Reformed Theology

[Guest]

Hey Robin,

Let me first begin by saying that I was raised Arminian. Twenty some years ago I first encountered Calvinism. It came to me through a very respected and loved friend who was a Presbyterian minister. I rejected it at first, but because I respected this man so much, I figured that there just HAD to be something to it. Years later things in my life began to unravel. I discovered my wife had been unfaithful to me, and when I offered forgiveness, she decided to leave me instead. My relationship with my children became strained as a result, and the divorce was devastating in many ways to me.

Through these (and other) events I really embraced Calvinism. I felt that there was so very little in my life that I had control or choice over, and it really began to make sense to me. I read the verses my old Presbyterian friend used to talk about, and felt that I really "saw" what he was saying. It just seemed so plain. I began to teach, preach, and even argue Calvinism.

About two years ago I first encountered Steve's ministry. As I began listening to his teaching it slowly (because I am pretty dim) dawned on me that I had embraced Calvinism for all the WRONG reasons. It wasn't because I had carefully examined the scriptures and was led that way - it was because my world view had changed and *I* was leading scripture that way.

It was very hard, but I began to strip away my old Calvinistic lenses, and just read the Bible for what it said. I became amazed how many passages really didn't teach Calvinism at all. My paradigm had done the teaching.

One might argue "Well, maybe your new paradigm is leading you again!" Perhaps. But I am at least now aware of it and doing my best to prevent - as much as a person can - for that to happen.

What do you do with the passages that speak of election? (Rom 8-9, Eph 2) That God chose from the foundation of the world?

I used to read Rom 9:11-18, and use that as proof of God electing some to salvation. I don't see that anymore. In fact, salvation is not mentioned at all. I see it as an explanation of how God chose among two people (Jacob and Esau) who He would continue the promise through.

For me the real trick is to just read the Bible - letting my preconceived notions behind.

I'm only learning to do that ...

peace,

dane

[Guest]

What do you do with the passages that speak of election? (Rom 8-9, Eph 2)


The thing is Robin that Calvinists take some passages where God intervened in human affairs and just decide to project this mindset over everything.
God loved Jacob and hated Esau for what? For salvation? No yet this is an adopted prooftext, why because of a presupposition.
It's not a strong enough argument to assume that because God intervenes sometimes that this translates into God intervening in every case.

[Guest]

Thanx Dane for your post and both Steve's.

There are great men of faith who stand on both sides of the argument. I will continue to listen to arguments on both sides. I heard Norm Geisler and Hank Hanagraff, both men I admire, speak against Reformed Theology many many times. Hank's father was reformed.

There just seems to be so much that leads me to believe God chooses people, not all, but some, to eternal life. That man played no part in influencing God to choose him or her.

For example, "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him. In love 5He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, 6to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved,"
(Eph. 1:3-6, NASB)

I was taught that God looked into the future to see who would choose Him then He first chose them. I never found this in scripture so it never sat well with me.

The focus of Ephesians is the mystery of the Church. Verses 1-3 we have the elect whom the Father chose before the foundation of the world, 7-10 redeemed by the Son, sealed by the H.S 11-14. So I see that some were chosen by God before creation so that we should be holy and blameless before Him. His goal was to adopt us as sons in Christ, and all this according to His will, notice not our own will. Eph 2 follows this idea. We were dead in our trespasses, but God made us alive together with Christ, we were saved by grace (as you know) through faith, but both grace and faith are not stemming from us."And this is not of your own doing..." (2:8). The "this" is a pronoun which after a phrase is referring to the entire phrase before it, so grace and faith are a gift. Then it goes onto talk about Jews and Gentiles now being one in Christ, the dividing wall broken down, we as believers are the Church. I don't know what could be more clear? But I do know that there is mystery within God's plan of salvation here.

I would like to hear from you on the mystery aspects of this topic. There is mystery here. There is mystery in many things taught in the Bible. The Trinity is a great mystery, its orthodox, meaning its essential to the Christian faith. The hypo-static union that teaches the two natures of Christ is mysterious, not something we can fully grasp and explain. But if someone never accepts mystery in the Bible couldn't it lead to error? Im not saying those who don't accept reformed theology are in error, but I am saying that to reject mystery could lead to error. I would like to hear from you on the mystery idea. Is it something you have thought about? Whether it be from a calvinist, arminian or some other standpoint.

Robin

[Guest]

Hey Robin,

I really do appreciate your tone .... your honesty and gentleness come through in this discussion ....

There are great men of faith who stand on both sides of the argument.

... the very least of these being me. But I will see what I can do...

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him. In love 5He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, 6to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved," (Eph. 1:3-6, NASB)

I was taught that God looked into the future to see who would choose Him then He first chose them. I never found this in scripture so it never sat well with me.

I agree. That never sat really well with me, either. But why look at this verse as if Paul is referring to individual salvation? He is writing to the Church, and I believe Paul has the Church in mind. Every time he says "us" or "we" - read it using the words "Church". In other words, I believe Paul is saying that God predestined the Church - as a corporate body - to a destiny that He has intended. Those who belong and remain in this corporate body will receive the blessing.

Let me explain it this way. Many years ago a man at a nearby church left a considerable endowment to be used by his church's youth group. Each year the youth group is given this money's interest. The man never individually named who would get or not get the money - he just gave it to the group. If you are a young person and want to receive the promise of the money, you have to belong to the group. Being young and being in the church are not enough. If you don't belong to the youth group, you cannot receive the benefit.

In the same way, I believe, God has chosen the Church to be "holy and blameless." To receive that promise you must belong to the Church. Without my Calvinist world view, I can now see it that way. Why read these passages as though they speak of individual salvation?

God chose corporate Israel in the OT, yes? Does that mean he did not choose all other nations? Yes - to answer my own question - it does. But that does not mean that individuals of other nations couldn't be part of Israel. Israel was supposed to make and accept converts from other nations - who were made part of God's chosen.

I would like to hear from you on the mystery aspects of this topic. There is mystery here. There is mystery in many things taught in the Bible... But if someone never accepts mystery in the Bible couldn't it lead to error? ... I would like to hear from you on the mystery idea. Is it something you have thought about? Whether it be from a calvinist, arminian or some other standpoint.

I am not sure what you mean by "... if someone never accepts mystery in the Bible couldn't it lead to error?" Could you expound a bit more on that idea - as well as "mystery" in general - before I respond to your question?

peace,

dane

[Guest]

Robin,

You wrote:
There just seems to be so much that leads me to believe God chooses people, not all, but some, to eternal life. That man played no part in influencing God to choose him or her.

For example, "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him. In love 5He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, 6to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved,"
(Eph. 1:3-6, NASB)

For it to mean what you suggest, shouldn't it say: " 4. just as He chose us [to be] in Him before the foundation of the world, "?

And you wrote: Eph 2 follows this idea. We were dead in our trespasses, but God made us alive together with Christ, we were saved by grace (as you know) through faith, but both grace and faith are not stemming from us."And this is not of your own doing..." (2:. The "this" is a pronoun which after a phrase is referring to the entire phrase before it, so grace and faith are a gift.

When I read the passage, I think of salvation as the gift.

God bless, Homer

[Guest]

Hi Robin,

Have you considered the other alternative between Calvinism and Arminianism: Christian Universalism?

I find that it incorporates the strengths of both the Calvinist and Arminian views, while mitigating their weaknesses. Both God's sovereignty and man's free will are accounted for. God has predestined that all will be saved; and this is unconditional.

Further reading: http://www.willamette.edu/~ttalbott/prolegomenon.shtml

- Danny

[Guest]

Rbaitz,
Thanks for your open inquiry. I would agree with you that Eph. 1 looks like perhaps Paul is saying that individuals are predestined to adoption as sons before the foundation of the world. The part of these verses that is usually overlooked by most Calvinists is "in Him", "in the Beloved", "in Christ", etc...
God the father predestined that all, who by faith abide "in Him" will obtain the inheritance. eg. John 8:31-32 "If you abide (i.e. "remain") in my word then you are truly disciples of Mine and you shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free." Throughout Eph 1 the guarantee is only to those who are found "in Him". In verses 3 and 4 Paul is talking about the church corporately that was predestined to be holy and blameless. See also Eph 5:26..."that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she should be holy and blameless." This predestination of the corporate body is unconditinoal and guaranteed. But also see Col 1:22-23 where Paul is now talking to the individuals in the Colossian congregation: "He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach--if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that youhave heard..." Notice that, for individuals, there is indeed a condition, that we must "continue in the faith..."
Notice also how Paul talks about "we" and "us" in the first 12 verses and then switches to "you" in verse 13. When Paul switches from the discussion of Christ's corporate body (OT saints and the early church in Jerusalem, i.e. "we who were the first to hope in Christ..") in verses 4-12 to the Epesian congregation in verse 13, he switches to "you also". This is a transition most Calvinists also ignore in their discussion of this epistle. Notice the order of events in verse 13: 1. listening to the gospel. 2. having believed. 3. THEN being sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise.
The things one can accurately take from this part of Paul's letter are that Christ and His church are unconditionally elect but individuals must, by faith, be connected to the body (see Paul's discussion of the olive tree in Rom 11:17-23). We were chosen "in Christ" (v. 4), being predestined to adoption as sons is "through Jesus Christ" (v. 5), it is "in Him" that anyone has redemption (v. 7), God's kind intentions to us were "purposed in Him" (v. 9), any inheritance we enjoy is a result of being "in Him" (v. 10-11) In other words, God's plan for the redemption of mankind was established before the foundation of the world. His plan was that anyone who, by faith, places him/herself in God's hand and remains (i.e. abides) there will be saved. Salvation is "through (or by means of) faith" ( in addition to Eph 1:13 see Eph 2:8-9) Notice in these two verses that "and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast." "that" is neuter and cannot refer to either "faith" or "grace" since both of these nouns are feminine. In the Greek, any pronoun must agree with its antecedent noun in gender. "that not of yourselves" is referring to "the act of being saved". God is wholly responsible for our salvation but He conditions it on our faith.
The Calvinist often argues that if a person excercises faith then he is doing a good work and has something in which he could boast. Scripture refutes this notion. See Romans 3:27-4:5 and 4:16. No one who excersises faith has anything to boast in. Faith is not a meritorious work, it is the opposite of works, according to Paul.
Think about it for a minute. How can I, by acknowledging my total need for a savior, my total "lostness" apart from Christ, my total dependance on His gracious gift that I have done nothing to merit, be somehow credited with "doing something" to achieve my own salvation?
The Calvinist argues, however, that "we are spiritually dead" and no one who is dead can do anything (Eph 2:1). They ignore the metaphorical use of the word "dead" throughout scripture. John, for example, states that "the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear shall live." (Jn 5:25) Notice that the dead are not first regenerated and then hear but hear and then live. We are asked how "those who are dead to sin can still live in it?" (Rom 6:2) Jesus and Peter also used the metaphor of being "sick" to describe the lost (eg. it is the sick who need a physician) Why should we take one metaphor (dead) literally and not the other (sickness)?
I too, like many on this forum, once thought that Reformed notions of God's sovereignty had to be true. They seemed to explain so many verses and passages of scripture in a cogent and coherent way. The problem I came to see was that the passages they used were too often taken out of context, either historical or textual, and used to make the universal point they wanted it to make when the author had no sort of universal polemic in mind.
The Calvinist has never come up with a satisfactory explanation of how God predestines either the election or reprobation of every individual and is not responsible for or the cause of evil. This is just not a logical conclusion. They therefore resort to stating that it is one of the great mysteries of God that we just don't understand. Now I grant you there are many mysteries of God that we don't understand (the trinity for example) but to hold a Calvinist position on election, reprobation and evil is not a mystery, it is nonsense, a logical absurdity.
I would encourage you to peruse other posts on this topic (if you have not already done so) where most of these issues are discussed in much greater detail, often from both sides, and see which one has the easiest time explaining all the scriptures on this matter. Also see Steve's series on Calvinism/God's sovereignty in the MP-3 files at this site. I have now read 8 or 9 books on both sides of this issue (including James White's) and have concluded that the non-Calvinist interpretations are most in keeping with scriptural context and with God's character.
Steve has suggested that the position which most convincingly explains the verses that could be used against that position is most likely correct. I wish you success in your journey through this issue.

In Him,

Jess

[Guest]

So how is it that God can choose the church, without choosing and having in mind the individuals that make up the church?

[Guest]

So how is it that God can choose the church, without choosing and having in mind the individuals that make up the church?

I think it is possible for God to choose the Church without knowing the

future members because there are already members of the Church and

they are the men who are faithful to God such as Moses and Abraham.

These men would never been saved if the death and resurrection of

Christ did not happen. Although they were faithful to God the Father but

their faith also rest upon the promises of God such as the death and

resurrection.Therefore if for example after the death and

resurrection of Christ not a single person surrendered to Christ there will

always be a Church and this Church has been predestined to be with

Christ.

[Guest]

If you say, "God looked into the future to see who picked Him" please give scripture reference. I haven't found one yet.

Robin

Does God know all things? Not all think so.

If you say yes, then do you not admit that God has always known all things and is not "learning" as He goes along. It follows then that God, when choosing the elect already knew who would believe, right? So God didn't "look into the future", God already knew.

Also, we don't "pick God". God has given a command that comes through the Gospel. I believe Paul put it this way:

Acts 17:30 Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, 31 because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained.

God "picks" what happends to those who do and don't repent and accept the forgiveness found in Christ.

I did say "accept". Does not Jesus Himself teach that there is something to first consider before becoming a Christian (disciple)?

Luke 14:25 Now great multitudes went with Him. And He turned and said to them, 26 “If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple. 27 And whoever does not bear his cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple. 28 For which of you, intending to build a tower, does not sit down first and count the cost, whether he has enough to finish it— 29 lest, after he has laid the foundation, and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, 30 saying, ‘This man began to build and was not able to finish’? 31 Or what king, going to make war against another king, does not sit down first and consider whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? 32 Or else, while the other is still a great way off, he sends a delegation and asks conditions of peace. 33 So likewise, whoever of you does not forsake all that he has cannot be My disciple.

Also, it is out of the heart that we speak "...out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks" (Matt. 12:34), and what is in the heart of the person is what comes out of him: "For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness. All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man" (Mark 7:21-23). It follows then that man's understanding, reflection, feelings, and experiences are all stained by sin. ...It then follows that out of his utterly sinful condition, only sinful desires and effects will follow. The question must then be asked, "How can a sinful person ever desire God?"

This is true that Jesus said these things, it's also true that Jesus said this:

Luke 11:11 If a son asks for bread from any father among you, will he give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will he give him a serpent instead of a fish? 12 Or if he asks for an egg, will he offer him a scorpion? 13 If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!”

Jesus not only admits that those who are evil give good gifts to their children (isn't that a good thing?) but that they can ask their heavenly Father who will give them the Holy Spirit! All that with an evil heart, dead in tresspass and sin.