The Acolyte Dialogues: Episode 3

© Copyright 2020, Steve Sabin.  Used by permission.  All rights reserved.

Episode 3: Submergence

It’s Tuesday night, marking our acolyte’s third encounter with Thiely.  There’s now a recurring appointment on Jordan’s iphone for the weekly Bible study at a trendy place called Midtown Brewmasters.  Last week the group covered T, U, I, and P.  This week, Thiely has put curriculum together covering “L” and a few other topics.  Jordan has just parked and made his way inside.

Jordan, our acolyte, is in italics.  Thiely and the others are in bold

————————————–

[Thiely] Jordan – you’re early!

What can I say?  I’m a quick study.  Learned my lesson last week and gave myself enough time to circle the block until something opened up. Snagged a spot 20 feet from the front door. 

[Thiely] Sweet!  I’m two blocks away.

[Peter] I’m three.

[Andre] I’m three as well, but in the parking garage – $5 an hour.

[Jake] Took a cab.

[X-man] I’m about like Jordan – pole position, just a few doors down.

[Thiely] Let’s place our order and get this party started.  You want to start Jordan?

I’m ready.  Last week’s sampler dial me in: Pipewrench Stout. 

(The others place their orders and grab their Bibles. X-man and Thiely are old school and have black study bibles.  The others reach for tablets and phones, including Jordan who’s brough his iPad.)

[X-man] Guys – I’ve been thinking.  This group needs a name.  What about “The B&B Bros”?

[Peter] B&B?

[X-man] Bible & Brews.

[Jake]  Not feeling it guys.  Sounds too much like airBnB.  What about just BB Bros?

(a few shrugs)

[Thiely] Not bad.

[Peter] ThreeBees?

[Andre] Sorry.  Not a fan.  Too much like the BeeGees. 

[Thiely] Jordan – your thoughts?

I think we’re spending WAY too much time on this!

(laughter from everyone)

What about the six-forty-four bros? 

[X-man] Totally not following you, dude.

You know – John 6:44?  Last week’s homework?

[Jake]  I’m diggin’ it.   But what about just the six-forty-fours?

[Peter]  Doesn’t suck.  But keep the bros.

[Andre]  Yup.  Keep the bros. 

[X-man]  Still like B&B Bros.   

[Thiely]  You’ll get over it X-man.  You get to keep your bros, but the B&B gets the axe.  The Six-Forty-Four bros.  Going once?  Going twice?  GONE.  Here’s to the six-forty-four bros.

(Thiely raises his mug in a toast, and they all respond in kind)

[Thiely]  Peter, can you open us in prayer?

[Peter] We thank you Lord for bringing us all here – safely and on time.  We love Your word.  We love Your ways.  We thank You for making us Your children and opening Your word – that Your thoughts might become our thoughts.  Give us eyes to see and ears to hear.  In Your name, A-men.

[Thiely]  So guys, I think the best way to dive into tonight’s topic is to read Matthew 1:21.  Jordan, can I ask you to do that?

Sure.  Give me a minute.  Matthew 1:21.  Here it is.  Hey – are your sure I’m in the right place?  This looks like the Christmas story.

[Thiely]  Yup.  I’m sure.  What does it say?

“She will bear a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.”

[Thiely]  Whose people?

[Peter]  HIS people.

[Thiely]  All people?

[Andre]  No.  HIS people.

Sorry guys – not following you.

[Thiely]  Jordan, a very common mistake many Christians make is that they believe Christ died for EVERYONE.

Well, isn’t that the case?  I mean, I may not be all that fluent in the scriptures yet, but even I know John 3:16.  You know – WHOSOEVER believes.  I thought whosoever means – you know – everyone.

[Thiely]  Yes, but think back to what we covered last week.

Well, T, U, I, and P.  Right?

[Thiely]  That’s right.  But spell them out fully and let’s remind ourselves how they interrelate.

[X-man]  T: Total Depravity.

[Thiely]  and Total _____?

[X-man]  Inability.

[Thiely]  Yes.

[Andre] U: Unconditional Election.

[Peter] I: Irresistible Grace.

[Jake] P: Perseverance of the Elect.

[Thiely] Or Preservation of the Elect. Same idea.  And how do these relate?  Pop quiz time Jordan.

Well, because we are totally depraved, we are dead in our sin and trespasses.  And because dead means dead, we are totally unable to respond to the gospel. 

[Thiely] So far so good. 

And because we cannot respond, God must choose us, not vice-versa.  He did this from the foundation of the world, which means He elected us before we were even born, which in turn means unconditional election.

[Thiely]  Exactly.  What’s next?

Irresistible grace.  If we are unconditionally elected, then we WILL respond to the grace He extends, and we WILL become saved.  It can be no other way, because He has sovereignly decreed it – from the foundation of the world. 

[Thiely]  Which means?

That the elect will persevere.  They’ll be preserved and will not – no wait – CANNOT backslide.  It can be no other way if they are unconditionally predestined, elected, appointed – whatever. 

[Thiely]  Exactly.  But we usually say “elected.” Now, here’s the last building block of God’s plan: WHO died to save the elect?

Jesus Christ.

[Thiely]  And if ONLY the elect are saved, did He die for everyone – or only the elect?  In other words, did He spill His blood for those that would reject it, or those that would receive it?

I’m still struggling here guys.  I’m not sure that I’m making the connection.

[Peter]  Let me ask it this way: If Christ does an atoning work, is it limited in its sufficiency?

No – of course not.  His blood and His death covers all of our sin – not just part of it. 

[Peter]  So if it is limited in some way, it cannot be that it is insufficient to save the non-elect.

Agreed.  I’m not questioning whether it is sufficient.  I’m just not sure why it has to be limited in some way.

[Thiely]  Because that’s what the scripture tell us.  You just read it.  Read it again.

OK.  Just a sec.  My device locked.  OK, here it is. “She will bear a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.”

[Thiely]  Whose people?

His people? 

[Thiely]  Yes.  HIS people.  And are the non-elect HIS people?

Well, no.  I guess not. 

[Thiely]  Are you starting to see how it fits now?  How scripture actually spells it out for us once we have eyes to see?

Sort of.  But I thought God loved everyone.  That He sent His Son to die for everyone.  What am I missing?

[X-man]  Tell you what, bro.  Can you see how this fits with TULIP?

Well, yes.  I can see logically how it fits, but it just seems to be so contrary to almost every sermon I’ve ever heard.  I thought Christ died for everyone – that God loved everyone. 

[Thiely]  God DOES love everyone.  It’s just that He loves the elect DIFFERENTLY than He loves the non-elect.  We can say with confidence – because scripture says it – that God IS love.  The book of first John makes it very clear.  But it doesn’t say that He loves everyone THE SAME.  Remember that fellow I quoted last week?

Yeah.  John, uh, something-or-other?

[Thiely]  Yes – John Piper.  And I had a feeling this question would come up tonight, so I also brought my tablet and opened it to his website.  Here’s how he answers that exact question: “Does God love the non-elect?”

“Now, the problem arises when folks go beyond Scripture and infer (and here Piper gives a list of six different passages from both Old and New Testaments) that God, because of his love for all people, cannot and does not elect SOME to everlasting life, but ALL.

In other words, they infer that since he loves all, he must love all in the same way — that he cannot choose to love some in a more focused, electing, redeeming, adopting, eternal way. But it seems to me that’s exactly what the Scriptures teach.

He does have a different love — an electing love, a saving love — for some and not all. This is totally owing to the abundance of his grace, since nobody deserves it.”

Are you starting to see how it fits now?  How scripture actually spells it out for us once we have eyes to see and have carefully trained ourselves what to look for?  Most people blow completely past these distinctions because they are students of what they want to see in scripture – not students of what is actually there.  Remember: SOLA SCRIPTURA.

Man, I’m just thunderstruck guys. It does all make sense, and everything fits like pieces of a puzzle, but why do so many people miss this?  How did *I* miss it?

[Andre] Like I said last week, bro.  Hidden in plain sight.

[Thiely]  But as much as most of us love John Piper’s teaching, at the end of the day he’s just a teacher and he’s fallible.  And if there’s one thing this group is about – what our Reformed theology is about – it’s SOLA SCRIPTURA so let’s look at a few more verses that make this clear.  Someone turn to Matt 20:28.  Someone else to Matt 26:28.  And still someone else to John 10:11

[Jake]  Matthew 20:28 says “even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

[Thiely]  Do you see it?  He gave his life as a ransom for MANY – not ALL.

[Peter]  Matthew 26:28 says “for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”

Yeah – there it is again.  “Many” – not “all”.

[X-man] John 10:11 “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.”

[Thiely]  Different word here, but same concept.  He laid down his life for WHO?

The sheep.

[Thiely]  Precisely.  The sheep.  Not the goats. 

So Christ didn’t die for everyone.  That’s where the “L” comes from – LIMITED Atonement.

[Thiely]  Yes.  Can you see now how Reformed theology is so true to scripture?  And how the Five Solas are just as applicable today as they were 500 years ago?   

Guys, I have to confess.  I know I’m reading the same Bible here as I have for the last year – but it isn’t the same Bible.  Everything – I mean EVERYTHING – looks different.

[Thiely]  Well, the good news is that about 30% of protestant churches embrace Reformed theology.  So you’re in good company.  70% of protestants see something very different than you do when they read the Bible.  Sadly, it’s because very few of them are as serious about the scriptures as their Reformed counterparts. 

I can really see you guys are serious about this stuff.  Are all Reformed believers like you guys?

[Peter]  Well, as the oldest of the six-forty-fours…

[X-man]  Six-forty-four BROS.  Don’t forget the bros.

(belly laughs all around)

[Peter]  Well, as the oldest of the six-forty-four BROS, I’ve been around this stuff since I was just a child.  I actually grew up in a Presbyterian church.  And yeah, most people in Reformed denominations are pretty serious about these doctrines – as well we should be.  I’m not sure how many study quite as diligently as us six-forty-fours…

(X-man gives him the evil eye)

[Peter]  …as us six-forty-four BROS…

(more belly laughs)

[Peter]  …but I can tell you that the doctrines are front and center in almost all Reformed congregations.  You’ll find them clearly spelled out in our statements of faith and they are discussed at length in our teachings, writings, and sermons.  So yeah – we’re all very serious about this stuff.

[Thiely]  Jordan, there’s more to it than just TULIP.  In fact, TULIP doesn’t mean much to many people and instead of using that acrostic like insider language, we tend to call it more formally the “Doctrines of Grace” because – at its heart – it’s all about grace.  TULIP is just a convenient way to remember those doctrines.  What separates us from many others outside Reformed theology is that we don’t water down grace.

Water it down?

[Thiely]  Yes, water it down.  We are Christ-centered.  Christ does it ALL.  HE elects us.  HE resurrects us so that we can respond to the gospel.  HE gives us everything we need for salvation: the grace, the faith, the substitutionary atonement for our sins, the assurance that we WILL persevere to the end.  Others make it an unscriptural mix of God PLUS man.  It isn’t all about God any longer.  It doesn’t give God His proper place as the author and finisher of our faith.  In the non-Reformed world, it works very differently: YOU choose God.  YOU demonstrate faith – and that faith originates in YOU.  Christ died for YOU even if you are non-elect and His death is somehow not strong enough to save YOU.  YOU can resist God by refusing Him, thus thwarting His purposes.  And YOU can take credit for accepting HIM and YOU can take credit for persevering to the end.  Do you see how wrong the non-Reformed have gotten it?  In their world, Christ does SOME of it – not ALL of it.

Well, when you put it like that, it’s pretty much a full 180-degrees out of sync with the “doctrines of grace” and there seems to be an awful lot of man instead of 100% Christ. 

[Thiely]  It isn’t that the non-Reformed aren’t saved.  Nobody – well, at least very few – would go that far.  But they rob God of His sovereignty.  They shift it from being completely Christ-centered to this strange amalgam of God and man.  Remember our Five Solas – our Five “Alones”?

Yeah – they’re becoming second nature to me:  Scripture alone is our highest authority.  We are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, and we live for the glory of God alone.

[Thiely]  I’m impressed!  Have you been studying?

Busted!

(everyone laughs)

I was really intrigued after our first meeting in the lunchroom and started Googling some stuff.  Five Solas, mostly.  I figured the TULIP stuff would be covered in our six-forty-four st… I mean six-forty-four BROS study.

[X-man] And don’t you forget it!

[Jake]  Give it a REST dude!

(Jake slugs him playfully; everyone laughs)

[Thiely]  I get to cheat.  I just look at my bicep.

I’m seriously likin’ that tattoo, Thiely.  Gonna have to get me one a those…

[Thiely]  This design is trademarked, bro.  Don’t get any ideas.

(everyone laughs and the forgotten beers around the table are suddenly rediscovered)

OK.  Maybe a barbed wire braid instead of Celtic braid.

(more laughs)

[Thiely]  OK – in all seriousness guys, I want to circle back to our “L” and make sure we don’t leave anything ambiguous dangling out there.

[Andre]   What do you mean?

[Thiely]  I mean Peter started down this path that I’d like to complete.  When we talk about Limited Atonement, we aren’t saying that Christ’s work on the cross was somehow limited in terms of sufficiency.  That there’s something man also needs to do, or that it doesn’t cover any and every sin the elect might commit.  I want to make sure we’re crystal clear on exactly what is limited.

How about limited in terms of the recipients?

[Thiely]  Very good.

[Peter]  Or limited in terms of the beneficiaries?

[Thiely]  Even better.

[Andre]  Or maybe think of it as definite atonement.  Instead of applying to everyone, it applies to only a definite classification of people.

[Thiely]  Yes.  In fact, some people prefer to say “definite” atonement rather than limited.  It has more positive connotations and is less likely to elicit an auto-immune response from those not versed in the doctrines of grace.

[Jake]  Or how about particular atonement.   It is only available to particular people – not everyone?

[Thiely]  Same idea, and some people prefer “particular” to both “definite” and “limited”.  We have to be precise with our words, and “particular” is an excellent choice that is again, less provocative than “limited”.  People instinctively get up in arms when language suggests “insufficient” and I think “limited” carries some of those connotations.  Regardless, “limited” is the most frequently used because it allows us to maintain the memory aid of our TULIP acrostic.  Significant efforts have been made by many in the Reformed denominations over the years to ensure that our language is absolutely faithful to scripture, but sometimes the way people interpret words like “all” or “any” or “every” can be far outside of scripture’s actual intention.  So we have to be very careful in how we use words and what they actually mean.  I have found it best to define words very carefully before I start talking to people about scripture.

[X-man]  Ditto that, Thiely.  I’ve also heard it said – by John Piper, come to think of it – that Christ’s atonement was limited because it only purchased irresistible grace for some people – not all people.

[Thiely]  Piper makes an excellent point.  I love the way he unpacks all this stuff so carefully.  Jordan, I really need to introduce you to his teaching.  Anyway, all of you guys are correct.  But maybe the easiest way to remember what “limited” applies to is WHO.  WHO is atonement limited to?

The elect.  Only the elect.

[Thiely]  That’s the magic word: the ELECT.  In fact, you’ll find that for many of the scriptures we study, when they use words like “all” “any” “everyone” “sheep” “whosoever” and the like – these can usually be better understood by substituting the word “elect”. 

Good to know.  Thanks for that tip.

[Thiely]  So, guys, it’s 8:30 and we always try to keep this to 90 minutes.  I know all of us have pretty early mornings and I don’t think any of us will be lingering tonight.  Jordan, how about you close us in prayer tonight?

I’d love to…

Father, I’m so grateful for this group of brothers.  For the way You’ve led me here and opened the scriptures to me in an entirely new way.  I thank You that Your word is truth, and that it fits together like a puzzle. Thank you for answering my prayer and helping Your word make sense to me.  I thank You that You chose me – elected me – from the foundation of the world – and my brothers as well. I ask You to bless them and keep them during this coming week.  Watch between us and keep us in Your care until we see each other next.  A-men.

—————————————

Our acolyte is well beyond just knowing the doctrines of grace now.  He has internalized them and in the process he’s had to overcome some reservations.  How can we truthfully say that God loves everyone if He didn’t die for everyone?    What does “whosoever” mean in terms of the ability to respond to the gospel? The Atonement? 

He’s asking exactly the right questions, but he’s trusting his teachers more than he’s relying on the Word of God.  He has accepted the idea that God loves people differently not because the scriptures support it, but because TULIP demands it.  And to fulfill those demands, scriptures supporting it must be carefully curated while those refuting it must be avoided with equal care for now – until the roots have gone even deeper.

At this point, SOLA SCRIPTURA is being fully reinforced – but more in appearance than in actuality.  Admittedly, the men come to the study armed with nothing but their Bibles, but we’re now seeing the very heavy influence of TULIP whenever a problematic issue presents itself.  Answers to every question must now resort first to TULIP, and only then to scripture.  Indeed, TULIP has become the primary point at which scriptural reconciliation must occur rather than simply scripture with scripture.   And when really tough issues need to be surmounted, Thiely is training the six-forty-fours, by his actions, that resorting to a favorite teacher – in essence to a commentary on the scriptures rather than to the scriptures themselves – is an acceptable avenue of first resort.  Later, when the scriptures are consulted, it is primarily to reinforce the teacher’s perspective rather than seeing what the rest of the scriptures have to say on the matter.

Almost imperceptibly but steadily, our acolyte is learning by example how the Bible is to be understood and where to go when questions arise.  Not to the Holy Spirit.  Not to the Bible itself – but instead to the refuge of likeminded people.  In other words, to an echo chamber.

Another thing we see introduced in this episode is a commendable zeal to keep things Christ-centered and to give glory to God alone.  Our acolyte has been told in no uncertain terms that only Monergism (Reformed theology) adequately ensures God’s sovereignty and enthrones Him as the sole author and finisher of our faith. He has accepted, at face value, the demands that Monergism has placed on ensuring this rather than carefully examining what God Himself has to say about such matters.   In short, his field of vision is currently constrained to only the first half of Proverbs 18:17: “The first to plead his case seems right.” In time, our acolyte will discover the hard truth contained in the rest of this proverb: “until another comes and examines him.”

But before that can happen, Jordan must descend far deeper into the rabbit hole to see what is at the bottom and whether the answers his newfound theology provides are satisfactory. 

Or, if those answers – like King Belshazzar in the book of Daniel – will be weighed in the scales and found deficient.

15 thoughts on “The Acolyte Dialogues: Episode 3

  1. “He does have a different love — an electing love, a saving love — for some and not all. This is totally owing to the abundance of his grace, since nobody deserves it.”

    And where does scripture teach such an assertion? The love of God I read of says:

    “But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” Rom 5:8 “This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us.” 1 Jn 3:16 “This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him.” 1 Jn 4:9 and of course “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.” Jb 3:16-17

    Calvinists may allege that this is a special love that God shows to only the elect. Which may even be true, if one properly defines the elect.

    God does indeed express his love more fully to those who respond to his initial offer of love in the gift of forgiveness and life, offered through his Son, Jesus. These are the elect of God. But scripture does not support Calvinism’s assertion that this is a random, preselected, distinct number which has been predetermined arbitrarily by God.

    Although God’s love is freely offered to all, it is not always welcomed and returned. Thus, like all unrequited love, it never reaches its full potential. We can love another with all of our being, but we cannot compel them to reciprocate and enter into a committed relationship with us. Only Calvinism describes such a forced, compulsive relationship; one in which the recipients of God’s love have no choice, upon an unsought supernatural transformation, but to receive and return his love.

    All other christian descriptions of man’s relationship with God support the usual definition of love, which is voluntary, uncoerced and can be refused. God expresses his marvelous, incomparable love for us in that, while we were unrepentant sinners, he sent his Son to die that we might live. That is what love does – it lays down one’s life for its beloved. The object of such love then has a choice – to reject or return such a great love.

  2. Tying into TS00’s comments…

    He states above “Only Calvinism describes such a forced, compulsive relationship…”

    It seems to me that, as I read Calvinist authors, there tends to be a view of God primarily through the lens of ‘Sovereign Power’ (not surprising since ‘Sovereignty’ is the most highly praised attribute in that framework). But, this works itself out in their view of Salvation in that it seems to be viewed as a ‘power-based’ transaction; and beyond that a cause-and-effect chain that necessarily results solely from Gods action of Sovereign power towards the elect. But, when I look at Scripture and see the staggering display of God’s humility by becoming incarnate in the Son; of entering into the world as one of us; of interacting with people in an intensely personal and individual way (e.g. read how different the conversations are with Zacchaeus, the woman at the well, the rich young ruler, etc.); in effect an interacting with persons as image bearers and that interaction being uniquely relational -> well, it seems that the power-based, cause-and-effect way of viewing things doesn’t really match how we see Christ interacting with people

    Most (I could probably argue ‘all’) of my interpersonal interactions function relationally, and I could say I have ZERO cause-n-effect based relationships -> there is a REAL interplay of person to person intricacies… this is true even with my children and in my profession where authority is exercised. Authority does imply power, but is raw power that functions purely on the basis of cause-and-effect the best construct when considering relationships? I think not; it is better reserved for the area of inanimate objects. Now, obviously, I am not God and there are attributes, abilities, etc. which God has that are not translated/communicated to people. But, the Tri-Personal and relational quality of the GodHead is one of the distinguishing marks of Christianity separating it from other world views. So, that the manner of individual Salvation would be conceived to be so non-relational (especially, since God has gone to the trouble of becoming human) just seems incongruent with what it is to be an image-bearer made in the image of the Living God. In my opinion, that the Calvinist view of Salvation seems so cause-and-effect based versus relational is one of the many areas of Calvinist thought that I find to be confused.

    1. I agree that Calvinism’s overemphasis on sovereignty leads to a distorted, power-based theology. As I read your comment, I thought of some of the interactions scripture records between Jesus and others. Why, if it is all about power and God’s predetermination, does Jesus always seem to seek and respond to the faith of individuals. He does not just make a grand pronouncement and all who are sick become well. Rather, he looks into the individual’s eyes, lays his hands upon them, asks them why they are there, requires them to respond, and so forth.

      As you have well stated, scripture reveals a humble, relational, non-authoritarian Jesus who generously gives to all who seek. Never once is it recorded that Jesus looked upon a sinner seeking healing and informed them that God had not chosen them to be healed. Nothing in Jesus’ life and ministry suggests the authoritarian, controlling picture of God depicted in Calvinism. Quite the opposite. If Jesus is the revelation of the heart of God – and I believe he is – he proclaims the exact opposite of a limited, controlling, narcissistic offer of grace to a predetermined select few.

      One might argue that Jesus chose the twelve, and set them apart from all others, but even they were chosen for a unique, monumental task, not to be granted a saving grace limited just to them. I truly pity those who fall under the sway of Calvinism. Their view of God becomes distorted, and often this is reflected in their relationships with their family and others. Authoritarian, controlling Calvinist husbands and fathers are not a rarity, but a reflection of their false image of God.

  3. Steve says,
    “He’s asking exactly the right questions, but he’s trusting his teachers more than he’s relying on the Word of God.”

    Absolutley!!! many do this and get upset if you disagree or question who (they) allow to lead them..

    I really do love and yet cringe at these articles, because of the reality behind them, but indeed keep them coming…, & it does seem to me as well, that there is some intellectual pride that goes along with calvinism and a desire to belong to the in group.. at the exclusion of the rest of world, because if God does this for His own good pleasure why???
    Nah that’s just a lie! Also love the posts on the blog thanks.

    1. A question for Eric Kemp and any other free will non-Calvinist. When a Calvinist ask you for your interpretation of John 8:47, what interpretation of that verse do you give them?

      (John 8:47 He that is of God heareth God’s words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.)

      1. I would try to give an interpretation that looked to the context and harmonized with the rest of scripture.

        John 8:47 “He who is of God hears God’s words; therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God.”

        The question I presume from Calvinists is, ‘Why were they not of God’? The problem is, is that they ignore the text and context in order to impose their own answers, even to questions that are not raised in the text itself. I know they do this with passages like Romans 9-11 for example. But I think if you look at this passage in John 8, even starting from, let’s say, v.31 up to v.47. You can go a bit beyond v.47 if you want to check for more details. But when you read from v.31 onwards, you can see how they proved that the devil was their father, not God, and certainly not Abraham either. Therefore, by the time you get to v.47, you can already see why they were not of God. The Calvinists have all the answers they need in the context of this passage, in that the tree was known by its fruit.

        Do you remember what John faced when he was baptizing?

        Matthew 3:7-9
        “But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, “Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?”

        “Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance,

        “and do not think to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones.”

        John calls them “Brood of vipers”! What kind children did that make them? But the point is, is that they could have changed their situation before God – if they chose to repent. I mean truly repent bearing fruits in keeping with repentance. That’s what John called on them to do. God would have forgiven them. And by their fruits, they would truly have shown that they were true children of God, and of Abraham! And most likely then, would not have rejected Jesus and His word.

        And we know that it wasn’t just the Pharisees and Sadducees who were being called to repent, everyone was being called to repent. And if everyone was being called to repent – then EVERYONE could repent.

        I hope this answers your question, somewhat!

  4. Chapmaned24,
    If the some of the Jews (still under the law, not born again) were judicially blinded by God to be not of God, were some of the Jews (still under the law, not born again) have their ears/hearts judicially opened to be of God????

    1. Interesting question, David. I believe God’s justice requires each to get the sufficient opportunity to freely seek Him and His mercy.

      He would only judicial blind those who rejected freely that opportunity or to whom He would give that opportunity later. He does not judicially open hearts “to be of God” irresistibly, but to irresistibly be brought to the opportunity where they must freely decide if they want to seek God and His mercy.

      1. In my previous, I accidently said:

        “So, here we have, JEWS DO NOT UNDERSTAND (Romans 8), GENTILES SHALL UNDERSTAND (Romans 15).”

        Change (Romans 8) to “Romans 11:8), and change (Romans 15) to (Romans 15:21), so that it states:

        “So, here we have, JEWS DO NOT UNDERSTAND (Romans 11:8), GENTILES SHALL UNDERSTAND (Romans 15:21).

      2. Brianwagner,
        I have been toying with a number of ways to understand the verse. I tend to agree with you first paragraph statement you made. I would only add that I believe that man has the inherent free will ability to repent and accept or reject God’s call/drawing (which call/drawing is through creation, the Scripture, our conscience and the drawing of the Holy Spirit).

        I tend to agree with the first sentence of your second paragraph. One of my thoughts related to the second sentence of your second paragraph is — If judicial judgment can also refer to the freezing of a person’s free will choice to believe God’s call/drawing to hear and believe in Jesus’ words, it seems to me that would make that person (to be of God, one who hears God’s words), even though regeneration by the Holy Spirit had not been implemented yet. The person who hears and believes Jesus’ words is a person who is good soil. In fact, judicial judgment probably is not needed to make a person in the old testament era be of God, he just has to be good soil that hears and freely believes God’s word/calling.

      3. Thank you for your reply David. The shallow and thorny soils also received the word, believed it in some way and were positively influenced by it. But the Word did not produce the fruit it was supposed to. If the Word is the gospel, it didn’t produce salvation in those two soils yet.

        The reason is obvious. They were not yet good soil because of the shallowness and thorns. Even the hard soil … perhaps even hardened by the sower who created that hardened path… could believe and be saved if the Word stayed on it and not taken from it by the birds. (Lk 8:12)

        The judicial judgment/hardening is mainly for those who either have continually refused to deal with their hardness, shallowness, or thorns. Proverbs 29:1 NKJV — He who is often rebuked, and hardens his neck, Will suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy.

        But sometimes God can use a hardened person to accomplish a good thing, like the crucifixion, and then give them an opportunity to become good soil later. Acts 6:7 NKJV — Then the word of God spread, and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a 👉great many of the priests👈 were obedient to the faith.

    2. David,

      I just saw your response back, David. Sorry it took so long to get back. I must have missed my email notification somehow.

      Anyway, there is a few things in this that I must stress…coming from a non-Calvinist stance, INCLUDING a non-Baptist stance, as well. I don’t come from the Luther side, or the Calvin side, or the Catholic side, either. I just come from THE BOOK side.

      My opinions will NOT match that of THIS BLOG, because I’m NOT a Baptist, or a Calvinist. I’m not even a previous Calvinist. So I will NOT conform to RELIGIOUS answers with big words that I can’t even pronounce. I keep it simple, letting the bible verses do the talking.

      And from the book, I do not see ANYTHING that would suggest that the Jews are JUDICIALLY blind at all. i do not know where that accusation comes from, but I hear this all the time, the Jews being disparaged, in that they sinned against God…WHO HASN’T?..that they were REBELIOUS, blah blah.

      Well, when I consult THE BOOK, I see in Romans 11 (a discussion Paul is having about the Jews) the following:

      Romans 11:8
      8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.

      That is discussing the BLIND Jews, and that Romans 11:8 is a direct reference of…

      Deuteronomy 29:4
      Yet the Lord hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.

      Now, I perceive that to be…never, never, ever, has God given them eyes to see. Therefore, how can it be JUDICIAL?

      It is said that Jesus is the STUMBLING STONE for the Jews. Do you know that a person that can see, does not stumble?

      I could expound on that forever, it seems, but I’ll just add the following:

      John 9:39-41

      39 And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.

      40 And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also?

      41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.

      What does this say to YOU? Two words stand out to me. SIN, and BLIND. Judicial? I think not!

      NEXT…

      So now that we have covered Jews blindness with Romans 11:8 (Deu 29:4), let’s CONTRAST that with the GENTILES:

      Romans 15:21
      21 But as it is written, To whom he was not spoken of, they shall see: and they that have not heard shall understand.

      So, here we have, JEWS DO NOT UNDERSTAND (Romans 8), GENTILES SHALL UNDERSTAND (Romans 15).

      The Jews that DO understand, were UNBLINDED by God, or a word YA’LL use, REGENERATED. A word only used TWICE in all of scripture.

      So what about the REST of the Jews? Romans 11 finishes the story, in that THOSE blinded Jews will receive MERCY in the end, and why? Because it was GOD who blinded them from the word GO, START, BEGIN, COMMENCE, and GITTY UP.

      Those who are REGENERATED…Jews, that is…is known as REMNANT. And it is my contention that there is NO GENTILE CHRISTIAN that is, or can be, classified as ELECT. That word, IMO, is reserved for the Jews only, and no, I do not believe in SPIRITUAL Israel to be THE CHURCH.

      So, that answers the JUDICIAL part of the question, in that I do NOT beliieve that this has anything to do with JUDICIAL. The Jews are blind, BUT IT’S NOT DUE TO ANYTHING THAT THEY DID, OR DIDN’T DO.

      NEXT:

      Born again. I also do not agree with those here on this blog pertaining to what YA’LL interpret John 3 to be discussing.

      Some would say that Born Again is defined as…born naturally from the womb, and born AGAIN from the spirit.

      NO…that’s NOT how I define it as. I define it as:

      Born of God the FIRST TIME, and THEN BORN OF GOD AGAIN, and it is that time between the first time, and AGAIN, that one is spiritually dead, hence the NEED to be born of God…AGAIN.

      And therefore, Romans 7 comes into play, as well as the story of Adam and Eve, and of us all.

      Romans 7:7
      7…I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

      8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.

      9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

      10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.

      11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.

      Please NOTE verse 9, the words, “I DIED”.

      I know, I know, Calvinists think that you are BORN DEAD, but no, verse 9 tells a different story. NOTICE VERSE 8? For without the law, SIN WAS DEAD? Does Adam and Eve come to mind? Especially the part about if they eat, they shall surely DIE? It wasn’t discussing NATURAL death, but it was discussing SPIRITUAL DEATH.

      Romans 5 gets a bad rap from Calvinists, too. Romans 5 is about NATURAL DEATH of the body, not spiritual death. Romans 7 here is about SPIRITUAL DEATH, just like Adam and Eve.

      We all go thru the SAME PROCESS OF INNOCENCE as Adam and Eve did, and as Paul is showing here in verses 7-9 above.

      Born “again” is BRINGING GOD BACK to us from a SEPARATION, hence the word AGAIN.

      The Jews will be BORN AGAIN, by MERCY due to the blindness that God put on them, and it wasn’t their fault to begin with (no judicial).

      Gentiles are NOT in the same category, for the GENTILES SHALL understand. But I know that Calvinists are stuck on “FOR THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE”. But they neglect the “IN CHRIST” part, meaning ALREADY BELIEVERS…for the already believers there is no difference between Jew and Gentile. In the meantime, there is a huge differnce.

      I can expound tremendously on these issues, and I have, on this blog. But I get pushback. I don’t mind. And as an OH, BY THE WAY…Lydia…she’s a Jew (needed her eyes opened). Paul just got into town, and his FIRST priority is ALWAYS to the Jews first, before ever discussing Jesus with the Gentiles. That is how you can distinguish Lydia as a Jew. Paul just got into town, and on the FIRST SABBATH (SATURDAY), not our Sunday, but their Saturday.

      Conclusions of where I think you are going with your original question…My conclusion on Calvinism, is that they take a lot of what was meant for JEWS ONLY, and apply it to all mankind, hence the word REGENERATION, meant for the blind Jews, not the Gentiles who SHALL understand, as opposed to Jews who CAN’T.

      I hope you now understand why I’m non-denomination. I can’t get onboard with either side.

      Ed Chapman

  5. Why is John 8:47 being turned into a conversation about judicial hardening etc.. when there’s nothing in the context to raise that question? I don’t know what the Calvinists say about this verse, but it seems like this is just pandering to their speculations? All it does is invite more speculative talk! The answer to John 8:47 is found in the context – I mean it reveals how they were not of God. But If they want to speculate, Calvinistic style, about who God determined would be, or not be – it will not be found in this text, or any other for that matter!

    In John 8, Jesus knew them, He knew their deeds, and what they desired to do. If these Jewish believers in God were hardened, they had BECOME hardened through the deceitfulness of sin (Heb. 3:13)!

Leave a Reply to chapmaned24 Cancel reply