A good book on Calvinism

User avatar
_Derek
Posts: 291
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 12:27 am
Location: Marietta GA

Post by _Derek » Sat Mar 10, 2007 4:40 pm

When I was an Arminian, I thought the weakest arguments for Calvinism were regarding limited atonement. Ironically, that is the subject that convinced me I was in error regarding how man is saved.
I was reading a lot of books by Calvinists a while back, such as Chosen By God (RC Sproul), and Wayne Grudem's treatment of the subject in his Systematic Theology (which I highly recommend), and I was almost convinced on just this point. I debated with a lot of brothers at church on the subject, and we talked a great deal about this.Most of the arguments are good, at least they are very logical. But they are only good arguments if you presuppose a strict penal substitutionary atonement theory. Like the Calvinist argument that you put forth:
When we speak of Christ dying "for" someone, we are referring to the "substitutionary" atonement. We mean that Christ died in the place of the sinner, bearing his penalty for him. Since the price of sin has been actually paid by the Savior, those for whom He laid down His life cannot hereafter be punished for their sins.
The scriptures plainly say that Jesus died for all men (more on that in a moment). It is also plain that we are only justified by faith in what He did. Just how that works out in a substitutionary sense is not so clearly laid out in scripture, aside from "He died for you, and if you place your faith in Him, you'll be saved". As for how this "works", I am content to be silent where the scriptures are on this point (at least for now).
The Bible decisively teaches in Hebrews 9:12 that the atoning work of Christ was a matter of securing redemption, rather than simply making redemption possible. "He entered the Most Holy Place once for all by His own blood, having obtained eternal redemption." Christ accomplished our redemption. He actually delivered us from the curse of sin.
I read this the same way, but how does this prove limited atonement? I too, believe that one aspect of the atonement is to secure redemption, however, I, like you, only believe that it is efficacious for those that believe.How does this show that the Father chose to save X number of people, so He had to exact X amount of punishment to Christ in order to save us, as penal substitution teaches?

This does not disprove the notion that Christ was securing a way for people to be saved. It could still be said that Christ died for the world to satisfy the justice of God, thus securing redemption for all who choose to believe.
When we speak of Christ dying "for" someone, we are referring to the "substitutionary" atonement. We mean that Christ died in the place of the sinner, bearing his penalty for him.
Why do I have to accept this in the penal substitutionary sense? That X amount of people sinned X much, so God exacted X amount of punishment on the Saviour. Again, it could be said that Christ died "for" the world, to make salvation possible. He "secured the redemption" of all who choose to believe.
One either limits the effect of Christ's redeeming sacrifice, or one limits the scope of that sacrifice.


This is another good argument, if penal substitution is presupposed. However, it's not so convincing if it's not. I think that Christ did exactly what was intended. He died for all men, securing the salvation of all who choose to believe in Him, (sorry for sounding like a broken record), thus the "effect" is not limited. So, it appears to me, (at this point), that only one system "limits" the work of God.

This particular argument makes it seem like Christ's work is somehow weaker in the Arminian view, but again, it rests on a presupposition of your atonement theory, which isn't exactly put forth in scripture the way that its adherents state it, in my opinion.
Yes, there are a lot of verses talking about salvation in terms of "the world" and "all men". I believe that in most cases, these words are used to correct the mistaken Jewish notion that salvation was not for the Gentiles (see Acts 10 and Peter's discussion with God to see how pervasive this notion was in the Jewish Christian mind, even among the apostles in the early part of their ministry).
I am not so sure about this at all. Do you think Timothy was in need of correction on this point? Even though he was ministering to gentiles?

1Ti 2:3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 1Ti 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. 1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 1Ti 2:6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

1Ti 4:10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

1 Tim 2:3 would also cause me to wonder why God would not give His Son for those that He wanted to be saved (i.e. all men). Of course here, and in Ezekiel 33:11, among other passages, you will have to resort to the "two wills" argument, which is frankly, the strangest Calvinist doctrine in my opinion (no offense).
I believe that these verses are intended to show that Christ died for all men without distinction, but that does not mean that He died for all without exception.
Again, 1 Tim. 4:10 seems to flatly contradict this statement, in its contrast of "all men" with "especially those who believe".I would be interested in how you could prove from the contexts of these verses, that Paul is seeking to correct Timothy's understanding, or is showing that it is merely "all kinds of men" not "all men" that is intended here.

In 1Jn 2:3 there is another comparison between believers and the whole world. I suppose you could say that he meant " not us Jews only", but how can this be shown exegetically?

Verse 1 says "...we have an advocate with the Father..." and then verse 2 says not "ours only"... Surely the "we" in verse 1 is the "ours" in verse 2?

It would seem from all of these passages, that it is a particular doctrine, and not exegesis, that would cause a Calvinist to think that the "whole world" and "all men" are, in fact, "many in the world" and "all kinds of men".

Anyway brother, I would be very interested in your exegesis of these passages, in support of your above stated theory.

God bless you!!
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Derek

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God.
Psalm 20:7

_David
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 12:12 am
Location: Santa Barbara, CA

Post by _David » Sat Mar 10, 2007 4:44 pm

Steve,

I wrote you a reply, and then when I tried submitting it, the system logged me out. I will try to rewrite what I was going to post.

I also know what it is like to be too busy to blog. This is the first partial weekend I have had off for several months. I am sitting in a hospital without my Bible, waiting for a patient transfer. Let me reply to you now as time allows.

I started this thread back in January simply to recommend a book that I found edifying and instructive. Yes, as you pointed out, there are many threads in the Calvinism section that talk about most of the pertinent issues. I did not start this thread to provide a book length, thorough defense of Calvinism, but rather, to recommend one. Perhaps the reason I have not provided all of the exegesis you requested is that it was never my intention to do so. That is why the thread is called “A Good Book on Calvinism”, and not something else.

You make a lot of accusations in your post, mainly that I am just regurgitating the old Calvinist line. You have hemmed me in, here. When I don’t provide more than one or two verses, I am guilty of eisogesis; when I provide more, I am guilty of proof-texting and reciting the handbook for Calvinism. I do not provide an exegesis of Matthew 23, despite discussing other verses and what I think they mean. When I do discuss these other verses, I am just twisting them out of context.

If you read Homer’s post, his complaints with Calvinism have more to do with generalities and philosophical arguments about the goodness and fairness of God. His language is largely emotive; he doesn’t like Calvinism “for the children’s sake”. He mentions Matthew 23, but offers it in “a vacuum” as you have accused me of doing. I responded to the specific points he brought up, I was not dodging any questions.

I have listened to your Calvinism tapes, in fact, several times. Actually, I have over 8 spiral notebooks filled with notes from your various lecture series. I also read Shank’s books several times, at your recommendation. In your tape series, I believe you attempted to give the fairest presentation of Calvinism that you could, but after reading Boettner’s book, I think your bias limited your ability to defend the system as well as someone who actually believes it. It would happen to any of us, though I am not sure you would be willing to accept that. I sense in your post the attitude that “Yes, yes, I have heard this all before”. Indeed you have.

I know you personally. You spoke at my wedding. You have prayed for me during difficult times and personal struggles. I have no doubt that you want to give all of the glory for your salvation to God. However, I think this good desire is in spite of your view of God’s sovereignty and not because of it. That is, I do not think that Arminianism logically leads to the conclusion that we have no credit in our salvation. Arminians, like Calvinists, know that faith is the instrumental cause by which we are saved. Yet if faith is our responsibility (even if to some small extent) to provide, how can we not take some credit for our salvation? Faith is not a work, as you point out in your Calvinism and Romans tape series, but it is a morally positive decision, is it not? It certainlu is not morally neutral.

In terms of my possible well concealed pride, I would have respected your comment more if you would just come out and say what you are strongly implying – that I am proud. This pride is truly well concealed, because I relate much of my criticism of Arminian theology to beliefs that I used to hold, and I reflect on my own theological errors through much of my writing. The post itself was only intended as a book recommendation, and I wrote that in January! I am not exactly trolling the web looking for someone to attack or show off to. I am really quite content focusing on my own growth and that of my family. I really debated whether to even answer Super Sola Scriptura, because I did not want to “stir the pot”. As an aside, I noticed you did not waste much time jumping into the discussion. I have no problem with that, especially since you are a site administrator. However, should I scrutinize this interjection as a sign of pride, using the same nebulous standard you applied to me? Can’t Homer answer? Would no discussion be complete without a word from Steve (I do not think this, but this is the kind of thinking you displayed in your response to my post to Homer)? Some of what you wrote I have heard you say before, too. Should I give it a cavalier dismissal as “just the same old Arminian” arguments?

Let me say, from the outset, that I obviously am not more insightful than anyone else at this site since I am now denying a theological position I held for 20 years. Clearly, I am fallible!

Mother Theresa helped the poor, but so did John Calvin. He literally gave the poor the shirt off of his back. In fact, during one particularly cold winter in Geneva, the local officials took a donation to purchase him a coat. When he died, he arranged to be buried in an unmarked grave, so that his “fans” would not turn him into some sort of relic. Calvin is not my hero, but I do respect him. Your review of his interactions with Servetus did not do him justice in your tape series on Calvinism. Servetus was more than just a heretic; he was a belligerent rabble-rouser who wanted to overthrow Calvin and the civil government in Geneva. Your tapes fail to mention this, and instead portray one of the greatest theologians of church history as a murderous fire-brand. Servetus was a traitor, an anarchist, and an enemy of order. He instigated much of the stern discourse with Calvin, repeatedly sending him copies of Calvin’s own Institutes with unconstructive comments and personal insults written in the margins. Calvin finally stopped corresponding with him. When Servetus came to Geneva despite warnings not to, in an attempt to create a new government and not just offer a new view of theology, he was arrested by the civil officials. Calvin petitioned for a humane form of death rather than burning. In fact, Calvin petitioned so much so that he was censured by the city officials for having “too much pity” on Servetus. Calvin’s involvement may have been illegitimate, but he has been unfairly misrepresented by people who see this affair as a way to strike at his theology.

Steve, feeding the poor is not more important than good doctrine. Calvin did both. In terms of John Owens, I have no personal stake in fighting for his honor. However, perhaps you should go back and listen to some of your polemical teachings. Try listening to your Ephesians 4 tape – you drove home a point so forcefully against the Word of Faith teachers that it upset one of your students. She actually speaks up on the tape. I don’t fault you for doing this, but I find it hypocritical for you to fault others like Owens for the same kind of rhetoric. I don’t mind some of your strong and spirited comments in the Calvinism tapes either (“this is deep stuff, it is shoveled high and deep” you say with a sarcastic tone as you mock the Westminster Confession). That is fine – I still laugh at that line when I hear it, because it is kind of funny. Calvinists are not the only ones who write and speak polemically, so let’s not pretend that they are.

When I mentioned a small sampling of verses on the depravity of unregenerate man, you offered the same response you do on your tapes. These verse only apply to “the really bad” people of the world, not us. Sure we are sinful, but not like that, right? Let me see if I can split the fine hair you have plucked between proof-texting and not enough proof by giving just a few verses I feel teach our inablilty. As I said, I do not have my Bible, so I will have to settle for the book and chapter as my references.

Romans 8 says that the natural mind is at enmity with God. How can someone who by nature is at war with God come to God without first being given a new nature by regeneration?

I Cor 2 says that the natural man cannot receive the things of the Spirit because they are spiritually discerned and that he cannot know them. How can this verse be reconciled with the idea that men must first believe to be regenerated? It would seem that if by nature they cannot understand in order to believe, then their nature must first be changed.

In terms of Matthew 23, there are also other verses that are of a similar vein. You and I both know them (I pretty much learned them from you). There are also verses that seem to say that all things occur under God’s will (Eph 1:11). I believe the following is how we should harmonize these passages. God has a decretive will (Gen 50:20, Acts 2:23, Ro. 9:18-19, Eph 1:11) and also a preceptive will (Math 12:50, Jn 4:34, Hb 13:21, Matthew 23). While Arminians wish to see these verses as teaching that there are some aspects of the world that are autonomous, there is an adequate explanation as to why God’s will is not always fulfilled , and it has nothing to do with theories of autonomy or libertarian free-will (I am not implying you personally are a libertarian). The explanation is this: God’s will (his preceptive will) is sometimes thwarted because He wills it to be, because He has given one of His desires preference over another. His reasons for this may be unknown, but I trust Him that His reasons are just as morally good as those aspects of his character that He has revealed to us.

The difference between you and I is not one of whether God’s will is always done in every sense of divine willing, but rather whether God can fail at anything He intends to do. In other words, can creatures ever thwart God’s decretive will? I believe the answer is that God’s decretive will is always done. He may not bring about everything that He values, but He brings about everything He intends to.

You asked about my rationale for limited atonement. Steve, I am aware of Heb 2:9; after all, once again, I studied that book under your teaching. My last post was not as vacuous and unhelpful as you painted it to be. The Bible knows no other kind of atonement but a sutstitutionary atonement; it is a ransom payment in exchange for the sinner’s life and freedom. Christ was delivered for our offenses (Rom. 4:25) and gave Himself for our sins (Gal. 1:4); that means that He died for the ungodly (Rom. 5:6). Christ gave Himself in order to redeem us from this iniquity and purify us unto good works (Titus 2:14). He went to the cross as a lamb without blemish (I Pet. 1:18-19), being the substitutionary sacrifice in the place of sinners (Eph. 5:2). As our passover sacrifice (I Cor. 5:7), Christ redeemed us by His blood (I Pet. 1:19). Apart from the shedding of blood there is no remission (Heb. 9:22), and thus Christ entered the holy place and through His blood “obtained eternal redemption” (Heb. 9:12). The Savior has paid the price which actually obtains our full redemption. Anything less than this would not be biblical atonement.
Since Jesus paid a ransom for someone, then those who have been freed by payment will be set free, or else his death does not constitute a ransom. This is definitional to the meaning of paying a ransom. It was paid, or it wasn’t, and for whomever it was paid, they will benefit.

You can sneer that Calvinists can’t handle the word “world” but can you? Isaiah tells us that Jesus would see the travail of His soul and be satisfied, and Paul says in 2 Cor. 5 that Jesus was reconciling the world to God. In what sense would Christ’s soul be satisfied if He dies for people He really intended to save and yet they were lost? And who is the referent of world in this verse? Is it every single person? Then how is Christ reconciling the world to God in any meaningful sense if those He wanted to save were lost anyways? And on what basis were they lost if He paid the ransom price for their sins? What sin is left to condemn them? Is there a sin He did not die for? I think rather there are people He did not die for.

I have heard your tapes on Romans. I remember what you said about Jacob and Esau and about the word “hate” sometimes having a more idiomatic use. You are correct that Romans 9-11 does deal with corporate groups and historical election, but it also deals with the destinies of individuals. After all, in Ro. 9:2, Paul expresses grief that his countrymen have rejected Christ. This sorrow is not over corporate units, but over individuals. Neither is Paul sorrowful that Israel has lost its place as God’s only corporate people, since this event opened the door for the Gentiles to enter, and in time, there will be a great in-gathering of Jews as well (11:11-32). Paul is sorrowful over the present unbelief of individuals and he seeks to show why that unbelief exists.

He argues that in the past, God chose to discriminate within the covenant family. Yes, Isaac and Jacob are patriarchal heads, and so there is a corporate aspect to election. But they are also individuals, and Paul illustrates this by v. 6 “not all who are descended from Israel are of Israel.” This is especially clear in the case of Pharaoh; Pharaoh is not a potential covenant patriarch, God rejects him as an individual.

I think it is impossible to miss that Paul is making this point with respect to the unbelieving Israelites. Paul draws examples from historical election, but he is not contrasting the two. Rather, he is comparing them to show the things they have in common, that election is God’s purpose and calling. Esau is reprobate before he is born (v11) and hated by God (v13? – wish I had my Bible).

The question Paul anticipates in v14 can only arise because Paul’s teaching is that unbelief is by God’s sovereign choice. If their unbelief was due to their own decisions, no one would accuse God of injustice. Paul might have said that God is just because Pharaoh and others made free decisions to reject God. That would be true in a sense, but Paul goes deeper because it also answers questions about Israel’s unbelief. This helps us understand his next question in v22(?): “What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath – prepared for destruction?” Hard saying to be sure, but Biblical.

As for playing the mystery card, I play the same hand that Paul did in Romans 9. You can chide me for not being able to explain how God foreordains all things and yet people make real decisions that are free with respect to their nature, but those statements are no less compelling than when the heathen use them on you and I. Deuteronomy says that the law was given for us to know and study, but the secret things are for the Lord.

In terms of my comments about our government, let me elaborate. These comments do not make Calvinism the correct interpretation of the Bible, but they are meant to show the slanderous nature of Homer’s comments that Calvinism brings despair to people. Incidentally, all of the comments you gave me about how to best be constructive on the forum could have easily been directed to Super Sola Scriptura and Homer. Why weren’t they? Is it because they share your same thoughts on Calvinism?

Calvinism came to America on the Mayflower. John Endicott, the first governor of Massachusetts, John Wintrop, the 2nd governor of that Colony, Thomas hooker, the founder of Connecticutt, John Davenport, the founder of New Haven, Roger Williams, the founder of Rhode Island, William Penn who was a disciple of the Huegenots – all were Reformed.

J.R. Sizoo states that “When Cornwallis was driven back to ultimate retreat and surrender at Yorktown, all of the colonels of the Colonial Army but one were Presbyterian elders. More than half of the soldiers and officers of the American Army during the Revolution were Prsbyterians”.

Dr. E. W. Smith states “These revolutionary principles of republican liberty and self government, taught and embodied in the system of Calvin, were brought to America, and in this new land where they have borne so mighty a harvest were planted by whose hands? – the hands of the Calvinists. The vital relation of Calvin and Calvinism to the founding of the free institutions of America….”.

Harvard, Princeton, and Yale – founded by Calvinists.

I think Homer is mistaken that Calvinism drives people to despair. I have several quotes from the founding fathers at home, and I would be glad to post them. Again, this does not prove Calvinism is true, but I list it to answer the baseless accusations of Homer.

I have to go.
Last edited by leeweiland on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
In Christ,
David

User avatar
_Steve
Posts: 1564
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 12:07 am
Location: Santa Cruz, CA

Post by _Steve » Sat Mar 10, 2007 6:15 pm

Hi David,

You wrote:

"You make a lot of accusations in your post, mainly that I am just regurgitating the old Calvinist line. You have hemmed me in, here. When I don’t provide more than one or two verses, I am guilty of eisogesis; when I provide more, I am guilty of proof-texting and reciting the handbook for Calvinism. I do not provide an exegesis of Matthew 23, despite discussing other verses and what I think they mean. When I do discuss these other verses, I am just twisting them out of context."

I'm sorry that you saw my observations as accusations. I have no interest in attacking you. I am only critiquing your argumentation as I find it. It is fair enough that you did not intend to make a thorough exegetical argument, as we cannot always take the time necessary to do so. What I expressed surprise about is that you made arguments for which you knew there to be sound answers, but left them undefended.

Most of the verses on the atonement that you cited in this post do not appear to contribute to one side of the debate more than the other. I appreciate your attempting to accommodate my wishes for you to defend your view of Romans 9 and of Psalm 58:3.

On the latter, you imply that it is only one of a great number of verses that teach total depravity. My point is that this verse can not reasonably be said to teach any such doctrine, nor can the great volume of other verses that are used to teach it. That all men are sinners is clearly taught in scripture, and is not denied by any camp in Christian theology that I know of. This is not the same thing as the doctrine of total depravity, which teaches that a man in his natural state cannot come to his senses and put his faith in God; that he, in fact, cannot even desire to know God, or seek after God, until he is regenerated.

If there was some group of biblical texts that stated this to be the case, then we would be compelled to believe it, even though our personal knowledge of history and people we have known would seem to give the lie to such assertions. I have no difficulty acknowledging what the Bible affirms--namely, that every man is a sinner, who cannot atone for his own sins by his good works, and must necessarily be redeemed by God. Neither Calvinists nor Arminians can fail to see this teaching in scripture, and it accords well with everything that we see in reality.

However, the suggestion that no man can repent, or believe, or even want to do so; that no man can desire to get right with God or can set out on a search to know him, apart from regeneration, not only lacks any scriptural support, but seems contrary to what can be observed in humanity, in general, and in the world religions in particular.

When 1 Corinthians 2:14 speaks of the inability of the natural man to receive the "things of the Spirit of God," Paul specifically has in mind those "deep things of God" (v.10), which he was not even able to share with the carnal Corinthian Christians (3:1-2), though, he says, he did teach them to men more spitiually mature (v.6). There is nothing in this context to suggest that he includes the basic Gospel in this category of "deep things." In fact, he says that he limited his preaching among the Corinthians to "Jesus Christ, and Him crucified" (i.e., the Gospel) for the very reason that he judged them incapable of comprehending these "deep things" (v.2). Paul is saying nothing about total inability in these verses. The things that "natural men" could not receive were also beyond the grasp of the regenerated Corinthians.

That Romans 8 depicts the natural state of man as "at enmity" with God does not require a Calvinist interpretation. Every person who has sinned has thus become an outlaw, at odds with God. However, an outlaw can repent. The prodigal son strikes me as a relevant instance.

Your rendering of Romans 9 does not prove your point to my satisfaction. Paul is speaking, throughout the discussion, of God's right to define who "Israel" is, in terms of the fulfillment of His promises to that entity. In the first half of chapter 9, he tediously develops the case that being descended from the right family tree does not guarantee status with God. However, the examples he gives (Isaac was chosen; Ishmael was not. Jacob was chosen; Esau was not) do not discuss the question of people going to heaven or to hell. That is not under discussion--or if it is, Paul conceals that fact under the appearance of discussing something entirely different, namely what it actually was that Isaac and Jacob were chosen for, and Ishmael and Esau were not chosen for. You wrote, "Esau is reprobate before he is born (v11) and hated by God." I find nothing in Paul's discussion that speaks of Esau's being reprobate. Perhaps he was, but Paul does not bring it up. He only mentions that Esau's nation was not chosen to fulfill the Abrahamic promises. Paul's citation of Genesis 25:23 proves this to be his point.

I do not have the time to cover this chapter thoroughly here, as I have in other threads, and on tape. Suffice it to say that the Calvinist interpretation of Romans 9, which gleans no support whatever from Paul's context, loads a lot of baggage upon the character of God, which cannot be supported from any other biblical passage (this being the only one that can be pretended to teach "unconditional" election), and finds no compelling support in this passage either. I fail to see how the weak and debatable interpretation of a single passage can justify the relagating of hundreds of passages about the conditionality of salvation "mysterious."

You wrote:

"I do not think that Arminianism logically leads to the conclusion that we have no credit in our salvation. Arminians, like Calvinists, know that faith is the instrumental cause by which we are saved. Yet if faith is our responsibility (even if to some small extent) to provide, how can we not take some credit for our salvation?"

I don't know why Calvinism keeps trying to attach to idea of "credit" to that of believing in Jesus. I have never once sat down and contemplated whether I deserve any "credit" for having believed. I do, however, see the scripture placing the responsibility of believing upon mankind, and treating the negligence of this as a blameworthy state. Calvinists always wish to present "credit" as the opposite of blame. Why should we not, rather, make "blameless" the opposite of blame?

In other words, if I choose to disbelieve, I am to be blamed. If I choose not to disbelieve, I am not to be blamed, and am counted as "blameless." Credit does not even enter the discussion. It is Calvinists, not Arminians, who always wish to discuss who gets the "credit" for salvation. God's word never speaks in such terms. The issue is who gets the glory for our salvation. The Arminian, no less than the Calvinist, ascribes all glory to God for his salvation. The scriptures never imply at any point that my responsibility to believe translates into credit to my account if I do, in fact, believe.

It is clear that something about Calvinists has impressed you (e.g., their involvement in the Revolutionary War), but one could point out equally the influence of the Arminian Wesleys in saving Great Britain from a bloody revolution. There are good and bad examples on both sides. I do not know how this contributes to our assessment of which doctrine is more biblical.

Also, it is clear from your most recent post, that you feel I have attacked you, and you feel the need to respond as one who has been attacked. I am not aware of having attacked you, nor do I have any inclination to do so. I think that I am simply assessing the arguments you have presented.

I hope you don't think that I am merely trying to win a debate with you. I have no concern about winning points. I am only trying to get you to look more critically at the shallow arguments and flawed exegesis upon which Calvinism rests.
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve

_David
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 12:12 am
Location: Santa Barbara, CA

Post by _David » Sat Mar 10, 2007 7:33 pm

Steve,

I will have to be selective in my response for the sake of time. Perhaps for the first time, one of my posts will be less than book report length.

In the verses I mentioned in I Cor 2, Paul mentions the "natural man". I am not aware of any place in the Scripture where Christians are referred to as natural men. I realize, since I also listened to your I and II Corinthians tapes, that Paul here is speaking to carnal believers, men and women who are in a sense acting natural, or unregenerate. However, I believe Paul in mentioning the natural state of man does so to point out that the Corinthians are in fact acting as if they had never had their thinking about each other changed, and that is not a state that is conducive to learning about God, since those who truly are in their unregenerate state cannot discern His message. Whatever your view of this passage, Paul does in fact make a statement about natural men, and though it is meant to spurn carnal Christians, it is a statement about the unregenerate nonetheless.

I had mentioned that Romans 9:2 started Paul's discussion on election, whatever type he has in mind. Paul's concern is stated as about the unbelief of Israel. This is not historical election or corporate election, but rather a matter of individual salvation (individual election). Paul touches on other types of election, but I believe verse 2 shows us what he is primarily wanting to discuss.

I would honestly like to know your view of the atonement (this is not a sarcastic question). Do you believe in a substitutionary atonement or do you adhere to another theory? How would you explain a verse like Hebrew 9:11,12, or how would you explain in what sense Jesus died for us/them? Did He pay a ransom and to whom?

Steve, Paul describes men in Romans 1 as knowing something about the true God but suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. To be clear, I take this to refer to all unsaved people in their unregenerate state. Do you? How might this affect your view that the false religions of the world show that people want to get right with God but just do not know how? Do you see a statement as such in Romans 1, and if so, would you explain it to us?

When God cut off the Moabites and Ammonites from the congregation of the Lord forever, do you think they had an equal chance of being saved as the Jews? If so, how? If not, then why would God command Israel to put these people groups at a deliberate disadvantage to finding salvation if He wanted them to be saved as much as the Jews?

You mentioned the cliff and the tree branch analogy. I sincerely understand what you are trying to illustrate, that in your view God simply asks if I will receive His unmerited help to prevent my fall. However, I see this is a disanalogy, because while grabbing a tree branch is not a moral decision, what we believe about God is. Faith is not a work, but it is a moral expression of our volition which is why Paul can say "Let God be found true and every man a liar" instead of "every man genuinely misinformed".

Lastly, you made several comments about how I feel I am being attacked. Well, I should because I was. I do not take it personally, but contrast how you and I "assessed" one other, as you put it. I stated categorically that you are a humble man, but that your theology is not the logical first cause of that humility. You called into question my motives, and talked about my hidden pride, because I inquired how you can both provide the final and necessary condition for your salvation and yet not assume some credit for it. On one hand, I assumed the best in you despite your theology, while you assumed the worst in me because of my theology.

Take care.
Last edited by leeweiland on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
In Christ,
David

User avatar
_Steve
Posts: 1564
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 12:07 am
Location: Santa Cruz, CA

Post by _Steve » Sat Mar 10, 2007 9:14 pm

David,

I did not presume that you were proud (nor did I see any evidence of it). I only took your word for it, because you seemed to have said this about your earlier Arminian years. If I misread you, I apologize. Did you not bring this matter up yourself? I have never seen you as a proud man.

In response to your recent points:

1 Corinthians does indeed mention natural men, and I do not believe that he is referring to Christian men. The question is, What is it that Paul says is impossible for natural men to receive? The Gospel? Hardly. I sought to demonstrate from the context that the "things of the Spirit of God," which Paul says are beyond the reach of unbelievers, are actually contrasted with the Gospel ("Jesus Christ, and Him crucified"). The latter was preached to the Corinthians and received by them, but the former are inaccessible to both unbelievers, and, apparently, to the carnal Corinthian believers as well. There is no statement implying that the Gospel is included among the things Paul says natural men cannot receive.

Since the Bible everywhere makes regeneration a result of faith (e.g. John 6:40; 20:31/ Eph.1:13/ Col.2:2-13/ 1 Tim.1:16), and never the reverse, there is no reason to import this Calvinistic spin into 1 Corinthians 2:14.


In Romans 9:1-5, Paul is speaking of Israel collectively ("my kinsmen after the flesh"), and grieving that most of them are lost. He does not go on to discuss the way of individual salvation (that is not his topic here, as he had already discussed that thoroughly in the first 8 chapters). Instead, he endeavors to show how this condition does not render untrue the Old Testament promises of Israel's salvation. His argument is: God's promises to save Israel (corporately) have not failed to come true: When you realize that there are two (corporate) "Israels," you will see that God has indeed saved the one He promised to save, and never intended to include the other in the promises. The one "Israel" is the mass of believers, constituting a "vessel unto honor; the other is the unbelieving portion of the nation, comprising a vessel for dishonor.

My views of the atonement? I accept every statement of scripture on the subject. I can see scriptural support for several aspects, including penal substitution, "Christus Victor," public justice, and perhaps more. I have not seen any reason to "limit" the atonement to any one of these, since they all appear to recognize some scriptural aspect of it. The Bible does not tell us plainly how the atonement works, though metaphors of purchase, of vicariousness, of rescue, of ransom, of victory, etc. all are found in the relevant passages. I believe this is a many-faceted phenomenon, which we are nowhere required to fathom. To focus on one aspect, to the exclusion of the others, artificially reduces our appreciation of the subject, and serves no purpose, other than a rhetorical one.

When Hebrews 9:12 speaks of Christ having "obtained eternal redemption" for us, the author does not introduce a particularly Calvinistic element. I may "obtain" a fortune for my children (or a pardon, if they are in prison), without their necessarily claiming what has been obtained on their behalf, if they object to the terms upon which it is offered.

In what sense do the scriptures teach that Jesus died "for" us? In the broadest sense, I think, it means that he died "for our benefit." It may be fair, in some passages, to read "for" as "in the place of" (which is your stated preference), but the word does not have to have this specific meaning. When we say, "Jesus was delivered 'for' our offenses," this does not necessarily mean "instead of" our offenses. In a case like this, it probably means "because of" our offenses, or "to deal with" our offenses. It is much too simplistic to reduce the phrase to a single meaning in every instance.

You ask: "Did He pay a ransom and to whom?"

To whom, indeed? This is a question hotly debated in church history. Was a ransom paid to the devil (as to a kidnapper)? If so, then is not the devil the winner in the transaction? Was a ransom paid by Jesus to God? Why would God require it? Was He reluctant to save, and had to be paid off? I suspect that the payment was made (metaphorically) to the demands of justice. I know of no theory that works better.

You wrote:

Steve, Paul describes men in Romans 1 as knowing something about the true God but suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. To be clear, I take this to refer to all unsaved people in their unregenerate state. Do you? How might this affect your view that the false religions of the world show that people want to get right with God but just do not know how? Do you see a statement as such in Romans 1, and if so, would you explain it to us?

First, I don't see any evidence that Romans 1 is describing every unregenerate man (Paul does not introduce the concept of regeneration in the passage, as he is describing people's behavior, not their condition).

The chapter is, as Paul clearly states, a description of people "who suppress the truth in unrighteousness." In my opinion, he has the Jewish nation in mind, but even if he has Gentiles in mind, he gives no evidence that this would describe every Gentile. It is specifically those who have no interest in the truth that he goes on to describe in the following verses.

Paul does not suggest that every person who ever lived fits into this category, nor does it seem that all men do. There are unsaved men who appear to care about the truth and about spiritual things, and neither this passage, nor any other, would give us cause to say they are faking this interest. This is another case of Calvinists absolutizing and universalizing statements that, in their context, have certain specific people in mind. This is not an exegetically sound procedure.

In speaking of Mother Theresa, you gave the opinion that sound doctrine is more important than are works of charity. I am not sure that the scriptures would support this idea. While it is true that a man cannot earn a place in heaven by doing acts of charity, neither can he earn such a place by his good doctrine. In 1 Corinthians 13:1-3, Paul mentions both, the assistance to the poor and the grasp of all divine mysteries, and suggests that neither counts for anything apart from love. Therefore, love is the most important thing. If Mother Theresa's good deeds sprang from her love for God and for the suffering humans around her (as I believe to be the case), then this would count for more than her simply having correct doctrine (which is not so likely to be particularly an evidence of love).

If I were to judge from the number of times Moses, David, Solomon, the prophets, John the Baptist, Jesus, Paul, and the other apostles spoke of the need to do righteous things as opposed to the times they commanded that we have doctrinal sophistication, I would have to make the opposite assessment to yours. If I do not use such a criteria, then which shall I use? That of historic theologians? No thanks. There have been great minds among them, but they do not out-rank the inspired writers.

You wrote:

Lastly, when God cut off the Moabites and Ammonites from the congregation of the Lord forever, do you think they had an equal chance of being saved as the Jews? If so, how? If not, then why would God command Israel to put these people groups at a deliberate disadvantage to finding salvation if He wanted them to be saved as much as the Jews?

I don't know what God knew about the Ammonites and the Moabites, since it is Israel's history, not theirs, that is recorded for us to know. I have no difficulty believing that these people may have been, to the last man, wicked haters of God, and that God intended to judge them for that.

However, for God to separate them from Israel does not tell us whether God would have preferred for them to be saved or to be eternally lost. It only shows that God did not wish for them to corrupt the Israelites by social contact. There is no reason to believe that individuals in these nations had less opportunity to be saved by being separated from Israel, than they would have had in fellowship with Israel, since most of the Israelites themselves were not individually saved either.


You wrote:

You mentioned the cliff and the tree branch analogy. I sincerely understand what you are trying to illustrate, that in your view God simply asks if I will receive His unmerited help to prevent my fall. However, I see this is a disanalogy, because while grabbing a tree branch is not a moral decision, what we believe about God is. Faith is not a work, but it is a moral expression of our volition which is why Paul can say 'Let God be found true and every man a liar' instead of 'every man genuinely misinformed'.

Saving our lives from unnecessary death, when the opportunity is provided, seems to me to be a moral decision indeed, and the man who, out of spite toward his rescuer, chooses his own death rather than rescue, has made a choice that is not only foolish, but also evil. In this respect, I see the scenario I presented as a fairly direct analogy.

Calvinists wish to say that our choice must not be a factor in our salvation because that would make our salvation at least partially contingent upon our making a morally correct decision. To this, I would say, upon what other kind of decision should a just God save someone? Throughout history, it has been God's revealed nature to honor those who honor Him, to bless those who obey Him, to reward those who make sacrifices for Him, to be angry at sinners and to be pleased with those who do righteousness (see Acts 10:35). This is not in conflict with His eternal policy of saving men by grace, though faith, but it is a clear demonstartion of His just character.

I don't understand why Calvinists are continually suggesting that God does not reward and have pleasure in men's good works. The Bible declares the opposite to be true, on almost every page (read any book--especially, for example, Psalms, Proverbs, or the prophets).

So what, if it is morally right for a man to believe in Christ? Does it make less biblical sense for us to believe that God rewards the right choice, than to assert that God, who says that we should love good men and despise evil men (Psalm 15), actually follows a different policy in His relationships than he enjoins in ours? Would God be more pleased to save a man who had made a morally wrong decision? Would that glorify Him more? If He is glorified by men's wrong decisions, I do not see why He commands so frequently that we should make morally right ones. How could such an idea not result in a philosophy of "Let us do evil, that grace may abound"?

Calvinism is a world unto itself (borrowed right out of Greek religious thought), with its own strange god, its own strange justice, and its own type of elitism.

It is also, in my judgment, a very different world from that revealed in scripture.
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Sun Mar 11, 2007 1:41 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve

_David
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 12:12 am
Location: Santa Barbara, CA

Post by _David » Sun Mar 11, 2007 12:47 pm

Steve,

This will have to be my last post indefinitely since my time off is drawing to a close. You, and anyone else for that matter, are welcome to respond, but I probably will not have the time to keep up a dialogue.

I believe you misunderstood my point on I Cor. 2. I do not believe that natural men are Christians; I believe that natural men are unsaved men who are still in their natural state. I believe that Paul is pointing out that by acting carnally, as if their minds have never been changed in the least by Christ, the Christians of Corinth are acting like natural men even though they are regenerate. Since unregenerate men cannot receive the things of the Spirit, but rather must have the gospel preached to them in the hope that God might open their hearts and enable them to receive it, Paul also presented the gospel to these men and started over at “square one”. Paul says their carnality is a roadblock to moving on to the deeper things of the Spirit, and that it would be as futile as talking about what you and I are debating to an unbeliever.

I do not believe Paul is defining the things of the Spirit as only those deeper matters of the Christian faith, but rather, all of the things of the faith since they are all spiritually discerned. His contrast is not between two depths of knowledge, but rather between two natures of knowledge, between those the natural man can grasp and those that only a spiritual man can grasp. All of the things of the Spirit can only be spiritually discerned, not just the deeper topics.

Does the fall affect our intellect? Is there any part of our person that is unmarred by the fall? It seems that the fall has noetic affects, and that because of the fall spiritual things cannot be naturally discerned. And since not all eventually come to know these things that are given by the Spirit, then they are not granted to all (such as Matthew 13:11-15, where Jesus said He deliberately spoke in parables to hide the kingdom from the crowd, but spoke plainly to his disciples. Jesus is the one who is doing this, not Satan, and not a Calvinist teacher).

The gospel is spiritually discerned, which is why Paul said that it was foolishness to those who are perishing. Rather than promoting elitism (does that comment mean I am also an elitist?), Calvinism promotes humility because the gospel was not the power of God unto my personal salvation because I was more spiritual, more receptive, more intelligent or more reasonable in my fallen mind than my unsaved neighbors intellect was. Rather, God “granted me repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth” – 2 Tim. 2:25.

This, as an example, is how I would interpret Luke’s comment on Lydia’s conversion in Acts 16:14 when he adds “The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul.” I am unsure why Luke would say this if it were true of all people everywhere. Nor do I think that this was something that God only did for Lydia but not others who were converted in history; I think there is something we can learn about others’ conversions besides Lydia’s from this verse. There is something that God did to Lydia and not others at this time that directly lead to her being enabled to “pay attention” in a way that she could not without God’s sovereign choice. There would be little point in mentioning this if God did this to everyone; if God does this to everyone, why doesn’t everyone respond as Lydia did? Why mention it at all if this work of God is a universal phenomenon? If God does this to all, but it does not ensure we will come to faith, then why did Luke write as if the proximate cause of Lydia's belief was God's opening her heart?

Steve, I disagree that there are no verses that teach that God must change our nature prior to coming to faith. All of the verses you list speak of us being saved through faith, as the means of our salvation, but none of them speak of us being saved on account of our faith. When Jesus said in Matthew 11:25-27 “No one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him” it shows that spiritual understanding (faith) is a gift from God, and one that not all receive but only those to whom the Son chooses to grant it. I think this is also taught in Jesus’ mentioning that the work of the Spirit in bringing about the rebirth of the saved is like the wind, invisible and as He pleases - John 3:8. I remember these verses always being a difficulty before I became a Calvinist. Even under your teaching, I believe verses like these had to be softened in order to fit into the Arminian world that elitists such as I do not live in.

There are these verses and others (No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him – Jn 6:44) that talk about our inability and that speak of a change happening to our hearts and minds prior to coming to faith. My explanation may not satisfy you, but statements that there are no verses that teach that regeneration comes before faith or that God draws all with equal fervor are incorrect. You downplay verses like these, often because “there are only a handful” (there are more than a handful, but even if I granted you that, what does that mean – how many times does God need to say something before we take it seriously? I am not pulling out one line from Jesus’ ministry or an obscure verse from Revelations.). You spoke of my weak exegesis, but you should review your Calvinism tapes and pay particular attention to how many of your explanations of the Calvinist proof-texts were preceded by long pauses, deep breaths, and warnings that “these verses look Calvinistic, but….”. Some of these verses are challenging, on both sides of the argument; your last post just makes it seem so easy. You really have this all down.

Romans 9:2 is talking about Paul’s kinsmen, who are individuals who are going to hell if they do not believe in Jesus. The fact that corporately they belong to a nation that is no longer in a favored position with God is not what he is lamenting. God is not sending the entire nation to hell, he is sending all of those who do not believe in Jesus to hell, including those unbelieving Jews. This seems like the opposite outcome for “Israel” to what was predicted by the prophets. As Jewish Christians, how would Paul explain a glorious future predicted by God when his former people reject His Saviour? Ro. 9:2 is about individual people who corporately belong to Israel, but it is about their individual fates. Verse 2 is not about patriarchal heads either, though Paul uses these heads to explain the unbelief of individuals, such as Pharaoh and his kinsmen.

Steve, no doubt you have read books on the atonement. Yes, there are aspects of different theories on this that seem to find a home in various passages. However, please re-read what these theories say in particular. Those that deny a substitutionary death go on to deny that Jesus suffered in our place and that His death accomplished nothing objective for the sinner. It was a symbolic gesture of some sort. Therefore, redemption would be the sinner’s responsibility. Consider this quote from Charles Finney, a man who denied the subtitutionary atonement in favor of Grotius’ view of the atonement and argued that the change of a heart of stone to a heart of flesh is something the sinner must accomplish: “Sinners are under the necessity of first changing their hearts, or their choice of an end, before they can put forth any volitions to secure any other than a selfish end. And this is plainly the everywhere assumed philosophy of the Bible. That uniformly represents the unregenerate as totally depraved (a voluntary condition, not a constitutional depravity) and calls upon them to repent, to make themselves a new heart”. Contrast this with the Biblical teaching in Ezekiel that it is God who transforms the heart of the sinner.

If we do not have a propitiation for our sin, then atonement becomes the sinner’s responsibility through some means. These various theories cannot be compounded on one another to make one “super-theory” that isn’t so draconian as demanding one or another, like those Calvinists. They cannot be combined because only one of the theories provides for a righteous Man to be offered in our place as our sacrifice, with His righteousness imputed to us, and our sin imputed to Him. The other theories were not designed to accentuate or add to this concept of a penal substitute, but rather to replace it.

Your mentioning of Jesus being offered “for” our offenses does not disprove my point. The verses I listed and the verse you mentioned both talk about Jesus’ death on the cross. However, the verses I mentioned use the word “for” in the context of dying as a substitute, and in context speak of Him dying in our place. This concept is not compatible with all theories on the atonement that you want to synthesize together. The verse you mentioned is talking about why Jesus had to die – he was delivered because we had offenses that needed to be atoned for. Trying to use this verse to make the definition of the word “for” be as open ended as your view of the atonement is not a satisfactory explanation to me. In fact, I think it is quite desperate. I use the definition of “in our place” when the context demands it. A sacrifice is offered on account of our sins and also in our place. The verses we quote talk about both of these aspects, but you and I are not debating the point of your verse, we are debating the point of mine. What did Christ’s death accomplish for sinners, not why He had to die.

You are fond of examples such as paying a pardon, swinging wide the door to the jail, and waiting for the inmates to step outside. This, as with many of your examples, is a disanalogy. Unlike your examples, Christ's death as a sacrifice required the imputation of our sins to Him at His death, or else His death was not a sacrificial, subsitutionary death. It could not be said in any way consistent with the sacrificial system He embodied that He died "for" us, as the Scripture declares. That is why I continue to press the Scriptures speaking of something having actually happened for sinners at the cross, as well as the many verses telling us that He died "for" us or in or place. Your analogy speaks of making an opportunity to be free; Jesus death made us free. Jailhouse pardons do not fit as an analogy. This view of the atonement is a good advice gospel (go ahead and walk on through or else He died in vain), not good news (whom the Son sets free is free indeed).

If Romans 1 does not speak of all men in their unregenerate state, then does that mean that God has not revealed Himself to all people through creation? Does it mean that there are unregenerate people who do not suppress the truth? I know your interpretation of these verses, and how you cue in on verse 32 and 2:1 and attempt to use these verses as an indication that this is a veiled reference to Israel. Much of what is said is true of Israel at different times in her history, but it is also true of all groups of unsaved people. It is true that not all unsaved people are homosexuals or worship literal idols, but that is a superficial reading of the passage. All of these sins come about because people suppress the truth; their worsening spiritual state may take different forms, but none is innocent because all suppress the truth. They do not suppress just the truth in the Old Testament law, but they suppress the truth as revealed in God’s creation, which is what leads to their spiritual decline. Not every nation had access to the Law, but every nation and every person can behold God’s glory in nature, and Paul says these are clearly seen. Though outwardly it may look like unbelievers mean well, Paul says with insight that their error is sinful and intentional and involves deliberate suppression of what they know is true.

I am only “absolutizing” this verse because it should be. What kind of exegesis is it to take verses that describe our depravity and then indulge in self-denial by saying “I was never that bad, that’s only the really bad people of the world”? What verses, Steve, do talk about you and me prior to our conversion? I need to know, because every verse I mention seems to be eschewed to that unfortunate segment of our society that is worse than you and I were from birth. This strikes me as a form of self-deception. Yes I believe people do want to know god, as you mentioned in responding to my previous post, but Paul’s point is that they do not want to know the True God, which is why they replace him with – you name it. This is all of us in our natural state, and it is why the wrath of God resides on those that do not believe.

Your response to my question about the Moabites and Ammonites does not help your point. I am not arguing that God was cutting these people groups off from the Jews so that they could not interact with the Jews. I am arguing that the Lord cut them off from Him, from his congregation, from worship at the tabernacle, from the place where God’s Word would be read. If faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God, then what is the implication of God saying “I do not want these people around Me forever”? The implication, to me, is clear, and I do not think it is logical to assume that when God removes the means, He still has the end in mind. You mentioned in your response to my question that perhaps God knew something about these people that we don’t. That is an argument from silence. Remember that the Moabites and the Ammonites alive at the time that God uttered this command were not the only ones being cut off but also future generations not yet born. Their children would also be cut off and prior to having done good or bad, and so your conjecture that God cut these people off with no future opportunities to hear the Word and repent because he knew that they would not repent does not answer my question.

Steve, you misrepresent Calvinism by saying that we have a problem with God rewarding good behavior. You also, unfortunately, misrepresent the fallen state of man when you act as if he can do things that God considers good. Paul says that those who are in the flesh cannot please God. If this is so, then how can they do good deeds? Outwardly they may conform with God’s law (an unbeliever may resist the temptation to steal and be honest), but that is not how the Bible defines a good work. We must not only do what God commands, but we must do it to glorify God. If a work could be called good without God in mind, it would imply that there is a standard of goodness outside of and separate from God, and that people can be morally good without any reference to God. Or else it would imply that people can be accidentally good by doing what God says without having knowledge of Him and yet having Him judge their works as righteous. The Bible teaches us that by nature, we do not do things for God’s glory because in our natural state, we do not even know God and we cannot know Him until we are re-born. Yes, I agree with Acts 10:35, God rewards us according to our works. Exactly Steve! He condemns unbelievers because their works are wicked. Even the works that may seem outwardly neutral or morally positive are not done for his glory. No Steve, do not take these statements and shoe-horn them into the camp of “those fallen men who are wicked as opposed to the fallen men that aren’t” or “a special group of wicked men”. Which fallen men are not wicked, and therefore how can a fallen person do something good in God’s eyes? How can a fallen person do something good and yet not please God? It must be that they do not do well by His standards. Even the mundane things, if not done with Him in mind, are displeasing to Him. Even living on His world and yet not acknowledging Him is wicked.

A person who is not saved but outwardly conforms to some of God’s laws invariably would have to rest on his “good works” if questioned about his salvation, if he even understands his need for that. This is pride and not a good work at all.

Calvinists do, however, have a problem with anyone who teaches that our salvation is brought about by a morally positive action on our part, because that theory is not commensurate with our fallen nature, with God’s definition of what truly constitutes a good work by a person, and with a salvation that is 100% to God’s credit. You cannot say that faith is morally neutral because we are commanded to believe Christ, and we are told that anyone who denies that Jesus is the Christ is a liar in I John. If this be true, then faith in Christ, though not a work, is still meritorious by its own right, and if supplied by the person somehow against their very nature, then they do have some credit for their salvation.

If it were just a matter of outward conformity, then Jesus would not have railed so hard on the Pharisees. But what was his most common complaint – that they outwardly looked righteous but on the inside they were like tombs. Their hypocrisy was in a gross form, but no fallen person has pure intentions or the glory of God in mind when they do anything that outwardly appears good. I do not know this because I am a proud man who arrogantly assumes knowledge of people’s hearts, I know this because of verses like Romans 1 and Romans 8, verses that I do not think you allow to carry their full import.

Steve, there are similarities between Greek philosophy and Calvinism. However, to say that they are the same shows that your sharp tongue does not necessarily provide an accurate review of Greek philosophy and Calvinist theology. I refer you to John Zizioulas’ work Being as Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church as well as T.F. Torrance’s The Trinitarian Faith. By incorporating Greek forms of thought, Christian theology radically transformed them in making doctrines that were quite foreign to Hellinism. The fact that Calvinists are all Trinitarians is proof of this; if Greek philosophy had been imported in a pure form, I would be an Arian.

Steve, since this is my last post for a while, let me offer you a personal note. I really only intended to offer a book recommendation; I am not an angry Calvinist who can’t accept that people who love Christ disagree with my views and that God can use them as much as He would use me. This is also an emotional topic because it has implications not only for God’s character, but ours as well. No side is without its difficult verses. I have heard you debate Calvinists before and handle yourself in a more temperate manner than I would have. However, over the years I perceive your fuse has shortened with regards to Calvinism. Perhaps you are frustrated that, as the passages seem more clearly Arminian as you read over them again, that others cannot detect this. Perhaps it is in part because of the often uncharitable behavior of Calvinists that have come and gone on this forum. All of this is understandable. However, I am concerned that at times when I peek in on this forum, there are posts promoting false doctrines such as open theism which illicit no response from you, while my offering a Calvinistic answer to another blogger becomes your personal fight to win. You can say that you are not trying to score points, but you appear somewhat insincere in saying that since you keep calling me names in round-about ways. It is as if you are having a conversation about me without speaking to me. You won’t come out and call me proud, but you “wonder” if I have been carrying secret pride all these years (I never confessed that I did, by the way), or wondering if I am projecting my pride onto others. Calvinists live in their own world, one of elitists, and I am a Calvinist; “let him who hath understanding” reckon what this means, huh? What bothers me is that you know me personally, and although we have not spoken often over the years, I am not a stranger. Honestly, I am not harboring anger or pride toward my Arminian brothers and sisters, but I am concerned that you do find it more important to point out the alleged weakness in Calvinism when comments that cut to the core of God’s immutable nature and character are accepted without comment from you.

I am thankful for the years I spent studying the scripture under your teaching, and ironically you were instrumental in me becoming a Calvinist. It was your tape series on Biblical counseling with its references to Jay Adams that encouraged me to be willing to read books by Calvinists, even though at that time I held them in suspicion. It was your debate with Andrew Sandlin that introduced me to Reconstructionism. This degree of openness is commendable. I hope, however, as the administrator of this website and as someone who is viewed as a respected teacher that you will devote more time defending the very attributes of God such as His knowledge of the future than defending the forum against me. My exegesis will not shipwreck the faith of the members of this forum, but I believe that Open Theism will. My posts were not like the obnoxious writings of Calvinists we have seen on this forum before that were filled with personal attacks, yet you felt more concern in defending Aminianism than I have seen you show in defending such things as God’s omniscience.

With all that said, thank you for your teaching ministry, your generosity, and your friendship. I hope the latter will continue as long as we both live.made
Last edited by leeweiland on Sun Mar 11, 2007 5:46 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Reason:
In Christ,
David

User avatar
_Homer
Posts: 639
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 11:43 pm
Location: Brownsville

Post by _Homer » Sun Mar 11, 2007 5:40 pm

David,

I've been meaning to get back to you; I'm sorry you apparently will have no time for further discussion.

On Jesus' lament over Jerusalem, Matthew 23, you said:
The explanation is this: God’s will (his preceptive will) is sometimes thwarted because He wills it to be, because He has given one of His desires preference over another. His reasons for this may be unknown, but I trust Him that His reasons are just as morally good as those aspects of his character that He has revealed to us.
If I understand you, Jesus' desire is that Jerusalem repent while at the same time He has another will that effectively prevents them from doing so? I can understand a father lamenting the punishment of an erring son, but not when the father has precluded the possibility of the son doing what is right in the first place.

My story about the father's despair over which of his children were elect is not fictitious, it is a paraphrase of the actual words written by one who left Calvinism early in the 19th century, along with tens of thousands of others.

You accuse me of slandering Calvinism. I have facts to back up what I said. It is well known that early in the history of Calvinism in America, in a misguided attempt to have a pure church, with no pretenders, Calvinists began insisting that before a person could be accepted, they must relate a convincing story of their regeneration. Many an honest seeker after Christ was turned away in despair because they could come up with no story and refused to lie about it, as some did. Those who rebelled against this system won thousands and thousands to Christ by following the apostolic practice of accepting people for baptism upon a simple confession of faith, no "conversion testimony" required.

I am amazed that you appear to believe the Gospel is powerless to change the heart. Jesus is the "living word". The gospel is the word of God. Is the Gospel so feeble that a heart must be first regenerated for it to have an effect? "For I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God unto salvation for everyone who believes...", Romans 1:16. It is indeed a strange system that places regeneration before faith. Think of it! We have who knows how many "regenerated infidels" who have not yet heard the Gospel!

I am astonished that you brought up the subject of open-theism. I believe in the sovereignty of God. I believe nothing happens outside His will. Although we have free-will, God always has a "veto" over everything, including nature. And He knows the future, not being bound by time as we are.

Blessings in your busy life, hope to hear from you if time permits.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
A Berean

_David
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 12:12 am
Location: Santa Barbara, CA

Post by _David » Sun Mar 11, 2007 8:45 pm

Homer,

This forum is a guilty pleasure! I am in between tasks, but let me answer your comments briefly. I enjoy being sharpened by you and Steve.

Having been an Arminian for much longer than I have been Reformed, I know from personal experience how “obvious” passages like Matthew 23 and Isaiah 5 can seem. Calvinists should not just file those passages under “anthropomorphic” and thus miss their true and full meaning. I attempt to take these verses as seriously as I can with a full-Bible hermeneutic. Perhaps I err, but I do not think so.

These verses you mention are no more or less true than the verses I quoted in previous posts that state that God’s will is done in all things and cannot be thwarted. I do not have my Bible in front of me, but look through your concordance, especially through Psalms, Proverbs, and in what Nebuchadnezzar (sp?) said in Daniel 4. These speak of God’s will as being unstoppable.

Like you, I do not accept the conclusion that the Bible is contradictory, and so I harmonize these verses without trying to use my set of verses against your set. I believe the explanation I gave in my previous post (you quoted it) could not be put more succinctly to explain my view. I also have been as yet unsatisfied with Arminian explanations about verses that I believe address God’s decretive will. If God’s decretive will can be thwarted, how can I know He can make good on His promise to save me? How would I know that nothing can separate us from the love of God? Good intentions do not necessarily make for “good news.”

With respect, the responses to my posts have been replete with alleged analogies explaining the errors of Calvinism, but of course, the analogy has to be a valid comparison in order to be helpful in our understanding. You stated that God prevents people from repenting, which is not exactly true, and that makes your parenthood analogy a fallacious one. Calvinism (and by the way, I learned my Calvinism from 5 point Calvinists like Calvin himself) does not teach that people would repent if it were not for God, but rather, that they cannot repent without God. People are fallen and their nature has been completely changed, including their volition, their intellect, their desires, and even their physical bodies. Though not everyone is as depraved as they could be, all are depraved and unable to discern the gospel without God first regenerating them and replacing their heart of stone with a fleshy, receptive vessel.

Additionally, I believe in original sin based upon my understanding of Romans 5. I do not believe that people are merely born with sinful natures, but I believe that people are born with Adam’s sin imputed to them. For your consideration, I would recommend reading John Murray's "The Imputation of Adam's Sin", which is a short paperback book devoted to this topic. This a lengthy discussion that we will have to have another time, but I believe that if you understand Paul’s comments regarding the imputation of Jesus’ righteousness to those He is a federal head over, then you will be forced to deal with the fact that Adam’s guilt has also given us an unwanted imputation of guilt in our natural state. As such people are born guilty and do not deserve even the offer of salvation, and therefore Calvinism does not charge God with wrongdoing by stating that some are chosen for damnation. They are as truly guilty in Adam as we are righteous in Christ.

I do believe in the power of the gospel, but let us explore this just a bit. The same Paul who wrote the verse you quoted in Romans 1 also said in Corinthians that the gospel is foolishness to those who are perishing. I do not believe the power of the gospel is a power apart from God’s ministering it. The gospel is not a metaphysical force that takes on a life of its own independent of God’s will. It is not a wind-it-up and watch it go message, but one that is spiritually discerned. The power is derived from God and His ability to draw whomever He wills. When God hides the gospel from certain people (see my discussion of Jesus’ statement to His disciples regarding His purpose for using parables in Matthew 12), it becomes unintelligible babble to those who are perishing.

This type of question is a double-edged sword, because how would you as an Arminian explain the “power” of the gospel when people you believe God truly wants to save are lost? You see, this question is not about the truth of the gospel, but it does touch on the power of its Author? Is there anything that God truly intends to do that He fails at? I believe the answer is no, not because of Greek Hellinistic philosophy, but because of verses like the ones I mentioned in previous posts.

By comparison, while you believe the gospel of the cross of Jesus was intended to save everyone, only a relatively small percentage appear to be saved. That seems less than powerful. By distinction, I believe that 100% of those who God purposed to save before He ever created them and this world have and will come to salvation. This is why I believe that Isaiah could write of Jesus’ death, “He shall see the travail of His soul and be satisfied”. He went to the cross to save His people and seek and save the lost. If He is the Shepherd who leaves the 99 to seek the 1, it does not sound like He would be satisfied with the Arminian rendition of his current “batting average”.

Your historical accounts are a non-point to me. I would like to read more about this story you tell, so please provide your sources. However, Reformed doctrines of election have nothing to do with how Reformed churches accept new members. I do not hold up the Puritans and founding fathers of our nation as perfect examples of Christ. However, I mentioned them to point out that your accusation that Calvinism brings despair is 1) improvable, since you have not seen every example of Calvinism throughout each person’s life in history, and 2) can be disproved by any account of Calvinism bringing peace and spiritual growth to people. I am an example of someone who is Reformed and at peace with God. I disprove your hypothesis.

I only mentioned open theism because, again, your argument is a double-edged sword. If you want to measure the truth of a doctrine by the company it keeps (which is the fallacy of guilt by association), then let’s look at some of the off-shoots of Arminianism. These groups do not make your view wrong, per se, but I mention them to show that Calvinists are not the only ones who have strange children theologically. I do think that open theists are more logically consistent than Arminians, because they, like Calvinists, understand that if God exhaustively knows the future, then the future is set. They sacrifice God’s foreknowledge over certain future events to maintain a truly free-will, and in so doing, I believe they depart from orthodoxy.

If God knew in 1930 that I would be writing this post to you in 2007, then I could not be doing anything else right now. Calvinists believe that He knows the future because He has determined all things that transpire. If God did not determine the future, how would He know it for certain? How would God know the future choices, especially moral choices, that He supposedly does not influence, in many cases? Would it be a guess?

Now I really do have to go!
Last edited by leeweiland on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
In Christ,
David

User avatar
_Steve
Posts: 1564
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 12:07 am
Location: Santa Cruz, CA

Post by _Steve » Mon Mar 12, 2007 3:53 pm

Hi David,

I have spent most of two days writing my reply to your final post. I intended to post it here, for your and others' benefit, but as it occupies 51 pages of a Word document, I am afraid it will not fit on a single page of this forum. I may opt to divide it into segments and post it as separate posts here, but in the meantime, I will simply offer to send it to you, and anyone who wishes to follow our dialogue, as an email attachment, if you request it.

Most people will not have sufficient interest to read such a long response, but if I find there are many requesting it, I will post it in pieces here at the forum.

If you wish to request it, my email address is s_gregg7225@yahoo.com.
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve

_Super Sola Scriptura
Posts: 43
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 12:58 pm
Location: NC

Post by _Super Sola Scriptura » Sat Mar 17, 2007 4:36 pm

When we speak of Christ dying "for" someone, we are referring to the "substitutionary" atonement. We mean that Christ died in the place of the sinner, bearing his penalty for him. Since the price of sin has been actually paid by the Savior, those for whom He laid down His life cannot hereafter be punished for their sins.
Just a quick point or two. Calvinists like to say the above, and also say that if one perishes for whom Christ died(Gasp! Paul said that!)then God is requiring double-payment for their sins, since Christ already paid for them.

My response:

So? So what. Even if this is true, God said he will repay DOUBLE to Babylon for her deeds--Rev 18, and told Israel they would be punished, not double--not TWICE, but SEVEN TIMES for their sins and abominations!
What happened to the "Sovereignty of God" when it comes to this??? How is that Calvinists argue philosophically and say God CAN'T do this because it is "unjust"? Who are you to reply against God??? I see they cannot practice what they preach, or cannot practice it on every level.

God can punish men 100 times if He wants to, it doesn't matter if Christ procured their pardon--they rejected it and so judgement falls upon them anyway. It makes PERFECT SENSE to anyone not reading Calvinists all day long, whose ONLY objection to this is an invalid philosophical argument which also attacks the Sovereignty of God and seeks to tell Him what he can and cannot do.

Limited atonement is so obviously unScriptural that heresy is a better word for it, seeing it is that far away from truth, and an attack upon the Cross of Christ.

I also have no problem making the accusation that it is the Calvinists who consistently seem full of pride, and Calvinism just seems a perfect breeding ground for puffed up flesh. This is something I have encountered over and over in my 24 years in the faith, and to not say it would be to suppress something I know is true. Many Calvinists are quite arrogant and condescending. Denials will never change facts. Nor do I deny my utter contempt for Calvinism, nor do I deny the inability to hide it well. Wesley called it a Hellish blasphemy, and I totally agree.

I do not say this of you david, until you prove otherwise, but you did bring up the Calvinist lying slander about Arminians being proud and their doctrine is pride. That is a total lie, and that is what Calvinists HAVE TO resort to, seeing their doctrine is Scritpurally bankrupt.

p.s.

I think Steve would have whooped Bahnsen on Calvinism or cessationism live and in color.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

Post Reply

Return to “Calvinism, Arminianism & Open Theism”