Steve's response to challenges raised by Mark & Dusman
Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2004 1:44 pm
This is the continuation of a discussion that began on the forum at www.unchainedradio.com. It began with certain Calvinists commenting on my debate with Pastor Gene Cook, Jr., the previous week. It took a while for me to discover that this forum existed, so I joined in late. However, the others had posted so many comments before I arrived that there was much for me to respond to. After I did so, even more points were raised by the Calvinists. As I am currently teaching full-time (on a different topic) in Canada, I have not been able to quickly get back to the discussion. Now there are heaps of posts there for me to respond to. My responses, of necessity, occupy a lot of space—too much, I felt, to burden the other forum with. Therefore, I have directed them to look over here, since I can post articles of any length I choose on my own forum. :-)
Hello Mark and Dusman,
I confess, I find it hard to know where to start in responding to your comments. So few of them are connected to any discernible whole-Bible-exegetical approach that I am forced to either ignore many of them altogether as unintelligible, or else to try to discover the hidden rationale that informs such astonishing comments. I have attempted to do the latter. I do understand Calvinism quite well, but that doesn’t mean I understand the thought processes of every Calvinist—some of which are truly inscrutable. Some human minds (Calvinist or not) seem to know how to rationally analyze the contents of a statement and to produce a coherent argument relative to it—and some apparently do not. Whether this ability, or lack thereof, is attributable to native talent, or whether it is an acquired skill, I don’t know. But it is difficult for two people who do not both share this capacity to conduct a controversial discussion. It is easier to conduct a fruitful debate with a person who can look at evidence objectively and who knows how to weigh an argument, than with someone whose loyalty to a system is so blinding that he manages to find some support (indiscernible to those lacking a prior commitment to his system) even in passages that are devastating to his system.
Not only is it hard to know where to start in responding, but it is equally difficult to know where and when to stop! Ideally, a theological discussion should lead all parties, in the end, to an acknowledgement of the truth, which is where all the biblical evidence (once it has been properly presented and processed) will point. I have noticed, however, that in disputing with Calvinists, there is no logical end to the dialog, because few seem as interested in being corrected by what the Bible says as they are interested in showcasing and defending their personal beliefs against all challenges. Thus, when the proof of a point has been established against the Calvinist, and the expected response is that he acknowledge his error, instead he comes back with wave after wave of new arguments, each more feeble than the previous, or else simply repeats the debunked argument in different words. I don’t mean these comments to be uncharitable. I only report what I have too-often observed.
I am a lover of the truth, and I only enjoy disputing with others who also love the truth, and who would enjoy acknowledging it, once the evidence is all in. When this love of truth is absent, no real progress can be made toward resolution and improvement of our understanding. The result is endless haggling. When a sound biblical presentation just does not point where an “advocate” wants it to point, there seems to be no end to the nonsensical and non-exegetical responses that can be generated to keep the losing side in the discussion. When neither side is being convinced, the discussion can circle the topic endlessly, until one side simply becomes exhausted with the game and decides to play the gentleman and give the other the last word. “It is honorable for a man to stop striving, since any fool can start a quarrel” (Prov.20:3). I may not be far from taking this honorable step in this particular exchange. At the moment, I am watching for signs of integrity in my opponents here, to determine whether there is any sense in continuing. My time is quite valuable to me, and I would like to debate (if at all) only with people who can recognize the drift of an argument, who are willing to follow evidence wherever it leads, who can recognize when their view has suffered the coup-de-grace in the argument and can say, “Maybe I was wrong.”
It is only fair that I tell you what it is about your comments that leads me to give them such poor marks. I will first address my comments to Mark, and afterward to Dusman.
A striking example of the argumentation that bothers me may be seen in the following: You (Mark) wrote:
“Even by admitting “through faith” you are admitting that salvation in some sense precedes actual faith…Salvation is a Gift of God by grace.”
I’m sorry, but I don’t follow your reasoning. If I were to say, “Richard acquired his sophistication through exhaustive research,” the average rational person would assume that the research preceded and was the means by which the sophistication came to Richard. This is how language is generally used, and how normal people understand it. Your comment appears to be presuming an opposite meaning—namely, that the above statement would be an admission that something preceded Richard’s research. That many factors in Richard’s life may well have preceded the research is very likely, but it is not affirmed nor hinted at in the sentence. The one thing the sentence really cannot mean is that the sophistication preceded the research. I simply find your analysis counter-intuitive and difficult to follow.
Coming back to the original statement, you and I both affirm (acknowledging the truth of Ephesians 2:8-9), as you wrote, that “salvation is a gift of God by grace.” However, the passage tells us that this salvation comes “by grace, through faith.”
Please allow me to labor the point a bit more. When “Phenomenon B” occurs “through” “Phenomenon A” (meaning, “by way of” or “by means of”) it is evident that “Phenomenon A” (the means) precipitated “Phenomenon B” (the end), and thus had to exist first.
Thus, if I have been saved “by grace through faith” this means that grace (or its benefit, salvation) came to me “through” faith (meaning, “by way of” or “by means of”) —which leads to the conclusion that faith existed first. If this wording still is too ambiguous, we can look at another affirmation of the same truth in different words, which allows of no confusion. Paul writes, in Romans 5:2—“through whom also we have access by faith into this grace…” What can this mean, but that faith is the means of, or “access into” grace—not vice versa.
In order to be entirely fair, and not to play the game of picking only the verses that support my contention and ignoring those that encourage my opponent, I must acknowledge that there is a one verse of scripture that seems to say just the opposite of Ephesians 2:8. That verse is Acts 18:27, where it is said that Apollos “greatly helped those who had believed through grace.” As Ephesians and Romans tell us that we received grace through faith, so Acts tells us that Christians believed through grace! This certainly sounds like a better proof of the Calvinist position (i.e., that regeneration by grace precedes and leads to faith) than can be found in the two passages considered above. However, this verse does not make Calvinism’s point at all, and non-Calvinists do not deny that prevenient grace is a factor that always precedes faith and conversion. In fact, this has always been an affirmation of Arminian theology (John 6:44). It is quite harmonious with non-Calvinistic theology to say that God’s gracious overtures must reach us before we will call upon Him. Where Calvinists and Arminians disagree regarding this matter is the former’s insistance that complete regeneration must precede faith (a point not affirmed in Acts 18:27), whereas the Arminian believes that God’s gracious wooing can be present without regeneration resulting. The Spirit and God’s grace can be resisted, spurned and insulted (Acts 7:51/Gal.5:4/Heb.10:29).
Those who surrender to God’s overtures must (and will) forever afterward acknowledge that they would never have even considered coming to God, had it not been for His prior manifestation of grace in sending Christ with the magnanimous offer of the gospel, and in His granting the conviction of sin, righteousness and judgment through the Holy Spirit. Thus, we have no problem with the several passages that emphasize this aspect of salvation, e.g., those verses that speak of God “granting” repentance (Acts 11:18/ 2 Tim.2:25), faith (Phil.1:29), and our coming to Christ (John 6:65). None of these passages suggest that the “grant” was made without any consideration of factors in the “grantee.” Actually, the same word is used in 2 Timothy 1:18—“The Lord grant to [Onesiphorus] that he may find mercy from the Lord in that Day.” The context shows that it was the choices and actions of this man (i.e., his kindness to the prisoner Paul) that formed the basis of Paul’s requesting on his behalf a “grant” of mercy. Thus, God’s “grant” does not, in itself, imply that nothing in the recipient precipitates the gift.
The Bible plainly tells, in fact, that there is indeed something in the recipient that precipitates the grace given. In three separate contexts the Bible tells us that “God resists the proud, but He gives grace to the humble” (Proverbs 3:34/ James 4:6/ 1 Pet.5:5/ cf. Isa.57:15). This obviously means that humbleness of mind is a precondition for receiving grace, and that pride will block the reception of the same. Though God may occasionally be said to “humble” people, context shows that this is a reference to Him shaping external circumstances that are intended to make men aware of their lowly or dependant condition, so as to influence them in the direction of a modest self appraisal. Humility of the heart, however, is not said to be God’s bestowal, but man’s responsibility. It is the oft-repeated refrain in scripture that man must humble himself (Ex.10:3/ 2 Chron.7:14; 34:27/ Jer.13:18/ Matt.18:4; 23:12/ James 4:10/ 1 Pet:5:5). Repentance and faith are the fruit and function of humility.
When man humbles himself in repentance and faith, God gives grace. That these things are present before grace is given is unambiguous in the relevant passages. This is why the scripture everywhere counts men as culpable for not believing—because, had they been willing, they could have humbled themselves and believed, resulting in their receiving grace and salvation. For the first three centuries after Christ, no one seems to have had difficulty seeing or grasping this concept, and few, apart from Calvinists, seem to find it difficult to grasp today.
The related Calvinist claim, i.e., that “faith” itself “is a gift of God,” requires the most unlikely exegesis of Ephesians 2:8-9 imaginable. One who is not trying to shoehorn the passage into a Calvinist paradigm can easily see the simple meaning of Paul’s statement. Paul is telling us that salvation itself (not faith) “is the gift of God, not of works.” Otherwise we would have to posit that Paul was concerned to counter false teachers who were claiming that faith itself was “of works” (i.e., the result of works)—not very likely, since no one has ever been known to advocate such a doctrine!
The very natural reading of Ephesians 2:8-9, declaring that salvation is the gift of God, granted as a consequence of mere faith, is more reasonably seen as countering the widely held heresy that “salvation” is “of works.” This simply makes sense. The alternative does not. In addition (as has often been pointed out), the noun (“faith”) and the pronoun in question (the “it” which is “the gift of God”) do not agree with one another in gender (they are feminine and neuter, respectively). The Greek normally requires gender agreement between a pronoun and its antecedent (there are some exceptions). Any viewpoint that requires, for its defense, such tortured exegesis as Calvinists bring to this verse surely must be held in suspicion.
I now turn to another example from Mark: With reference to my citation of 1 Corinthians 10:13, you wrote:
“Are you saying then that man will only sin according to the temptation that he can endure? or that this passage teaches that a Christian will not sin or find some escape from sinning?”
I am not sure what the first question means, and the second question seems only to be asking if I believe what the passages says, which I obviously do, or else I would not have cited it. Then, just before saying, “You are nowhere close in understanding these passages Steve...” you treat your readers to a sample of your own exegetical expertise, as follows:
“You are a Teacher for many years and should know the context of the passages you quote from..
1/ We are dealing with temptations from “Men” which are “trials”.
2/ These temptations relate to persecution from humans etc common to man...
3/ God promises to honor them and make a way of escape for them knowing how much we are able to endure.
4/ It is God who determines the strength and means of our temptation, so these passages should comfort believers who are tempted or persecuted by “men”. For God is in control! Praise Him!!”
Having indeed been “a teacher for many years,” I actually do pay close attention to context in trying to make sense out of biblical passages. This is what makes it clear that you are mistaken and appear to be making this up as you go along. The passage in question has nothing to do with being persecuted or with escaping persecution (we do not know that the Corinthians ever faced persecution; and no escape from persecution is ever promised to Christians in scripture). The thoughts you expressed are very far from anything intended by the passage, which makes me honestly wonder if you even took the pains to read the context before taking me to task about it.
The passage is about the temptation to worship idols—a major issue for Christians living in the Greek and Roman world. Paul is clearly issuing a warning to those Christians who were granting themselves the liberty to flirt with temptation by participating in the idolatrous feasts of Corinth (check out the context of chapters 8 through 10—you won’t find it unclear). It is part of a single, extended discussion on this topic. Paul tells these libertines that it is not God who leads them into overwhelming temptations, as they themselves were doing, and He provides a way of escape from temptations (i.e., by staying out of the idol temples) so that they are themselves to blame if, while boasting of their ability to stand, they end up falling (v.12). He follows the statement under consideration by concluding: “Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry” (v.14). The statement is not about trials, nor persecution, but about temptation to sin. There seems no reason why this truth about temptation to idolatry should not be extended generally to temptation toward any other sins.
Let me take another example: You cite the following verse:
"Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."(John 6:69)
The place this citation occupies in your discussion (and your use of boldface type) suggests that you see the words “have come to believe” as declaring that “believing” was the result of “coming” —as if the disciples were saying, “we have come, in order to believe.” Even if this highly unlikely suggestion were true, it hardly makes any point favorable to the Calvinist, since both “coming” and “believing” are human actions, both of which are earlier declared to be conditions for humans to be saved (v.35). If you are implying (I find your reasoning difficult to follow) that “coming” is an act of God (which it is not said to be), resulting in man’s believing, then you would appear to be using this verse as a proof of the Calvinist belief that man’s faith is a result of a prior regenerating work of God in the heart. Though this is a wild flight of fanciful exposition with regard to this verse, it seems to be the only way that you could find it relevant to the present controversy. But this is all moot, since “we have come to believe” does not mean “we have come, in order to believe,” nor does it mean, “We have come, resulting in our believing.” The statement utilizes a common phraseology that simply means, “believing that you are the Christ and the Son of God is the conclusion at which we have arrived.” When Calvinists must use verses like this to defend their positions, there must be slim legitimate support available, indeed.
You wrote (of me): “You… seem painfully unaware that your hermeneutic ends up contradicting many scriptures.” In response, I can only say that it is true, that, if my hermeneutic ends up doing this, that I am unaware of it. You said, “Do you not see that you are pitting scripture against scripture?” The answer is, No, I do not see that I am doing this, and, in fact, I am not. I don’t believe that scripture can be pitted against scripture. At best, scripture can be utilized to explain, interpret and elucidate other scripture. This is what I believe I am employing the scriptures to do. You call it “running away” from a passage to another. I see it as demonstrating from a related text that some other understanding must be sought, alternative to the spin you are placing on the original passage under consideration. This is the best way to avoid reaching erroneous conclusions about the meaning of a text, rather than taking it in isolation. Frankly, it would be a very good policy for Calvinists to adopt, though it would soon thin their ranks.
*********************************************
I must also address your suggestion that only Christ is able to lay down His life for enemies, and that our imitation of Him can not, and is not expected to, proceed so far as this degree of love. It is hard to know what to say to such heterodox statements! Without the slightest biblical warrant, you place arbitrary limits upon the extent of our responsibility to obey and imitate Christ! You are apparently unaware of Christian history, throughout which it has been in no sense unheard-of for Christians to imitate Christ to this extent. An example that comes immediately to mind would be the famous case of the fleeing Anabaptist whose pursuer fell through ice and would have died, had not the fugitive pitied his persecutor and rescued him. The Anabaptist died for his selfless and Christ-like act of saving his pursuer—just as he knew would happen when he resolved to rescue him—and his decision was not uncharacteristic of those in that movement. Yet you naively exclaim, “I am shocked that you think this quality exists in men at all.” Why should I not believe it, when it has been demonstrated many times in history, and I know that, by the grace of God, I would do the same thing?
You have accused me of not being a good listener. If this charge is correct, then we at least can be said to have one thing in common with each other. You certainly don’t appear to listen, but, rather, only to hear what you assume another person will say, instead of what he actually says. This is evident in your rant (and final conclusion) about my prior suggestion that I would be willing to die for my enemy, in obedience to Christ. I do not think that I have ever seen anyone go quite so berserk at such an innocuous statement, as you did!
Yet it is Jesus Himself to whom you are reacting. If you love only those who love you, He said, what thank have you? Even sinners do the same. You must love your enemies, so as to imitate your Father, who loves His enemies also. What does love look like? It looks like Jesus, who laid down His life for His enemies. Paul indeed indicated, as you pointed out, that it is very rare for men to die for one another, but this is precisely the aspect in which the love of Christ differs from sinful man’s inferior kind of love. It is this love of Christ that is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit (as I said in my previous post).
You attacked me vociferously for affirming this biblical truth, even though my original comment was in no sense intended as a challenge or attack against you. I must assume that you were very convicted—a reaction which I certainly did not anticipate. I have heard it said that when you throw a rock into a pack of dogs, the one that yelps got hit. I have seldom seen such a display of seemingly unprovoked yelping!
I want to commend you, however, for going to the trouble of producing some actual scripture references in support of your statements. The verses you listed are: Jeremiah 31:3, Exodus 19:5, Deuteronomy 7:6, Deuteronomy 7:7, Deuteronomy 32:10, Psalms 135:4 , Malachi 3:17, Titus 2:14, 1 Peter 2:9, Hosea 11:1, Revelation 3:9, Romans 9:13, Malachi 1:3, and Psalm 5:5.
The last three on the list are given to show that God “hates” certain people, and the balance are given to support the idea that (as you put it) “God Himself loves His own children with a love that is particular and discriminating.” Very good. So He does. Now we must look at the passages themselves to see what they teach about this discriminating love and the identity of its recipients.
Of the many scriptures presented by you above, only two could be said to speak of God’s attitude toward individuals (the rest are about His love for a national entity or a spiritual community—as we might speak of our “love” for our country). Malachi 3:17 talks about God’s tender regard for “those who feared the Lord,” and Psalm 5:5 speaks of God’s hatred of “the boastful” and “workers of iniquity.” Obviously, neither of these verses can be said to be relevant to God loving or hating anyone without regard to anything in themselves (as Calvinists think He does), since both passages state exactly what it was in those individuals that inspired either God’s favor (i.e., they “feared the Lord”) or contempt (they were “workers of iniquity”). It is also to be noted that these passages make no distinction between “the elect” and “the reprobate,” since some who “fear the Lord” today may later fall away and thus prove that they are not of the elect (history and scripture prove as much), and since today’s “workers of iniquity” may be tomorrow’s saints. The attitude of God toward the individuals mentioned is directly connected to their current attitudes and behavior, and no suggestion exists of any unconditional favor or disfavor on God’s part toward either group.
Since each of us who is now saved was at one time “a worker of iniquity” (and, at that time, “hated” by God according to the statement in Psalm 5:5), yet, in another sense, we were also simultaneously loved by God, so that He sent His Son to die for us, who were His enemies (Rom.5:8-10). Therefore, Christ died for us even when He “hated” us, that is, when we were still workers of iniquity. We who were “children of wrath” (Eph.2:3) were, at the same moment “fore-loved” (the Calvinist’s preferred translation of Rom.8:29). That is, He hated, we might say, “who we were” while we were choosing to live in rebellion against Him, yet, even then, He loved and valued us as the marred images of Himself, and counted our reclamation worth His dying for. This is precisely the attitude toward all men, including our enemies, which we are told to adopt. Like God Himself, we are to despise sinners “as sinners” (Psalm 15:4), because we hate sin; but we love the same people “as people,” whom God values enough to die for (and we should also—Eph.5:1).
The remainder of the texts you gave speak only of God’s special regard for the national entity of Israel—contrasted at times, with His lack of the same toward Esau, i.e., the nation of Edom (Malachi 1:3 and Romans 9:13)—and for the church as the New Israel. That it is a national “election,” rather than individual, that Malachi is talking about is confirmed by Paul’s quoting him and equating his thought with that of Genesis 25:23 (“two nations are in thy womb…and the older shall serve the younger”) when Paul was discussing corporate election (not personal), in Romans 9 (“the older shall serve the younger," cannot be about the individuals, Jacob and Esau, since it would then prove itself to be a false prophecy. Esau never served Jacob, though Edom served Israel under tribute for many years—2 Kings 8:20).
God’s love for Israel was of a different sort than His universal love for all men (all of whom, He assures us, He would desire to see saved—1 Tim.2:4). This “love” speaks of His choice of the nation as a corporate entity to carry forward His earthly program. He did not choose Edom, Jacob’s twin, to have this privilege, as Paul points out in Romans 9:13, but unconditionally selected Jacob’s family for this honor. These passages do not speak about personal salvation, since (obviously) not every Israelite was personally saved, nor was every Edomite personally lost. It was the nation as a whole that was chosen—not for salvation as we normally use that term, but for the prestige of being God’s own nation on earth, the earthly instrument for the bringing forth of His promises—especially the promise of the Messiah.
—Related Excursus on Romans 9 (to avoid, skip down eight paragraphs):
No Calvinist I have read has yet been able to make a convincing case that Paul, in Romans 9, is talking about individual election, nor that the election he is describing there is related to eternal salvation. The context of the chapter and of the verses he quotes to make his point, all indicate that he is discussing God’s sovereign prerogatives in choosing to accept a portion of the descendants of Abraham (that is, the portion consisting of those that embrace Christ) as those through whom His covenant promises will be realized, and to reject the rest of the offspring of Abraham. While it is true that the believing Jews do experience eternal salvation as part of the New Covenant of which they are a part, I do not find Paul making this his central point in the discussion in Romans 9. Rather his purpose is to establish that God has every right to divide the nation of Israel (or the nations, in general) into categories and to deal separately with the different categories. Paul demonstrates that God has dealt similarly with Abraham’s descendants from the very beginning of the covenant (v.7ff).
The examples of national “dealings” that he mentions are clearly not with reference to salvation, since there has never been such a thing as a whole nation eternally saved, though there has been such a thing as a whole nation chosen for temporal privilege and instrumentality. Paul’s illustrations speak of God’s dividing the family of Isaac into separate nations, choosing one of them for earthly privilege (not salvation), and excluding the other (vv.10-13). This immediately and logically follows his making of the same point about the previous generation of Abraham’s family (vv.7-9).
Paul then makes a similar point, contrasting God’s special kindness to Israel with His harsh treatment of Egypt in the time of Moses. Even the mention of Pharaoh’s hardness of heart is not brought up primarily in the interest of discussing the question of that man’s personal salvation, but rather Pharaoh is involved merely as a pawn in a larger game, whose object is the judgment of Egypt and its gods (cf. Ex.12:12).
So, as Paul points out, God loved Israel above Edom and above Egypt. From there he proceeds to establish that God is not finished making such divisions. Like a potter, who may do as he wishes with his own clay (v.21), God has taken one lump of clay, namely Israel (see Jer.18:6), and made from it two separate categories, or “vessels.” One consists of those Jews who embrace the Messiah; the other consists of those who reject Him.
Just as God chose to treat the nations Israel and Edom differently from each other, so also God treats these two categories within Israel differently from one another. Those in the first “vessel” are themselves “vessels of mercy”(v.23), while those in the other category are “vessels of wrath” (v.22). He only retains the name “Israel” for the former, and deprives the latter of that designation…thus explaining his earlier declaration: “They are not all Israel who are of Israel”(v.6).
Paul anticipates that a critic, wrongly extrapolating (from God’s unconditional choosing of nations) that God does the same in the case of individuals, would logically raise the hypothetical question, “How does God find fault? For who has resisted His will?” (v.19). That is, the critic supposes that Paul has implied that no person can resist God’s will, removing any grounds for God to “find fault” with man. The reasoning is sound enough: If we accept the premise that no one can resist God’s will, then there is indeed no basis for faulting men, who, in their unbelief and sin, are merely fulfilling God’s irresistible designs for them. Paul finds no fault with the logic of the critic—only with the premise. Paul has never suggested anything about individuals being subject to arbitrary decrees—only nations. In fact, Paul points out that the critic is himself “Exhibit A” of this fact. To the question, “Who has resisted His will?” Paul answers, “Who are YOU??? You are the answer to your own question, and the living proof that people DO resist God’s will, because YOU are answering against God!”(v.20)
God has always chosen which categories to specially favor. Individuals choose which category they will belong to. Consider what God said to Cain (who was ultimately not counted among the saved): “If you do well, will you not also be accepted [like Abel was]?” Those who “do well” are the category of the ones to be accepted; Cain and Abel (along with all men after them) chose their respective categories. The categories are corporate, and their membership is not predetermined by any unchangeable decrees.
This was true of Israel and it is true of Christ, the antitype of Israel. Both are corporate entities unconditionally chosen of God. In the Old Testament, men could choose to be “in Israel” or not. A natural-born Jew could apostasize from Israel, and a Gentile could be proselytized into it. It was Israel (the category) that was chosen, not the composition of its constituency. If Israel was “chosen” by God, then those who adhered to Israel’s covenant enjoyed the benefits of that “chosen-ness.” They were chosen “in Israel.” Likewise, Christ is God’s chosen One. People choose to abide in Christ or not (which is why there are exhortations addressed to people about this). Those who are “in Christ” participate in His “chosen-ness” with Him. They are chosen “in Him” (Eph.1:4). If we defect (i.e., if the branch does not abide in the Vine), He (the corporate Vine) continues to be chosen, along with all the remaining branches “in Him.” However, the separated branches will no longer share in that chosen-ness. God’s election is of the category, not the individual.
—End of Excursus—
There is a limit to how long a post can be posted here. I have reached that limit, so I will continue below...
Hello Mark and Dusman,
I confess, I find it hard to know where to start in responding to your comments. So few of them are connected to any discernible whole-Bible-exegetical approach that I am forced to either ignore many of them altogether as unintelligible, or else to try to discover the hidden rationale that informs such astonishing comments. I have attempted to do the latter. I do understand Calvinism quite well, but that doesn’t mean I understand the thought processes of every Calvinist—some of which are truly inscrutable. Some human minds (Calvinist or not) seem to know how to rationally analyze the contents of a statement and to produce a coherent argument relative to it—and some apparently do not. Whether this ability, or lack thereof, is attributable to native talent, or whether it is an acquired skill, I don’t know. But it is difficult for two people who do not both share this capacity to conduct a controversial discussion. It is easier to conduct a fruitful debate with a person who can look at evidence objectively and who knows how to weigh an argument, than with someone whose loyalty to a system is so blinding that he manages to find some support (indiscernible to those lacking a prior commitment to his system) even in passages that are devastating to his system.
Not only is it hard to know where to start in responding, but it is equally difficult to know where and when to stop! Ideally, a theological discussion should lead all parties, in the end, to an acknowledgement of the truth, which is where all the biblical evidence (once it has been properly presented and processed) will point. I have noticed, however, that in disputing with Calvinists, there is no logical end to the dialog, because few seem as interested in being corrected by what the Bible says as they are interested in showcasing and defending their personal beliefs against all challenges. Thus, when the proof of a point has been established against the Calvinist, and the expected response is that he acknowledge his error, instead he comes back with wave after wave of new arguments, each more feeble than the previous, or else simply repeats the debunked argument in different words. I don’t mean these comments to be uncharitable. I only report what I have too-often observed.
I am a lover of the truth, and I only enjoy disputing with others who also love the truth, and who would enjoy acknowledging it, once the evidence is all in. When this love of truth is absent, no real progress can be made toward resolution and improvement of our understanding. The result is endless haggling. When a sound biblical presentation just does not point where an “advocate” wants it to point, there seems to be no end to the nonsensical and non-exegetical responses that can be generated to keep the losing side in the discussion. When neither side is being convinced, the discussion can circle the topic endlessly, until one side simply becomes exhausted with the game and decides to play the gentleman and give the other the last word. “It is honorable for a man to stop striving, since any fool can start a quarrel” (Prov.20:3). I may not be far from taking this honorable step in this particular exchange. At the moment, I am watching for signs of integrity in my opponents here, to determine whether there is any sense in continuing. My time is quite valuable to me, and I would like to debate (if at all) only with people who can recognize the drift of an argument, who are willing to follow evidence wherever it leads, who can recognize when their view has suffered the coup-de-grace in the argument and can say, “Maybe I was wrong.”
It is only fair that I tell you what it is about your comments that leads me to give them such poor marks. I will first address my comments to Mark, and afterward to Dusman.
A striking example of the argumentation that bothers me may be seen in the following: You (Mark) wrote:
“Even by admitting “through faith” you are admitting that salvation in some sense precedes actual faith…Salvation is a Gift of God by grace.”
I’m sorry, but I don’t follow your reasoning. If I were to say, “Richard acquired his sophistication through exhaustive research,” the average rational person would assume that the research preceded and was the means by which the sophistication came to Richard. This is how language is generally used, and how normal people understand it. Your comment appears to be presuming an opposite meaning—namely, that the above statement would be an admission that something preceded Richard’s research. That many factors in Richard’s life may well have preceded the research is very likely, but it is not affirmed nor hinted at in the sentence. The one thing the sentence really cannot mean is that the sophistication preceded the research. I simply find your analysis counter-intuitive and difficult to follow.
Coming back to the original statement, you and I both affirm (acknowledging the truth of Ephesians 2:8-9), as you wrote, that “salvation is a gift of God by grace.” However, the passage tells us that this salvation comes “by grace, through faith.”
Please allow me to labor the point a bit more. When “Phenomenon B” occurs “through” “Phenomenon A” (meaning, “by way of” or “by means of”) it is evident that “Phenomenon A” (the means) precipitated “Phenomenon B” (the end), and thus had to exist first.
Thus, if I have been saved “by grace through faith” this means that grace (or its benefit, salvation) came to me “through” faith (meaning, “by way of” or “by means of”) —which leads to the conclusion that faith existed first. If this wording still is too ambiguous, we can look at another affirmation of the same truth in different words, which allows of no confusion. Paul writes, in Romans 5:2—“through whom also we have access by faith into this grace…” What can this mean, but that faith is the means of, or “access into” grace—not vice versa.
In order to be entirely fair, and not to play the game of picking only the verses that support my contention and ignoring those that encourage my opponent, I must acknowledge that there is a one verse of scripture that seems to say just the opposite of Ephesians 2:8. That verse is Acts 18:27, where it is said that Apollos “greatly helped those who had believed through grace.” As Ephesians and Romans tell us that we received grace through faith, so Acts tells us that Christians believed through grace! This certainly sounds like a better proof of the Calvinist position (i.e., that regeneration by grace precedes and leads to faith) than can be found in the two passages considered above. However, this verse does not make Calvinism’s point at all, and non-Calvinists do not deny that prevenient grace is a factor that always precedes faith and conversion. In fact, this has always been an affirmation of Arminian theology (John 6:44). It is quite harmonious with non-Calvinistic theology to say that God’s gracious overtures must reach us before we will call upon Him. Where Calvinists and Arminians disagree regarding this matter is the former’s insistance that complete regeneration must precede faith (a point not affirmed in Acts 18:27), whereas the Arminian believes that God’s gracious wooing can be present without regeneration resulting. The Spirit and God’s grace can be resisted, spurned and insulted (Acts 7:51/Gal.5:4/Heb.10:29).
Those who surrender to God’s overtures must (and will) forever afterward acknowledge that they would never have even considered coming to God, had it not been for His prior manifestation of grace in sending Christ with the magnanimous offer of the gospel, and in His granting the conviction of sin, righteousness and judgment through the Holy Spirit. Thus, we have no problem with the several passages that emphasize this aspect of salvation, e.g., those verses that speak of God “granting” repentance (Acts 11:18/ 2 Tim.2:25), faith (Phil.1:29), and our coming to Christ (John 6:65). None of these passages suggest that the “grant” was made without any consideration of factors in the “grantee.” Actually, the same word is used in 2 Timothy 1:18—“The Lord grant to [Onesiphorus] that he may find mercy from the Lord in that Day.” The context shows that it was the choices and actions of this man (i.e., his kindness to the prisoner Paul) that formed the basis of Paul’s requesting on his behalf a “grant” of mercy. Thus, God’s “grant” does not, in itself, imply that nothing in the recipient precipitates the gift.
The Bible plainly tells, in fact, that there is indeed something in the recipient that precipitates the grace given. In three separate contexts the Bible tells us that “God resists the proud, but He gives grace to the humble” (Proverbs 3:34/ James 4:6/ 1 Pet.5:5/ cf. Isa.57:15). This obviously means that humbleness of mind is a precondition for receiving grace, and that pride will block the reception of the same. Though God may occasionally be said to “humble” people, context shows that this is a reference to Him shaping external circumstances that are intended to make men aware of their lowly or dependant condition, so as to influence them in the direction of a modest self appraisal. Humility of the heart, however, is not said to be God’s bestowal, but man’s responsibility. It is the oft-repeated refrain in scripture that man must humble himself (Ex.10:3/ 2 Chron.7:14; 34:27/ Jer.13:18/ Matt.18:4; 23:12/ James 4:10/ 1 Pet:5:5). Repentance and faith are the fruit and function of humility.
When man humbles himself in repentance and faith, God gives grace. That these things are present before grace is given is unambiguous in the relevant passages. This is why the scripture everywhere counts men as culpable for not believing—because, had they been willing, they could have humbled themselves and believed, resulting in their receiving grace and salvation. For the first three centuries after Christ, no one seems to have had difficulty seeing or grasping this concept, and few, apart from Calvinists, seem to find it difficult to grasp today.
The related Calvinist claim, i.e., that “faith” itself “is a gift of God,” requires the most unlikely exegesis of Ephesians 2:8-9 imaginable. One who is not trying to shoehorn the passage into a Calvinist paradigm can easily see the simple meaning of Paul’s statement. Paul is telling us that salvation itself (not faith) “is the gift of God, not of works.” Otherwise we would have to posit that Paul was concerned to counter false teachers who were claiming that faith itself was “of works” (i.e., the result of works)—not very likely, since no one has ever been known to advocate such a doctrine!
The very natural reading of Ephesians 2:8-9, declaring that salvation is the gift of God, granted as a consequence of mere faith, is more reasonably seen as countering the widely held heresy that “salvation” is “of works.” This simply makes sense. The alternative does not. In addition (as has often been pointed out), the noun (“faith”) and the pronoun in question (the “it” which is “the gift of God”) do not agree with one another in gender (they are feminine and neuter, respectively). The Greek normally requires gender agreement between a pronoun and its antecedent (there are some exceptions). Any viewpoint that requires, for its defense, such tortured exegesis as Calvinists bring to this verse surely must be held in suspicion.
I now turn to another example from Mark: With reference to my citation of 1 Corinthians 10:13, you wrote:
“Are you saying then that man will only sin according to the temptation that he can endure? or that this passage teaches that a Christian will not sin or find some escape from sinning?”
I am not sure what the first question means, and the second question seems only to be asking if I believe what the passages says, which I obviously do, or else I would not have cited it. Then, just before saying, “You are nowhere close in understanding these passages Steve...” you treat your readers to a sample of your own exegetical expertise, as follows:
“You are a Teacher for many years and should know the context of the passages you quote from..
1/ We are dealing with temptations from “Men” which are “trials”.
2/ These temptations relate to persecution from humans etc common to man...
3/ God promises to honor them and make a way of escape for them knowing how much we are able to endure.
4/ It is God who determines the strength and means of our temptation, so these passages should comfort believers who are tempted or persecuted by “men”. For God is in control! Praise Him!!”
Having indeed been “a teacher for many years,” I actually do pay close attention to context in trying to make sense out of biblical passages. This is what makes it clear that you are mistaken and appear to be making this up as you go along. The passage in question has nothing to do with being persecuted or with escaping persecution (we do not know that the Corinthians ever faced persecution; and no escape from persecution is ever promised to Christians in scripture). The thoughts you expressed are very far from anything intended by the passage, which makes me honestly wonder if you even took the pains to read the context before taking me to task about it.
The passage is about the temptation to worship idols—a major issue for Christians living in the Greek and Roman world. Paul is clearly issuing a warning to those Christians who were granting themselves the liberty to flirt with temptation by participating in the idolatrous feasts of Corinth (check out the context of chapters 8 through 10—you won’t find it unclear). It is part of a single, extended discussion on this topic. Paul tells these libertines that it is not God who leads them into overwhelming temptations, as they themselves were doing, and He provides a way of escape from temptations (i.e., by staying out of the idol temples) so that they are themselves to blame if, while boasting of their ability to stand, they end up falling (v.12). He follows the statement under consideration by concluding: “Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry” (v.14). The statement is not about trials, nor persecution, but about temptation to sin. There seems no reason why this truth about temptation to idolatry should not be extended generally to temptation toward any other sins.
Let me take another example: You cite the following verse:
"Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."(John 6:69)
The place this citation occupies in your discussion (and your use of boldface type) suggests that you see the words “have come to believe” as declaring that “believing” was the result of “coming” —as if the disciples were saying, “we have come, in order to believe.” Even if this highly unlikely suggestion were true, it hardly makes any point favorable to the Calvinist, since both “coming” and “believing” are human actions, both of which are earlier declared to be conditions for humans to be saved (v.35). If you are implying (I find your reasoning difficult to follow) that “coming” is an act of God (which it is not said to be), resulting in man’s believing, then you would appear to be using this verse as a proof of the Calvinist belief that man’s faith is a result of a prior regenerating work of God in the heart. Though this is a wild flight of fanciful exposition with regard to this verse, it seems to be the only way that you could find it relevant to the present controversy. But this is all moot, since “we have come to believe” does not mean “we have come, in order to believe,” nor does it mean, “We have come, resulting in our believing.” The statement utilizes a common phraseology that simply means, “believing that you are the Christ and the Son of God is the conclusion at which we have arrived.” When Calvinists must use verses like this to defend their positions, there must be slim legitimate support available, indeed.
You wrote (of me): “You… seem painfully unaware that your hermeneutic ends up contradicting many scriptures.” In response, I can only say that it is true, that, if my hermeneutic ends up doing this, that I am unaware of it. You said, “Do you not see that you are pitting scripture against scripture?” The answer is, No, I do not see that I am doing this, and, in fact, I am not. I don’t believe that scripture can be pitted against scripture. At best, scripture can be utilized to explain, interpret and elucidate other scripture. This is what I believe I am employing the scriptures to do. You call it “running away” from a passage to another. I see it as demonstrating from a related text that some other understanding must be sought, alternative to the spin you are placing on the original passage under consideration. This is the best way to avoid reaching erroneous conclusions about the meaning of a text, rather than taking it in isolation. Frankly, it would be a very good policy for Calvinists to adopt, though it would soon thin their ranks.
*********************************************
I must also address your suggestion that only Christ is able to lay down His life for enemies, and that our imitation of Him can not, and is not expected to, proceed so far as this degree of love. It is hard to know what to say to such heterodox statements! Without the slightest biblical warrant, you place arbitrary limits upon the extent of our responsibility to obey and imitate Christ! You are apparently unaware of Christian history, throughout which it has been in no sense unheard-of for Christians to imitate Christ to this extent. An example that comes immediately to mind would be the famous case of the fleeing Anabaptist whose pursuer fell through ice and would have died, had not the fugitive pitied his persecutor and rescued him. The Anabaptist died for his selfless and Christ-like act of saving his pursuer—just as he knew would happen when he resolved to rescue him—and his decision was not uncharacteristic of those in that movement. Yet you naively exclaim, “I am shocked that you think this quality exists in men at all.” Why should I not believe it, when it has been demonstrated many times in history, and I know that, by the grace of God, I would do the same thing?
You have accused me of not being a good listener. If this charge is correct, then we at least can be said to have one thing in common with each other. You certainly don’t appear to listen, but, rather, only to hear what you assume another person will say, instead of what he actually says. This is evident in your rant (and final conclusion) about my prior suggestion that I would be willing to die for my enemy, in obedience to Christ. I do not think that I have ever seen anyone go quite so berserk at such an innocuous statement, as you did!
Yet it is Jesus Himself to whom you are reacting. If you love only those who love you, He said, what thank have you? Even sinners do the same. You must love your enemies, so as to imitate your Father, who loves His enemies also. What does love look like? It looks like Jesus, who laid down His life for His enemies. Paul indeed indicated, as you pointed out, that it is very rare for men to die for one another, but this is precisely the aspect in which the love of Christ differs from sinful man’s inferior kind of love. It is this love of Christ that is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit (as I said in my previous post).
You attacked me vociferously for affirming this biblical truth, even though my original comment was in no sense intended as a challenge or attack against you. I must assume that you were very convicted—a reaction which I certainly did not anticipate. I have heard it said that when you throw a rock into a pack of dogs, the one that yelps got hit. I have seldom seen such a display of seemingly unprovoked yelping!
I want to commend you, however, for going to the trouble of producing some actual scripture references in support of your statements. The verses you listed are: Jeremiah 31:3, Exodus 19:5, Deuteronomy 7:6, Deuteronomy 7:7, Deuteronomy 32:10, Psalms 135:4 , Malachi 3:17, Titus 2:14, 1 Peter 2:9, Hosea 11:1, Revelation 3:9, Romans 9:13, Malachi 1:3, and Psalm 5:5.
The last three on the list are given to show that God “hates” certain people, and the balance are given to support the idea that (as you put it) “God Himself loves His own children with a love that is particular and discriminating.” Very good. So He does. Now we must look at the passages themselves to see what they teach about this discriminating love and the identity of its recipients.
Of the many scriptures presented by you above, only two could be said to speak of God’s attitude toward individuals (the rest are about His love for a national entity or a spiritual community—as we might speak of our “love” for our country). Malachi 3:17 talks about God’s tender regard for “those who feared the Lord,” and Psalm 5:5 speaks of God’s hatred of “the boastful” and “workers of iniquity.” Obviously, neither of these verses can be said to be relevant to God loving or hating anyone without regard to anything in themselves (as Calvinists think He does), since both passages state exactly what it was in those individuals that inspired either God’s favor (i.e., they “feared the Lord”) or contempt (they were “workers of iniquity”). It is also to be noted that these passages make no distinction between “the elect” and “the reprobate,” since some who “fear the Lord” today may later fall away and thus prove that they are not of the elect (history and scripture prove as much), and since today’s “workers of iniquity” may be tomorrow’s saints. The attitude of God toward the individuals mentioned is directly connected to their current attitudes and behavior, and no suggestion exists of any unconditional favor or disfavor on God’s part toward either group.
Since each of us who is now saved was at one time “a worker of iniquity” (and, at that time, “hated” by God according to the statement in Psalm 5:5), yet, in another sense, we were also simultaneously loved by God, so that He sent His Son to die for us, who were His enemies (Rom.5:8-10). Therefore, Christ died for us even when He “hated” us, that is, when we were still workers of iniquity. We who were “children of wrath” (Eph.2:3) were, at the same moment “fore-loved” (the Calvinist’s preferred translation of Rom.8:29). That is, He hated, we might say, “who we were” while we were choosing to live in rebellion against Him, yet, even then, He loved and valued us as the marred images of Himself, and counted our reclamation worth His dying for. This is precisely the attitude toward all men, including our enemies, which we are told to adopt. Like God Himself, we are to despise sinners “as sinners” (Psalm 15:4), because we hate sin; but we love the same people “as people,” whom God values enough to die for (and we should also—Eph.5:1).
The remainder of the texts you gave speak only of God’s special regard for the national entity of Israel—contrasted at times, with His lack of the same toward Esau, i.e., the nation of Edom (Malachi 1:3 and Romans 9:13)—and for the church as the New Israel. That it is a national “election,” rather than individual, that Malachi is talking about is confirmed by Paul’s quoting him and equating his thought with that of Genesis 25:23 (“two nations are in thy womb…and the older shall serve the younger”) when Paul was discussing corporate election (not personal), in Romans 9 (“the older shall serve the younger," cannot be about the individuals, Jacob and Esau, since it would then prove itself to be a false prophecy. Esau never served Jacob, though Edom served Israel under tribute for many years—2 Kings 8:20).
God’s love for Israel was of a different sort than His universal love for all men (all of whom, He assures us, He would desire to see saved—1 Tim.2:4). This “love” speaks of His choice of the nation as a corporate entity to carry forward His earthly program. He did not choose Edom, Jacob’s twin, to have this privilege, as Paul points out in Romans 9:13, but unconditionally selected Jacob’s family for this honor. These passages do not speak about personal salvation, since (obviously) not every Israelite was personally saved, nor was every Edomite personally lost. It was the nation as a whole that was chosen—not for salvation as we normally use that term, but for the prestige of being God’s own nation on earth, the earthly instrument for the bringing forth of His promises—especially the promise of the Messiah.
—Related Excursus on Romans 9 (to avoid, skip down eight paragraphs):
No Calvinist I have read has yet been able to make a convincing case that Paul, in Romans 9, is talking about individual election, nor that the election he is describing there is related to eternal salvation. The context of the chapter and of the verses he quotes to make his point, all indicate that he is discussing God’s sovereign prerogatives in choosing to accept a portion of the descendants of Abraham (that is, the portion consisting of those that embrace Christ) as those through whom His covenant promises will be realized, and to reject the rest of the offspring of Abraham. While it is true that the believing Jews do experience eternal salvation as part of the New Covenant of which they are a part, I do not find Paul making this his central point in the discussion in Romans 9. Rather his purpose is to establish that God has every right to divide the nation of Israel (or the nations, in general) into categories and to deal separately with the different categories. Paul demonstrates that God has dealt similarly with Abraham’s descendants from the very beginning of the covenant (v.7ff).
The examples of national “dealings” that he mentions are clearly not with reference to salvation, since there has never been such a thing as a whole nation eternally saved, though there has been such a thing as a whole nation chosen for temporal privilege and instrumentality. Paul’s illustrations speak of God’s dividing the family of Isaac into separate nations, choosing one of them for earthly privilege (not salvation), and excluding the other (vv.10-13). This immediately and logically follows his making of the same point about the previous generation of Abraham’s family (vv.7-9).
Paul then makes a similar point, contrasting God’s special kindness to Israel with His harsh treatment of Egypt in the time of Moses. Even the mention of Pharaoh’s hardness of heart is not brought up primarily in the interest of discussing the question of that man’s personal salvation, but rather Pharaoh is involved merely as a pawn in a larger game, whose object is the judgment of Egypt and its gods (cf. Ex.12:12).
So, as Paul points out, God loved Israel above Edom and above Egypt. From there he proceeds to establish that God is not finished making such divisions. Like a potter, who may do as he wishes with his own clay (v.21), God has taken one lump of clay, namely Israel (see Jer.18:6), and made from it two separate categories, or “vessels.” One consists of those Jews who embrace the Messiah; the other consists of those who reject Him.
Just as God chose to treat the nations Israel and Edom differently from each other, so also God treats these two categories within Israel differently from one another. Those in the first “vessel” are themselves “vessels of mercy”(v.23), while those in the other category are “vessels of wrath” (v.22). He only retains the name “Israel” for the former, and deprives the latter of that designation…thus explaining his earlier declaration: “They are not all Israel who are of Israel”(v.6).
Paul anticipates that a critic, wrongly extrapolating (from God’s unconditional choosing of nations) that God does the same in the case of individuals, would logically raise the hypothetical question, “How does God find fault? For who has resisted His will?” (v.19). That is, the critic supposes that Paul has implied that no person can resist God’s will, removing any grounds for God to “find fault” with man. The reasoning is sound enough: If we accept the premise that no one can resist God’s will, then there is indeed no basis for faulting men, who, in their unbelief and sin, are merely fulfilling God’s irresistible designs for them. Paul finds no fault with the logic of the critic—only with the premise. Paul has never suggested anything about individuals being subject to arbitrary decrees—only nations. In fact, Paul points out that the critic is himself “Exhibit A” of this fact. To the question, “Who has resisted His will?” Paul answers, “Who are YOU??? You are the answer to your own question, and the living proof that people DO resist God’s will, because YOU are answering against God!”(v.20)
God has always chosen which categories to specially favor. Individuals choose which category they will belong to. Consider what God said to Cain (who was ultimately not counted among the saved): “If you do well, will you not also be accepted [like Abel was]?” Those who “do well” are the category of the ones to be accepted; Cain and Abel (along with all men after them) chose their respective categories. The categories are corporate, and their membership is not predetermined by any unchangeable decrees.
This was true of Israel and it is true of Christ, the antitype of Israel. Both are corporate entities unconditionally chosen of God. In the Old Testament, men could choose to be “in Israel” or not. A natural-born Jew could apostasize from Israel, and a Gentile could be proselytized into it. It was Israel (the category) that was chosen, not the composition of its constituency. If Israel was “chosen” by God, then those who adhered to Israel’s covenant enjoyed the benefits of that “chosen-ness.” They were chosen “in Israel.” Likewise, Christ is God’s chosen One. People choose to abide in Christ or not (which is why there are exhortations addressed to people about this). Those who are “in Christ” participate in His “chosen-ness” with Him. They are chosen “in Him” (Eph.1:4). If we defect (i.e., if the branch does not abide in the Vine), He (the corporate Vine) continues to be chosen, along with all the remaining branches “in Him.” However, the separated branches will no longer share in that chosen-ness. God’s election is of the category, not the individual.
—End of Excursus—
There is a limit to how long a post can be posted here. I have reached that limit, so I will continue below...