, choices, and desires
Unconditional good-evil
Limited lucidity
Intrinsically illusory
Pseudo election
Haven’t seen that one before – very good, and bold too!
Is this something you thought up yourself?👍
To me its a more revealing and intellectually honest description. :-]
Well, you’ve been thinking through this stuff for a long time now. I’d imagine the other side might not see it the same way. But do you think this sums their doctrine fairly accurately? And BTW, I think you are being serious here, not mocking!
MrTeebs,
I have expressed some of those exact same sentiments. I thought Soteriology 101 was a place we could dialogue about Non-Calvinist positions especially God’s Love and Grace For ALL. A place where like minded people could meet, we the non-Calvinists could be refreshed and encouraged.
A little bit of that happens but you will always be faced with flaming Calvinists on this site who will twist what you say or what scripture says. I thought this was going to be a place of like minded folks…there are some BUT at least half of what you encounter is the ongoing assault from Calvinists that you felt outside this site.
I came out of a place where I was beat up by Calvinists, I was discouraged, I was alone, Calvinists were constantly attacking me and twisting scripture, I was so discouraged and tired of that and hoped this was going to be different. An oasis where I could be encouraged, and refreshed. That is not what this is, it is the continuation of that assault BUT with a MAJOR difference there are people who come to your aid. The spirit of this age (Calvinism) is so gripping people’s minds that they are everywhere. Even on Soteriology 101.
I had to adjust my expectations, it is not a site where you get refreshed and encouraged it is a site where you are exposed to the tactics of the evil one and you are trained how to better engage with the twisting of scripture that Calvinists are so famous for. BR.D and others are awesome at engaging those tactics and showing how they totally fall apart. BUT this is not a site where likeminded people can engage with each other and encourage and build one another up. It has mostly Calvinists trying to refute the non-Calvinist position. Of course people come to your aid or defense.
I have come to mostly ignore RH because when you show him scriptures that clearly refute his position he just ignores them and moves on or he will redefine words to fit with Calvinism. I have never seen him admit a single error. He may adapt his strategy and use different words to cover up his deception but you will NOT find a person who will honestly engage. RH is one to ignore not to engage.
Prov. 14:7 Go from the presence of a foolish man, When you do not perceive in him the lips of knowledge.
Pro 17:14 The beginning of strife is like letting out water, so quit before the quarrel breaks out.
Pro 26:21 As charcoal to hot embers and wood to fire, so is a quarrelsome man for kindling strife.
Pro 29:9 If a wise man has an argument with a fool, the fool only rages and laughs, and there is no quiet.
I Cor. 14:38 says “But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.”
Some people don’t want to change…then let them be. If you engage you will not find any resolution…only round and round you go. The same errors repeated over and over again. Nothing new…years and years of the same thing.
You, GraceAdict, are precisely the type of person I came here to dialog with – and people like BR.D, FOH, Aidan, Heather, BrianWagner, Eric, Dr. Flowers, etc.
Your message made my day.
This really should not be a site where we are arguing with Calvinists. That ship has sailed in our lives and we are here to strengthen one another and to see all of the ways that scripture reinforces what we believe. We have weighed the evidence, and it has been found lacking. But as we know, there are a few that have made it almost their life’s mission to frequent this site and to respond contrarily to every comment, like self-appointed gatekeepers. I am done engaging with them. They embody 2 Tim 2:14 not because it is wrong to have healthy debate, but because they have purposely chosen a site where they can be rabble rousers. They are not here to learn. They are here to sow seeds of disruption. It would be no different than if I spent hours per week commenting at a reformed blog. It isn’t the right forum to sway opinions. Case in point, I do not hold to the belief of Eternal Security, which is probably contrary to many on this site, But it isn’t the forum I am going to use to discuss it and debate it. I would first avail myself of the articles here that discuss it, and then perhaps questions, but at no time would it occur to me to make 3900 contrary comments spanning 5 years, which brings me to my next point.
Personally, rather than blocking posters such as rhutchin entirely, I would limit them to 5 posts a week of no more than 300 words each (1 typewritten page per day). That is sufficient – indeed, more than sufficient. I have not done the complete tally of all rhutchin “contributions” to this site, but I would conservatively guess that – on average – he comments here 15 times per week and has been doing so for 5 years. The first post of his I could find is dated March 9, 2015 and can be found in the comments to the article published Nov 25, 2014 called “Is sovereignty an eternal attribute of god that the non-Calvinist undermines?” That is almost exactly 5 years ago. If we assume that each of his posts conservatively requires 20 minutes, and he has been posting 15 times per week for 5 years, that translates to 3,900 posts and an investment of 5 hours per week. That is neither normal nor commendable. On this post alone, for example, there are currently 128 comments; rhutchin accounts for 42 of those (one-third). Out of control, IMO. I’m of the belief that if you don’t feed the chipmunks, they will stop frequenting your picnic table. They are cute at first, but they quickly become pests.
You will notice that they endlessly twist and squirm and claim “you’re doing it all wrong.” That’s laughable on a site like this, founded specifically by people that taught these doctrines for years. You can level a lot of baseless claims, but surely the most baseless is “you don’t understand it properly.” Uh, yeah. Right. As I said elsewhere, the reason those here have rejected Calvinism is precisely because we have investigated it so carefully and gone directly to its practitioners for their perspective / explanation. But like the clueless foreign tourist, the Calvinists that frequent this site think that if they just yell the same thing louder twelve times, it will suddenly result in an epiphany.
For example, in one of my earliest comments I said that foreknowledge does not necessitate causation. I.e., just because God knows how I will choose, it does not mean he caused or predetermined how I would choose. rhutchin agreed with me, basically saying “I’m glad that you understand God’s knowledge is different than His causation.” Later, though, he argued that the entirety of Calvinism flows naturally out of God’s omniscience and he chided me for suggesting that the natural starting point for Calvinism was to convince the acolyte that sovereignty did not mean what normal people understand it to mean. They’ll then accuse you of using the dictionary for understanding words like “all” claiming you don’t understand/appreciate context. It becomes tedious and endless. I refuse to participate any longer. I wish all of us would do likewise. You’ll notice that I rarely respond directly to rhutchin the longer I have been on this site (only a couple of months). It is not because I cannot. It is because it is a fool’s errand. He is not here to learn. He is here to sow dissention and to engage in a sort of martyr’s complex that he can stand his ground in the “enemy’s camp.”
I said earlier that there were less than 200 verses in the Bible that the Calvinist turns to as “proof texts”. rhutchin himself later gave that number as 40-50 so it seems I was too conservative. Let’s generously assume 50. There are 31,103 verses in the Bible. So my question is, “what about the other 31,053 verses – what do they have to say about Calvinism in the grand context of the Bible?” To put this in context, Calvinists focus primarily on their proof texts, comprising exactly 0.16075% of the body of scripture. Let that sink in. I am not saying those 50 verses are unimportant. I am saying they can be interpreted and harmonized with the rest of scripture in ways that do not do violence to the text, and that there is a gigantic preponderance of evidence dealing with man’s free will outside of those 50 verses. I am not willing to sacrifice 99.84% of the Bible for the sake of an erroneous interpretation of 50 verses.
I do not share your experience with Calvinists beating me up. I have two close friends, and we have simply agreed to disagree. But they did get me to think about these questions, and so I studied the matter out for myself, beginning in about 2012 and being quite diligent for perhaps 3-4 years. It is now more of a background task as I read, constantly challenging my own beliefs and seeing if I can find Calvinism supported. I think it is healthy. Calvinism is so far batting 0%.
Even though I don’t share your experience, I do feel for you. They do not refer to it as “cage stage” for nothing. I hope you find peace and comfort in these pages. It is not false comfort. It is the truth of God’s word and it sets people free. It is ironic to me that in all aspects of human life we would be horrified to find out that you had been coerced to love someone and had no choice. That is not love. Yet the Calvinist believes that God is Himself exempt from such trivialities and can pre-determine those who will love Him and those who will not. It fails the most basic test of love that we apply to every other human interaction.
The entire theology is corrupt, yields bad fruit, and generally results in angry people rather than joyful people. One of my very best friends, who was actually excommunicated from a Calvinist church, told me that one of the things that drove him away was they had no joy. They were so obsessed with teaching, that there was no place for any other part of the Christian experience. And frankly, this would be a logical consequence of truly internalizing the necessary Calvinist doctrines of determinism. You have been wound up, and are now just playing out the prescribed role that are not free to alter.
Blessings to you. Keep commenting here.
You’re not alone mrteebs
FOH – an ex-Calvinist who posted a lot of wonderful daily bible reading posts – ignored all of the Calvinist responses directed at his posts because he realized they were just doing it so that (in their imaginations) they could claim to have refuted every contrary position.
It is war to them..
And they are taught – all is fair in war.
mrteebs writes, “This really should not be a site where we are arguing with Calvinists.”
No, you should be contesting the Scriptures by bringing in the whole counsel of the Scriptures to challenge what Calvinists claim. If you leave out the Scriptures, you end up arguing over human philosophy.
mrteebs
This really should not be a site where we are arguing with Calvinists.”
rhutchin
No, you should be contesting the Scriptures by bringing in the whole counsel of the Scriptures to challenge what Calvinists claim.
br.d
Here we have the fallacy of non-sequitur
Challenging Calvinism’s IRRATIONAL claims – would in fact be arguing with Calvinists.
How many non-sequiturs does it take to turn a Calvinist light bulb! :-]
Clarification to earlier post: We have weighed the evidence for Calvinism, and it has been found lacking.
Notice how effortlessly rhutchin schools us that the simple, universally understood word “all” requires the context of Ephesians 3, then promptly ignores the context of Ephesians 3. When Ephesians 3 needs to modify or limit “all” it purposely says “all the saints” (v. 8 and 18). When “all” doesn’t mean “all” the Bible tells us, clearly.
All means all in the context of the offering of salvation. If the Bible intends to make a distinction otherwise, it has done an exceedingly poor job. You would think that something as fundamental as salvation – the central purpose of the entire Bible (to bring man to a saving faith in Jesus Christ) – would not obscure its limitations but would rather highlight them. But it never does this. Salvation is offered to both Gentiles and Jews and no distinction is ever made between the “type” of unsaved person such that the elect unsaved are implied while the non-elect unsaved are simply out of luck. All are offered the choice. All are free to accept or reject, and thus God can justly punish those that reject. All. Means. All. This is not complicated.
What rhutchin really should have said, as it is more intellectually honest, is that “all” to the Calvinist means “all elect.” And by the way, Ephesians 3 doesn’t say anything like that. The Jews did not initially understand that salvation was extended to Gentiles (all – not just the elect ones). This is made clear in Acts 10. Pay particular attention to verses 35 and 43.
And whatever you do, don’t forget the secret handshake and lexicon inherent in Calvinism: All = All elect Everyone = Everyone elect. And don’t forget that wormholes and warps in the time continuum can be employed as required so that things can be “freely offered” but which cannot be “freely accepted” (such as salvation). This allows the Calvinist to traffic in coins with two heads or two tails, whenever required.
Wonderful point mrteebs
Unless one has John Calvin’s magical decoder ring – they can’t rightly decode the otherwise ambiguous word of god. :-]
And I’ve always found it interesting – to note that Calvin’s god always seems to use language the same exact way Calvinists do.
I wonder when he learned how to do that? :-]
Thanks Mr Teebs much appreciated: Another great verse I like to use and then watch them twist scripture upside down is:
1Jn 2:2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD.
Funny thing is they have never found a verse or passage that they can’t twist to mean the opposite. Thanks again MrTeebs for your comments
GA writes, “Another great verse I like to use and then watch them twist scripture upside down is:
1Jn 2:2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD. ”
Put this in context: “My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, … ” This is Johns main point. Then he adds, “…and not for ours only but also for the whole world,” thereby identifying “the whole world” with those for whom “Christ Himself is the propitiation for our sins.”
If you define “the whole world” to be each and every person in the world, then you have Universalism.
You might say that Christ is the propitiation (in a general sense) for the sins or each and every person but only actually propitiates the sins of God’s elect (however, they come to be God’s elect).
So what is your point? Maybe you could explain what John is telling us here.
RH writes,
If you define “the whole world” to be each and every person in the world, then you have Universalism.
Aidan,
Only if you erroneously believe that one has NO CHOICE!
RH writes, “If you define “the whole world” to be each and every person in the world, then you have Universalism.”
Aidan,, “Only if you erroneously believe that one has NO CHOICE!’
Choice is not mentioned in this verse. Understand the verse first and then branch out to the rest of Scripture. The first issue is to understand what John means when he says, “[Christ] Himself is the propitiation for our sins,…” and then extend this to “the whole world.” What’s your take on this?
rhutchin
sins,…” and then extend this to “the whole world.” What’s your take on this?
br.d
The “whole world” lies in the power of the wicked one – in the Calvinism – doesn’t mean “the whole world”
It just means the ELECT lie in the power of the wicked one! :-]
Vine: “What is indicated is that provision is made for the whole world, so that no one is, by Divine predetermination, excluded from the scope of God’s mercy; the efficacy of the “propitiation,” however, is made actual for those who believe.”
“Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!”
And, you need to “Understand the verse first and then branch out to the rest of Scripture.”
Universalism is not mentioned either in any of these verses – but is what YOU get because you are taking away man’s CHOICE in his salvation! Now why would you do that?
Nice post Aidan!
IF Calvin’s god decrees man will infallibly choose [X]
THEN man is not permitted to do otherwise than choose [X]
At pain of falsifying the infallible decree.
IF Calvin’s god does not decree man to choose [X]
THEN man is not permitted to choose [X]
At pain of falsifying what is not infallibly decreed.
Sure looks like man is not the AUTHOR of his own choice doesn’t it! :-]
Yep, absolutely right Br.d! Its the gospel according to Calvin – Galatians 1:8-9.
Aidan writes, ‘Vine: “What is indicated is that provision is made for the whole world, so that no one is, by Divine predetermination, excluded from the scope of God’s mercy; the efficacy of the “propitiation,” however, is made actual for those who believe.””
Vine goes from certainty, “He Himself is the propitiation for our (ie believers) sins,” to provisional for the rest of the world (ie unbelievers). That’s one way to avoid the conclusion of Universalism.
Then, “Universalism is not mentioned either in any of these verses – but is what YOU get because you are taking away man’s CHOICE in his salvation! ”
If Christ is the propitiation for our sins and that carries over to the whole world (each and every person), then all have their sins propitiated and all are saved (ie Universalism).
rhutchin
If Christ is the propitiation for our sins and that carries over to the whole world (each and every person), then all have their sins propitiated and all are saved (ie Universalism).
br.d
This would be true where Calvin’s god is the AUTHOR of every human choice – and man is not.
Thus Aidan was correct – when he originally sighted – the underlying presupposition in Calvinism.
Man is not the AUTHOR of his choices.
ruhtchin does not understand the definition of Universalism. It means universal salvation – not universal opportunity. Equality of outcome versus equality of choice.
I have encountered (thankfully) only a few Christians who believe that all will be saved – usually after a suitable “redemptive” session in hell. Some do not even rule out that Satan himself and the fallen angels will be saved.
Like Calvinists, Universalists have trouble with complicated words and concepts like “everlasting” “eternal” “forever and ever” etc.
They read into the text what they desperately want to find versus what is actually there.
mrteebs writes, ‘ruhtchin does not understand the definition of Universalism. It means universal salvation – not universal opportunity. Equality of outcome versus equality of choice. ”
If “Christ Himself is the propitiation for our sins,” then the “our” have their sins propitiated and are saved. If we transfer that propitiation to the whole world, then the whole world has their sins propitiated and the whole world is saved – this is Universalism or universal salvation. That is why Vine changes course in mid-sentence going from Christ is the propitiation for our sins to Christ provides the opportunity for salvation to the whole world making propitiation a universal opportunity for the world. Vine wants to avoid having the verse promote universal salvation and does so by making it a universal provision. As Dr. Flowers calls himself a provisionist, we might conclude that he takes the same approach. The question is whether the Greek text allows one to switch meaning in midsentence. Of course, this is done in 2 Peter 3:9 also.
Mrteebs writes,
“ruhtchin does not understand the definition of Universalism. It means universal salvation – not universal opportunity. Equality of outcome versus equality of choice.”
Aidan,
Oh, he knows all too well what it means. But those who are reading these scriptures with their natural meaning, will see through right through this! These people to whom these things were written, were ordinary people like ourselves. They understood that you take words to mean what they would normally mean, unless something in the context forced you to take it otherwise. We speak where the scriptures speak, and are silent where the scriptures are silent. Like you said, “They read into the text what they desperately want to find versus what is actually there.”
Have you heard this one? – “All means all, and that’s all all means.”
rhutchin
If you define “the whole world” to be each and every person in the world, then you have Universalism.
br.d
Nah! That’s just a fallacy of false dichotomy the Calvinist brain is conditioned to believe.
No one said Calvinism is RATIONAL! :-]
Excellent verse GraceAdict, – “1Jn 2:2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD.” It goes along perfectly with John 3:16,17; – “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. “For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.”
Well done!
Please be assured that I am not confusing commentary with translation. What I was demonstrating (and it seems that it was understood by all except yourself) is that a Calvinist will read the same scripture as a non-Calvinist, but will mentally transpose phrases, adjust clear intent and commonly understood definitions, etc. in order to reconcile what they read with unwavering commitment to TULIP instead of the very simple and useful practice of asking “What if I am wrong? What does the Bible itself say?”. Whether this substitution and adjustment is done wittingly or unwittingly, I cannot say. I suspect it is done subconsciously; nevertheless, by whatever mechanism, it is indeed done. Calvinists are willing to place far more credence in the John McArthurs, R.C. Sprouls, and John Pipers of the world than to just put away what they have been taught and read the bible with a fresh set of eyes and an open mind. The Holy Spirit can be our teacher if we will let Him. But it is hard when the closet is packed with so many Calvinist artifacts.
This doesn’t mean that neither camp is saved. But it does mean that one camp is deceived. Calvinists have the burden of taking very simple and plain texts like…
“Christ died for all”
(2 Cor 5:14)
“not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance”
(2 Pet 3:9)
“so loved the world”
(John 3:16)
“to all men”
(Tit 2:11)
“to all men”
(Rom 5:18)
“For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all.
(Rom 11:32)
etc. etc. etc.
and explaining why they do not mean what they plainly say instead of taking the occasional verse like John 6:37 (which by the way was dealt with very thoroughly here and here and here) and harmonizing it with the vast majority of other verses that state something different, reconciling both without doing violence to either. Calvinists distort language and definitions, endlessly insist that the non-Calvinist doesn’t understand the nuances properly, etc. A more honest intellectual approach is to admit that those who disagree on this site understand the Calvinist view fully (many having held it and taught it at one time) and simply reject precisely because they do understand it so well.
As I have pointed out before, there are really only a handful of verses (like John 6:37) that Calvinists latch onto as “proof texts”, while ignoring or explaining away the evidence to the contrary on nearly every page of the Bible. Each and every day as I go through the Bible and cover perhaps 3-5 chapters, the fallacy of Calvinism is reiterated.
I realize its proponents are sincere. They are simply sincerely wrong.
I would further strongly encourage you to go elsewhere to spend your time. You have known for years that you are investing dozens of hours per week amongst a group of people that are here because they are looking for like-minded people – not contrarians like yourself. Frankly, you embody 2 Tim 2:14, endlessly wrangling over words with people that are not here to debate Calvinism. They are here to discuss why they left (or never accepted it). It seems you cannot resist the temptation, as I have said before, to read nearly every comment and endless wrangle over it.
Please go somewhere else with your endless commentary and contentions. It is years past its “good when used by” date. There is a time and place to defend and clarify your perspective. This is not it. Those of us that want to explore Calvinism know where we can go to ask questions and get clarifications. But almost without exception, those on this site are here precisely because we have already spent years searching these matters out, not because we don’t understand them or because there are insufficient spokespeople or resources to convey the Calvinist position.
Ask yourself honestly, “why am I spending so much time on this site, endlessly wrangling over words?” It is a compulsion. It is divisive. It is foolish. It is the wrong group of people. It is the wrong place. And it is contrary to 2 Tim 2:14.
Because this comment contained multiple links WordPress made me manually approve it. Cheers!
Thanks Eric. My bad for leaving “bold” turned on for the last 5 paragraphs.
Wow! You are very bold Mrteebs!
mrteebs writes, “What I was demonstrating…is that a Calvinist will read the same scripture as a non-Calvinist, but will mentally transpose phrases, adjust clear intent and commonly understood definitions, etc. in order to reconcile what they read with unwavering commitment to TULIP…”
You misunderstand Calvinism. Calvinist will reconcile one verse with all other Scripture and not with TULIP (although TULIP is an attempt to distill Scripture to a few key points.
Then, “Calvinists are willing to place far more credence in the John McArthurs, R.C. Sprouls, and John Pipers of the world than to just put away what they have been taught and read the bible with a fresh set of eyes and an open mind.”
This is a false statement and should be wiped from your memory. Calvinists are Bereans just like non-Calvinists.
Then, “Calvinists have the burden of taking very simple and plain texts like…“Christ died for all” (2 Cor 5:14)…“not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance” (2 Pet 3:9)…”
Calvinist take their definition of “all” from Ephesians 3, “…to make all see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God who created all things through Jesus Christ; to the intent that now the manifold wisdom of God might be made known by the church to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places, according to the eternal purpose which He accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord,…” and define “all” to mean “Jew and gentile.” Where do you get your definition of “all” – from Webster’s dictionary??
You also know that Calvinists take “any” and “all” 2 Peter 3: 9 back to the nearest antecedent – the normal grammatical practice. Thus, “any” and “all” refer back to “…is longsuffering toward ]us…” reading it as “any of us” and “all of us.” Where do you get your meaning of “any” and “all”? Perhaps, you take it from your preconceived biases.
Then, “there are really only a handful of verses (like John 6:37) that Calvinists latch onto as “proof texts”,”
40-50 according to FOH.
mrteebs
What I was demonstrating…is that a Calvinist will read the same scripture as a non-Calvinist, but will mentally transpose phrases, adjust clear intent and commonly understood definitions, etc. in order to reconcile what they read with unwavering commitment to TULIP…”
rhutchin
You misunderstand Calvinism
br.d
Nah! He gets it right and I totally agree with him.
When a Calvinist automatically quotes verses in the way his mind has been conditioned to read them – with altered wording – that becomes a dead-give-away
Br.d said…
When the image of dagon fell over with its face in the dirt – the priests of dagon were obligated to pick it back up, clean it off, and polish it.
Also known as “rebuilding the mound” no matter how many times it gets kicked over.
BR.D,
I am going to start explicitly giving a salutation in my comments so that the intended recipient is clear. I am done conversing with rhutchin. I will converse about him, but not with him.
If you will recall from a few days ago, there was an exchange with rhutchin about whether we could have assurance of our salvation or not. It went something like this:
ME: Why would Paul tell us to “examine ourselves to see if we are in the faith” if we could not respond otherwise than as God has decreed? Wouldn’t we be trying to pass a test that is not ours to pass? Isn’t it asking us to know the unknowable or respond differently when it was beyond our capability?
RHUTCHIN: Because Paul would not tell us to do something we could not do.
ME: *facepalm*
The above assumes that you have the ability to determine whether you are “in the faith” and thus one of the elect. So, based on what RHUTCHIN conveyed a few days ago, I wrote yesterday that the identity of the elect could be known, but not God’s reasoning for why some are elect and some are non-elect. RHUTCHIN then shape-shifts and corrects me, saying we cannot know who is elect, as this too is part of God’s secret counsel. But then I try to superimpose this on the above original conversation and my head explodes. So we are to examine ourselves to see if we be in the faith, but we cannot know whether we are one of the elect, but Paul would not issue a command that was impossible. It is like a Mobius strip.
Re-watch my link to the SpongeBob video on Patrick’s wallet. It is far less vexing than these threads.
Totally understood mrteebs
Calvinism is a camel of DOUBLE-THINK
As the Calvinist swallows the camel – his brain has to go into see no evil mode.
Have you ever seen the picture of a monkey trying to get a banana out of a jar that is glued to the floor?
The lid of the jar is big enough for him to get his hand in an out – but not with the banana.
So he’s stuck there endlessly – because his brain wants that banana.
The underlying substratum and foundation of Calvinism is Universal Divine Causal Determinism.
The thesis that every nano-second of whatsoever comes to pass is predestined at the foundation of the world by immutable decrees.
Calvin understood the psychological banana that comes with such a radical belief..
For example, when the Calvinist prays – is that REALLY him praying?
Or is every thought that comes to pass within his brain pre-scripted – determined by an external mind?
Doesn’t that look like the functionality of a puppet or some form of hypnosis?
This forces the Calvinist to exist within two discordant worlds.
The world all humans perceive as normative
And Calvinism’s 100% pre-scripted world.
So he’s stuck between two worlds – trying to get a banana that is logically impossible for him to get.
TWO WORLDS:
1) Every neurological impulse that comes to pass in his brain is AUTHORED by an external mind.
2) He is the AUTHOR of his own thoughts, choices, and desires
So quite naturally – he ends up with DOUBLE-THINK.
So the more LOGICAL you get with a Calvinist – the more DOUBLE-THINK you get in response.
Its the nature of the beast! :-]
An enormous amount of scripture is characterized by God pleading with man – urging him to choose. I have not compiled the exact number of verses, but you can be assured that it far outnumbers the 40-50 verses that FOH estimated are Calvinist “proof texts”.
ALL of the Old Testament prophets (not just those books named after minor and major prophets – but all books where prophets such as Moses, Joshua, Elijah, and Elisha play a role) are essentially God pleading with man to turn from wickedness; the consequences of what will result if man refuses, and the blessings that will result if man complies. There are many conditional “if/then” statements. Indeed, entire books of the OT can be summarized as “if/then” statements.
The Calvinist has at his disposal AT BEST about 50 verses that seem to lend credence to his theology when not understood in context. The non-Calvinist, in contrast, has thousands of verses that the Calvinist must satisfactorily address. The Calvinist quite literally has to take the majority of content in books of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi – explaining why God devoted approximately 30% of the Old Testament page count to hundreds of years of repeated pleadings through at least 20 prophets – when in fact the object of those pleadings was not free to exercise any meaningful choice other than the one God had already decreed. If we were to include the relevant portions of 1&2 Samuel, 1&2 Kings and 1&2 Chronicles where the prophetic activities of Samuel, Elijah, and Elisha are included and those of Moses, Joshua, and others, it is probably pushing 35-40% of the Old Testament where God (through His prophets) is warning and pleading with man. The whole idea of “pleading” with people is insane unless the people possess the capacity to change and have some degree of freedom to respond favorably to the pleading of the sovereign. We also have the non-prophetic books like Nehemiah where he literally argues, curses, punches, and pulls out the hair of the rebellious in his attempt to talk sense to them (Ne 13:25). Rational beings do not argue with robots.
The Calvinist might say, “well, with one or two appeals to the secret counsel of God, I can dismiss all of that page count with a single argument as simply the way He has sovereignly chosen to interact with man” but isn’t it infinitely easier to just accept the most reasonable conclusion? God, in his sovereignty, gave man a free will that can be exercised within constrains and He can remain sovereign without needing to control every outcome. And God, in chapter after chapter, is showing us how longsuffering he is. How His anger and frustration is rooted in man’s continual propensity to exercise his freedom wrongly.
Occam’s razor applies here. The Calvinist cannot satisfactorily answer even a single chapter, such as Isaiah 1, as to why these prophets did what they did or why God pleads with man to use his reasoning faculties or the threat of disaster as a means of changing an outcome. To “reason” with creatures that have no capacity to choose other than decreed is the very definition of insanity. It is not an exaggeration to say that someone who treated his children or employees that way would be locked up or institutionalized. The very foundation of our jurisprudence system is rooted in the belief that you don’t punish people for things unless they have the capacity to choose. Yet Calvinists endlessly torture language and logic to make slavery into freedom with nonsensical statements like “zero degrees of freedom is still freedom” (i.e., the sinner is free to sin). No jury in any country would buy it, yet we have an entire systematic theology built on such insanity, with a lawyer as its primary architect and chief marketing officer.
It truly boggles the mind at how, for the sake of perhaps 50 verses, the Calvinist is perfectly content to dismiss so much evidence to the contrary. You cannot simply collapse this much of the scriptures to a dismissive wave of the hand that says “God’s ways are beyond our knowing – we don’t know why He chooses to plead with objects that have been divinely decreed to behave in a certain manner.”
There is an amazing amount of cognitive dissonance occurring. And this is why language is so important to the Calvinist. They must constantly reframe the debate by endlessly wrangling over words in almost Clinton-esque fashion where even a word like “is” becomes subject to subatomic scrutiny.
Great post Mrteebs
It is so refreshing to read the insights from those who trust casual divine determinism has come up lacking as you have stated & all contributors to this post are greatly appreciated by those who read, even if unable (for whatever reason) to respond.
I enjoyed this comment; “To “reason” with creatures that have no capacity to choose other than decreed is the very definition of insanity.”
And agreed the whole counsel of Scripture matters and can’t simply be waved off.. I remember once a Bible study leader of a well non group say; “though God gave instructions He knew they weren’t able to respond positively” or something similar…. “the promise land” I believe that was the name of the study…
Anyway again thanks for the posts and I do agree with you and GraceAdict it would be great if this was just a site for non calvinist, but honestly I think I learn from how others interact with calvinist on this site too…
mrteebs writes, ‘An enormous amount of scripture is characterized by God pleading with man – urging him to choose.”
The Calvinist says that faith is required to choose in those instances. Do you take the opposite position – that faith is not required to make choices presented in those instances?
rhutchin
The Calvinist says that faith is required to choose in those instances
br.d
Well there are two kinds of faith.
The NORMAL kind – the capacity of which all NORMAL people are born with
And the GNOSTIC kind which is only reserved for the elect
br.d writes, “Well there are two kinds of faith.
The NORMAL kind – the capacity of which all NORMAL people are born with
And the GNOSTIC kind which is only reserved for the elect”
That according to your humanist philosophy. According to the Scriptures, there is only one faith that matters – that conveyed through the hearing of the gospel. Any so-called faith not received from the word is a worthless, or dead, faith.
rhutchin
That according to your humanist philosophy
br.d
AS-IF Gnosticism and NeoPlatonism are not humanistic! :-]
br.d writes, “AS-IF Gnosticism and NeoPlatonism are not humanistic!”
They are not Scriptural.
br.d
AS-IF Gnosticism and NeoPlatonism are not humanistic!
rhutchin
They are not Scriptural.
br.d
Au con-traire Mon-ami!
Within Gnostic and NeoPlatonist interpretations of Scripture – they are! :-]
https://soteriology101.com/2019/03/11/was-st-augustine-the-first-to-introduce-calvinism-to-the-church/
Dr. Kenneth Wilson – The Foundation of Augustinian-Calvinism
-quote
Indeed, Basilides’s followers espoused faith itself as God’s gift ( τῆς πίστεως τὴν δωρεάν )
Basilides (Greek: Βασιλείδης) an early Christian Gnostic religious teacher in Alexandria, Egypt
br.d: “AS-IF Gnosticism and NeoPlatonism are not humanistic!”
rhutchin: “They are not Scriptural.”
br.d: “Within Gnostic and NeoPlatonist interpretations of Scripture – they are!”
Incorporating Scripture into a religion that does not rely solely on the Scriptures for its doctrines, does not make something Scriptural. To be Scriptural, as I use it, means to rely solely on the Scriptures and nothing else.
rhutchin
Incorporating Scripture into a religion that does not rely solely on the Scriptures for its doctrines, does not make something Scriptural.
br.d
Oh – but those who do it – are hardly going to acknowledge that is what they do.
And we already know Calvinism doesn’t acknowledge doing that.
However – there are indicators:
IRRATIONAL thinking will always eventually produce and IRRATIONAL interpretation of any data
Whether that data is scripture or not.
And that is how we identify Calvinism’s use of scripture. :-]
Naaman the leper had no faith and serves as one example. He simply obeyed the prophet as he really had nothing to lose but his pride by dipping in the muddy Jordan seven times. He whined and peed the whole time, yet was cleansed because of his obedience – not his faith. He basically gave in to the pleadings of one of his own subordinates that said “what have you got to lose?”
Some of the OT scenarios required faith, but most can be better characterized as obedience.
CHOOSE you this day who you will serve. Joshua 24:15
Mrteebs, that’s an interesting observation concerning Naaman the leper, the fact that he had to obey to be cleansed. He didn’t believe the prophet, but somehow was persuaded by the girl to do it, and was only cleansed after he had been dipped seven times in the Jordan. You seem to be good at this sort of thing, so I have something you could probably try out on your own. I believe you’ve just finished reading through the book of Acts? The book of Acts is sometimes called the book of conversions as a record of the carrying out of the “great commission” by the apostles. If you would – go towards the end of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, to the great commission, and list all the things Jesus commanded them to preach for salvation unto the nations. Then go to the various cases of conversion in the book of Acts and list the things people were commanded to do to have their sins forgiven/be saved. What I mean is, what were they told to do after they had heard the gospel? I believe the answer always matches the list of things required under the great commission, if you know how to look for them in each case. I’d be interested to see what you come up with.
Mr Teebs,
Don’t be fooled by Aidan’s craftiness here. He’s looking for the the word BAPTIZE, his version, dunking in water.
But let’s look deeper…REPENT, yet, they won’t go to the law to find out what to repent from…the law is the schoolmaster to bring you to Christ…NOT JOHN 1:1.
Ed Chapman
Aidan,
I’m not sure that the young handmaiden of 2 Ki 5:2-4 is necessarily the same servant speaking in 2 Ki 5:13. But I do find it interesting that both Naaman the Syrian and the Sidonian widow of Zarephath (both non-Israelites) were used by Jesus as examples at the synagogue in Nazareth of people that received from God. It enraged the synagogue-goers in Nazareth so much that they took Him to the brow of a cliff to push Him over.
But I digress.
Saving faith is always accompanied by repentance. Repentance is not the same as remorse. Judas had remorse (feelings of regret) but did not repent. The Greek word for repentance (μετανοεω) means “ to change one’s mind or purpose” and is not the same word used to describe Judas’s response (μεταμέλομαι) which is an emotion – not an action. True belief is not just mental ascent. The demons believe that Jesus is the Christ. Humans in hell believe too. They no doubt want to repent but it is too late for them. Baptism is an outward sign to demonstrate publicly that repentance has occurred. It does not save us but it is a command. The thief on the cross repented but was not baptized. Cornelius and his household repented and were saved and baptized in the Holy Spirit before they were water baptized.
Mrteebs, It seems I was composing my last reply at the same time you were sending yours. So would you see repentance as an act of faith, yet separate from faith, in that it is an act of obedience – the obedience of faith? For example, there are many people today who place so much emphasis on the emotion of faith they negate the importance of obeying His word. Surely a person who has repented, is one who has turned his life around in obedience to Christ? I’m thinking of John saying, ‘bear fruit in keeping with repentance’.
I don’t think we could ever say for sure that the thief on the cross was never baptized. Although I wouldn’t argue one way or the other, is it possible that he could have been baptized earlier in his life in John’s baptism? And as far as I understand, while Jesus was on earth He had the right to forgive sins with just a word. But the command to be baptized in the name of Jesus was not yet given until about forty days after His death and resurrection, and would have been meant for those living under the new covenant. The thief was forgiven directly by Jesus, and while the old covenant was still in force. I have never seen any verse which describes ‘baptism in the name of Jesus’ as a mere outward sign. Have you looked up the great commission yet? Perhaps you could compare it even with Acts 2:36-40; and let me know what you think?
Aidan,
The Great Commission does not appear identically in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Repentance appears in all three. Baptism appears in two of the three, but the specific type of baptism is not specified (there are three baptisms – keep reading below).
Regardless, I’m not willing to start a dialog on whether water baptism is essential to salvation. I have obeyed the command myself at age 16, have always attended churches that practice adult immersive baptism (except before I left the Lutheran church at age 10), and believe baptisms (plural) to be a matter of doctrine as enumerated in Heb 6:1-2 as follows:
1. Repentance
2. Faith toward God
3. Washings (baptisms)
4. Laying on of hands
5. Resurrection of the dead
6. Eternal judgment
My beliefs regarding baptisms can best be found in this 28-minute video: https://renner.org/renner-tv/three-types-of-baptism-in-the-new-testament/ (former Baptist, now a Greek scholar and missionary living in Moscow, Russia)
The Apostles were very careful to confirm that people were believers before they were water baptized. Water baptism is a command, but it does not save. Failure to do so does not disqualify the believer, but it does hamper their walk. This is covered in the video linked to above.
That’s all I’ll say about the topic as I don’t wish to use this forum for such a discussion or debate on the necessity of water baptism for salvation. I’ll freely state my views on the topic (which are identical to Rick Renner’s) but not debate them.
Mrteebs,
As I said before, I’ve no desire to discuss any issue someone doesn’t want to talk about. I was responding to your comments on repentance and baptism. But I did watch the video you gave me though👀, and found it interesting. Thanks!
RH, of course, wants to show that saving faith is a gift and that only the elect can possess it or exercise it. It is imperative that he do this because without that, “T” is not true and the entire Calvinist system then collapses.
“T” is probably the most important timber in the whole superstructure because if all men possess the ability to respond, then they also possesses the ability to reject and “U” and “I” both collapse.
“L” is hogwash regardless because the Bible is exceedingly clear that Christ died for all (just like the bronze serpent in the wilderness was available to all but they had their own part to play – and if they didn’t do their part, they perished).
“P” is likewise hogwash but is so ingrained in most baptist (and all Calvinist) theology that there is an autoimmune response when challenged. I prefer not to debate that one here, but I think you and I are in agreement that a believer must continue in the faith to be saved and the option to walk off the playing field always exists. I have never seen a sufficient refutation of Acts 14:22, Rom 11:22, Col 1:23, 1 Cor 9:27, Mark 11:26, Matt 6:15, Matt 18:35, Lk 8:13-14, the warnings to the 7 churches in Revelation, or the foolish virgins in Matt 25 to convince me otherwise.
mrteebs,
You had said:
““P” is likewise hogwash but is so ingrained in most baptist (and all Calvinist) theology that there is an autoimmune response when challenged. I prefer not to debate that one here, but I think you and I are in agreement that a believer must continue in the faith to be saved and the option to walk off the playing field always exists. I have never seen a sufficient refutation of Acts 14:22, Rom 11:22, Col 1:23, 1 Cor 9:27, Mark 11:26, Matt 6:15, Matt 18:35, Lk 8:13-14, the warnings to the 7 churches in Revelation, or the foolish virgins in Matt 25 to convince me otherwise.”
My response:
FULLY AGREE, especially the part about “most baptist”. Some can be just as stubborn about this as Calvinists, and trust me, I have learned that first hand. Been kicked off a few Baptist blogs that oppose Calvinism, when I am also opposing Calvinism, yet, I also oppose the “P”, as well. They (Baptists) don’t take too kindly about that opposition.
Ed Chapman
Great points mrteebs
For me – the “I” in the TULIP is a half-truth posturing itself as a whole-truth
And the “P” in the TULIP is simply Calvinist trickery.
Firstly – in Calvinism there is no such thing as a human resisting an infallible decree.
And everything that comes to pass – does so by infallible decree.
So in Calvinism – everything is irresistible.
So irresistible grace is simply a half-truth posturing as a whole-truth
Secondly – in Calvinism – election is either infallibly TRUE or infallibly FALSE
And the idea that something infallibly TRUE can ever be false is totally IRRATIONAL.
So the idea that something infallibly TRUE needs to “persevere” in order to keep it from being FALSE is totally bogus
For the “P” in TULIP to be RATIONAL – it could for example be “PREDICATION of election”
But I think anyone can understand that “Predication of Election” as a marketing strategy is going to be a disaster.
What Calvinist in his attempts to draw in a sheep from another fold – is going to want to tell him – in Calvinism he might be designed for eternal torment in a lake of fire?
And secondly Calvinism needs to create bridges between its underlying doctrine and scripture.
And most non-Calvinist sheep recognize the warnings in scripture against apostasy.
So trying to advertise Calvinism’s rejection of apostasy is going to be a marketing disaster
Especially when the intent is sheep robbing.
Excellent Mrteebs, it is absolutely true that if you undermine the “T” the whole thing comes crashing down like a house of cards. And I couldn’t agree with you more on your analogy of the bronze serpent, that it was available to all, and a good parallel to the gospel being for all. I presume the “P” is their “once saved always saved?” Hogwash is the right word to use. Those verses you cited are so clear in refuting this doctrine, it just boggles the mind how blind these people can be!
isn’t it true that the blood on the doorpost was also available for all?
Bingo! We have a winner!
Although it is true that Moses announced the “Passover salvation recipe” to only the children of Israel (, let’s remember that this was by Pharaoh’s choosing – not God’s. He told Moses not to show his face again (Ex 10:28) after the plague of darkness – the very last plague before the Passover night. Pharaoh hardened his own heart multiple times. After that, God said “fine – I’ll just amplify that decision to make sport of it and bring it to its absurd conclusion to magnify My glory”. And, he gave Pharaoh what he asked for: not to see Moses again, which could have ironically been Pharaoh’s salvation (be careful what you ask for).
Rod becomes serpent: Pharaoh hardens his heart
Water turns to blood: Pharaoh hardens his heart
Frogs: Pharaoh hardens his heart
Insects: Pharaoh hardens his heart
Cattle deaths: Pharaoh hardens his heart
Boils: God hardens Pharaoh’s heart
Hail: Pharaoh hardens his heart
Locusts: God hardens Pharaoh’s heart
Darkness: God hardens Pharaoh’s heart
Firstborn: God hardens Pharaoh’s heart
Six times Pharaoh hardened his heart all by himself. Four times God amplified what was already there.
Notice how Calvinists usually conveniently omit these details and emphasize that GOD hardened Pharaoh’s heart rather than giving the full story? The devil, as they say, is in the details. Or in this case, the absence of details.
Mrteebs writes,
“Rod becomes serpent: Pharaoh hardens his heart
Water turns to blood: Pharaoh hardens his heart
Frogs: Pharaoh hardens his heart
Insects: Pharaoh hardens his heart
Cattle deaths: Pharaoh hardens his heart
Boils: God hardens Pharaoh’s heart
Hail: Pharaoh hardens his heart
Locusts: God hardens Pharaoh’s heart
Darkness: God hardens Pharaoh’s heart
Firstborn: God hardens Pharaoh’s heart”
I just think I would have moved to Goshen to try to avoid all of that pain caused by Pharaoh!
Pharaoh’s own servants begged him to relent:
Ex 10:7 Pharaoh’s servants said to him, “How long will this man be a snare to us? Let the men go, that they may serve the Lord their God. Do you not realize that Egypt is destroyed?”
God was mocking him at this point. I don’t want to get political on this site, but I am seeing some of that in our present circumstances. Consider which cities have been the hardest hit. There are some interesting correlations.
As far as I understand, New York has been hardest hit, and now some other cities are starting to feel the impact. But that was to be expected, and some cities will probably find it harder to cope. But I’m Irish and living in Ireland, and would therefore be unfamiliar with the way things are happening in the States.
mrteebs writes, “Notice how Calvinists usually conveniently omit these details and emphasize that GOD hardened Pharaoh’s heart rather than giving the full story?”
Calvinists say that Pharaoh hardened his heart because he had no faith and additionally, that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart by not extending grace to him. The effect of God withholding grace from Pharaoh would be that Pharaoh would then harden his heart.
rhutchin
Calvinists say…….etc
br.d
Yea we get the picture –
Just like Bill Clinton says:
That depends on what your definition of the word “is” is
And that allowed him to say:
I did not have X with that woman
Thanks Br.d, that’s a thought worth holding onto, that even the Jew who neglected to put the blood his doorpost would have lost his firstborn. But ALL who chose to obey that instruction were spared.
Yes – I see obedience as an integral part of miracles in scripture.
Moses obeys – holds up his rod and the sea parts and the enemies are scattered.
Joshua obeys – and Jericho walls fall
The blind man obeys – and his blindness is healed
The cripple at the pool of Bethesda obeys – and his body is healed
The 10 Lepers obey and are healed.
So many examples!
However
If Calvinism is true – then obedience is ILLUSORY
Firstly because obedience presupposes human autonomy – which is ILLUSORY in Calvinism.
And secondly obedience presupposed the possibility of disobedience – which is ILLUSORY in Calvinism.
I can just hear it now: We Calvinists don’t talk about such things in mixed company. Some will find them too offensive. We reserve it for coffee houses, bible studies, and small groups. Bring the water to a boil slowly. You can’t throw the frog straight in.
But if you think about it, why would you avoid just blurting it out, plainly? It won’t matter. The elect will somehow find their way – even if initially offended, and the non-elect — well, who cares?
mrteebs
The elect will somehow find their way – even if initially offended, and the non-elect — well, who cares?
br.d
That is exactly would Calvinist Vincent Chung would boldly proclaim
-quote
When Reformed Christians are questioned on whether God is the “author of sin,” they are too quick to say, “No, God is not the author of sin. And then they twist and turn and writhe on the floor, trying to give man some power of “self-determination”,
mrteebs writes, “The elect will somehow find their way…”
Yes, by the grace of God.
Then, “the non-elect — well, who cares?”
If God will not save them, then who will, or can (who else cares)?
mrteebs
The elect will somehow find their way…”
rhutchin
Yes, by the grace of God.
br.d
Of course this yet another one of Calvinism’s FALSE-TRUTH non-sequiturs
In Calvinism one’s election is either infallibly TRUE or it is infallibly FALSE
It is a logical impossibility for something that is infallibly TRUE to ever be false
It doesn’t have to “somehow find its way” – its way is already infallibly established
So the idea that something infallibly TRUE has to “persevere” in order to remain TRUE is a brain-dead idea.
But what is one more drop of FALSE-TRUTH within a bucket of FALSE-TRUTHS! :-]
Br.d,
“Firstly because obedience presupposes human autonomy – And secondly obedience presupposed the possibility of disobedience – which is ILLUSORY in Calvinism.”
Aidan,
Now that hits the nail right on the head! Its the other side of the coin which is not often considered. And that is – that the call to obey God in order to obtain promises infers autonomy, and with it the will to disobey and fail in obtaining those promises. How often have we seen that in scripture?
Absolutely Aidan!
All of that is total double-speak in Calvinism
Aidan writes, ‘the call to obey God in order to obtain promises infers autonomy, and with it the will to disobey and fail in obtaining those promises.”
Yet, one will not obey God without faith. Where is the will to obey without faith? If that is the case, where is autonomy?
rhutchin,
You are so dog gone confused about that faith word, it’s PITIFUL. It’s YOUR faith, not a God imputed faith, and THAT is YOUR autonomy.
Faith is NOT a gift, and WE ALL HERE agree…except Calvinists.
Grace is the gift THRU “OUR” OWN faith, believe, TRUST in God. OUR OWN.
Ed
chapmaned24 writes, “Faith is NOT a gift, and WE ALL HERE agree…except Calvinists.”
So we have a distinction between Calvinists and non-Calvinists.
Calvinists say that faith is given to a person by God.
Non-Calvinists say that people are born with faith, so it is not given to them by God.
rhutchin states:
“So we have a distinction between Calvinists and non-Calvinists.
Calvinists say that faith is given to a person by God.
Non-Calvinists say that people are born with faith, so it is not given to them by God.”
My response:
Absolutely, and that is why we non-Cal’s conclude that Cals are a bunch of whack jobs. With all due respect, of course! Just keeping it real! No offense.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “Absolutely, and that is why we non-Cal’s conclude that Cals are a bunch of whack jobs. With all due respect, of course! Just keeping it real! No offense.”
No offense taken.
rhutchin
So we have a distinction between Calvinists and non-Calvinists.
br.d
Many of them!
And Dr. William Lane Craig describes Calvinist distinctions as RADICAL.
For example Calvin’s god deceiving a LARGE MIXTURE of Calvinists within the Calvinist church – giving them the gift of FALSE faith/election/salvation.
And the notion that a person’s election established as infallible and immutable needs to “persevere” in order to remain infallible and immutable.
And the notion that a person can falsify an infallible decree by being/doing otherwise
And the notion that there is an escape from a sin that is infallibly decreed to come to pass
Lots of RADICAL distinctions in Calvinism.
But under the spot-light of LOGIC – they all eventually become visible.
Non-Calvinists say that people are born with faith, so it is not given to them by God.
This is not only false, it is extremely poor reasoning. You are born with a mouth, eyes, ears, and a brain. Because those are not bestowed at some time after birth, can it be inferred they don’t come from God? Of course not.
rhutchin: ” Non-Calvinists say that people are born with faith, so it is not given to them by God.”
mrteebs, “This is not only false, it is extremely poor reasoning. You are born with a mouth, eyes, ears, and a brain. Because those are not bestowed at some time after birth, can it be inferred they don’t come from God? Of course not.”
That’s what I meant. I guess I assumed that context carried over from the prior discussion. Non-Calvinists view faith as they do a mouth, eyes, ears, and a brain – faith is an attribute of every person who is born just like they have a mouth, eyes, ears, and a brain
So, let me revise to say, “Non-Calvinists say that people are born with faith, so faith is not given to a person by God at some time after birth and only after the person hears the gospel.”
rhutchin
So, let me revise to say, “Non-Calvinists say that people are born with faith, so faith is not given to a person by God at some time after birth and only after the person hears the gospel.”
br.d
Not quite – lets try again:
For the Non-Calvinist thinker – NORMAL people (e.g. Abraham) are born with a NORMAL capacity to believe
And a NORMAL ability to apply belief.
For example: Abraham believed – and it was was counted to him as righteousness.
Abraham believed Lot when Lot told him he was going to Sodom
And that belief did not require a special Gnostic gift of faith.
Abraham believed Sodom was going be destroyed
And that belief did not require a special Gnostic gift of faith.
Abraham believed everything else God told him.
Without requiring any special Gnostic gift of faith.
br.d writes, “Abraham believed Lot when Lot told him he was going to Sodom
And that belief did not require a special Gnostic gift of faith.
Abraham believed Sodom was going be destroyed
And that belief did not require a special Gnostic gift of faith.
Abraham believed everything else God told him.
Without requiring any special Gnostic gift of faith.
It should be, “Abraham believed God when God told him He would destroy Sodom.”
The issue then is to explain the reason Abraham believed Lot and God. Abraham certainly had faith in God and that would explain why he believed what God said.
rhutchin
The issue then is to explain the reason Abraham believed Lot and God.
br.d
FALSE
The issue is to explain why Abraham needs a special Gnostic gift in order to have the capacity to believe Lot or anyone else.
Aidan
‘the call to obey God in order to obtain promises infers autonomy, and with it the will to disobey and fail in obtaining those promises.”
rhutchin
Yet, one will not obey God without faith. Where is the will to obey without faith? If that is the case, where is autonomy?
br.d
This concedes Aidan’s point – that without autonomy disobedience is an ILLUSION.
And since disobedience is an ILLUSION then the concept of obedience is revealed as a false representation
And this becomes clear when one realizes that in Calvinism – it is impossible for a human to RESIST neurological impulses – which come to pass infallibly within his brain.
Therefore EVERYTHING which comes to pass within the human brain is made IRRESISTIBLE.
So Calvin’s god makes the movement of every cog and gear within the human brain come to pass infallibly.
Now we add to that idea that Calvin’s god inputs a new gear into the brain called “faith”.
And what has changed?
This new gear called faith within the brain SUPPOSEDLY serves to produce a different outcome.
CONCLUSION:
The Calvinists conception of faith implanted within the human brain – is simply an invention.
It functions as a VIRTUAL bridge designed to fill the gap between to worlds.
A 100% predetermined world – and the world of Scripture in which faith is an element of salvation.
Aidan writes, ‘the call to obey God in order to obtain promises infers autonomy, and with it the will to disobey and fail in obtaining those promises.”
RH,
“Yet, one will not obey God without faith. Where is the will to obey without faith? If that is the case, where is autonomy?”
Aidan,
Haven’t you heard? Even the demons believe and tremble! Are they willing to obey?
But for men, it takes a “will” not to believe and obey!
Is it me or did your argument totally go over RH’s head?
Since in Calvinism every neurological impulse comes to pass infallibly within the human brain – and cannot be resisted – how is it coherent to call that obedience?
Adding some kind of magical Gnostic faith gift into that context certainly isn’t going to change that!
I got my argument from what you had said. But I think this is how you would basically answer it – create the robot – programme the robot – give it a command – it obeys! But here’s the kicker, even when this robot malfunctions and disobeys(sins) – it obeys, because that’s what it was programmed to do. And like Data in Star Trek; at some point you can stick in the chip for faith – to make it BELIEVE what you want it to believe? Now there’s autonomy for ya!
Yes!
This is why Dr. William Lane Craig observed that Calvinism contains Radical distinctions.
One of the issues that Calvinists try very hard to not think about – is the issue of Real vs Illusion
There are a lot of Calvinist concepts that are in fact Illusion which their minds treat AS-IF Real
When a Calvinist chooses to commit a specific sin – was that sin predestined specifically for him?
Most of them will say “no”.
And was he permitted to do otherwise than what was infallibly decreed?
Most of them will say “yes”
But is that Reality or is that Illusion in the mind?
Yes, the illusion of freedom! But so is their so called reality!
Let’s call it “The Calvin Delusion” – sounds like a good title for a book!
Aidan writes, “Haven’t you heard? Even the demons believe and tremble! Are they willing to obey?”
The demons have personal knowledge of God. They hate God. Thus, there disobedience.
Aidan writes, “Haven’t you heard? Even the demons believe and tremble! Are they willing to obey?”
RH,
“The demons have personal knowledge of God. They hate God. Thus, there disobedience.”
Aidan,
Yes, but in terms of Calvinism – where did the demons get their faith, and where did they get the will to disobey?
Aidan writes, “in terms of Calvinism – where did the demons get their faith, and where did they get the will to disobey?”
Because the demons know God personally, there is no need for “faith” where “faith” refers to things hoped for and not seen. Apparently God enabled demons to obey or disobey as he did Adam, and both demons and Adam chose to disobey.
rhutchin states:
” Apparently God enabled demons to obey or disobey as he did Adam, and both demons and Adam chose to disobey.”
FAKE NEWS!
Anytime you see the word, “APPARENTLY, REPORTEDLY, ANONOMOUS SOURCES, etc., it’s INCONCLUSIVE, not true, a guess, not fact.
Demons are “Enabled” to infallibly follow every infallible decree written into a cosmic program
Robots are “Enabled” to follow every decree written into a robot program.
Not to difficult to see the parallels! :-]
rhutcin states:
“Adam sinned and his nature was corrupted. Consequently, his descendants are born spiritually dead and are “by nature children of wrath.” The corrupted nature then gives rise to sin.”
My response:
NONE OF THAT IS TRUE. NONE.
Romans 4 indicates that the LAW works WRATH. So, the children of wrath were the JEWS UNDER THE LAW.
NO ONE IS BORN DEAD. Romans 7 so states.
What you preach, rhutchin, is nonsense.
Ed Chapman
rhutchin
the demons know God personally, there is no need for “faith”
br.d
Calvinist lesson #55:
How to take take words out of the text of scripture and replace them – in 3 easy steps. :-]
RH writes,
“Because the demons know God personally, there is no need for “faith” where “faith” refers to things hoped for and not seen. Apparently God enabled demons to obey or disobey as he did Adam,”
Aidan,
James 2:19, 20: “You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?” Apparently the demons have been enabled to believe and tremble too – which is a form of faith according to (v.20).
Aidan,
Yes, but in terms of Calvinism – where did the demons get their faith, and where did they get the will to disobey?
br.d
Well for the Calvinist – a demon totally depraved – so he would have had to have been given that faith as a gift from Calvin’s god.
And the will to disobey?
Is that obey or disobey?
They were given a special gift to disobey what was never going to come to pass
And they were given a special gift to obey what was going to infallibly come to pass
No one can accuse Calvinism of being simple :-]
Thanks Br.d, I thought that might have been the case with demons, but I don’t see Rh admitting to what James 2:19-20 says about them.
Aidan
I don’t see Rh admitting to what James 2:19-20 says about them.
br.d
Well N.T. Write calls Romans 9 Calvinism’s “Happy Hunting Ground”
Perhaps the book of James is Calvinism’s “No Man’s Land” :-]
They are like a people possessed!
Aidan
They are like a people possessed!
br.d
You may not be familiar with the work of Robert J Lifton – on what is called “Thought Reform”
And the work of Margaret Singer on a sociological phenomenon she observed with certain religious groups
What she called a: “Closed System of Logic”
Don’t you think Calvinism has a “Closed System of Logic”?
Br.d,
“Don’t you think Calvinism has a “Closed System of Logic”?
Aidan,
Like living in a box! I don’t know anything near what you know about Calvinism. But what I do know, and some of what Rh says doesn’t seem to make much sense to me.
Aidan,
Like living in a box! I don’t know anything near what you know about Calvinism. But what I do know, and some of what Rh says doesn’t seem to make much sense to me.
br.d
Dr. Alvin Plantinga tells a wonderful true story that I think explains it.
A certain internationally renowned intellectual decided to dabble in the belief system of solipsism.
In Solipsism you believe only one person in the world exists as real – that is you – and all other people are illusions.
This intellectual ended up publishing a book on what it was like to live as a Solipsist.
A certain woman bought the book and apparently while reading it opened up to her the story of her life.
She concluded she must be a Solipsist.
So she writes a letter of thanks to the author – and in her letter she asks a very telling question.
She asks: “I wonder why there aren’t more of us?”
I guess you can see how much DOUBLE-THINK there is in her question.
Dr. Plantinga goes on to tell a similar story.
He was visiting a certain college which had a professor who was a staunch Solipsist
He decided it would be interesting to see how he would be treated by a man who saw him as an illusion.
So he visited the professor to introduce himself
Afterwards – he said that this professor treated him AS-IF he was real.
What we are talking about is the human mind trying to build a bridge between a very radical belief system and the NORMAL world we live in.
I am convinced that is what we in fact observe with Calvinists.
Br.d,
Afterwards – he said that this professor treated him AS-IF he was real.
What we are talking about is the human mind trying to build a bridge between a very radical belief system and the NORMAL world we live in.
I am convinced that is what we in fact observe with Calvinists.
Aidan,
If every thought, every impulse, and every action in your world is predetermined, and you don’t know what is real and what is not, the best thing you could ever do is live AS-IF – as a means of escape. Otherwise, I think I would lose my sanity!
Aidan,
You had said:
“If every thought, every impulse, and every action in your world is predetermined, and you don’t know what is real and what is not, the best thing you could ever do is live AS-IF – as a means of escape. Otherwise, I think I would lose my sanity!”
My response:
Now, think of that guy with the deep voice that would advertise movies, stating, “Imagine a world where…”, and insert what you had said above.
Kinda spooky, huh?
Starring Tom Cruise
Coming THIS SUMMER, to a theater near you.
Ed
Co-starring Edward Scissorhands 😀
And Talking Heads doing the theme songs!🎶 👀
Starring Tom Cruise? Now in his case it would have to be the voice of Dr. Ron. Hubbard!
“Tom, your every thought, your every impulse, and every action is determined by me, the one who knows nothing about what is real and what is not, the best thing you could ever do is live AS-IF – because once you’ve checked in to THIS hotel, you can never leave or escape.”
Talk about the loonies taking over the asylum? They are building them everywhere, including a huge center recently here in Dublin. A lot of people are uncomfortable with them being here. They might have gotten away with it in the States, but they haven’t been allowed status as a recognized religion or charity here – which, as far as I gather, means they won’t be able to avoid paying taxes. I’m sure they’ll do fine here with the amount of money Tom rakes in for them!
Aidan,
I’m not even gonna quote what you said…I’m just gonna say OUCH! I didn’t even think of that. You got me good, bud. LOL.
Ouch is the word! OK, so how about John Travolta…Never mind. Well, L RON must be doing something to those two. Neither of them has aged in 40 years.
Ed
They’re just, ah, ha, ha, ha, stayin alive, stayin alive!!
Aidan,
If every thought, every impulse, and every action in your world is predetermined, and you don’t know what is real and what is not, the best thing you could ever do is live AS-IF – as a means of escape. Otherwise, I think I would lose my sanity!
br.d
Exactly correct!
The NATURAL determinist has to create a bridge between his belief system and what he experiences with his cognitive perceptions.
What all humans around him consider NORMAL human agency.
However, the Calvinist has it even worse.
He has the same burden the NATURAL determinist has
But his mind also has to build a bridge between his belief system and what scripture depicts as NORMAL human agency.
Also
The NATURAL determinist doesn’t have to deal with events coming to pass infallibly because nothing in nature is infallible.
But Calvin’s god makes things come to pass infallibly
Which means that his power of infallibility is transferred into the movements of whatsoever comes to pass.
The cogs and gears inside the human brain are fallible objects.
But Calvin’s god makes the movements of those things occur infallibly
So the Calvinist can’t blame any event on man’s nature
Because nature doesn’t have the power to makes its own movements infallible.
The only being that can do that is Calvin’s god.
So that makes Calvin’s god the source of every movement within the universe in the course of time.
Its no wonder Calvinists – have to live *AS-IF* none of that is real!!
That would make any sane mind go bonkers!
Aidan writes, ‘ don’t see Rh admitting to what James 2:19-20 says about them.”
James 2
17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.
19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe–and tremble!
20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?
James argues that a person says he has faith and offers as proof that he believes that there is one god. Otherwise, he does nothing; there are no works emanating from his faith. So, James notes that even demons believe that there is one god (demons know the one god personally) and they tremble at that knowledge. Just believing that there is one god is not enough – faith without works is dead?
rhutchin
So, James notes that even demons believe
br.d
Which means they have faith
And the faith that they have didn’t require a special Gnostic gift :-]
rhutchin: “So, James notes that even demons believe”
br.d: “Which means they have faith”
A person can have personal knowledge of the truth of X, and believe X without faith.
A person without personal knowledge of X can believe on the basis of faith.
rhutchin
A person can have personal knowledge of the truth of X, and believe X without faith.
br.d
Another one of Calvinism’s square-circles
Lets do a test:
You try believing that you have the capacity to have a rational thought
And then try to convince yourself that you don’t have faith in your capacity to have a rational thought.
Good luck with that! :-]
rhutchin
A person without personal knowledge of X can believe on the basis of faith.
br.d
One more non-sequitur – how am I not surprised
Lets do a test:
You try having faith in your capacity to have a rational thought without any personal knowledge of having a rational thought.
Good luck with that one also! :-]
Let me re-word that last one:
You can’t have personal knowledge of having a rational thought – because all of the thoughts actualized within your brain are determined before you exist – by an external mind.
And also your every perception of TRUE vs FALSE is also determined before you exist – by an external mind.
But that doesn’t prevent you from believing (i.e. having faith) as an ILLUSION – that you can have a rational thought.
But if you did – that belief/faith/Illusion would also have been predestined before you exist – by an external mind
And your perception of your perception would also be predestined before you exist – by an external mind.
This is called the vertigo of determinism. :-]
rhutchin states:
A person can have personal knowledge of the truth of X, and believe X without faith.
A person without personal knowledge of X can believe on the basis of faith.
My response:
YOU ARE RIGHT!!!!!
Why? Because Hebrews 11:1 describes faith, and the word HOPE is in that Hebrews 11:1 definition.
In your first, A PERSON CAN HAVE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH OF X AND BELIEVE WITHOUT FAITH.
Do you know why? BECAUSE HOPE IS NOT PART OF IT.
Hope is defined as something that you CANNOT SEE that you are waiting for. If you can see it, you don’t need faith.
So, I am beginning to see WHY you have such a distorted definition of faith, because your definition is MISSING the word HOPE.
Ed Chapman
rhutchin,
My second response to:
You had said:
“A person can have personal knowledge of the truth of X, and believe X without faith.
A person without personal knowledge of X can believe on the basis of faith.”
My response:
Going back to Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
NOTICE the word, “HOPE”
Romans 8:24
For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?
If you can see it, it’s NOT HOPE. You are WAITING for something that you can’t see. You BELIEVE what was spoken, EVEN THO YOU CAN’T SEE IT. That’s faith. Believing in something you can’t see. Believing is the verb of the noun.
Ed Chapman
So even the demons who believe and have enough sense to tremble, have something more than the fella with faith alone. The point is, “believe” is still called “faith.”
Aidan writes, “The point is, “believe” is still called “faith.””
With the previously noted distinction that the translators normally translated the noun form as ‘faith” and the verb form as “believe.”
rhutchin states:
“Aidan writes, “The point is, “believe” is still called “faith.””
With the previously noted distinction that the translators normally translated the noun form as ‘faith” and the verb form as “believe.”
My response:
You haven’t been LISTENING.
The NOUN is defined by the VERB.
Faith is BELIEVING IN SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN’T SEE. Hebrews 11:1 condensed.
You can’t be a – runner(noun), without – running(verb). Likewise you can’t have faith/belief(noun) – without first doing the “believing” (verb)..
Aidan writes, “You can’t be a – runner(noun), without – running(verb). Likewise you can’t have faith/belief(noun) – without first doing the “believing” (verb).”
Being a runner (noun) says that you can run( verb). Having faith (noun) says that you can believe (verb).
rhutchin,
You said:
“Being a runner (noun) says that you can run( verb). Having faith (noun) says that you can believe (verb).”
My response:
NO, Having faith (noun) says that you DO believe. There is no “can” about it.
However, the part that you are missing, always, is…
“IN SOMETHING THAT YOU CANNOT SEE!”
If you can see it, it ain’t faith. It’s only faith if you cannot see it. So again, there is no CAN about it.
Ed Chapman
rhutchin
Having faith (noun) says that you can believe (verb).
br.d
All NORMAL people have the capacity to believe (verb) – which equates to NORMAL people having the capacity to exercise faith (abstract noun).
A Workbook of New Testament Greek
———————————————–
Unlike English, in Koine Greek, nouns decline
That is, they undergo changes in their form depending upon their use in a sentence.
For this reason nouns within Greek grammar textbooks may not be tagged as “Abstract” nouns vs “Concrete” nouns
Abstract nouns show human qualities and characteristics – and denote a quality, or state rather than a concrete object.
English Examples:
loyalty, honesty, trust, confidence, hope, faith, belief
Many “Abstract” nouns in Greek are feminine. Among such nouns in the New Testament we find:
ἡ πίστις, faith
ἡ ἀγάπη, love
ἡ δικαιοσύνη, justice
ἡ εἰρήνη, peace
br.d writes, “All NORMAL people have the capacity to believe (verb) – which equates to NORMAL people having the capacity to exercise faith (abstract noun).’
In the translations of the Greek text, it is the noun that is normally translated as “faith” and the verb that is normally translated as “believe.” Given that “Abstract nouns show human qualities and characteristics” we should expect the human quality or characteristic (noun) to precede the outward manifestation of that quality.characteristic as expressed by the verb.
rhutchin
In the translations of the Greek text, it is the noun that is normally translated as “faith”
br.d
Correction:
Many “Abstract” nouns in Greek are feminine. Among such nouns in the New Testament we find:
ἡ πίστις, faith
ἡ ἀγάπη, love
ἡ δικαιοσύνη, justice
ἡ εἰρήνη, peace
Abstract nouns show human qualities and characteristics – and denote a quality, or state rather than a concrete object.
rhutchin
Given that “Abstract nouns show human qualities and characteristics” we should expect the human quality or characteristic (noun) to precede the outward manifestation of that quality.characteristic as expressed by the verb.
br.d
Here we have yet another human philosophical argument
How are we not surprised! :-]
Thus faith (Abstract Noun) for all NORMAL people – functions as a NORMAL human characteristic-capacity to believe (verb)
But Gnostics are not born NORMAL
And Calvin’s god must give these things to them as special gifts.
But only to the special ELECT ones.
Ironically:
Calvin’s god also exclusively renders-certain a Calvinist’s every perception.
Giving them infallibly decreed FALSE PERCEPTIONS – to be infallibly perceived as TRUE.
Aidan writes, “You can’t be a – runner(noun), without – running(verb). Likewise you can’t have faith/belief(noun) – without first doing the “believing” (verb).”
RH,
“Being a runner (noun) says that you can run( verb). Having faith (noun) says that you can believe (verb).”
Aidan,
You’ve got it backward:
You don’t become a runner (noun) until you learn how to run (verb).Then, and only then, can you state that being a runner(noun) says that you can run (verb). Nor do you have faith (noun) until you start believing (verb). Then, and only then, can you state that having faith(noun) says that you believe (verb). You don’t become a boxer(noun) until you learn how to box(verb). Then, and only then, can you state that being a boxer(noun) says that you can box (verb).
Calvinists function as bio-bots (noun)
Because Calvin’s god designed them to run (verb) from an immutable program of irresistible decrees :-]
And that’s some program where you are a believer before you believe. Rh is a believer that he’s a believer before he believes! But for that to happen, Rh first had to believe that he was a believer before he believed! And so, when Rh believed that he was a believer before he believed – he became a believer that he was a believer before he believed! 🤣
Yea – since whatever belief comes to pass within his brain was predetermined – and his perceptions of himself which come to pass within his brain were predetermined – and his perceptions of his perceptions were predetermined……..etc
What does that say – when all of one’s perceptions are determined by an external mind?
Br.d,
“What does that say – when all of one’s perceptions are determined by an external mind?”
Aidan,
Well, simply put, it says his mind is not his own including his perceptions. It says his faith, if determined by an external mind, is not HIS faith – it’s just an illusion like every other perception in his mind.
Aidan,
Well, simply put, it says his mind is not his own including his perceptions. It says his faith, if determined by an external mind, is not HIS faith – it’s just an illusion like every other perception in his mind.
br.d
Well Said!
You hit the bullseye Aidan!
And I think this is exactly what Dr. William Lane Craig means by “Radical Distinctions” within Calvinism.
And it explains why they spend so much energy trying to hide them.
Aidan writes, “Well, simply put, it says his mind is not his own including his perceptions. It says his faith, if determined by an external mind, is not HIS faith”
No. As God has infinite understanding, he can know all that is to happen without being the immediate, direct cause of all that happens. A person;s faith is derived from gearing the gospel with God facilitating the conveyance of faith through the regeneration of the spirit within the person. God, by His understanding knows that regeneration will result in the hearing of the word producing faith. So, we read of Lydia, “The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul.” God understood that if He opened Lydia’s heart, she would then give heed to the things spoken by Paul.
Aidan
Well, simply put, it says his mind is not his own including his perceptions. It says his faith, if determined by an external mind, is not HIS faith”
rhutchin
No. As God has infinite understanding, he can know all that is to happen without being the immediate, direct cause of all that happens.
br.d
It is wisdom to remember that many things that are stated as NO in Calvinism are actually YES
Only Calvin’s god can make objects move infallibly.
Thus every movement of every internal neurological cog and gear within the Calvinist’s brain is moved by the hand of infallibly.
John Calvin
-quote
Whatever CONCEPTIONS we form in our minds, they were directed by the secret INSPIRATION of GOD .” (Institutes)
Calvinist Paul Helm’s
-quote
Not only is every atom and molecule, every thought and desire, kept in being by God, but every twist and turn of each
of these is under the direct control of god (The Providence of God pg 22)
Calvinist Robert R. McLaughlin
-quote
“God merely PROGRAMMED into the divine decrees all our thoughts, motives, decisions and actions”
(The Doctrine of Divine Decrees)
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.” (Theological Determinism and the Problem of Evil pg 177)
rhutching states:
” A person;s faith is derived from gearing the gospel with God facilitating the conveyance of faith through the regeneration of the spirit within the person. ”
My response:
NO it doesn’t. A person’s faith is derived from BELIEVING IS SOMETHING THAT THEY CAN’T SEE.
NOW…what was that something?
End of story.
You make it too complicated. There is NO REGENERATION going on here.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “NO it doesn’t. A person’s faith is derived from BELIEVING IS SOMETHING THAT THEY CAN’T SEE. ”
I’ll go with Paul on this. “faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” and then Hebrews 11, “faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.’
I guess you are half right.
rhutchin
I’ll go with Paul on this
br.d
Interpretation:
I’ll go with Calvinism’s unique interpretation on this.
rhutchin
I guess you are half right.
br.d
Here is wisdom:
In Calvinism – designing the vast majority of the creatures one creates – for eternal torment in a lake of fire – for one’s good pleasure – is classified as “right”.
That gives one an understanding of how Calvinist’s define the term “right”. :-]
rhutchin states:
“chapmaned24 writes, “NO it doesn’t. A person’s faith is derived from BELIEVING IS SOMETHING THAT THEY CAN’T SEE. ”
I’ll go with Paul on this. “faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” and then Hebrews 11, “faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.’
I guess you are half right.
My response:
1/2 right my a…I am fully right, because faith IS believing in something you can’t see.
I SPECIFICALLY ADDED, which you didn’t quote:
“NOW…what was that something?”
But you NEGLECTED to quote that.
But you did answer it by stating, THE WORD OF GOD.
So you believe in the word of God that you haven’t seen…BLESS THOSE WHO HAVE NOT SEEN AND BELIEVE.
Isn’t that what Jesus told DOUBTING THOMAS?
Calvinists just can’t comprehend what they read. They make a doctrine out of a sentence.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “faith IS believing in something you can’t see.”
According to Hebrews 11, Faith is assurance and conviction – “the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” Faith is a noun and can be likened to belief as a noun. Faith/belief must exist before a person can express faith/belief in “believing.”
10 easy steps in how to dance in circles :-]
rhutchin states:
“chapmaned24 writes, “faith IS believing in something you can’t see.”
According to Hebrews 11, Faith is assurance and conviction – “the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” Faith is a noun and can be likened to belief as a noun. Faith/belief must exist before a person can express faith/belief in “believing.””
My response:
Do you have ADHD? You can’t comprehend what you read much, that’s for sure.
SO, I’m gonna ask you:
Assurance of WHAT?
Conviction of WHAT?
THOSE TWO IS WHAT YOU ARE HOPING FOR…HOPE IS DEFINED AS PATIENTLY WAITING.
So WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR? AND WHY?
Belief may be a noun, but it is NOT the definition of faith.
Change that word BELIEF to BELIEVES, and it changes from a noun to a verb.
Where did you learn ENGLISH?
Ed Chapman
rhutchin states:
“chapmaned24 writes, “It is very easy for me to debunk EVERY concept of Original Sin, no matter WHO explains it. I’ve done it before. ”
Original sin says that the world after Adam sinned was different from the world before Adam sinned. So, debunk that.”
My response:
TRY AGAIN, BUDDY…IT GOES DEEPER THAN THAT. I’VE STUDIED IT. YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE EVICENCE TO BACK UP YOUR STATEMENT.
1 Corinthians 15:42-50 states that Adam was gonna DIE a NATURAL death anyway, all because his body is DIRT.
Learn to comprehend what you read.
Ed Chapman
rhutchin: “Original sin says that the world after Adam sinned was different from the world before Adam sinned. So, debunk that.”
chapmaned24 writes, “TRY AGAIN, BUDDY…IT GOES DEEPER THAN THAT. I’VE STUDIED IT. YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE EVICENCE TO BACK UP YOUR STATEMENT.”
LOL!!! so Ed has debunked all the claims made in the doctrine of Original Sin, but he doesn’t want to play his hand until I provide evidence to back up my statement that “…the world after Adam sinned was different from the world before Adam sinned.”
OK. Here are some ways the world was different:
16 To the woman He said: “I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; In pain you shall bring forth children; Your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you.”
17 Then to Adam He said, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’: “Cursed is the ground for your sake; In toil you shall eat of it All the days of your life.
18 Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you, And you shall eat the herb of the field.
19 In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread Till you return to the ground, For out of it you were taken; For dust you are, And to dust you shall return.”
RH writes,
“God, by His understanding knows that regeneration will result in the hearing of the word producing faith. So, we read of Lydia, “The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul.” God understood that if He opened Lydia’s heart, she would then give heed to the things spoken by Paul.”
Aidan,
There is no regeneration ‘before hearing the word’ mentioned anywhere in any text; hence, highly speculative on your part! The issue is HOW the Lord opened her heart. The Lord opens the heart through the medium of the WORD! Notice the following:
Heb. 4:12;- “For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.”
Peter preaches the gospel, then:
Acts 2:37;- “Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?”
God does not thrust salvation on man:
Acts 11:14;- “‘who will tell you words by which you and all your household will be saved.’”
In the Parable of the Sower, it is the WORD that penetrates men’s hearts – Luke 8: 11-15.
Lydia was already a worshiper of God implying that she was already a believer, one who had faith in God. But when she gave heed, or paid attention to the gospel preached by Paul – she believed the gospel concerning Jesus, and she and her household were baptized.
Aidan,
Just to put my 2 cents regarding Lydia. Paul JUST GOT INTO TOWN. It was Paul’s custom to ALWAYS go to the Jews first before having ANY conversations with Gentiles.
That is my clue that Lydia is a Jew. And as such, SHE is indeed needing regeneration, and why? Because as a Jew, she WAS blind. This goes all the way back to the words of Moses, in Deuteronomy, where he states that God has NOT given them eyes to see, ears to hear, or a mind to understand.
I keep saying it, that the Jews are the only ones needing regerenation, all because they are blind. Gentiles are not.
Example:
One of Calvinists favorite verses:
Romans 3:11
There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
But that was the JEWS UNDER THE LAW. The following is GENTILES…NO NEED FOR GOD TO OPEN HEARTS HERE!
Romans 15:21
But as it is written, To whom he was not spoken of, they shall see: and they that have not heard shall understand.
Ed Chapman
rhutchin
“God, by His understanding knows that regeneration will result in the hearing of the word producing faith.
br.d
10 easy lessons in how Gnostic “Human Philosophy” can draw on scripture in order APPEAR as a “Scriptural Theology”
Basilides:
An early Christian Gnostic teacher in Alexandria Egypt (117 to 138 AD) who claimed to have inherited his teachings from the Apostle Matthias – and who taught that faith is a special gift reserved only for the Gnostic ELECT.
The Gnostic Society Library:
-quote
Faith (pistis) and Knowledge (gnosis) in the Valentinian Gnostic tradition
The distinction between faith (pistis) and knowledge (gnosis) is a very important one in Valentinianism.
As the Gnostic Gospel of Philip says, “No one can receive without faith”
In order to be saved the person had to freely chose to believe and to do good works.
Receiving the Valentinian tradition was only a first step towards the goal of gnosis.
The teaching about faith and gnosis is at the heart of the dispute between the Valentinian’s and Irenaeus of Lyon in his work: “Against Heresies”
Thanks Br.d, It shows you that there’s nothing new under the sun.
I like to use the analogy of mixing paint.
If you mix blue paint with yellow paint you get green.
Its easy to mix them together – but impossible to distinguish the blue and yellow paints once they are mixed together to make green.
Its also impossible to separate them back into their original colors
That’s what happens when Augustine mixes Gnostisism, NeoPlatonism and Catholicism into one theology.
One of the most distinguishing characteristics for me is moral dualism.
Where good can be evil and evil can be good.
Many Non-Calvinist Christians when they bump into Calvinism – get a sense of this aspect of it without knowing what it is.
They may have an internal sense that something is not quite right with it but can’t put their finger on it.
And you may notice this is an aspect that Calvinists tend to spend most of their time trying to keep – out of sight and out of mind.
Br.d,
“One of the most distinguishing characteristics for me is moral dualism.
Where good can be evil and evil can be good.”
Aidan, Isaiah 5:20-21;
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!
Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes,
And prudent in their own sight!
Aidan writes, “Rh first had to believe that he was a believer before he believed!”
My prior condition was that of a child of wrath and that according to my nature. God then made me alive and thereby changed my nature. It was after God made me alive that I could hear the gospel and when I heard the gospel, faith formed within me me. By that faith, I believed the gospel and could be labeled, a believer. The same thing happened to you.
rhutchin
God then made me alive and thereby changed my nature
br.d
Well – in Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) your every perception is predetermined by an external mind before you were created.
So you are at least cognizant of perceptions infallibly decreed to come to pass within your brain.
As John Calvin states it:
-quote:
He shows himself propitious to them, it is not as if he had truly rescued them from death, and taken them under his protection. He only gives them a manifestation of his present mercy. (Institutes)
-quote
But the Lord…….. instills into their minds such a sense of his goodness as can be felt without the Spirit of adoption.
(Institutes)
-quote
We must thus consider both god’s SECRET election and his INNER call. For he alone “knows who are his” .
rhutchin states:
“My prior condition was that of a child of wrath and that according to my nature. God then made me alive and thereby changed my nature. It was after God made me alive that I could hear the gospel and when I heard the gospel, faith formed within me me. By that faith, I believed the gospel and could be labeled, a believer. The same thing happened to you.”
My response:
If you are NOT UNDER THE LAW OF MOSES, no sin, no wrath.
Romans 4:15
Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
Romans 7:9
For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
Ephesians 2:3
Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
THAT MATCHES:
Romans 7:8
8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
and
11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.
and
13 sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.
YOU ARE ALIVE IN GOD BEFORE YOU KNOW WHAT SIN IS. ONCE YOU KNOW WHAT SIN IS, YOU LIVE IN IT, WALLOWING IN IT, ENJOYING IT, HATING IT, ENJOYING/HATING AND YOU ARE SUCKED IN, AND A CHILD OF WRATH.
UNTIL THEN, ALIVE AND INNOCENT.
You need to learn how to read.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “Romans 4:15 “Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.”
In Romans 5, Paul comes back to this point writing, “For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses,…”
So, without the law and no imputation of sin, people still died. People can be unrighteous by nature and therefore judged even if they never have the law. That is why two things had to be accomplished to save a perosn as Paul explains 9n Romans 4:25, “delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification.” Christ died for our sins and was raised to make us righteous. Had Christ not died on the cross, we would not have forgiveness for our sins. Had Christ not been raised, we could not be declared righteous. You can clean up the sins of an unrighteous person but he is still an unrighteous person until you makes him righteous.
rhutchin states:
“So, without the law and no imputation of sin, people still died. People can be unrighteous by nature and therefore judged even if they never have the law. That is why two things had to be accomplished to save a perosn as Paul explains 9n Romans 4:25, “delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification.” Christ died for our sins and was raised to make us righteous. Had Christ not died on the cross, we would not have forgiveness for our sins. Had Christ not been raised, we could not be declared righteous. You can clean up the sins of an unrighteous person but he is still an unrighteous person until you makes him righteous.”
My response:
DUDE, LISTEN TO WHAT YOU JUST SAID. WE ALREADY KNOW PEOPLE DIED.
ABRAHAM DIDN’T HAVE THE LAW, AND YOU ARE TELLING ME THAT HE WAS JUDGED UNRIGHTEOUS FOR SINS THAT WERE NEVER IMPUTED TO HIM?
ZERO SIN THAT WAS IMPUTED TO THEM, BUT JUDGED AS UNRIGHTEOUS, AND SO THEREFORE, BURNING IN HELL WITH A CLEAN RECORD.
You don’t need forgiveness of sins that were never IMPUTED to you. Hello?
Ed Chapman
RH writes,
“It was after God made me alive that I could hear the gospel and when I heard the gospel, faith formed within me me.”
Aidan,
You couldn’t have been ‘made alive’ before you heard the gospel and before you believed. And besides, the scriptures are clear that one is ‘made alive’ in baptism (Col 2:11-13).
Aidan writes, “You couldn’t have been ‘made alive’ before you heard the gospel…”
In John 3, Jesus says, “unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God…unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” I equate being born again to being made alive.. It is a prerequisite for seeing and entering the kingdom of God. As the gospel opens our eyes to see and enter the kingdom of God, we must be born again or made alive in order for the gospel to make sense or before you hear the gospel. Otherwise, it is as Paul says, “we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness,..”
Then, “the scriptures are clear that one is ‘made alive’ in baptism (Col 2:11-13).”
Colossians 2
11 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ,
12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.
We know that the circumcision in v11 is not physical circumcision or else the whole argument against physical circumcision addressed in Galatians and Acts 15 would ave been undone. So, Paul refers to a spiritual circumcision ss that spoke in Deuteronomy, ““Therefore circumcise the foreskin of your heart, and be stiff-necked no longer.,” and “the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live,” and then Paul explains in Romans, “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, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.”
The same sense carries over to baptism. Baptism is not a water baptism but here represents a conversion that finds its basis in Romans 4 where we read of Jesus who, “who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification.” so Paul says in Colossians 3, “…you died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God…” and Galatians, ““I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.” In Colossians Paul identifies baptism with Christ’s death and resurrection so that even as Christ was buried and raised, so we were effectually buried and raised with Him. All this was accomplished at the cross but is now being realized in individuals as the gospel goes out to all nations. It is through the gospel that the Holy Spirit brings about the new birth [ making people alive who were dead in their sins – that then allows people to see and enter the kingdom of God by the faith the Spirit then conveys to those made alive. At least, that is the way I understand it.
Thank you for that fairly comprehensive answer to my last post.
Aidan writes, “You couldn’t have been ‘made alive’ before you heard the gospel…the scriptures are clear that one is ‘made alive’ in baptism (Col 2:11-13).”
Colossians 2
11 and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ;
12 having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.
13 When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions,”
The first thing you notice about v.11 is that this circumcision is not performed by man but by God, because it is “the circumcision made without hands.” And that he defines circumcision as the – “removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ.” But when did this occur? Notice v.12, “HAVING BEEN BURIED WITH HIM IN BAPTISM.” So it reads – in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism..!
Now notice v.13, that they were “dead” before being “circumcised,” but now had been “made alive” having had all their transgressions forgiven. But again, where and when did this circumcision take place? IN BAPTISM according to the previous two verses, where they were united with Him in His death, burial, and resurrection.
Romans 6:4-6; Concurs with all of the above:
“Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin.”
BTW, you said that this baptism is not water baptism? I would like to disagree! Did you notice in both passages above, that this baptism is associated with forgiveness of sins? The only baptism that is associated with the forgiveness of sins – is water baptism Acts 2:38. And that too is the only one that involves being buried and raised up, is when one is buried in water and then raised up with Him through faith in the working of God! – Col. 2:12.
Aidan writes, “you said that this baptism is not water baptism? I would like to disagree!”
I don’t see Paul holding to any of the Jewish traditions. In Acts 15 and Galatians, we find Paul arguing against the need for circumcision. Hebrews (allegedly written by, or at least reflecting Paul’s thinking) argues against the need for the system of animal sacrifices or of the priestly caste to oversee those sacrifices. Elsewhere, In Romans 14, Paul argues against the need to abstain from certain foods. I see no reason for Paul to cling to water baptism as a physical rite in the church or the Faith.
Aidan writes, “you said that this baptism is not water baptism? I would like to disagree!”
RH,
“I don’t see Paul holding to any of the Jewish traditions.”
Aidan,
I’m a bit shocked that you would think water baptism is a Jewish tradition? The baptism in the name of Jesus Christ was not something commanded under the Mosaic law, but as part of the new covenant. Jesus commanded baptism in His name after His death and resurrection, just before He ascended back into heaven. It is what is commonly known as the baptism of the great commission to preach the gospel in all the world.
In Mark 16:15-16; The command to believe and be baptized is universal in scope.
“And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.”
In Matthew 28:18-20; It is both universal and to the end of time in scope.
“And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, “teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.”
In Acts 2:38-39; Baptism is unto the remission of sins, and universal in scope!
“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.”
In Acts 8:36-38; After he preached Jesus, they both went down into the water, and he baptized him!
“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?” 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.” So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him.”
Again, I’m quite surprised you don’t know this.
Aidan,
Why do you never discuss John the Baptist Baptisms. Was that a Jewish custom? Was it part of the law of Moses? Was it necessary for REMISSION OF SINS? You always speak of Baptisms from what you call, THE GREAT COMMISSION, but John’s Baptism, you never discuss as if it has NO MEANING at all.
In any case, you know my view on your water baptism. It’s no different than a bath. No magical power. But relaxing. Who don’t love to go SWIMMING! Especially on a nice hot day.
Besides, TRADITION from the apostolic days, no one was dunked in bath water, or a tub; no hot tub, no swimming pool. It was a river. If we are gonna be OBEDIENT to this water thing, don’t ya think we ought to do it in the same exact manner of a RIVER? Even in the winter time? How cold does it get in the winter in Israel? No hot running water! Polar bear swim?
Ed Chapman
Ed,
“but John’s Baptism, you never discuss as if it has NO MEANING at all.”
Aidan,
The baptism commanded by Jesus under the great commission superseded John’s baptism. John’s mission was only temporary, it was to make preparation for the coming Messiah. When Paul found some disciples in Ephesus who had only been taught John’s baptism, it was deemed to be insufficient, they had to be baptized in Jesus name Acts 19: 3-5.
Ed,
“If we are gonna be OBEDIENT to this water thing, don’t ya think we ought to do it in the same exact manner of a RIVER?”
Aidan,
If the command was specific, namely, to be baptized in a river, I would agree. But it’s not! Instead, it’s just water, which is a generic command meaning any water will do! Indeed, Naaman was told to be dipped seven times in the Jordan river. Now that’s very specific! If he’d done it anywhere else, he would not have been cleansed of his leprosy. But baptism in Jesus name is not just a dunking in water, it’s deeper than that. If you look at Col. 2:12, baptism involves “faith in the working of God.” And a uniting with the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, Rom. 6: 3-6; Col. 2:11-14.
That’s not what i asked. What was its meaning, and was it a part of the law of moses? Was it Jewish tradition? Why was it started to begin with? Why was John baptizing people of it has no meaning?
Ed
Ed,
“Why do you never discuss John the Baptist Baptisms………… You always speak of Baptisms from what you call, THE GREAT COMMISSION, but John’s Baptism, you never discuss as if it has NO MEANING at all.”
Aidan,
Twice you asked, ‘ why do you never DISCUSS John’s baptism’. First, at the very start, and then you asked it again at the end of the same short paragraph. Therefore I focused on the main question! The reason I don’t generally discuss John’s baptism, is not that it had no meaning in its time – it did have meaning in its time – but because it’s gone, and is not applicable to us today. So what’s your point? Why are you still asking these other questions?
Aidan,
Here is my point. We all know that the purpose of John the Baptist was to MAKE WAY…Prophecy of Elijah…that’s a no brainer that you and I both agree on. So, I’m not discussing what we both agree with. That’s not my issue.
Here is my issue:
Joe Schmuckitelly (Generic Name we used to use in the Navy when giving examples) goes to John to be Baptized.
WHY did he go to be baptized? When was this baptism thing instituted? What was it’s purpose to JOE? Did it do ANYTHING “FOR” Joe?
You did notice that Jesus was Baptized by John. And the end result is that Jesus got the Holy Spirit because of it. But what about Joe? What did he get? Did anything happen to him, or did he just get wet? Was his sins forgiven, or did his sins remain?
These questions, and a whole lot more questions that are not even mentioned is the reason that I ask.
But it’s as if you bypass this focus altogether, all because of a great commission, so you dismiss it. But it has a purpose, and you don’t speak of it’s purpose.
If you don’t wish to, that’s fine, BUT, I wish you would put some perspective on it.
I’m not hammering you on this…I’m just curios as to your reasoning.
Ed
Ed,
“These questions, and a whole lot more questions that are not even mentioned is the reason that I ask.”
“But it’s as if you bypass this focus altogether, all because of a great commission, so you dismiss it. But it has a purpose, and you don’t speak of it’s purpose.”
Aidan,
Here’s what’s curious! You mock and dismiss the baptism of the new covenant, which we are under today, and say it has no real purpose except to get wet. But on the other hand, you want to know all about another baptism which ended 2000 years ago, which does not apply to anyone under the new covenant, saying that it has a purpose for us today? You’ll have to be more forthcoming than that!
rhutchin
The demons have personal knowledge of God. They hate God. Thus, there disobedience.
br.d
A nice example of how the C brain is conditioned to alter the text while reading.
James 2:19B Even the demons believe and tremble.
And the Calvinist brain is conditioned to alter the word “believe” in that text to “personal knowledge”
And v.20 calls it faith – which is something else Rh doesn’t recognize!
Aidan
And v.20 calls it faith – which is something else Rh doesn’t recognize!
br.d
A conditioned mind can only comprehend what the person who conditioned it puts inside it. :-]
And there is centuries worth of conditioning put into those brains!
It’s mind boggling! Pun well intended.
Aidan
It’s mind boggling! Pun well intended.
br.d
Yea – what NORMAL people call “De-formed” they call “Reformed” :-]
Br.d,
“Yea – what NORMAL people call “De-formed” they call “Reformed” :-]
Aidan,
Watch out! You could be sued for – De-formation!
Yes, “P” = Perseverance of the Saints.
Whenever I use a single letter in my comments, they correspond to the TULIP acrostic.
“T” in my mind is not Total Depravity. It is Total Inability. I think “inability” more precisely characterizes the Calvinist position. R.C. Sproul loved to use the analogy of a corpse – it is “unable” to respond verses “unwilling” to respond. “Dead in your trespasses and sins” for him could only mean a corpse, not a death sentence. By that logic, Adam should have keeled over dead the day that he ate the fruit. He died both spiritually and physically, but why then did God keep him physically alive for more than 900 years? Perhaps it was so that Adam could be redeemed and perhaps it was because that as long as we have breath, we have a choice and are not truly the spiritual corpses that Sproul insisted? Just sayin’
As I said before, we are dealing with a theology that is neat, tidy, internally consistent, and…
unbiblical.
The more I think of it – the more I think the “T” in the TULIP should stand for TOTALLY programmed
Now that I have been made aware that gotquestions.org is fueled by reformed™ theology (is there a logo for that?), it sheds new light on things. Take this article, for instance: https://www.gotquestions.org/dead-in-trespasses-and-sins.html
There is some interesting double-talk going on. It’s kind of like playing “Where’s Waldo.”
The corpse analogy is on full display, as unbiblical as it is. But pay attention to the very last sentence:
We were all dead in our trespasses and sins, but we can be made alive through the blood of Jesus Christ our Lord.
Notice the very careful inclusion of one “all” but not two. It correctly appears before “dead” but is then (un)curiously omitted before “be made alive”. This secret code must be understood. ALL are dead, but only the ELECT can be made alive – hence, the removal of “all” when describing the antidote.
Great eye!
Once one learns what to look for – one realizes why Calvinism has a well earned reputation for double-talk
The Calvinist mind needs to create a VIRTUAL BRIDGE between his 100% predestined world – and the world of scripture.
Dr. Jerry Walls – Whats wrong with Calvinism
-quote:
“If Calvinists didn’t rely so heavily on misleading rhetoric, their theology would lose all credibility within two years.”
The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
-quote:
“Paul Helm, another staunch theological determinist of the Calvinist variety, simply says that God’s providence is ‘extended to all that He has created’ (1993, p. 39). The problem with such characterizations is that they are subject to multiple interpretations, some of whom would be affirmed by theological indeterminists.”
Dr. William Lane Craig – Four Views On Divine Providence
-quote
Paul Kjoss Helseth….in .‘The True View of Providence Summarized’ falls short of expressing the radical distinctives of the Reformed position that Helseth defends.”
Norman Geisler – Chosen but Free
-quote
“Some Calvinists use smoke-and-mirror tactics to avoid the harsh implications of their view” (pg 104)
“This is done by redefining terms and Theological Doublespeak” (pg 261)
Laurence M. Vance – The Other Side of Calvinism
– quote
The confusing labyrinth of Calvinist terminology” (pg 556)
Micah Coate – The Cultish side of Calvinism
-quote
“Calvinists arguments are buried in theological and grammatical doublespeak.”
Ronnie W. Rogers – Reflections of a Disenchanted Calvinist
-quote
“As mentioned in several places throughout this book, within Calvinism there is a problem of what I call doubletalk. But I am not implying immoral or clandestine trickery. Nor am I suggesting conspiratorial deceit. I must admit that upon reflection on my time being a Calvinist, I did the same thing. I did not do this out ill motive or intent to deceive, or because of a lack of desire to be faithful to the scripture. Nor do I ascribe this to my Calvinist brothers. As a matter of fact, I did it because I believed Calvinism and the Scripture; and this brought about conflicts, or at least unconscious responses to the conflicts, which I now see as doubletalk. This doubletalk obscured the harsh realities of Calvinism and the inconsistencies between Scripture and Calvinism. ”
David L. Allen, Eric Hankins, and Adam Harwood – Anyone Can Be Saved
-quote
Calvinism’s double-talk. By double-talk, I specifically and only mean thinking….speaking in such a way that obscures the disquieting realities of Calvinism. If a person accepts these realities, then he can be a knowledgeable and consistent Calvinist. But if one is unwilling to face them and accept them, he cannot be a consistent Calvinist. Additionally, I am not calling anyone a double-talker nor is my use of this term intended in any sense to be a pejorative.”
Gilbert VanOrder, – Calvinism’s Conflicts
-quote
Calvinists then have to resort to double-talk in order to explain how human responsibility is still involved even though it isn’t. If a man can do nothing to change his condition, then he cannot be held responsible for changing his condition”.
Ex-Calvinist Daniel Gracely – Calvinism a closer look
-quote
Calvinist and Non-Calvinist do not share the same meaning of words….. Remember, Calvinism is merely the invoking of associative meaning, not real meaning. By ‘not real’ I mean that the meaning is destroyed in the overall thought of the clause or sentence. For, of course, at one level the Calvinist understands the general meaning of words. But when he strings them together in such a way that it forms an idea that is false… 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….. Thus 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.”
Francis Hodgson – The Calvinistic Doctrine of Predestination Examined and Refuted, 1855
-quote
The apology for this gross misapplication of language…..is found in their distressing emergency. In no other way can they, with any plausibility, meet their opponents.”
mrteebs writes, “But pay attention to the very last sentence:
‘We were all dead in our trespasses and sins, but we can be made alive through the blood of Jesus Christ our Lord.'”
Good point. God can save all, so it should be “…we can all be made alive…”
Of course, “can” does not mean “will.” Ephesians 2 says, “…even when we were dead in trespasses, [God] made us alive together with Christ…” Who are “we” and “us”? Is it the same as “all”?
Yep! I can see how “total depravity” – dead – and “total inability” go hand in hand in Calvinism. But in Ephesians 2:1-3, notice that Paul does not say that they were born dead, but rather, were dead as a result of their trespasses and sins in which they themselves had walked. Notice also, they were dead men “walking”, and “living” in the lusts of the flesh, “indulging” etc.. I would think that the term “dead” here cannot be like when we say the animal is “dead” and ready for burial, or for the place of refuse. That kind of dead cannot do or respond to anything, but men can respond to the gospel. Rather the term has reference to the condition of a broken relationship with God, eg. (prodigal son). Though he was “dead,” he was able to get up and come back to the Father of his own volition. There is no doubt that sin separates one from God (Isa. 59:2); but fellowship with the Father and the Son means life.
Aidan,
Your use of the word DEAD is PERFECT here. I have NOTHING to argue with you about your comment. THIS is what I have been saying all along. Some get it, some don’t. Calvinism does not get it.
However, I wish that you would use that same reasoning regarding sin being dead, that we are dead to the law, etc.
Romans 7 describes the wife of a husband that died, that by the law, if, while he is alive, she is violating the law if marries someone else, while still being married. But if he dies, she is NO LONGER an adulteress, she is LOOSED from the law that she was in violation of, all because the husband is DEAD.
Sin is dead.
Ed Chapman
Aidan writes, “in Ephesians 2:1-3, notice that Paul does not say that they were born dead, but rather, were dead as a result of their trespasses and sins in which they themselves had walked”
Paul does not say that they were dead “as a result of their trespasses and sins,” but that they were dead “in trespasses and sins.” So, as v5 says, “we were dead in trespasses.” The presence of trespasses is identified with their being dead. Trespasses result from being dead rather than their being dead resulting from trespasses.
To this, we can add:
– They could not see or enter the kingdom of heaven (John 3)
– They were without the spirit; “you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. (Romans 8)
– They were without faith as, “faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” (Romans 10)
– As gentiles, people were “without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.” (Ephesians 2)
– As gentiles, “you should no longer walk as the rest of the Gentiles walk, in the futility of their mind, having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart; who, being past feeling, have given themselves over to lewdness, to work all uncleanness with greediness. (Ephesians 4)
– As Jews, “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. ” (Romans 9)
rhutchin,
You had said to Aidan,
“Paul does not say that they were dead “as a result of their trespasses and sins,” but that they were dead “in trespasses and sins.” So, as v5 says, “we were dead in trespasses.” The presence of trespasses is identified with their being dead. Trespasses result from being dead rather than their being dead resulting from trespasses.”
My response:
Due to the Calvinists NOT listening to the REST OF THE STORY, no one is DEAD in their trespasses and sins, until they FIRST DIE.
You have to die first, THEN you are dead in your trespasses and sins.
Not sure if anyone informed you, but LIFE comes before death, otherwise, death has no meaning.
Flowers live before they die. Dogs live before they die. And yes, all doggies go to heaven. But that’s another story. Life before death. ALWAYS.
Unless you are Rod Serling, introducing us to…THE TWILIGHT ZONE!
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “…no one is DEAD in their trespasses and sins, until they FIRST DIE.”
So, is a person without faith dead or alive? Does lack of faith lead to sin or does sin lead to lack of faith?
In 1 John we read, “whatever is born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world–our faith.” So, without faith, is one dead?
rhutchin asks:
So, is a person without faith dead or alive? Does lack of faith lead to sin or does sin lead to lack of faith?
In 1 John we read, “whatever is born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world–our faith.” So, without faith, is one dead?
My response:
Apples and Oranges man.
How many times do we have to go over the LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR to Hebrews 11:1?
Faith IS…
What is faith? Faith is KNOWING THAT YOU ARE GONNA GET WHAT YOU ARE WAITING FOR.
SO, what are you waiting for?
LIFE comes before death. Always, whether it be spiritual death, or physical death.
You CAN’T DIE A SPIRITUAL DEATH UNTIL YOU…YOU…YOU EAT of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
IN other words, you MUST be TOLD what SIN IS before you can be dead.
Romans 7 explains it well.
The Law and Sin
7 What should we say then? That the law is sinful? Not at all! Yet I wouldn’t have known what sin was unless the law had told me. The law says, “Do not want what belongs to other people.” (Exodus 20:17; Deuteronomy 5:21) If the law hadn’t said that, I would not have known what it was like to want what belongs to others. 8 But the commandment gave sin an opportunity. Sin caused me to want all kinds of things that belong to others. A person can’t sin by breaking a law if that law doesn’t exist. 9 Before I knew about the law, I was alive. But then the commandment came. Sin came to life, and I died. 10 I found that the commandment that was supposed to bring life actually brought death. 11 When the commandment gave sin the opportunity, sin tricked me. It used the commandment to put me to death. 12 So the law is holy. The commandment also is holy and right and good.
13 Did what is good cause me to die? Not at all! Sin had to be recognized for what it really is. So it used what is good to bring about my death. Because of the commandment, sin became totally sinful.
THEN AND ONLY THEN ARE YOU DEAD IN YOUR TRESPASSES AND SIN.
———————–
Can you now grasp that Abraham didn’t have the law to inform him of sin? Notice verse 7, “I WOULD NOT HAVE KNOWN WHAT SIN WAS UNLESS THE LAW HAD TOLD ME.”.
And by that knowledge, he recognized that he was guilty…just like Adam and Eve did when they ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Until then…THEY WERE ALIVE…NOT DEAD, BUT ALIVE…SO LIFE COMES FIRST.
To RESURRECT, spiritually, that is, which is another way of saying BORN…AGAIN…AKA YOUR JOHN REFERENCE OF BORN OF GOD, then you must believe the PROMISE, which is what?
You haven’t identified what the PROMISE IS YET. You only showed me the PROMISE of eternal life, but did not show me where that promise is in the HEBREW scriptures yet.
So I will.
PROMISED LAND IS THE ETERNAL LIFE SPOKEN OF.
JESUS IS THE PROMISED SEED SPOKEN OF.
So what you are missing is the promise of the PROMISED SEED, Jesus.
So you must believe what is WRITTEN about Jesus, and if you do, then you get the promise of eternal life.
How is sin COVERED? Sacrifices for the Jews UNDER THE LAW.
Jesus is the PASSOVER LAMB, which COVERS SIN, the blood of the “LAMB”.
Your understanding of faith is completely different than that of the definition of it.
Believe in the promise of eternal life thru Jesus and BOOM, SAVED. But, for some goof ball reason, you think that God must GIVE YOU BELIEF? No, all he gives is the PROMISE. It’s up to YOU to believe it. Not God.
God blinded the Jews, but that seems to be something of silliness to you. He didn’t blind the Gentiles. Jews are the only ones needing “regeneration”, all because God blinded them from the start of this. But you think that is hogwash, I know.
What you Calvinists do, is that you take EVERYTHING that was meant for JEWS ONLY, and apply it to all of humanity. Hence your teaching of regeneration that extends to Gentiles who come to Jesus.
You guys are all confused.
Ed Chapman
Aidan writes, “in Ephesians 2:1-3, notice that Paul does not say that they were born dead, but rather, were dead as a result of their trespasses and sins in which they themselves had walked”
RH,
“Paul does not say that they were dead “as a result of their trespasses and sins,” but that they were dead “in trespasses and sins.” So, as v5 says, “we were dead in trespasses.” The presence of trespasses is identified with their being dead. Trespasses result from being dead rather than their being dead resulting from trespasses.”
Aidan,
ESV:- And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked,..
NKJV:- And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, in which you once walked..
NASB:- And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked…
No matter what translation you go for, not one of them says that you were dead because of the sin of Adam! There is absolutely no mention of Adam in these texts! Even when you exclude the NASB version: At the very least, they say to the Ephesians, that you were dead in the trespasses and sins IN WHICH YOU ONCE WALKED! This is very simple – they were dead in no one else’s sins but their own! Even Paul himself said that he was alive, and then he died.
Aidan writes, “No matter what translation you go for, not one of them says that you were dead because of the sin of Adam!”
That is not Paul’s argument. Paul argues that God made them alive and had to do so because they were dead. They were dead in their sins. First God had to make them alive (i.e., regeneration). Then, after God makes them alive, God had to deal with their sins and this through faith.
Paul intimates that they were dead and this is the cause of their sin when he says, “we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.” The term, “by nature,” points to a condition with which one is born.
rhutchin,
You had said:
“That is not Paul’s argument. Paul argues that God made them alive and had to do so because they were dead. They were dead in their sins. First God had to make them alive (i.e., regeneration). Then, after God makes them alive, God had to deal with their sins and this through faith.”
My response:
That’s NOT what Romans Chapter 7 states in regards to DEAD and ALIVE.
Not only that, WHERE do you people get the idea that “make alive” has ANYTHING to do with “regeneration”?
It just fascinates me the GOOFINESS of reform beliefs.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “That’s NOT what Romans Chapter 7 states in regards to DEAD and ALIVE.”
Let’s get Ephesians 2 straight and then harmonize it with Romans 7 and every other Scripture as we should.
Then, “Not only that, WHERE do you people get the idea that “make alive” has ANYTHING to do with “regeneration”?.
The idea of regeneration comes from John 3, where Jesus said that a person must be born again. The term “born again” is then traced through 1 Peter 1 where we read, “having been born again…through the word of God,” This is said to make the experience of being born again a spiritual and not a physical experience. This agrees with Titus 3, “…according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit,…” Ephesians 2 is also viewed as involving a spiritual change in the change from being dead in sin to being made alive with Christ. This links being made alive to being born again. If not, then we would have two unique changes God initiates in a sinner – (1) being born again and (2) being made alive and no one has made the argument for two unique changes. If you want, you can develop that argument.
rhutchin states:
“Let’s get Ephesians 2 straight and then harmonize it with Romans 7 and every other Scripture as we should.”
My response:
THAT’S YOU MAJOR MALFUNCTION BUDDY.
You have no clue what sentence structuring is, so your conclusions on Ephesians 2 is OUT OF WHACK.
THRU is the key word, and faith is OUR FAITH. Faith is not a gift, and I have NO IDEA why you can’t figure that out with ENGLISH RULES on sentence structuring.
Second, Romans 7 has NOTHING TO DO WITH Ephesians 2, therefore, there is NOTHING TO HARMONIZE.
Jeeeeesh!
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “Second, Romans 7 has NOTHING TO DO WITH Ephesians 2, therefore, there is NOTHING TO HARMONIZE.”
Then why did you write, “That’s NOT what Romans Chapter 7 states in regards to DEAD and ALIVE.” if it had nothing to do with the current discussion?
rhutchin,
You had said:
“chapmaned24 writes, “Second, Romans 7 has NOTHING TO DO WITH Ephesians 2, therefore, there is NOTHING TO HARMONIZE.”
Then why did you write, “That’s NOT what Romans Chapter 7 states in regards to DEAD and ALIVE.” if it had nothing to do with the current discussion?”
My response:
OK, let me hear you HARMONIZE…SING IT!
Paul states in Romans 7 that he was ALIVE BEFORE HE KNEW WHAT SIN WAS. But to you, he was ALWAYS DEAD IN HIS TRESPASSES AND SINS SINCE LONG BEFORE HE WAS BORN.
I’m saying NO. He was NEVER DEAD IN HIS TRESPASSES AND SINS UNTIL HE FINALLY LEARNED OF IT.
What age was that? I can tell ya! In Judaism, for males…AGE 13. So from birth til the DAY BEFORE he turned 13, he was ALIVE, NO SIN TO BE IMPUTED, UNTIL HE LEARNED OF IT.
It’s called, BAR MITZVAH.
Oh, that’s right, you people don’t think too highly of Jews, huh? That’s why you would never want to LEARN FROM THEM, cuz Calvin has the INSIDE SCOOP!
Ed Chapman
rhutchin states:
“The idea of regeneration comes from John 3, where Jesus said that a person must be born again. The term “born again” is then traced through 1 Peter 1 where we read, “having been born again…through the word of God,” This is said to make the experience of being born again a spiritual and not a physical experience. This agrees with Titus 3, “…according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit,…” Ephesians 2 is also viewed as involving a spiritual change in the change from being dead in sin to being made alive with Christ. This links being made alive to being born again. If not, then we would have two unique changes God initiates in a sinner – (1) being born again and (2) being made alive and no one has made the argument for two unique changes. If you want, you can develop that argument.”
My response:
This is another MAJOR MALFUNCTION.
Regeneration ONLY APPLIES TO THE JEWS, because THEY ALONE are the BLIND ONES. Gentiles are NOT BLIND and therefore, are NOT IN NEED OF ANY KIND OF REGENERATION. Period.
Born again has nothing to do with REGENERATION.
Why? Because God was WITH THE JEWS all along, so long as they maintained SACRIFICES. Once Jesus died and rose again, NO MORE TEMPLE FOR GOD TO LIVE IN, God departed, and NOW lives in HUMANS bodies instead.
Born again is about GOD returning TO YOU
LIFE requires a body. Right? If your spirit is not in your body, you are DEAD.
Spiritual death is when GOD departs YOU. Hence Romans 7 when Paul states he’s ALIVE … BEFORE HE DIED.
To get God BACK into your life, THEN AFTER YOUR SPIRITUAL DEATH, YOU MUST BE BORN AGAIN. That is known as RESURRECTION FROM THE DEAD in SPIRITUAL TERMS.
But spiritual life came first before you became dead in trespasses and sins. LIFE ALWAYS COMES FIRST.
You people are all mixed up. You don’t even know what life and death is, whether it be natural, or spiritual, let alone the order of events.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “Regeneration ONLY APPLIES TO THE JEWS, because THEY ALONE are the BLIND ONES.”
That distinguishes the non-Calvinist from the Calvinist. The Calvinist says, “regeneration,” describes any sinner who is born again or made alive.
I don’t know what being blind has to do with being dead.
rhutchin states:
“chapmaned24 writes, “Regeneration ONLY APPLIES TO THE JEWS, because THEY ALONE are the BLIND ONES.”
That distinguishes the non-Calvinist from the Calvinist. The Calvinist says, “regeneration,” describes any sinner who is born again or made alive.
I don’t know what being blind has to do with being dead.”
My response:
EXACTLY MY POINT. BLIND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING DEAD.
YOU are the one who is talking DEAD. YOU ARE THE ONE TALKING REGENERATION IS BRINGING ONE BACK FROM THE DEAD.
and I am disagreeing that regeneration has anything to do with life or death. NOT RELATED.
Regeneration isn’t about LIFE OR DEATH.
Regeneration has to do with the UNBLINDING of the Jews. THAT’S ALL.
DUH!!!!
Ed Chapman
chspmsned24 writes, “Regeneration has to do with the UNBLINDING of the Jews. THAT’S ALL”
So, you would seem to say say that Jesus was referring to the Jews only when He told Nicodemus that he must be both again, so only Jews are born again and thereby enabled to see and enter the kingdom of heaven.
rhutchin,
You had said:
“chspmsned24 writes, “Regeneration has to do with the UNBLINDING of the Jews. THAT’S ALL”
So, you would seem to say say that Jesus was referring to the Jews only when He told Nicodemus that he must be both again, so only Jews are born again and thereby enabled to see and enter the kingdom of heaven.”
my response:
Did you hear me say that?
I NEVER ONCE indicated that BORN AGAIN has anything to do with REGENERATION. THAT IS YOUR THING, NOT MINE.
Regeneration has nothing to do with born again. Regeneration has nothing to do with LIFE OR DEATH.
Regeneration has to do with UNBLINDING the Jews to see. THAT’S ALL.
The conversation to Nicodemus has nothing to do with the word REGENERATION at all.
Ed Chapman
rhutchin
Let’s get Ephesians 2 straight and then harmonize it with Romans 7 and every other Scripture as we should.
br.d
TRANSLATION:
Lets follow Calvinism’s indoctrination procedure :-]
Aidan writes, “No matter what translation you go for, not one of them says that you were dead because of the sin of Adam!”
RH,
“That is not Paul’s argument. Paul argues that God made them alive and had to do so because they were dead…Paul intimates that they were dead and this is the cause of their sin… and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.” The term, “by nature,” points to a condition with which one is born.”
Aidan,
Now correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t Calvinism teach that we are born dead because of the sin of Adam? And you’ve just admitted that we are dead before we sin? And, that we are born children of wrath? If that doesn’t go back to Adam’s sin I don’t know what does! But I agree with you – “That is not Paul’s argument.”
Paul simply reminds them that – you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which YOU once walked. The term, “by nature,” points to a condition which by long habit has become nature: We sometimes call it “second nature.” What’s interesting is that there are quite a few translations that translate it as the NASB does.
NASB:- “And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked…” They explain it as, “you were dead (by reason of) your trespasses and sins,..” It certainly seems to fit the context and the rest of scripture!
Aidan writes, ‘doesn’t Calvinism teach that we are born dead because of the sin of Adam?”
Yes. Adam sinned and his nature was corrupted. Consequently, his descendants are born spiritually dead and are “by nature children of wrath.” The corrupted nature then gives rise to sin.
Then, “The term, “by nature,” points to a condition which by long habit has become nature: We sometimes call it “second nature.”
Or it can refer to the nature (or spiritual condition) of the person at birth (or conception).
So, a person can be dead by reason of their sin or they can be dead by reason of their being children of wrath.
rhutchin
Yes. Adam sinned and his nature was corrupted….
br.d
Calvinist Interpretation:
Adam was infallibly decreed to do the opposite of what Calvin’s god commanded – and NOT PERMITTED to do otherwise.
Aidan writes,
“The term, “by nature,” points to a condition which by long habit has become nature: We sometimes call it “second nature.”
RH,
“Or it can refer to the nature (or spiritual condition) of the person at birth (or conception).”
“So, a person can be dead by reason of their sin or they can be dead by reason of their being children of wrath.”
Aidan,
Dead at birth? Children of wrath at birth? You first need to show a scripture that proves inherited depravity! And there’s nothing in this context that would demand the conclusions you are making.
Aidan,
A moment of TRUCE between us…
You had said:
“Dead at birth? Children of wrath at birth? You first need to show a scripture that proves inherited depravity! And there’s nothing in this context that would demand the conclusions you are making.”
My response:
rhutchin’s answer will be rooted in the doctrine of “ORIGINAL SIN”, which, by way, did not originate with Calvinism, but with Catholicism…which some people ACCEPT as, what they called, THE CHURCH.
Me, never being Catholic, think that ALL of that time period from AD 300, that made decisions for the rest of us…ALL FRAUDS…ALL OF THEM. Others, especially the reformers/Baptists/Lutherans, etc., HIGHLY TAKE THEIR WORD as GOSPEL…pun intended.
But, that’s just me.
We may resume our feud now!!
Ed Chapman
Ed,
A moment of TRUTH between us…
I agree, the problem with this original sin nonsense, is that it came from a great Apostasy called Catholicism. By AD 300, this so-called church was nothing but a corrupted pagan god within imperial Rome. And to think that Augustine got much of his teachings from that church – and then Calvin got much of his from Augustine! And then as a result of fighting among themselves over their corrupted teachings, out comes the reformation – to reform into more corrupted teachings. So, Yep! Regarding Rh, I can see where the corrupting influence is coming from, and it is centuries old!
I got a good laugh out of your “all doggies go to heaven” the other day.
Nice thought actually!
Aidan,
Agreed!! But I have also learned that BOTH SIDES here believe in Original Sin. Both you and I are outsiders, who don’t. But both sides here do. That’s always an obstacle, because then you have both sides defending it. And this is what gets me kicked off Baptist blogs sometimes.
Ed
Aidan writes, ‘I agree, the problem with this original sin nonsense,…. ”
Everyone should agree that the world before Adam sinned was a lot different than the world after Adam sinned. The term, “Original sin,” seeks to identify the changes that occurred. Your problem is not with the Original Sin as a concept but to that which Original Sin is said to encompass. For example, the Calvinist will say that Original Sin includes the corruption of the human nature and the loss of faith as consequences of Adam’s sin. If you were to define Original Sin, you would exclude those two things resulting from Adam’s sin.
rhutchin,
It is very easy for me to debunk EVERY concept of Original Sin, no matter WHO explains it. I’ve done it before.
Your use of Romans 5 is distorted to support your belief in it, and that’s a start.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “It is very easy for me to debunk EVERY concept of Original Sin, no matter WHO explains it. I’ve done it before. ”
Original sin says that the world after Adam sinned was different from the world before Adam sinned. So, debunk that.
rhutchin
Original sin says that the world after Adam sinned was different from the world before Adam sinned.
br.d
And in Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) since Calvin’s god designs every nano-second of whatsoever comes to pass
And does not make available any alternative possibilities from what is infallibly decreed
And does not permit Adam to be/do otherwise from what is infallibly decreed
Nothing changes within the algorithms of Adam’s programing.
Thus in Calvinism Adam was designed to compatibilistically transition from condition [001] to condition [002]
And this was done in order to give the APPEARANCE of man having the liberty to determine his own condition.
RH, writes,
“For example, the Calvinist will say that Original Sin includes the corruption of the human nature and the loss of faith as consequences of Adam’s sin. If you were to define Original Sin, you would exclude those two things resulting from Adam’s sin.”
Aidan,
I grew up in Catholicism being taught about original sin. So when I studied it out for myself I find no reason from scripture to include those two things you speak of! Give me a scriptural reason to include them, and I’ll include them.
rhutchin
“For example, the Calvinist will say that Original Sin includes the corruption of the human nature and the loss of faith as consequences of Adam’s sin.
br.d
And this is how the Calvinist mind creates a virtual bridge between a 100% predestined world – and the world of scripture.
Except he can’t produce any scriptures beyond John 6:44 and Rom 10, which have nothing to do with what happened in the garden. Maybe he knows that there are no verses to bridge the gap between Calvinism and scripture. I don’t think he knows the difference between Inference and necessary inference!!
Well that really doesn’t matter to them – because they have the exclusive authority to make god and man appear in whatever image they choose! That is part of the Calvinist inheritance. :-]
It’s the same in every false system of theology, human authority controls the narrative. I can name two others straight off – The Papal Throne, and – The Watchtower. Where is the narrative controlled from in Calvinism? Is it their creeds, or Calvin’s writings?
Aidan asks “Where is the narrative controlled from in Calvinism?”
The narrative is controlled by God by virtue of His absolute sovereignty over His creation
Aidan asks “Where is the narrative controlled from in Calvinism?”
RH,
“The narrative is controlled by God”
Aidan,
That’s precisely what the Pope says, and that’s precisely what the Watchtower says!! I would venture to say that the Mormons say the same thing too. Like Calvinists, they all say that the narrative is controlled by God in terms of favoring their religion. So how are people to tell which narrative is God’s? Look to what the spokesman(prophet) is teaching! The Pope is the spokesman for Catholicism and Calvin is the spokesman of Calvinism – each declaring a different narrative!!
John tells us how one can test these so-called spokesmen/prophets of God! John mentions a number of things, but one of the crucial tests he gives has to do with what they teach; that the ones who listen to the apostles teaching – these are of God.
(1 Jn 4:1,6): – “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 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.”
And I can tell you now, that all those mentioned above – utterly fail that test!!
RH, “The narrative is controlled by God”
Aidan, “That’s precisely what the Pope says, and that’s precisely what the Watchtower says!!”
I guess they got one thing right.
Then, “So how are people to tell which narrative is God’s?”
By reference to the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone. It is there that God has revealed Himself and what He is doing.
Then, “Calvin is the spokesman of Calvinism”
Not exactly. Since Calvin, much more has been done to shape what we now call Calvinism. For example, John Owen began to develop the doctrine of atonement, Jonathan Edwards began to develop the doctrine of free will. For the most part, current reformed writers, e.g., RC Sproul have expressed all the doctrinal developments over the years in the books and sermons they have presented. Because of this, Calvin is not the final authority on what we call Calvinism today but Calvin’s Institutes and his commentaries continue to provide much guidance for those who identify themselves as Calvinists.
Aidan
That’s precisely what the Pope says, and that’s precisely what the Watchtower says!!”
rhutchin
I guess they got one thing right….etc
br.d
Pretty obvious what “right” in this case means. :-]
Calvinist’s say the same thing about Gnostisism and NeoPlatonism
Who would guess! :-]
br.d writes, “And this is how the Calvinist mind creates a virtual bridge between a 100% predestined world – and the world of scripture.”
God’s infinite understanding of future events cannot fail to come to pass the moment He creates the universe.
rhutchin
God’s infinite understanding of future events cannot fail to come to pass the moment He creates the universe.
br.d
Translation:
Calvin’s god understands every perception, thought, choice, and desire – he will permit (i.e. program) each Calvinist to have – before he creates the universe.
rhutchin
Everyone should agree that the world before Adam sinned was a lot different than the world after Adam sinned
br.d
Huge difference!
In Theological Determinism (aka Calvinism) the world created is that of Universal Divine Causal Determinism.
Calvin’s god, via decrees meticulously programs every movement of every natural object nano-second by nano-second.
Absolutely no alternatives are MADE AVAILABLE to creation whether sentient or not.
Absolutely no impulses, thoughts, choices, perceptions, decisions, outside of what is predestined are PERMITTED.
Thus – it was infallibly decreed that Adam eat the fruit.
And no alternative was MADE AVAILABLE to Adam – at pain of falsifying that infallible decree.
And Adam was NOT PERMITTED to be or do anything that would falsify that infallible decree
Now in Calvinism – this is the state of the world – both before Adam and after Adam.
So the only thing that changes with Adam is Adam’s predestined nature/condition at any given point in time.
Calvin’s god predestined Adam’s nature at the time he created Adam
And any changes to Adam’s nature or condition are all predestined throughout every nano-second of Adam’s earthly life.
And in Calvinism – ditto for all creatures.
“Que sera, sera
Whatever will be, will be!
Aidan writes, ““Que sera, sera Whatever will be, will be!”
God’s infinite understanding of all future events makes the future certain.
rhutchin
God’s infinite understanding of all future events makes the future certain
br.d
Calvinist language lesson #56:
Always try to hide the “Horrible Decrees”
Don’t miss this class – its essential!
And now a sneak preview tomorrow’s lesson:
Calvinism’s top 10 Double-Speak Talking points – and their best order of use.
This one is for extra credit!
mrteebs writes, ““T” in my mind is not Total Depravity. It is Total Inability. I think “inability” more precisely characterizes the Calvinist position. R.C. Sproul…”
Sproul argued that John 6:44, “No one can come to Me…” was true and an universal negative. The negative, “no one,” does not allow for anyone to do otherwise and “can” refers to ability. Thus, “no one” has any ability to come to come to Christ. That is the “T” (Total Inability) of TULIP. Emphasizing this point is the next phrase, “unless the Father…” The only way for the first statement to be negated is for God to negate it.
rhutchin
Sproul argued that John 6:44, “No one can come to Me…” was true and an universal negative. The negative, “no one,” does not allow for anyone to do otherwise…..etc
br.d
A good example of how it is a logical impossibility to be/do otherwise than what is infallibly decreed.
And this confirms Peter Van Inwagen – Oxford Handbook of Free Will
-quote
Determinism may now be defined: it is the thesis that there is at any instant exactly one physically possible [predestined] future.
And thus there is no such thing as “Do Otherwise” from what is infallibly decreed in Calvinism.
And thus we have a “universal negative” in the Calvinist ability to determine whether any proposition is TRUE or FALSE.
As affirmed by Calvinist Gregory Koukl
-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.”
Mrteebs, I recognize that you are under no obligation to answer any of my posts – that’s a given! But notice that I said this is something you could try out on your own. I made the suggestion because I saw how you rightfully placed emphasis on the need for obedience – which I find refreshing! But also, because I’ve seen how you like to compile data as evidence. But like I said, even though I’d love see what you came up with, and discuss it with you, you are under no obligation to answer my posts.
More from today’s reading…
Gen 2:19 (NASB)
Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.
Hmmm. I thought every decision and impulse was decreed, yet here we have God delegating the naming of animals to Adam. Must be pseudo-delegation. Can’t possibly be real delegation. Because sovereignty. Or something. What if Adam makes a mistake? Gives an animal a name that God Himself would not have chosen?
Well, I guess THAT God cannot be sovereign. Only if the leash is removed and the dog is a bio-robot can God be assured of not losing control. Whew!
My how the Calvinist diminishes God’s sovereignty and glory and omnipotence, all the while loudly proclaiming that he is doing just the opposite. Very small god, that Calvinist one.
There is an old definition of the word “positive”: to be mistaken at the top of one’s lungs.
At what point does the Calvinist bend his knee to the bible and jettison a doctrine that does violence to the scriptures, the character of God, and the very nature of language?
br.d,
The anointing…
That’s funny, and I’ve actually seen that myself.
In the military.
30 year old E-5, 15 years experience, then along comes an Ensign, not far removed from being commissioned as an officer, barely graduated…still wet behind the ears, doesn’t know what salt tastes like, and he’s giving orders.
It’s not uncommon.
Another example of military:
I had just turned E5, and as such, you are required to attend a leadership training class. I advanced in rank at all of the appropriate times for the required time in rank.
Now…the tricky part. Submarine sailors are exempt from all that time in rank rules…they are automatically promoted from E1 to E4 as soon as they graduate their specialty training and sub school. Then, on top of that, all they have to do is spend their first 2 years on a sub, and they are exempt from any obligated service beyond that, so that they can re-enlist (obliserv isn’t counted against them), so that they can receive a HUGE reenlistment bonus, and get automatically promoted in rank to E-5. I’d say, total time in service for that E5 is…3 to 4 years.
I’m at the ten year mark, so when I went to the leadership training, I had an E6 instructor that was a sub sailor. Overall, he’d spent less time in the service than me, and he was teaching me about leadership. Go figure!
Ed Chapman
So somehow I think we know what to expect from a certain Calvinist we all know and love here! :-]
br.d
Indeed!!
rhutchin
A person without personal knowledge of X can believe on the basis of faith.
br.d
Within the last year – Calvin’s god has rendered-certain a little over a dozen FALSE perceptions into your mind.
He rendered-certain you “believe” those false perceptions as TRUE
Thus he rendered-certain “faith” in those false perceptions as being TRUE.
I wonder if Calvin’s god gave each of them to you – each representing one special “gift” of faith?
Or perhaps they are sub parts of the gift of faith?
Is that the gift that keeps on giving? :-]
The ability of the Calvinist to “get what he wants” from scripture is not unlike the way that Orthodox Jews have managed to circumvent the prohibition against trimming the edges of their beards:
Lev 19:27
You shall not round off the side-growth of your heads nor harm the edges of your beard.
Lev 21:5
They shall not make any baldness on their heads, nor shave off the edges of their beards, nor make any cuts in their flesh.
Because the above verses say “harm” and “shave off”, Orthodox Jews have rationalized an ingenious way to invalidate the command: use a scissors instead of a razor. It is reasoned that “shave off” means a single-edged razor that “shaves” the beard and “harms” it, while a scissors doesn’t do either of those things. I can only imagine that there is a debate raging as we speak over whether the newer double, triple, and quadruple blade razors qualify as “scissors” – or if an electric trimmer is considered “scissors” because of the way it cuts. We shake our heads, but be assured that the practitioners are gravely serious about such subatomic distinctions (If you don’t believe me, see the Wikipedia article “Shaving in Judaism”).
Because there is an excruciating focus on the means rather than the end, it becomes a way to conveniently invalidate the very heart of the command.
Now, I am not suggesting that we are required to adhere to these aspects of the Mosaic law. I am simply using this as a non-hypothetical illustration of the emphasis on the letter of the law instead of the spirit of the law. Jesus himself made this distinction in Matt 5:27-28. The Law waid that adultery was the act. Jesus raised the bar and said it was more than the act: it was what is in your heart. Ditto for murder and hating. See Matt 5:21-22.
It is not unlike what I see going on in much of Calvinism, masquerading as “Sola Scriptura”.
Their definition of how God “loves” the non-elect is just one such example. Or of an endless contortion of John 3:16 or Eph 2:8 to get what they want.
I’m sure the Jews using scissors on their beards pride themselves on their firm devotion to “Sola Scriptura”. They are sincere, but sincerely wrong, just like our Calvinist friends.
Jesus rightly said of this approach to scripture in Mark 7:8-9 that it invalidated the very intent: “Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.” He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.”
In this particular instance, Jesus was referring to the way that the Pharisees used the scriptural imperative to “not break a vow” to invalidate and even more important imperative: honor your father and mother (Ex 20:12).
Their tradition is what made the keeping of an ill-advised vow more important than keeping the first of the ten commandments.
I can guarantee you that those Pharisees would have bet their lives on their unwavering adherence to scripture. Their pride and self-worth was completely rooted in the belief that they kept the Law more completely and strictly (see Acts 26:5) than anyone else; Sola Scriptura could easily have been their motto.
But in a manner similar to the Pharisees, the Calvinist holds to his traditions (TULIP) and thus invalidates the word of God. He will steadfastly deny that he is a slave to tradition, but for those on the outside looking in, it is readily apparent that every scripture must bend its knee to the will of TULIP and not vice-versa. As I have noted before, I have yet to meet a single Calvinist that arrived at his theology by a simple, unaided reading of scripture. It is always passed along as tradition, cleverly disguised as Sola Scriptura, and always results more as someone “surrendering” to the doctrines of grace than of eagerly embracing them. This is why I prefer to spend my time preventing people from becoming infected with Calvinist
doctrinetradition than with trying to sway someone once they have swallowed the pill. If this site is any testament to that, I think its value is more in keeping the tire kicker from buying the car than in convincing the car owner to demand a refund.Make no mistake – Calvinism is a tradition. Calvinists are sincere, but sincerely wrong – just like the Pharisees.
Indeed, a tradition is exactly how The Gospel Coalition describes itself in the preamble to their Foundation Documents.
We are a fellowship of evangelical churches in the Reformed tradition deeply committed to renewing our faith in the gospel of Christ and to reforming our ministry practices to conform fully to the Scriptures.
(bold emphasis mine)
How? Here is just a single example…
Scripture says: God is no respecter of persons (Acts 10:34-35) and EVERYONE who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins (Acts 10:43). God loves all men the SAME and all men have the same level of access. He is not wishing for ANY to perish and for ALL to come to repentance (2 Pet 3:9). A child can understand this. It takes no knowledge of the Greek. It takes no advanced degrees in hermeneutics. It contradicts no other scripture and requires no special distortion and re-defining of words to try and “harmonize” it with anything else in scripture. It stands alone just fine.
Calvinist tradition says: God loves men DIFFERENTLY. This goes deeper than just His election to service (children of Jacob became Israel, children of Esau were not elected to such service) – it means election to damnation. The Calvinist appeals to some “divine mystery” to explain how this can be, but hold to it tenaciously, just like the Pharisee that elevates the keeping of a vow above the 1st commandment. They love to seize on Rom 9:13, conveniently omitting the fact that Paul is quoting Malachi, and Malachi uttered these words at least 1000 years after Jacob and Esau (the persons) lived. Malachi was clearly not talking about the person Jacob and the person Esau – he was talking about the nations they gave birth to and how God reserves the right to appoint one person to higher honor of service than another. But he was not talking about damnation. The Calvinist, in order to preserve his tradition, must now interpret each and every scripture in light of his tradition. Words take on new and special meanings. The order of words and normal reading comprehension requires special treatment. All means “the elect” except when it is talking about sinners. Then, and only then, “all means all”. This is not because the text requires it. It is because the tradition requires it. Virtually nothing in scripture can any longer be taken at face value. “Whosoever believeth” becomes not the cause, but the effect.
I will stop for now, but I am beginning to see Calvinism less as a misguided systematic theology and more as a tradition.
At least The Gospel Coalition had the courage to call it what it really is.
Traditions are taught and passed down over time. Calvinism bears all of the hallmarks of this. Calvin’s theology cannot be gained by simply a plain, unaided reading of scripture. The pupil must instead be given a set of lenses and it is helpfully explained that because the Calvinist is so earnest about “scripture alone” that the essential first step is to equip the pupil to understand scripture. It is complicated. It is seemingly contradictory. It requires the proper lenses. So step one is not to read the scriptures. It is to put on the lenses. And this occurs through teaching – not an unaided reading of scripture. Once on, the lenses don’t come off again. The pupil doesn’t even know they are there because they are more like contact lenses than external frames and lenses. When left in long enough, they become almost like Lasik – the person cannot remember viewing the world without them. But whether contacts or Lasik, the pupil thus goes about his business, reading only scripture, unwitting that everything now hitting his optic nerves has been refracted differently. He can thus confidently assert SOLA SCRIPTURA because he has completely forgotten about the lenses. He reads only the Bible, but the way he understands and interprets the bible was not informed only by the Bible itself and the Holy Spirit, but by the lenses which he has not forgotten about.
I comment here not for the benefit of those who have already applied the lenses. I’m not convinced in all of my readings that it does any good. The lenses – by design – change the way they see things and create an acquired blindness to truth. Their appetite is only for debate and argument. I comment instead for those who have removed the lenses, never put them on, or are shopping for lenses and have not yet made the transaction. I hope that those individuals reading will carefully understand what the Calvinist lenses really mean – how they do violence to the scriptures, to the character of God, and to the plain meaning and understanding of words.
Nice post mrteebs!
When I see those whose minds have been set free from the ensnarement of Calvinism – I thank the Lord for his wonderful love and his power to deliver the soul who cries out for deliverance.
And I thank the Lord for Dr. Flowers – and SOT101
And those who with him – have made the sacrifices they’ve made – to help in that process of deliverance.
Test