The True Gospel Verses Calvinism: Part 1
“The difference between Calvinism and the true gospel is a fine line of distinction with eternal consequences.”
“Justification is a finished work that guarantees glorification apart from anything that happens in progressive sanctification….Justification is a finished work that guarantees glorification completely apart from progressive sanctification.”
“All bible verses must be interpreted by, verse….for justification, or verse….for sanctification.”
This post is actually in reply to the following question posted in the comment section of this blog:
Paul, please explain in layman’s terms how Calvinism views justification and sanctification. I am trying to understand this. Does this have anything to do with the saint’s persevering?
My initial response was several hundred words which were deleted somehow when I was near completion; I must have hit a wrong key or something, but this time I will be smart and type it on Microsoft Word first.
Let me begin by addressing this part of the reader’s question first: “Does this have anything to do with the saints persevering?” No. Please, let’s just focus on the foundation—you can address all of the many other issues later, but you will be unable to address them definitively until you have an understanding in regard to the first part of your question: “….how Calvinism views justification and sanctification.”
Short answer: It views them as being the same thing, and that’s a false gospel, and I will explain why (the forthcoming long answer). But first, know this: election does not necessarily mean that God predetermined before creation who was/is going to be saved and not saved. How God weaves His sovereignty together with our choices is a mystery. For example, “The heart of man plans his way, but the Lord establishes his steps (Proverbs 16:9).” Does this mean that we shouldn’t bother planning because the Lord has already determined our steps? Hardly. Proverbs 16:9 is speaking of the mystery/paradox of God’s weaving together of what we do and His sovereign will. Does prayer change things? Certainly it does. When we present the gospel to someone, do we say, “I am just here to find out whether you are one of God’s chosen or not. So, I am going to present the gospel to you, and if you believe and repent, you are one of the chosen, if you don’t, you are toast for eternity.” No, we persuade with all diligence and knowledge (like the apostle Paul did) as if it depends on us, because to some degree, it does. Bottom line:
How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? (Romans 10:14).
God’s offer of salvation is a legitimate offer.
Justification 101 (For now, forget about sanctification, this concerns justification only!)
Nevertheless, when they/we believe, we know it’s because of Romans 8:30, which will be the focus of my explanation/long answer. Let’s now observe Romans 8:30:
And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.
Done deal. Finished before the creation of the world. He predestined us, then called us, then justified us, and finally, glorified us. The word “justified” is dikaioo. It is a legal declaration of innocence that sets one free. Christians are declared righteous before creation, and glorification (when we will be instantly transformed completely at the resurrection) is guaranteed. We cannot mess that up. It’s a finished work by God before we were born. How can we possibly mess that up? We can’t.
Law/Justification [Gospel]
Also, the law can’t touch us. Why? We are already declared righteous, that’s why. Stop everything you are thinking about and take note of this: the law is no longer the standard for maintaining our salvation/justification. Do not turn your mind off here because of familiarity—this is not what you think it is. Pay attention! The difference between Calvinism and the true gospel is a fine line of distinction with eternal consequences. Caution: this is a concept that it so simple that it escapes us. We are no longer ….key word alert,….UNDER the law. In the book of Romans, Chapter 7, Paul compares our relationship to the law as a marriage covenant that is no longer valid because one of the spouses died:
Do you not know, brothers —for I am speaking to men who know the law—that the law has authority over a man only as long as he lives? 2 For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage. 3 So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress, even though she marries another man.4 So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God.
Now, I will slightly digress and bring danger of confusion, but will then quickly return to the subject of justification. Paul is talking about justification in this passage, and then finishes the thought with a mention of justification’s purpose; sanctification: “….in order that we might bear fruit to God.” BUT, as we shall see, other than the fact that justification makes sanctification (our kingdom living) possible, the two are totally separate, and the separation of the two is the key to understanding the issue at hand, and the true gospel in general.
….for justification.
We, as Christians, are dead to the law. It can’t touch us. We are no longer UNDER it:
Romans 2:12
All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law.
But not us. The law can’t judge us, we are no longer under it:
Romans 3:19
Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God.
Note that the world is under the law, but we are not. We have no regard for the law whatsoever, ….for justification.
Slavery/Justification
Paul also described our relationship to the law in regard to not being enslaved by it. To be evaluated by the law is to be in bondage to it:
Romans 6:14
For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace.
Galatians 4
21 Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. 23 His son by the slave woman was born according to the flesh, but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a divine promise.
In fact, Paul said for us Christians, ALL things are lawful!
1 Corinthians 6:12
All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything.
All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify.
But not expedient, or profitable….
….for sanctification. Sanctification 101
There are two kinds of sanctification, but only one kind of justification, and the two sanctification are totally separate from justification. If not, we are eternally doomed. Justification must be a finished work that we have no part in except for showing others how they can be justified like we are; saved, if you will. Note: Romans 8:30, the epic verse of justification, does not include the subject of sanctification because the two must be separate. One is a finished work (justification), the other, sanctification (or, kingdom living) is progressive. In fact, Dr. Jay E. Adams states well that sanctification (our Christian life) does not in any way draw it’s life or power from justification because justification is a legal declaration that determines our POSITION:
The problem with Sonship™ [same thing as New Calvinism prior to 2008] is that it misidentifies the source of sanctification (or the fruitful life of the children of God) as justification. Justification, though a wonderful fact, a ground of assurance, and something never to forget, cannot produce a holy life through strong motive for it. As a declaration of forgiveness, pardon, and adoption into the family of God, it is (remember) a legal act. It changes the standing, but not the condition, of the person who is justified.
That’s because justification is a finished work, and discipleship (sanctification) is not; it’s progressive. But, there is also a positional sanctification that is also a finished work that even preceded justification. But like justification, it is a finished work and cannot produce progressive life, because for crying out loud, a finished work doesn’t continue to produce a progression. This would seem evident. Remember this: sanctification is a word that merely means, “to set apart.” So, sanctification is a progressive separating from the world. As we progress in our sanctification, we look more like Christ, and less like the world. But there is also a positional separation from the world that is also a finished work that includes predestination, election, calling, justification, and a setting apart:
Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God (1Corinthians 6:11).
Notice the past tense of the verse. Our position is a finished work. We were washed, set apart, and justified. Peter asked Jesus to wash him. But Christ told him that there was no need for him to be washed because it had already been done, he only needed a daily washing of his feet:
The evening meal was being served, and the devil had already prompted Judas Iscariot, son of Simon, to betray Jesus. Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power, and that he had come from God and was returning to God; so he got up from the meal, took off his outer clothing, and wrapped a towel around his waist. After that, he poured water into a basin and began to wash his disciples’ feet, drying them with the towel that was wrapped around him. He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, “Lord, are you going to wash my feet?” Jesus replied, “You do not realize now what I am doing, but later you will understand.” “No,” said Peter, “you shall never wash my feet.” Jesus answered, “Unless I wash you, you have no part with me.” “Then, Lord,” Simon Peter replied, “not just my feet but my hands and my head as well!” Jesus answered, “A person who has had a bath needs only to wash his feet; his whole body is clean. And you are clean, though not every one of you.” For he knew who was going to betray him, and that was why he said not everyone was clean (John 13:2-11).
Justification and the New Birth
Though justification is a finished work, it passes the torch to something that is a mark of true salvation. This is where sanctification draws its power. This element of sanctification is a Proof of Purchase Seal that you and I have been purchased by God with the price of His Son. It is the new birth. We are born of the Holy Spirit into new creatures. Our spiritual growth is now a colaboring with the Holy Spirit who indwells us. He also colabored with saints of old, but His permanent indwelling of New Testament believers is probably related to the engrafting of the Gentiles. But whatever the reasons, remember that the saints of old were also justified by faith alone, and like us, they were not UNDER the law….for justification.
Paul makes this point in Galatians 3:13-18:
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.” He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.
Brothers, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.
Hence, the law CANNOT be our standard…. for justification. Paul makes that clear by pointing out that the law didn’t come for 430 years after Abraham was justified according to the covenant of promise. Nevertheless, we must be born again (new birth). Again, the new birth is proof of Justification, but is not powered by it. The new birth is the indwelling Holy Spirit colaboring with His new creatures. Theologians call this, regeneration. We, like the saints of old, MUST BE BORN AGAIN. Before the cross, and before Pentecost, Christ made this clear to Nicodemus in the present tense, and expressed surprise that he was ignorant of the new birth (John, chapter 3).
And this is very, very important: regeneration does not work towards/for glorification. Sanctification (the progressive type) is NOT a link to glorification. Remember, glorification is a finished work. Romans 8:30 speaks of it in the past tense. It is the guarantee of our justification. Both happened before the creation of the world. Some theologians call glorification, “final sanctification.” Perish the thought! Glorification is the manifestation of positional sanctification (both are final, finished works), NOT the completion of progressive sanctification. Though the completion of progressive sanctification happens at the same time as glorification—glorification is a finished work, and therefore is not the culmination of progressive sanctification’s progressive work; it is rather, redemption. Redemption is the manifestation of glorification when God cashes in on his purchase:
There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars. On the earth, nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea. People will faint from terror, apprehensive of what is coming on the world, for the heavenly bodies will be shaken. At that time they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. When these things begin to take place, stand up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near (Luke 21: 25-28).
Though the Bible speaks of glorification as a future event, Romans 8:30 refers to it in the past tense. This is because it does not need progressive sanctification to complete it (again, progressive sanctification is not included in the list of Rom. 8:30), and the past tense usage points to the guarantee that accompanies justification.
Justification and progressive sanctification are totally separate. Progressive sanctification DOES NOT link justification to glorification. Justification is a finished work that guarantees glorification apart from anything that happens in progressive sanctification. This is why progressive sanctification is excluded from this paramount justification verse….for justification, and speaks of justification and glorification in the past tense. Justification is a finished work that guarantees glorification completely apart from progressive sanctification.
One Law; Three Relationships/Standards
Hence, the law, which includes all of Scripture (see Matthew 4:4, 2Timothy 3:16) must always be read in this context: ….for justification, or….for sanctification. The standard/relationship…. for [our] justification is ZERO LAW. The standard/relationship….for [our] sanctification is….100% law! Why not? It’s not related to our justification anyway! Therefore:
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:17-20).
The word for “set aside” is lou. It means to “relax” or loosen. That is, in regard to the “least of these commandments.” So, do we interpret this way: “Whoever practices and teaches these commands”….for justification; or, ….for sanctification ? The framing of a house and the rightness of its foundation will determine its quality. Are the frame and the foundation going to be perfect? No. But is that the standard? One would hope so. We should strive for perfection in sanctification for many reasons, but most of all, because it has no bearing on our justification which is a settled issue. However, Christ links a poor attitude towards the law in sanctification to an absence of the new birth/ new creaturehood:
For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
Unfortunately, the relationship/standard in regard to the unregenerate is perfection ….for justification because they are UNDER the law and in bondage to it. Christians are free from the law for justification and “uphold” (Romans 3:31) it…. for sanctification. That is why James refers to it as the “perfect law of liberty” in James 1:25. All Bible verses must be interpreted by, verse….for justification, or verse….for sanctification.
Eschatology and Justification
This is why in the study of biblical last things (eschatology), we find two resurrections and two judgments. One resurrection and judgment for the saved, and a separate resurrection and judgment for the unsaved. Unfortunately, the standard for the second set will be perfection, and nobody will measure up (Revelation 20:4-6; 11,12). We will be a part of the “resurrection of the just” (Luke 14:14) and will not stand in such a judgment because we have already been declared just. Our judgment will be for rewards:
For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us may receive what is due us for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad (2 Corinthians 5:10).
Obviously, we can’t do this: 2Cor 5:10…. for justification. That would be a huge problem.
I will conclude with a visual chart to help clarify the above. In the second part, we will examine the difference between this and Calvinism.
Reblogged this on Clearcreek Chapel Watch .
I pretty much gave up when I got to this: “But first, know this: election does not necessarily mean that God predetermined before creation who was/is going to be saved and not saved.” One wonders, what does election mean if it means something other than choosing? Also, did He determine post-creation? Perhaps God is just winging it, as it were.
A great book is Holiness by JC Ryle. I like the way he explains that Justification and Sanctification are two seperate things but you don’t have one without the other.
This is quite a clear brief explanation of justification and sanctification. However, I have the same problem with the sentence that texasbaptist54 pointed out. Yes, sovereignty/free will is ultimately a mystery, but, if God ordains means as well as ends, it’s a little more understandable, I think.
Texas,
Sorry, I’m not going to get into the election/free will debate. That’s not the point.
Jeff B.,
Unless you look at the whole picture. But don’t get me wrong, I’m not arguing for either. The issue at hand is the fact that Calvin fused justification and sanctification together and that’s a false gospel.
Lin,
It’s the best. You would think that his work would end the argument. However, I get flooded here with quotations from Ryle (most likely out of context) that supposedly support the idea that he believed in Gospel Sanctification.
Paul,
It has probably been about a year since I first came across your blog. It seems you have gone from bad to worse. Calvin didn’t confuse justification and sanctification. The problem is that you don’t have the ability to understand what he wrote.
And yes Lin. Ryle did believe in gospel sanctification. If we are not sanctified by the gospel of grace, we will not be sanctified. Just read Ryle on holiness and it will become clear to you what Ryle believed. Gospel sanctification doesn’t mean we don’t need to be obedient to Christ, but that we are motivated to obedience by the redeeming love of Christ.
Paul,
You wrote: “But first, know this: election does not necessarily mean that God predetermined before creation who was/is going to be saved and not saved.” You are the one who made this statement and, therefore you have made it part of the discussion. If you are going to make a stupid statement like this, you ought to at least be willing to defend it. Either election means God predetermined before creation who was or was not going to be saved or it doesn’t. Choose your option and defend it but don’t pretend it is ambiguous.
Additionally, neither Calvin nor any of his followers confuse justification and sanctification. You make yourself look really ignorant when you make such statements. All your readers need to do is read some of the great Calvinistic writers to discover that you are misleading them. Ryle was a Calvinist who was very clear about the distinction between justification and sanctification.
“It’s the best. You would think that his work would end the argument. However, I get flooded here with quotations from Ryle (most likely out of context) that supposedly support the idea that he believed in Gospel Sanctification.”
That is because of their Augustinian/Calvin overlay. They can see nothing else. Ryle was Anglican. Big difference from what we think of as Calvinistic.
“And yes Lin. Ryle did believe in gospel sanctification. If we are not sanctified by the gospel of grace, we will not be sanctified. Just read Ryle on holiness and it will become clear to you what Ryle believed”
Gee thanks for the interpretation, Randy. My copy of Holiness is dog eared and marked through. I could have saved the trouble of reading it! I am not even sure what “Gospel Sanctification” is since the Gospel is the Good News. one repents and believes and grows in Holiness. I would suggest his “Practical Religion”, too. He is one of the few dead or alive guys I recommend reading anymore.
Gospel this and Gospel that. We have Gospel marriages, Gospel kids, Gospel quit smoking programs. Pretty soon the word is going to be meaningless.
Some of you guys will really appreciate this link. They guy is a former Calvinist and gets it— I love this blog post about the word, “Gospel”
http://crankycontrarianchristiancommentary.com/2012/01/30/is-the-gospel/
Here is another good one ya’ll will enjoy:
http://crankycontrarianchristiancommentary.com/2011/07/26/the-statement-christianity-is-not-about-a-bunch-of-dos-and-donts-is-a-bit-ridiculous/
I continue to be amazed that anyone would take you seriously. I have read some amazingly stupid statements in my life, but I don’t think I have ever read anything that makes less sense than the following: “regeneration does not work towards/for glorification. Sanctification (the progressive type) is NOT a link to glorification. Remember, glorification is a finished work. Romans 8:30 speaks of it in the past tense. It is the guarantee of our justification. Both happened before the creation of the world. Some theologians call glorification, “final sanctification.” Perish the thought! Glorification is the manifestation of positional sanctification (both are final, finished works), NOT the completion of progressive sanctification. Though the completion of progressive sanctification happens at the same time as glorification—glorification is a finished work, and therefore is not the culmination of progressive sanctification’s progressive work; it is rather, redemption. Redemption is the manifestation of glorification when God cashes in on his purchase:”
Glorification is a finished only in the sense that Christ’s glorification has begun, but even that is not yet finished. It will be complete when he returns to be glorified in his saints. Then we, too, will be manifested as the sons of God. Glorification is spoken of in the past tense because believers are united to Christ who has entered into glory. Experientially, we will be glorified when we are completely conformed to the image of Christ. Is that not the goal of sanctification?
You need to understand the difference between what God purposed before the foundation of the world and what he accomplishes in time. His purpose, though certain to be fulfilled, is not accomplished in eternity past. Its full accomplishment will not occur until Jesus returns.
esthersrequest.
If you don’t think Ryle was a Calvinist, what do you think a Calvinist is? Do you have this page dog earded and marked through? “Let us hear what the Bible says: “For their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified.”–-“Christ loved the Church and gave Himself for it, that He might sanctify and cleanse it.”—“Christ gave Himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto Himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.”—“Christ bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness.”—“Christ hath reconciled (you) in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in His sight..” (John xvii. 19; Ephes. V. 25; Titus ii. 14; 1 Peter ii. 24; Coloss. I. 22.) Let the meaning of these five texts be carefully considered. If words mean anything, they teach that Christ undertakes the sanctification, no less than the justification of His believing people. Both are alike provided for in that “everlasting covenant that is ordered in all things and sure,” of which the Mediator is Christ.” J. C Ryle If Jesus undertakes our sanctification as well as our justification, is that not gospel sanctification?
Ryle also wrote, ““(3) For another thing, if we would be sanctified, our course is clear and plain—we must begin with Christ. We must go to Him as sinners, with no plea but that of utter need, and cast our souls on Him by faith for peace and reconciliation with God. We must place ourselves in His hands, as in the hands of a good physician and cry to him for mercy and grace. We must wait for nothing to bring with us as a recommendation. The very first step towards sanctification, no less than justification, is to come with faith to Christ. We must first live and then work.
(4) For another thing, if we would grow in holiness and become more sanctified, we must continually go on as we began, and ever be making fresh applications to Christ. He is the head from which every member must be supplied (Ephes. iv.16.) To live the life of daily faith in the Son of God, and to be daily drawing out of His fulness the promised grace and strength which He has laid up for His people—this is the grand secret of progressive sanctification”
That, my friend, is gospel sanctification.
“Ryle was a Calvinist who was very clear about the distinction between justification and sanctification.”
Give me some source where HE says HE was a Calvinist and I will recant. I will say this, NT Wright claims something of Reformed theology and he is NOTHING like Calvinists in America such as Piper, Mohler, etc.
“J. C Ryle If Jesus undertakes our sanctification as well as our justification, is that not gospel sanctification?”
Where in that entire quote does Ryle call it “Gospel Sanctification”? You call it that.
I don’t disagree with Ryle! Jesus Christ is the author and finisher of our faith.
I can share the” Gospel” to one who is never Justified and sanctified. The Gospel is the Good News. Period. By calling it Gospel sanctification you can easily merge it with Justification.
Randy, Calvinists are verbose and circular in debate. But we don’t even agree on definitions so it is a waste of time to debate.
Lin you are exactly right when it comes to Calvinists being verbose and circular in their debates. This becomes an effective way of confusing the listener and making themselves sound more intelligent to the common lay person. Randy, how come Christ and the apostles were so clear and easy to understand but Calvin had to write 2,000 and some pages to make Salvation seem so complicated? And no I have never read Calvin’s institutes- don’t care to. I have seen though that Calvinists do love to make things so perplexing that you don’t know which door you have come out of. And there is such an arrogancy of “knowing” such theological knowledge- is this what Christ intended? Calvinists love to tag on “important” words (Gospel this and Gospel that; imputed this and imputed that) because of Hegelian dialetic. You can lose the true meaning of something when you water it down to where then it has no meaning or it means something totally different then the accurate meaning. Look at the word racist, now it includes even someone who might just be prejudice. Two different meanings completely, but blended now today. This is exactly what Calvinists do with Sanctification and Justification- two separate words and meanings, but start the Hegelian dialectic and …….wha la, you fuse the two and start taking away the accurate meanings of both. This happens continuously in cults.
People are blind sheep and do not understand that God is NOT the author of confusion and DID NOT make THE GOSPEL hard to understand. We just just miss the obvious just because the other guy sounds so smart and right. We are not discerning and acting like good Bereans and study what is obviously stated in Scripture. We end up worshipping dead guys who were either trying to make more out what God intended or using it to control those around them- a little bit a narcisisstic complex going on there with Calvin I think. Oh granted Calvin was extremely intelligent, but so were the Pharissees.
Thank you so much for your thoughtful answer. I am going to study it so I can fully understand it. Would you consider doing one on the perseverance of the saints. I thought that meant once saved, always saved but I think it means something else to a neo-calvinist. I understand John Piper said you can’t know for sure that you will make it to heaven until the end, I guess if you persevered. I am just resting in Christ myself and serving him out of gratitude and love. Not because I have to do good “works”.
Thank you.
Christian, Yes, from what you say here, an understanding of the separation of justification and sanctification would be critical for you to understand. Given Piper’s theology which will be discussed in detail in the next part, it doesn’t surprise me that he has stated that you can’t know for sure that you are saved. Nevertheless, if you can supply some links for my data base–that would be great. For sure, Reformed theology holds to the idea that you can loose your salvation. I quote Piper and Horton accordingly in the next part. Perseverance is a heavy subject that speaks forcefully to the colaboring involved in sanctification. I will address it for you in part 3.
> —–Original Message—– >
esthersrequest,
If you read Ryle on such passages as John 6 in his Thoughts on the Gospels, it is quite clear he believed at least four of the five points of Calvinism. The 39 Articles of the Church of England are clearly Calvinistic. I don’t usually call myself a Calvinist. but that does not negate the fact that if you examined my theology, you would conclude I am a Calvinist.
N. T. Wight has clearly denied the gospel of grace. He is nothing like a Calvinist in any universe.
A person does not have to use the term “Gospel Sanctification” to believe we are sanctified by the gospel. The gospel goes beyond “Christ died for me.” The gospel involves ” I died with Christ as well.” The first concerns my justification; the second concerns my sanctification. Ryle is clearly teaching that Jesus died as much for our sanctification as he did for our justification. That has nothing to do with confusing or conflating justification and sanctification. They are clearly separate and different, but both are accomplished by the same work of Christ.
Christian,
Calvinists do believe in “once saved, always saved” but you have to be once saved to be always saved. We do not believe everyone who makes a profession of faith will be saved in the end. There are false professors as well as true believers. The character of saving faith is that it perseveres. If a person professes faith, but then falls away, he will be lost. If he falls away, he was never one of God’s own in the first place. The Perseverance of the Saints means that God guarantees that all who have truly believed in Christ will persevere in faith until the end.
trust4himonly,
You wrote:
“Randy, how come Christ and the apostles were so clear and easy to understand but Calvin had to write 2,000 and some pages to make Salvation seem so complicated? And no I have never read Calvin’s institutes- don’t care to.”
My question is, how would you know Calvin made salvation seem complicated if you haven’t read him?
Perhaps you could cite a Calvinist you have read who has complicated the gospel so that you can’t understand it. Perhaps C. H. Spurgeon was a Calvinist who complicated the gospel beyond your understanding; or perhaps J. C. Ryle. Just give me and example.
esthersrequest,
On what definitions do you think we disagree? Perhaps, before making such a broad assumption, you should present me with some important definitions to see if we truly disagree.
Randy, one reason I don’t engage you guys anymore is taht you change definitions in midstream. One is unable to obey then one is able to obey Christ. It depends on the convo and issue involved.
I just had a YRR tell someone that man “chooses” to rebel. (As in man has a choice while being totally “unable” and totally “depraved”) but man has no choice to be saved or not. This is the Calvinism doublespeak. Now, you guys dress it up with lots of fancy words and phrases. But you strip all that away and it is chaos and confusion.
Ryle had a TON to say about what we should DO as in we CAN obey in sanctification. Synergistic. So, I am not going off on rabbit trails.
I think you guys misuse the term “Gospel” and I fear where it is leading.
Paul,
You wrote: “For sure, Reformed theology holds to the idea that you can loose your salvation.” That is pure hogwash. You can’t find a Reformed Theologian who believes it is possible for a true believe to lose his salvation. We do believe many who profess to know God, but in works deny him, will be lost at the last day, but that is an entirely different matter.
Lin,
Where have I changed definitions in mid-stream? Of course sinners choose to rebel. Sinners can only do what is their nature to do. Sinful nature doesn’t produce faith in Christ.
Of course sinners have a choice whether to believe or not. Is is simply that in a state of sinful nature, sinners always make the wrong choice. There is not a single one who in a state of sinful nature seeks after God. See Romans 3:11.
What we can do as believers in the realm of sanctification is totally different from what sinner’s in a state of sinful nature are able to perform in the matter of coming to faith.
Do you think the apostle Paul misused the term gospel? He told the Romans he was going to preach the gospel to them, then went on to talk about justification, sanctification and glorification. All of this is involved in the gospel. God’s purpose is not simply to forgive us by the work of Christ but finally to conform us to his image. That might just involve sanctification which will never occur apart from the redemptive work of Christ. That is good news!
Lin,
I like the way you call the Calvinists out on their doublespeak. Been listening to it for years and years. Oye. The fact is, you simply cannot reconcile “God desires all to be saved” with “Some are predestined for heaven, others for hell”. I’ve heard it described as “mystery” or “paradox”. The fact is that these two things are mutually exclusive. It isn’t a mystery, it’s a logical impossibility. It’s the exact same situation with “God declares some saved and some not; buuuuuuut….those not, it’s their own damn fault”. Now will some Calvinist please explain to me just how in the heck does that work? Unless the meaning of “mystery” has now become: whatever doesn’t make any damn sense in this universe or any other, I’m not sure that is something that can ever be explained in a way that won’t turn rational people away at the door. (And I have read Calvin’s Institutes…his explanation isn’t any better. It’s still a mystery…in flowery medieval language, though, it does come across superficially as a lot more convincing.)
The point is that you cannot declare man totally depraved and an imbecile and then create a doctrine around this idea that will really make any sense at all…because everything has to be grotesquely contorted to fit the premise that man is irrelevant (and if he is in fact irrelevant, why does he even exist? But let’s assume he does exist…still he doesn’t possess a mind, nor does he possess the rational experience which would make him capable of grasping the significance of whatever place God throws him, heaven or hell, so what’s the point of him winding up in either place? He says “I’m here outside of any of my own volition and I’m expected to understand “why?”, and gnash my teeth, or raise my hands in praise for the consequences of a life that was completely outside of myself? Er…what?) . And I’m still scratching my head trying to figure out how the SOLE act that can actually make salvation in fact salvation, that act being man’s ability to choose Christ of his own free will, gets both barrels from the Calvinists because it assumes “man pridefully contributes to his own salvation”. Well, if man doesn’t contribute by choosing, salvation cannot be salvation at all, it’s ALL election. Unless man can choose, salvation can have NOTHING to do with it because salvation from nothing is not salvation…if man is predestined there, then he is not SAVED from anything. There is no rescue unless one is actually rescued from something, right? And Jesus by definition cannot be called the Savior, he is instead the elector. So the Calvinists claim that it’s blasphemy to say that man’s contributes to his own salvation by ACTUALLY AFFIRMING by their choice that Jesus is in fact a savior. Well, what else is blasphemy according to Calvinists? Er…well, belief. Yes, belief in Jesus! They very thing they preach every Sunday is actually a grave, damning sin because…whose belief? That’s right! Yours, you depraved idiot! So it seems to me, if we just do the opposite of what the Calvinists do,we stand a better chance in being assured of our salvation, and have to spend less time rubbing hands and furrowing brows with John Piper wondering about it.
And the irony of this is so darn funny. I mean, Calvinists think the are the most important people in the whole wide world, when, according to their own doctrine, all they say and do is completely pointless. I’ve never understood why they don’t get this…and quickly find a new theology. Whatev…..
Randy,
A choice that is impossible to make is not a choice. By definition, the ability to choose is utterly based on the idea that one possess the rational faculties (that is, is NOT totally depraved) to prefer one thing over another, and to select that thing Nature and instinct are not the “ability to choose”. That would be like saying, “Sure, that milk cow can choose to accept Jesus Christ as Savior…but she never will, because she’s a cow.” What you are talking about is merely a nuanced and slightly more savvy way of saying “man is predestined…it’s a mystery”. It’s always a mystery and a paradox with you guys…with some kind of ludicrious-in-heady-clothing non sequitur to explain it.
Argo,
Perhaps, a better course than the one you have chosen would be to actually discuss texts of Scripture relevant to the issues we are discussing, in their proper contexts. Whether you like it or not, there are texts of Scripture that deal with the issue of God’s sovereign will in the matter of the sinner’s salvation. If you wish to be honest with the Scripture’s teaching, you need to understand those passages as well as the texts you believe support your position.
Andy,
The Calvinists’ love of proof-texting notwithstanding, the fact is that I do not need a single scripture verse (no, Randy, not even in the ESV) to point out that you used a completely contradictory statement–nonsense, if you will–to support your argument. This has nothing to do with context, unless you are implying that the Bible also uses similar nonsensical statements in support of its premises. If so, please show me the verse. Specifically the one that says “I will determine his eternal damnation by giving him a choice…but not really, [wink, wink]“.
Argo,
Can a person chose to obey God’s law or not to obey God’s law? I believe the clear biblical answer is YES! Yet, the apostle tells us that ” the mind of the flesh is hostile toward God and is not subject to the law of God, not indeed IS IT ABLE TO BE.” Rational faculties are not the issue. Of course sinners have the rational faculties to choose. The issue is sinful nature. Does faith arise from sinful nature? Sinners will, by nature, always run form the light. That, my friend, it the plan teaching of Scripture.
By the way, I didn’t think I would ever encounter a person more ignorant than Paul D. You have changed my mind.
Argo, Here is one of my favs:
“Of course sinners choose to rebel. Sinners can only do what is their nature to do. Sinful nature doesn’t produce faith in Christ.”
Choice language presupposes “ability”, right? Well, in our world it does anyway. So the Calvinist can say the sinners “choose” to rebel even considering their definition of TD. So they have a choice to “rebel” (because they are going to anyway because it is their nature so we can throw in “choice” when we have already said they have total inability….blah blah blah.
So, they “choose” to rebel. Double speak
However, when you nail them on it, you are just “:ignorant”. You just don’t understand Calvinism or you misrepresent it or whatever.
Funny how illiterate folks can understand the Gospel . Does not make for puffed up knowledge, though.
“. It’s the exact same situation with “God declares some saved and some not; buuuuuuut….those not, it’s their own damn fault”.
How would you like to have a father who blamed you for something you could not even do? It is insidious.
Argo,
Read this thread and see if you can spot the Calvinists
http://sbctoday.com/2012/07/16/interview-with-a-former-calvinist-ronnie-rogers/
Listen you know Calvinism is suffering from an identity crisis when Piper has Doug Wilson in to teach the YRR pastors at DG. First Driscoll, then Rick Warren and now the slavery was good, Doug Wilson.
Lin,
Really, you nailed it. It’s nothing but doublespeak. If you don’t accept the “clear”, or “plain” and “obvious” logical inconsistency and contradiction in their “sound doctrine” then you are just the most ignorant person in the world. Notice it always boils down to that. The very fact that you do not accept their premise is just proof in their minds that you are totally depraved. And it is this kind of argument that they love because they can always resort to this. The moment you try to point out that they are using definitions for words and concepts that can’t possibly be true, well, they just point to you and tell you you’re an idiot, or are depraved, and see, you made their very point, which is God has to choose for you (oh…no, sorry, not choose for you,just create a situation where it’s impossible to choose and then call it choice; which, er, is the same thing, but whatever….mere semantics to them). This is how they maintain their power over the “depraved” masses. They just keep redefining premises and words and concepts at will and then merely declare you to stupid to understand when you point out the obvious: that when a Calvinist claims that something is “clear” and “plain” in Scripture, that they don’t have the first damn clue what that something is really saying. Their entire premise is flawed…so it follows that their theology is skewed from the start. They claim that man does not really posses reason, can never choose good, and they just don’t see for some reason that this makes every major concept in the Bible moot: “grace”, “salvation”, “election”, “sanctification”, etc., etc. Man can choose, but he never will, is just one of the nonsensical things you will hear them say in defense of their theology. They cannot see that in that one, itty-bitty statement they have just obliterated any rational reason for man to have ever been created in the first place and made God the most colossal time-waster ever. Thus, they ipso facto claim that God is imperfect, and then have the gall to say that WE are the heretics! The point of our lives is to accept Christ and be saved…but we don’t possess any faculty for doing that, thus, God must do it on our behalf. The only way to do this is to “elect” some and not others. Those that were elected were always going to be “saved”. Therefore, the term saved is a false term, because what exactly are the “elect” saved from? They are saved from nothing. Which by definition means they weren’t really saved. So when Jesus calls himself the Savior, he must be lying. And, again, we are the heretics? If the elect were always going to be saved anyway, then the cross is pointless. And we are the ignorant heretics?
I must say that at times I’m forced to conclude that the reason they get it so wrong is because they simply aren’t smart enough to get it right. I hate saying that, because it makes me sound like “Grace” Writer Randy; but what other conclusion can there be?
Oh…total depravity. Dang. You are right. I stand corrected. They must just be too depraved to see. Wow…thanks Calvinists. I like that argument, too! “You are too stupid to understand. Therefore, I win.” That’s the ticket.
Great articulate posts Lin and Argo……
The thing is Randy, is if you believe the separation of justification and sanctification- great!! Then we do not have to argue right? So who are you defending then by coming on here? Calvin/Calvinism or Jesus Christ?
Is it not Jesus Christ we are to defend according to His Word? Why must I read Calvin to understand Salvation? Why must I be a Calvinist to fully grasp my standing with the Lord? If you want to go the Calvinist argument Randy then why worry about us here- it is already predestined for us then to be way off track and not possibly elect, according to some Calvinists? Does not Paul say to be Bereans and find out if something rings true to Scripture or not? We have found holes in the Calvinist doctrine and this is what this site is for. You can take it or leave it.
Oh yes Lin I read on the TWW about Doug Wilson’s slavery bit- awful….
I think John MacArthur wrote a book called Slave. Never read it because why get depressed. Also, did not know who Doug Wilson was when I read the article on TWW and saw his face then I remembered him.
I saw a video of him stating that the churches responsibility was to take over all areas of government and business. Obviously someone is not quite taking Scripture seriously or are putting in their own version of Scripture. Some scathe stuff.
My spell check- some scary stuff.
trust4himonly,
Please forgive me for assuming you had a Berean spirit. I didn’t realize your mind was closed on this subject. The reality is, there is a great deal of Scripture you have to ignore to believe as you do. If you are satisfied to remain in your ignorance, I will be happy to leave you to it. The truth is, God predestined that I should be here to try to help you out of it.
I don’t believe everything Calvinists teach in the broad sense of that term, but I do find agreement with them regarding soteriology. I have tested these things by the Scriptures. Perhaps you should do the same.
And no, choice language (and I don’t find much even of that in Scripture) doesn’t imply ability.
Argo,
I didn’t say you are stupid. I said you are ignorant. That can be cured through study. You might want to begin by getting our position right. No true Calvinist says that sinners do not possess reason. If you can find one who says that, please give me the quotation.
Randy,
You are right. I stand corrected. You did not say stupid. I misrepresented that. I apologize for inferring that those with whom I disagree are stupid in my last post. I shouldn’t have done that. That doesn’t give glory to God; sometimes my emotions get the better of me.
I will find a quotation and document it for you. I don’t mean this in a contentious way, but I don’t think it will be too difficult.
So that means you then have that authority to do so? How do you know that you are predestined to do so based on getting me to see your Calvinist views? Is that what Christ would want you to do? I do not go on Calvinist sites to try to argue my side- it is fruitless. I guess I could say I feel that I was not predestined to.
I believe in Christ Jesus as my Savior. I believe that I was a sinner destined for hell. I believe that Christ is God and was resurrected from the dead. I believe I am now eternally secure in Christ. I believe that I must tell others about Him and live for Him. I love Scripture and read it daily; praying that the Holy Spirit show me truth. And yes I would love to be called a Berean- they were people just like me. They were not perfect nor am I. All I am saying is I DO NOT have to run to Calvinism to get Scripture right and I do not agree at all with some of their teachings. I may not know every detail about Calvinism, but I do know this it confuses and so why in the world would I decide to run back to it?
I don’t know maybe I am predestined not to.
Anyway Randy you can win the argument if you want to I am just a woman and don’t have the authority according to some Calvinists. But that’s is fine with me because I am secure in where I stand in Christ. And I am sure if I did not get the predestined thing down it won’t send me to the eternal fire. Adieu my friend.
Having readers….delightful. Having smart readers….awesome. having readers who will deal with Randy for you….PRICELESS!!!!!
gracewriterrandy -
Romans 8:7 means that the unsaved person can NOT choose to obey God’s law if he/she is not ABLE to be subject to it.
Having said that, you are, of course, correct in your earlier point that we must deal with the text of Scripture, not with what we happen to think about certain ideas. For example, the words “election,” “elected,” etc., turn up over 25 times in Scripture. We can’t pretend that that isn’t so; we must find out what the words mean in the original language and in context.
Argo -
“Total Depravity” (and “Total Inability”) are unfortunately misleading terms. They do not mean that man is as bad, corrupt, helpless, and inept as he can possibly be; that would be UTTER depravity or corruption. They mean that our corruption because of our inherited sin nature has affected every part of our being – mind, body, emotion, will. The result is that we cannot do anything good as God defines “good.” (e.g. Rom. 3:9-18). I’m speaking of the “natural” man.
Folks, criticize Calvinism as much as you want, but please criticize it only to the extent that it does not reflect Scripture. I, myself, think that it’s on very shaky Scriptural ground when it comes to infant baptism, and on no ground at all when it comes to what “Israel” means in the Bible. I think it’s on much firmer ground when it comes to election and atonement, as well as some other things. SOMETIMES CALVINISM IS MYSTERIOUS, PARADOXICAL, AND EVEN OFFENSIVE BECAUSE SCRIPTURE IS SOMETIMES THOSE THINGS. (For instance, the Bible speaks of the “offense of the cross.”) SOMETIMES CALVINISM IS MYSTERIOUS, PARADOXICAL, AND EVEN OFFENSIVE BECAUSE IT GETS SCRIPTURE WRONG. But I don’t think it’s accurate to say that it’s always wrong.
It may be that Calvinism and/or “New Calvinism” is, at the least, confused and confusing about justification and sanctification, and, at worst, utterly mistaken about them. It’s certainly something worth investigating, in good faith. I know that it’s sometimes difficult to discuss these things without anger, but I think we should try to do so.
JeffB,
Thanks for that even-keeled response.
I see what you are saying…sometimes I write posts with the assumption that readers understand my familiarity with terms, and so I just plow forward. Let me explain my position better.
With regard to total depravity. I understand the nuances of the semantics that Calvinists often employ to try to rationally justify their utterly contradictory conclusions. In my world, words mean things. Now, I understand that proponents of a particular orthodoxy diddle around with meanings so that the common understanding of the word no longer applies (this was one of Jonathan Edwards’ problems with Locke’s use of the word(s) “Will”, or “To Will”).
So, as far as I’m concerned “total” means “total”. Total depravity implies much more than a “taint” of something. It implies that the person who is depraved in such a way is so far from God as to not even be considered in his right mind; to be so depraved they cannot even view reality well enough to render ANY judgement of it that isn’t “shot through with sin”, and therefore bereft of ANY truth. Indeed, this is exactly why CJ can get away with the kind of grotesque hypocrisy and bias he has in dealing with matters relating to his sin. His argument is that anyone “beneath” him is too depraved to even see his sin, let alone render a judgment of it. In short, the Calvinists say that you can never trust what your senses tell you BECAUSE you are totally depraved. This is not a biblical concept. If unbelievers (and believers) are responsible for their sin at the last judgment, then it must follow that they can know “good” and be able to act upon it. That is a fact. This is not some theological paradox. If you are to be justly judged, you must be declared culpable. The ONLY way you can be culpable is if doing the right thing is within your mental and physical capabilities. (Why command people to “repent and believe” if because of their sinful nature,they can do neither…is God really the God of logical fallacy? This isn’t a mystery like the Trinity or the resurrection of the dead.. This is about a JUST God versus a hypocritical one (meaning, demanding people do something and yet not give them the ability to do it.)
However, being capable of “good” is not the same concept as not being able to earn one’s salvation by keeping the Law. I hold the latter to be axiomatic as a result of the Fall.
Calvinism is wrong because they teach ideas that are not biblical.
JeffB,
Please, I do not mean this to come across as bitter in tone, so please don’t take it that way.
I remember CJ saying, and I quote, “Mother Theresa has more in common with Adolf Hilter than with Jesus Christ”. Now, in light of that statement, what do you think the Calvinists mean when they refer to “total depravity”?
Argo,
I don’t know what Calvinist you have been reading or listening to but I have never read or heard a Calvinist say sinners lack the mental or physical capablility to do what God demands. As Jeff wrote, Total Depravity simply means that the sinner’s entire being has been radically affected by sin. He/she could believe if he wanted to; he just doesn’t want to. Jesus said, “No one can come to me unless the Father who has sent me should draw him, And I will raise him up again at the last day.” That sounds a great deal like inability to me. It has nothing to do with mental or physical incapacity; it has everything to do with spiritual incapacity. John wrote, “this is the condemnation that light has come into the world, but men loved darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil. and every one who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light lest his deeds should be exposed.” That describes the universal condition of sinners. It is the sinner’s nature to run from the light, not to the light.
Additionally, the Psalmist wrote , ” The LORD looks down from heaven on the children of man, to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God. They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one.” This appears to me to teach that no one by sinful nature seeks out God. Sinners are dead toward God but very alive to the world and Satan. As a result, by nature we are hostile to the things of God unless God calls us effectually by his grace.
Argo -
Coming from SGM myself, and having an understanding of what CJ taught about total depravity, I do think that people have different understandings as to the meaning of “total depravity.” They also have no idea how people within SGM were beat over the head with that term and then told that this is the reason why you need a pastor to “stand in the sted” for you, even though said pastor claims to be “totally depraved” as well.
The term was used within SGM in a hideous way when used to describe “believers.” This implied that the “believer” is STILL totally depraved in sin and is not capable of living as a new creation in Christ (this is totally discouraging and not Good News at all). This flies in the face of many of the teachings of Paul where we are exhorted to “put off” and “put on” “because of” the Gospel (Good News-justification) we have received in Christ Jesus. Jesus also said he would send his Helper – the Holy Spirit to be with us. The Holy Spirit is not with us to remind us how totally depraved we are, though He will convict us in areas and work in/with us to change, which helps us lead a life that is pleasing to God!
It does amaze me, though, how often people come around and defend Calvin. They don’t come to defend the Gospel, necessarily, but they surely don’t want the gospel of Calvin maligned.
Of Christ!
Bridget, Can’t add anything to it. Well said. Wish I had time to comment on the others as well but I am trying to get part 2 cranked out which states why indeed that Reformed theology holds to a “total depravity of the saints.” it’s not merely implied–that’s the doctrine.
> —–Original Message—– >
Argo, I agree with your whole post at 5:16. I will say that I think Calvinists actually lessen the Sovereignty of God because they really do not believe that God is Sovereign over His own Sovereignty. they put Him in a box and we are his puppets.
What you say about salvation is so true. It becomes meaningless.
Lin, That point could be further made via Matthew 24:36
> —–Original Message—– >
Where is the first place Calvinists almost always turn to affirm their beliefs? Romans. (Now that I said that Randy will disagree but I have been reading way too many REformed blogs to believe anything else)
And there is the problem. It is not exegesis, it is hermeneutics that is the problem. The context of Romans. Why it was written and what was going on at the time. They love to quote Romans 3 but Paul is quoting Psalms which is poetry with lots of hyperbole. Should I be worried that Calvinists will pray imprecatory prayers, too? Pslams are man talking to God. And yes, they are inspiried but we must read them in the proper context. We don’t run out and “do” many things said in the Psalms or we would be in prison.
Besides, does scripture ever say anyone is righteous? Let’s analyze it. Does scripture ever describe anyone as “seeking God”? Just off the top of my head, I would think of Job and Cornelius.
Well Lin you could also say that about most of the law in the OT – we don’t obey, I think it is 600+ laws that were designated for Israel. Yes you are right about putting Scripture into context.
I went to a church before where the church government body felt that it was scriptural for the pastor to follow the leadership style of Moses- it was called the Moses Model. Left that church.
Well Abraham was commended/praised for having faith; David was a man after Gods own heart; Daniel purposed in his own heart to serve the Lord; Rahab was commended and rewarded for having faith- so I guess these are all good examples.
Hi Randy,
With respect (and I mean that sincerely…don’t want to get sarcastic or biting in tone), I think you have fallen victim to the Calvinist practice of proof-texting verses in order to prove a point that in reality that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. When practiced, unfortunately, this incorrect handling of scripture becomes almost second nature. It’s why Calvinists are so prone to very poor interpretations.
John Immel over at SpiritualTyranny.com has a very simple tool that can help us avoid that: Always ask yourself 1. Who is speaking? 2. Who is listening? 3.What is the situation?
The verse you cite, John 6:44 has nothing to do with election. Notice the discussion Jesus is having with the Jews prior to Him making that statement. Jesus was explaining that the bread of life (through which they would never go hungry…Jesus was contrasting that bread with the bread they ate when Jesus gave them the loaves and the fish)…the bread that came from heaven was Him.
He said, “For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” (6:33)
They said, “Give us this bread.” (6:34)
Jesus said, “I am the bread of life.” (6:35)
Next, the Jews start to grumble in doubt: “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph?” 6:41
Jesus then commands them to stop grumbling and then declares, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.” And then the part the Calvinists always leave out, vs. 45, which speaks to the context, “It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught of God’…and here it is: “Everyone who listens to the Father and and learns from him COMES TO ME.”
Jesus wasn’t talking about election, Jesus was saying to the Jews, if you have learned from God, you have to believe in me, because everything you’ve learned from God DRAWS one to the conclusion that Jesus is from God; i.e. Jesus is the Christ. Jesus was speaking to their doubt, not to the doctrine of election.
For further proof, look at John later in Chapter 12, verse 32: “But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw ALL MEN to myself.”
In your argument, Jesus has contradicted himself. In one instance he is saying “I’m only for the elect.” In the other he’s saying “I’m for ALL men.” The only logical conclusion from the entirety of John, from proper context, is that in John 6, Jesus is simply not speaking to election.
Randy,
And…let’s just think about logically for a minute. Let’s put away all thoughts of preconceived doctrines, theology, old dead saints, the heady writings of medieval reformation zealots and just take a minute to think…just think through it like normal everyday Joes.
I mean, does your view of that scripture verse really make sense? Why would Jesus spend so much time reasoning with the Pharisees and the Jews, doing miracles, speaking of fulfilled prophecies and whatnot…all this just so the people who are ALREADY predestined to believe in him believe in him, and vice versa?
It just isn’t rational. If you just sit and think it through you will see that your message of election can only mean irrelevancy for man and Christ. Like I said before, it makes God the most colossal time-waster ever.
Argo, Thanks. I could read you all day.
gracewriterrandy -
I understand now the distinction you make between physical and mental incapacity on the one hand, and spiritual incapacity on the other.
Argo -
What you write about the context of John 6:44 is very interesting. Thanks for pointing out something that I should have noticed before.
You wrote: “If you are to be justly judged, you must be declared culpable.” I agree. But Scripture seems to say that inheriting a sinful nature as the result of Adam’s sin (and then acting upon it) somehow makes us culpable. Left to our own devices, we would probably not come up with this conclusion. It doesn’t seem to be fair, for one thing. However, I think that, in studying Scripture, we have to put aside our notions of fairness and of anything else, at least temporarily, and look as clearly and honestly as we can at what Scripture says and decide what Scripture concludes. If we decide that its conclusion is not the one that we would make on our own, we must let Scripture have the last word.
I realize that I’m speaking ideally. We don’t read the Bible with no preconceptions of some kind. But, if God is not the Author of confusion, He expects us to be as objective and honest as we can. And we have to remember that His ways are not NECESSARILY our ways. Sorry if I’m preaching to the choir here.
Argo and Bridget -
I have not had the experiences with professed Calvinists that you have – have not even been in the same room with Mahaney, Driscoll, Piper, etc. (Insert joke here.) I therefore have no reason to not believe that some of these people have said what you say they have said. (Sorry for the clumsiness.) Especially when they are on record as saying some weird things. Just to take total depravity: If any “Calvinist” has spoken about it in the way that you write, they have distorted the original concept (as I understand it) almost beyond recognition. (If there is any documentation of this, I would appreciate any info about it. I apologize if you’ve already done this. I’ve investigated some links which lead to some pretty strange remarks, but I don’t recall any on total depravity.) I realize that it’s possible that they say some of these things, and act accordingly, but are wary of leaving a paper or video trail because they may be aware on some level that they would be open to severe criticism if they were publicly revealed. Some of the stuff makes them sound like cult leaders.
Argo and all concerned,
I am not trying to defend Calvinists. From the Calvinists I have known, from the Christians I have known for that matter, if it depended on them, I would be neither a Calvinist nor a Christian. People who claim to be Calvinists say some weird things and Christians don’t always act like Christians. If we are going to discuss Calvinist’s belief’s why not discuss them in the light of the original statements of the Calvinists who framed the Canons of Dort?
Argo,
I would like to pose a few questions if I might.
1. If the context of John 6 has nothing to do with election, what does Jesus mean by “all the Father has given me.” He uses this same language in reference to his sheep in John 10, “The Father who gave them to me.” When and in what sense do you thing the Father gave the sheep to Jesus?
2. Just so you know, I don’t leave out verse 45. To me, it clenches the deal. If the Father draws all men [which in your view apparently refers to every individual without exception] to Jesus according to John 12, (please note that John 6 talks about the Father drawing and John 6 talks about Jesus drawing), then why don’t all men believe? Verse 45 says that EVERY MAN who has heard and learned of the Father comes to Jesus.
3. If John 12 means the Father draws every individual without exception ( a better rendering would be “all peoples” meaning sinners from every nation–this would seem to be indicated from the context in which certain Greeks are seeking an interview with Jesus. His point seems to be that when he is lifted up on the cross, the door will be flung open to people of every nation), how do you imagine he does so? Does he draw those who have never heard of Jesus or of the crucifixion. Does God draw people apart from the gospel? How does God draw those who have never heard the gospel?
4. Do you believe sinners would be culpable if there were no gospel and if Jesus had not died? If God sent everyone to hell, would he be just in doing so, or does he owe everyone a chance?
more to follow
Argo,
Please understand that “all men” means all peoples not every individual. Therefore, there is no contradiction between “I came to redeem the elect” and I came to redeem “all peoples.” If he came to redeem every individual on the face of the earth, why aren’t all redeemed? Did he fail his mission? In John 17, he clearly stated that he “prays not for the world but for those whom the Father had given him.” The high priest intercedes for none but those for whom he has offered sacrifice.
Argo,
Now perhaps you could answer my question about how anyone ever comes to Christ if no one seeks him and,in fact, all sinners run from the light. If no one seeks him, how does anyone ever find him? Is that by accident?
Lin,
Thank you. That is really, really nice of you to say.
JeffB,
Yes, I do hear you loud and clear. Believe me I used to walk in the presumptive paradox of election and free will for years and years as a staunch neo-Calvinist. However, I must confess that I am on a fundamental level so very uncomfortable with that paradox, and always have been…and one of the reasons is that I’m just not convinced that scripture draws the same conclusions regarding paradox that we do. That is, I understand the verses say what they say (e.g. John 6:44), but I’m not convinced that commonly held conclusions about those verses referring to election are, in fact, as true as many assume. Bottom line is, I need much more evidence before I’m going to cop to “It’s very clear from scripture that this issue is very unclear”. I know this puts me in the minority (and likely in the corner wearing a tall, conical hat and wondering who is going to be kicking my ass on the playground later). Again, a good example is John 6:44. How many times have we read that and just categorically assumed that it was referring to the doctrine of election? While at the same time a simple cursory reading of the chapter reveals the verse isn’t speaking to election at all; for if it were, it would be the proverbial round peg in the square hole. It just doesn’t fit: “I think I’d like a Coke, Fries, and a Cheeseburger. I like clouds. And the apple pie for dessert.” You don’t need some sixty-dollar concordance, or a MDiv to discover what Jesus is really talking about. But our hypnotic devotion to our orthodoxy has made what should be so easily graspable to our rational minds (and is, if you just let go and READ IT) so very, very confusing. For example, we have confused the idea of scripture’s infallibility. What that really means is that major concepts addressed in the bible should be viewed as axiomatic and necessary to a happy, fulfilled, God-glorifying life: seeking wisdom, sobriety, love of neighbor, love of God, atoning work of Christ, responsibility to truth and honesty, hard work, etc., etc., and on and on. But the neo-Calvinists don’t believe that. What they believe is that infallibility means that any verse can be taken utterly out of context, stood suspended in space like the Earth, and declared to mean whatever the Calvinist wants it to mean…because it’s infallible.
Finally, I might add, I often wonder why people like me are so berated because I believe in man’s rational ability to choose, with the tentative admission that predestination may indeed be a Biblical concept that exists in tension with free will, but the Calvinists never get pressed about how they essentially teach that ONLY election is true and free will is rank heresy. According to them, we can’t even be of any use in sanctification…it’s all gospel. Don’t mean to whine but…waaaay unfair.
Why do I have to explain John 6:44, but they never have to explain John 6:45b (choosing to listen, choosing to learn, so that they may be drawn to Christ), or John 6:47(choosing to believe), or John 6:51 (choosing to eat of the Bread of Life). Or the rich young ruler, “One thing you lack GO and SELL…”. Looks like Jesus is explicitly telling him to DO something that will CONTRIBUTE to his salvation. So…er, is Jesus now a heretic as well?
I’m just saying…
Since people here seem to like J. C. Ryle so much, I thought it might be interesting to post Ryle’s comment on John 6:44. He wrote, “The general lesson of the sentence,. apart from the connection, is one of vast importance. Our Lord lays down the great principal ‘that no man whatsoever can come to Christ by faith, and really believe in Him, unless God the Father draws him so to come, and inclines his will to believe.’ The nature of man since the fall is so corrupt and depraved , that even when Christ is made known and preached to him, he will not come to him and believe in HIm, without the special grace of God inclining his will and giving him a disposition to come. Moral suasion and advice alone will not bring him. He must be ‘drawn.’
This is no doubt a very humbling truth, and one which in every age has called forth the hatred and opposition of man. The favorite notion of man is that he can do what he likes,–repent or not repent, believe or not believe, come to Christ or not come, entirely at his own discretion. In fact, man likes to think that his salvation is in his own power. Such notions are flatly contradictory to the text before us. The words our Lord here are clear and unmistakable, and cannot be explained away.”
Argo,
Actually, we do not contend that John 6:44 refers to election at all. We contend that it refers to effectual calling that is according to God’s eternal purpose.
Argo,
Perhaps you can point us to a scripture that says sinners have a free will.
Argo,
So you think the rich young ruler could have contributed to his salvation by selling his goods and giving to the poor? Wow! That sounds like works salvation to me.
Randy,
It is impossible to be both elected AND saved. If your going to hell was never a possibility in the first place, then you weren’t ever saved, and the Cross is moot. How can you be saved from hell if hell was NEVER in the cards for you?
Being neither a Catholic in Spain, nor a citizen in Calvin’s Geneva, I’ve never suffered inquisitions, and I’m not starting with yours. You can say “With God, all things are possible”. You can say “It’s a paradox”. You can shrug. You can cry blind faith, or level accusations of ignorance. You can subterfuge with a thousand filibustering questions. But you simply cannot say that it makes sense. Sorry about that.
Argo,
Please clarify for me whether we are talking about New Calvinists or Calvinist. Which is it who believes that ” that infallibility means that any verse can be taken utterly out of context, stood suspended in space like the Earth?” I am a Calvinist and I know I don’t believe that.
Randy, I’m trying to be civil. Please stop being petulant and abusive. Jesus was telling him that salvation required a conscious decision to die to self, and follow Christ whole heartedly. That’s not “works” salvation; that’s just work. And you know what, yeah, it’s not easy following Christ. It takes work. It takes a conscious, purposeful decision to work to glorify God in your life…it takes obedience, effort, and a rational mind. I’m sorry that poses a problem for you. I guess Piper would have said, “Go home and enjoy your mansion…it’s possible you’re saved; you’ll find out if you wait around long enough”.
Yes, they do. It’s called proof texting. Some call it “systematic theology”. Go by Wayne Gruden’s book. Tell you what…I’ll respond to you again once you’ve finished the whole thing.
Argo,
It seems like you are unwilling to answer my questions. In answer to your question, though I was God’s elect, before conversion, I was a child of wrath just like the rest (Eph 2:3). Apart from the sovereign grace of God, I would have been lost for eternity.
Buy is spelled “buy” not “by.” What is abusive or petulant about asking questions? Do you really believe the rich young ruler could have been saved by selling all he had and giving to the poor?
Am I to suppose you are not willing to answer my questions? This is the reason you are an Arminian. You are satisfied with ignoring major texts of Scripture. You can believe what you like. Just don’t confuse you with the facts.
Randy,
The contradictions in your last post are staggering…but not as staggering as you uttering them with (presumably) a straight face. That post makes absolutely no sense at all.
If you are saying that the elect cannot deny Christ, then you were NEVER a child of wrath.
If you are saying that the elect CAN deny Christ, then you are affirming the ability to choose (free will).
Proof texting is only proof texting when the text is not understood in the context in which it is written.
You are to suppose I will no longer answer your questions. Please, for the love of all that is Holy suppose that.
Argo,
Just read the Scriptures and accept them for what they teach. The elect deny Christ just like the rest until God calls them by his grace. As long as they do so, they are children of wrath just like the rest. Apparently, you are so confused you can’t even argue rationally. Please provide me with a verse of Scripture that affirms that sinners possess a “free will.”
Really??…..Oh my Randy getting a little testy with the spelling there are you not?
Argo,
Then I will suppose that you have no answers. That is why I am a Calvinist and you are an Arminian.
trust4himonly,
Testy indeed
Oh my gosh…boy, can I be baited. Randy…arrg…no. That makes no sense. How can the elect be children of wrath if there is NO possibility of them suffering wrath?? If the elect are truly “children of wrath”, there MUST be the possibility they won’t accept Christ. How is that? They either weren’t elect, or they have free will to choose NOT to accept Christ. How can a man of your experience, education and credentials not see this is nonsense?? I have no doubt you are a good man doing good things for people, but I’m shocked that this you cannot just admit this is a contradiction.
You can’t…er, you know what? Forget it. I gotta go to bed. Boy, I’ve learned something here…
Argo,
Your argument is with the apostle Paul and the Holy Spirit. Paul wrote it and the Holy Spirit inspired it. I am just trying to understand it. Being a Calvinist and a theologian is a matter of trying to understand what God has revealed even though it seems mysterious to our minds. The answer to your question is that we are children of wrath as long as we are outside of Christ and we are viewed as God’s elect as he contemplated in his eternal purpose us in Christ. I hope you sleep well and come to some truth while you slumber.
I should rather say, if the elect were truly children of wrath, then there must have been a real possibility they might not have chosen Christ, in which case, they weren’t elect until after they CHOSE Christ, which presumes free will. So, if the definition of elect refers to the salvation of people after they freely CHOOSE, then I agree. But if elect means people who are predestined prior to conversion to eternal life, through no will of their own then they cannot by definition ever be called children of wrath.
Enjoyed the debate, Randy. They do say iron sharpens iron…so, maybe we’ve gotten more confident in our perspectives, if nothing else. Good night.
Randy, thou all wise one. The Scriptures say Christ was elected. What does that mean exactly? Did Adam and Eve have a free will before the fall? How was sin found in Satan? Did God put it there? Where did the sin come from? Did God preordain it? Does God answer prayer? Should I pray that God will save my mother? Why? How many times should I preach the gospel to her? If God has chosen her, will he save her on the third presentation, or the fourth? Should I keep trying? Does God ever change his mind? Does God ever choose not to know something? Are God’s actions ever conditional on anything we do? Please answer these questions all wise one. I am going to bed now, but in the morning I will awake with bated breath in anticipation of your profound unction. paul
> —–Original Message—– >
My view is that people continue to be Arminians because they are willing to ignore the hard questions. As long as you are willing to accept the unbiblical notion of “free will” you will continue in your delusion. Free will, in the sense that sinners have the ability to receive Christ is foreign to the Scriptures. Argo has demonstrated this very clearly in his refusal to answer very simple questions. Why did he not answer the questions? Because the correct answer to the questions would make him a Calvinist.
I will leave a verse for tonight to dream about:
Revelation 22:17
Whoever wills, let him take the water of life freely.
Good night.
By the way pinning the term Arminianist is always the easy out for the Calvinist. Who cares- call us what you like. All I know is that I am a child of Gods and a Christian. Arminianist/Calvinist are labels and doctrines of men.
Paul,
In reading your questions I am reminded that a fool can ask more questions in five minutes than a wise man can answer in a life time. Yes, Adam and Eve had a free will before the fall. No, God did not cause Satan to be sinful. Yes, God preordained sin. Does God answer prayer? Yes! Should you pray that God save your mother? [sorry she is lost] Yes! Preach the gospel to her until she dies. No, God never changes his mind. If he changed his mind, that would presuppose there was something wrong with his mind in the first place. Jesus willingly chose not to know certain facts since it was not the will of his Father to know certain facts during the period of his humiliation. No, God’s actions are never conditioned on anything we do. He is sovereign after all. He does not wait with with bated breath to see what we will do to determine his next move. Hope you rested well.
trust4himonly,
Of course, whoever wills may take of the water of life freely. The question remains, who will, by sinful nature, will to take of the water of life freely?:
My prayer for all of you tonight is that you answer the questions honestly. But, beware, answering the questions honestly will make you a Calvinist.
Trust4himonly,
Insofar as I understand Calvinsim, I don’t think they would disagree with the verse you cited (“Whoever wills, let him take the water of life freely.”). What they would say, however, is that this verse doesn’t say who the willing ones are. It does not say that everyone will be willing, or even that everyone can be willing, but simply “whoever wills.” The Calvinist (I think) would maintain that the elect, and only the elect, will ever be willing to take the water of life… and they do so freely, i.e. it is not forced upon them, and they are not coerced. God causes them to change their mind, so that when they beleive the Gospel they do so freely.
As for the philosophical aspect of the free-will debate, I think the Calvinist would say that to define the will as “free” at the outset is simply to beg the question: it assumes the very point at issue. If that’s how it’s going to be, why not define the will as “enslaved” at the outset, thereby making it true by definition… Maybe things would be easier if the term “will” were defined without loading the definition either way. After the term is defined by itself, then go on to argue from Scripture whether to tax on the terms “free”, “enslaved” or whatever other term one takes to be Biblically appropriate.
Just my two cents.
Joey
Don’t fret guys, Calvinists take Arrogance 101 in seminary.
Can you imagine giving your life to defending Calvin’s doctrines? A mere man? Now that brings pride. What is missing from Calvinism that is obvious everywhere is love. They are arrogant psuedo intellectual bullies. They love their doctrine more than people.
Randy has used all the typical tactics here. But you guys are on to them.It does not take long to figure them out.The internet is the worst thing that has happened to this doctrine of man. First it helped it grow but as more and more are interacting and questioning it, they are seeing it for what it is. Vapid and dark. Which is why it usually ends up dying out for a while or going liberal.
Joey good points….the problem is true – the Calvinist can take and does take verses and fit their narratives around truths. I for one believe in free will and predestination. How this works is definitely Gods great mystery and maybe that is the way He leaves it. You know there are some things we may never know until we see Him and I have to say this is probsly it. Too many verses to back both. Predestination however is NOT the issue here and does not pertain to our salvation. Fusing justification and sanctification does and is false. So getting on the predestination rabbit trail is fruitless- these debates have been going on for years. What I do not understand about Randy is that he has been arguing with us this whole time for nothing because he States he believes in separation of justification and sanctification. But clearly many in the Calvinist camp do not believe that including the dead Calvinists. The quotes are all out there to see that point to their belief in progressive justification. Not to mention a whole load of other problems such as complementarianism and escholatological inaccuracies.
Hi Joey,
Very good…I’m glad you pointed that out. I believe that the Will determines itself. If it is determined by an outside influence, then you run into the same problems with the irrelevancy of man and life and the cross that I’ve described above.
I believe the paradox is untenable. I do not believe they can operate in tandem…they must somehow be one and the same. I have a theory that says that both are dependent on man’s free will (free choice).
If the “elect” are saved prior to conversion, then conversion is nothing but a mere formality. Why does the God of the universe resort to formalities? It’s a waste of time. God is no time waster, so conversion must mean something REAL. If one is predestined, then conversion cannot really happen, because conversion assumes a change from one thing to another. If one is predestined, then there is no REAL change. For logical purposes, the elect are born the way they die…as going to heaven, unequivocally. That makes man’s life pointless. If life here is pointless, eternal life is pointless, man is pointless, and God would have spent his time better creating something else.
Here is a summary of my theory:
What my theory says is that God created the life that is bound by the inevitability of its own choices; its own free will, which leads to the ultimate conclusion of eternal life or eternal damnation, the entirety of which God can see, and is in fact a reality to Him at all times, because He is God. Thus, it can be said that God predestines. At the same time, free will exists because the ability to choose has been given to man, and thus each choice is not inevitable until man makes it. However, once made, the choice could not have happened any other way; it becomes, in the instant it is made (but ONLY when it is made), inevitable (that is, if you were to go “back in time” and replay the choice, it would go the exact same way every single time). Thus, free will is the very thing that makes predestination possible, and vice versa. Even more, in my theory, neither could really exist without the other.
Let me know what you think. Please feel free to rip it to shreds.
I really want questions and feedback.
Think about it. We always assume that when we speak of predestination and free will, we (and the Bible) are speaking of separate concepts. What if this assumption is false? What if they are simply different aspects of the SAME concept.
Argo,
You made an interesting comment above in which you seemed to equate free will with free choice. In my view, these two are not synonymous. Every person is free to make choices, unless, of course, he is incarcerated or confined to a hospital bed etc. which might limit the choices he can make. I am free to choose to eat garbage if I wish to. What I am not free to do is to wish to do that, since I am absolutely repulsed by the very thought of doing so. Every sinner is absolutely free to choose according to his highest inclination, but his will is not self determining; it is governed by his nature.
Excellent point Argo- this is where I seem to dwell on the issue of prdestinstion and free will. God did not create cyborgs, but humans who would have fellowship with their Creator. The whole issue of Christs death and resurrection was to restore that relationship between man God. Calvinists want to eliminate that factor of fellowship and friendship with God. So many verses in Scripture contradict that premise that Calvinists make of total depravity even on Christians. One of my favorites is Hebrews 4:14-16- we have a High Priest who is so ready and willing to help us and give us mercy in our time if need. When I was in the Reformed Church all I heard was wrath not friendship or fellowship.
Argo,
You mentioned the Bible speaking of “free-will.” Apart from OT passages that speak of a free will, i.e., voluntary, offering, can you direct me to a passage where that term occurs?
“The whole issue of Christ’s death and resurrection was to restore that relationship between man and God.”
Missed the and.
Lin,
Just so you know, I don’t spend any time defending John Calvin. In fact, there are many things Calvin believed, wrote about and did with which I absolutely disagree. What I am interested in defending are the teachings of the Scripture.
Randy we could mention the same for TULIP “total depravity or limited atonement or irresistable grace”. Or even go further – how about being a Hedonist Christian as Piper likes to use. Are these in Scripture?
Before Randy corrects my spelling – irresistible grace.
….uh, let me remind everybody–that includes the total depravity of the saints–not just the unregenerate.
> —–Original Message—– >
….well, if you can’t debunk the argument–look for spelling errors.
> —–Original Message—– >
trust4himonly,
You wrote,
“Calvinists want to eliminate that factor of fellowship and friendship with God. So many verses in Scripture contradict that premise that Calvinists make of total depravity even on Christians. One of my favorites is Hebrews 4:14-16- we have a High Priest who is so ready and willing to help us and give us mercy in our time if need.”
Why would you make such a statement? Your limited experience in a Reformed Church does not qualify you to make such a blanket statement. Perhaps there are Calvinists whose theology is unbalanced in that regard. I have heard Calvinists preach in such a way that convinced me I would not wish to repeat the experience, but I would not, based on that experience, state that all Calvinists preach the same way.
I happen to be a Calvinist in the soteriological sense of that term, but I don’t want to eliminate the factor of fellowship and friendship with God. Additionally, I don’t believe Christians are totally depraved. To disagree with our teachings is one thing but to misrepresent us is another thing altogether.
Trust4him,
I mean, we can’t get around God’s omnipotence. Obviously He knows and sees everything, from beginning to end. What I’m not accepting is that this equates to the concept of “predestination”, in the way that it is conventionally accepted (usually referring to Calvinist/Augustinian interpretations) because it cannot be reconciled with what I accept as axiomatic: man’s free will; freedom of choice (which are the same, essentially…read Edwards’ writings on this). Freedom of choice is explicitly revealed in Scripture as is God’s utter control over all creation and time.
My theory, so far as I can tell, is the only one that shows how these two explicitly discussed biblical concepts (free choice and predestination…as in, God’s omnipotence/omnipresence in creating all things from their inception to how they spend eternity) can both be true without being contradictory. My theory shows them not only to be compatible, but interdependent.
Of course, I could be wrong, so that’s why I’m looking for some constructive criticism.
trust4himonly,
You are right. Those terms are not found in Scripture but the concepts they represent are. I usually use other terms to describe those concepts since I believe those terms can be misleading. They are stated the way they are because they were framed in answer to the doctrines of the Arminians. What I am asking for are verses that teach the concept of “free will.” I find free agency everywhere; I don’t see free will anywhere.
What about the word Trinity? Yet we know by what we see in Scripture that there are three in one.
Just because the word “free will” is not located in Scripture does not mean that the premise of having a choice is not there. All throughout Scripture God praises those who have listened to Him and want to follow Him. Joshua stated “Choose this day whom you will serve” NOT “It does not matter who you choose -you have no choice: you will be forced one way or the other- God will choose some to sin greviously and some to follow Him.” James states that God does not cause man to sin; it is our responsibility. Does God foreknow – absolutely! But we are given that responsibility- for why then would we need Gods Word if we were already. predestined already to either serve Him or not?
Randy,
Could you direct me to a the passage that uses the term “gravity”. Or “Internet”, or “internal combustion”, or “general relativity”? Is your point that things don’t exist unless you can find the exact word in the Bible?
Randy, your asinine questions reveal what you are really “predestined” to do here: provide a distraction to a serious discussion by serious people looking for serious answers.
I’m exercising my free will and ignoring you from now on. Your purpose is clear. To offer nothing to the broader discussion of our faith.
Argo,
Do you believe God created and governs his world without first planning how he was going to do so? We would call a man foolish who began to build a house or even a mouse trap without an architectural design, at least in his head if not on paper. All we are saying in speaking of predestination is that God planned his works of creation and providence beforehand. Since that plan is perfect, it needs no alteration.
What my theory says is that God created the life that is bound by the inevitability of its own choices; its own free will, which leads to the ultimate conclusion of eternal life or eternal damnation, the entirety of which God can see, and is in fact a reality to Him at all times, because He is God. Thus, it can be said that God predestines. At the same time, free will exists because the ability to choose has been given to man, and thus each choice is not inevitable until man makes it. However, once made, the choice could not have happened any other way; it becomes, in the instant it is made (but ONLY when it is made), inevitable (that is, if you were to go “back in time” and replay the choice, it would go the exact same way every single time). Thus, free will is the very thing that makes predestination possible, and vice versa. Even more, in my theory, neither could really exist without the other.
Would anyone mind giving me their thoughts on this theory in particular? Does this have any merit? Is it easily debunked?
Argo,
I guess you didn’t see my post in which I stated I wasn’t looking for the exact words. Actually, my purpose in being here is to challenge the prodigious misrepresentations that are in abundance here. Serious discussion might include answering legitimate questions that challenge one’s views. I guess you aren’t interested in anything but your own views.
Randy,
I’m asking this in all seriousness…not a trick question, not a diversion, not playing “gotcha”.
Do you confess Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior?
trust4himonly,
If you are arguing for free choice, we agree. Free choice is what I am calling free agency. God does not force anyone to make choices they don’t want to make. Judas was predestined to betray Jesus, and yes that word is found in the Scripture, but in doing so he chose freely to do what he wanted to do. Joseph’s brothers did what they wanted to do in selling him into slavery, but Joseph later tells them that God intended their evil actions to bring about his good purpose.
God doesn’t have to lead us into sin. We do a fine job of finding it all by ourselves.
You might want to take another look at that Joshua passage. The choice he is calling on them to make is not between serving Jehovah and serving false gods. He is calling on them to choose between two groups of false gods. v. 15 Then he says to them “You cannot serve Jehovah.” v 19.
Argo,
Of course I do, do you?
Gotta go for now. It has been real.
When we look at Romans 1 we can see there is obvious choice making here:
vs.18 “who supress the truth with their wickedness”. Who is suppressing the truth given? Man.
vs. 19 “God has made it plain to them” vs.20 “have been CLEARLY seen, being UNDERSTOOD; so that people are WITHOUT EXCUSE”
gd.21 “for although they (sinners) KNEW Him, they neither glorified as God nor gave thanks to Him.”
Vs. 25 “they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images. ”
Vs. 28 ” they did not THINK it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God”
Etc……
Would we not have to twist Scripture here to make a “No choice”premise.
Argo,
Before I go, I want to answer one of your questions. You wrote, ” Could you direct me to a the passage that uses the term “gravity”. Or “Internet”, or “internal combustion”, or “general relativity”? Is your point that things don’t exist unless you can find the exact word in the Bible?”
The answer is yes. I can show you those exact terms in books that deal with those subjects. The terms are used because the concepts exist. The idea that the sinner’s will is free and self determining in the sense that it is unaffected by his sinful nature is a concept that is not found in Scripture. In fact, just the opposite is true. We act as we act because we are what we are.
trust4himonly,
Have you not read any of my posts? I AM NOT DENYING THAT PEOPLE MAKE CHOICES. THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE. Who denies that sinners make choices?
Argo again I have to say you made some good points on the fusion of predestination and free will – both are valid. This is where many though try on both sides to swing the pendulum and fall on either side. I always try to see balance because our God is perfectly balanced and of order. We especially theologians/philosophers try so hard to find the answers to these complex questions and that is good, but we can so easily fall into the trap of “thinking” we all have it figured out. This is where certain manmade doctrines, religions, and cults form and then create disorder and imbalance. Maybe it is wiser to not try so hard to formulate such theories and let Scripture speak through the guidance and counsel of the Holy Spirit instead of coming from man. I have always seen predestination and free choice in Scripture and I also know that with God “all things are possible”.
Well then for people to have free choice means they would have to have a will to choose it. But in Calvinism, total depravity states that man has no understanding of God and will always choose evil.
One thing I find interesting is that Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Good and Evil- so…….that means they then knew both good and evil. Before they only knew was good- they were not considered perfect, but innocent. After the Fall, man had knowledge of God according to Romans 1 through what God created but chose to reject God by their free will. It takes a will first to make choice. Eve willed to go against Gods decree and then made that choice to eat the fruit.
Trust4himonly,
Yes, you make a great point. Even if we concede that Adam and Eve only knew “good” before the fall, it is apparent that they could still “will” to do evil…in this case disobey God. So even if their nature wasn’t tainted with sin nature (because the fall hadn’t happened until after the disobedience), they still maintained control over their wills…that is, they could freely choose to obey or disobey. Their free will is why God was utterly justified in condemning them. If they had no free will, then God would have been the author of the Fall. Obviously, we cannot ascribe to this, as this means that God would have been the author of evil. Impossible.
My theory reconciles the fact that man has free will to choose–and is therefore culpable for all his choices, and justly judged by God thereof–with the fact that God knows everything, has created everything, and thus, can be said to have foreordained it. You see, God can not only see all time and reality at once, he is the very Creator of that time and reality. My theory that all choices are free up to the point that they are made, and then AFTER become inevitable for all time, reconciles both predestination and free will while keeping the integrity of all the fundamental biblical truths in tact. In our linear reality, choice is a fact, and that man makes choice is also a fact. It’s called cause and effect…and this is no less real than the fact that God is omniscient and omnipresent and omnipotent. So, again, I would claim that when looked at this way, it is explained how predestination and free will can function together without being mutually exclusive. Indeed, I would say that our free will is the very thing that makes predestination possible. At least…as far as I can tell.
Thanks for your input! Please…more!
What I see here is one side insisting that our “wills”, “choices” and/or “descisions” are free by definition. That is, when faceing two incompatible courses of action, we are as equally able to choose the one as the other. Our wills, our choices, are not under the controlling influence of desire, and espeacially not of God. If they were under such controlling influence, then our will would not be free. But since such freedom has been smuggled into the definition of “will” in advance, the assertion that it is under the controlling influence of something external to it is a contradiction.
On the other side, I see the assertion that the will is not free–at least, not free in the sense spoken of above. A person is free in the sense that she is able to act in accordance with her desires, without external compulsion. Nobody forces her to choose ‘this’ course of action over ‘that’ one. She is free to do whatever she wants to do most. God, however, preordained even her desires, so this answer only takes the matter back a step. It gives one a certain degree of freedom, but not of the sort most of us want (I think).
The REAL question is, “Is it biblical?” Perhaps we are ill at ease with the idea that our course in life has predetermined; that, however, doesn’t make it false–it just means we don’t like it. Or perhaps we are free to “choose our own adventure”–free in the sense of “equal possibility to choose between two or more incompatible lines of action.” But if we grant that God is in control of everything (not just that He is watching everything unfold), that history has a purpose and that it is progressing unto God’s chosen ends, and if we grant that human beings are key agents in this historical drama whose choices further the development of history, how can we avoid the conclusion that human choice is independent of God’s preordaining choice(s)? That, to me, seems to be a valid deduction from biblical premises. So unless a convincing argument can be made from Scripture demonstrating free-will (i.e. that the choice(s) of the will are not determined by God), I tend to side with the Calvinists on this one.
Joey
Argo,
You wrote “each choice is not inevitable until man makes it.” This seems to me a self-contradiction. If something is inevitable, it means that in some way it is predestined. How can a choice become inevitable only AFTER it has been made?
You wrote: “However, once made, the choice could not have happened any other way; it becomes, in the instant it is made (but ONLY when it is made), inevitable (that is, if you were to go ‘back in time’ and replay the choice, it would go the exact same way every single time).” You seem to be saying that when a choice is made it creates the past events that led to it. This I do not understand. If something is inevitable, it is so BEFORE that something occurs, not at the moment it occurs. And I think this is so even if God didn’t directly create the events; rather that they occurred as the result of a fallen world.
Maybe this point was made before, but we have to decide exactly what we mean by “free will.” The free will we have is, as Randy has said (he calls it “free agency” or “free choice”), dependent on our nature, or highest inclination, which is determined by our nature. Thus it is not limitless. It is limited to our highest inclination at the moment. To use his example, yes, we are free to choose to eat garbage, but, unless eating it would lead to something we want so much that we’re willing to be sick, we will not choose to eat it. On a more profound level, if our highest inclination at a certain moment is to sin rather than to obey God, we will sin.
You wrote: “I believe that the Will determines itself. If it is determined by an outside influence, then you run into the same problems with the irrelevancy of man and life and the cross that I’ve described above.”
I think that here you are talking about the idea of an autonomous free will, a will that is free from any influence, including the influence of the nature of the person whose will it is. I think it’s clear that man does not have that kind of will. That’s a godlike will, though it could be argued that even God doesn’t have it, because there are things He can’t do, such as sin. But I don’t want to get too far into that – that’s another subject.
Contrary to what some of the New Calvinists apparently teach, believers can do something that unbelievers can’t – they can choose to not sin. (I know this is a bone of contention, but I’m speaking here of motivation, not merely of the act itself.) This is because their nature has changed. They still have elements of the “old man,” but they are also “new.” If anyone says that believers can only sin, they are dangerous false teachers.
This ties in with the (classical) Calvinist view of salvation. It believes that the Bible teaches that man can not, because of spiritual deadness, choose God until he is regenerated, or made alive, by God (e.g. Col 2:13). His nature has changed.
I’m too lazy right now to get into whether or not someone who is elect can actually be said to be converted. But I think there might be answers to that if we examine two questions: 1) What does it mean to be inside and outside time?; 2) Is God the author of means as well as ends?
Adam and Eve seem to be exceptions to what I wrote above about nature and will. If they were created “good,” how could they have chosen to sin? I don’t think that we can ague that they were merely fooled, because what they did is not only named as sin, it’s a sin that has had farther-reaching consequences than any other.
Another question: If God did not create sin, where did it come from? Was it created by their disobedience?
Oh, well, “the secret things belong to God.”
Whether or not sinners have a will is not the issue. Of course, sinners have a will. Are they free to reject the God who has revealed himself in the creation around us. Absolutely! What Paul teaches in that chapter and the ones that follow is that sinners supress God’s truth in unrighteousness 1:18. Though sinners know God’s decree that those who practice such things as listed in Romans 1, they not only continue to do these things but take pleasure in those who practice them.
If they come to Christ in saving faith, it is because God has interrupted this pattern, not because faith has mysteriously risen out of sinful nature.
Joey and Jeff,
Great input guys. I really appreciate it. That is exactly the kind of stuff I was looking for.
Here’s my response to “choice”. I will explain my “a choice becomes inevitable after it is made”, later. I figured this would be the first thing people pounce on. Don’t blame them. On the surface, you are right, it is a contradiction. But I don’t think so, and I’ll explain.
Anyway:
Choice is always controlled by greatest desire. That is the Calvinist premise. That was also Edwards’ premise. John Locke did not agree. NEITHER DO I. In order for Salvation or damnation to be just, man must be able to choose contrary to his greatest desire. What follows is why:
Desire may indeed be ranked in order of preference, but that doesn’t follow that man must ALWAYS choose according to his greatest desire (I believe they are likely one and the same…I think Jon Edwards also subscribed to this idea, though Locke didn’t, I don’t think. If man will never desire something, then he can never choose that something. In addition, desire is ranked by order of preference. You will always choose that which you desire MOST. I desire to go swimming, but I desire to take a nap more. Locke would say you still can choose to go swimming, though you’d prefer to take a nap. Edwards says no, though you may prefer napping, you prefer giving in to whatever thing is telling you you should go swimming, and thus, you REALLY desire swimming more.)
(Also, when I talk about choice, I mean a conscious decision of the mind to desire this over that. I don’t mean that it necessarily follows that the choice can be acted upon because of, for example, physical limitations.)
So the Calvinists say that man will never desire God and thus will never choose Him, because they will always choose to desire something else MORE. That is sinful nature…it means that the desire for God will never take precedence, that they might choose Him. The desire for God must be greater than the desire to resist Him. (Again, this presuppose that man always chooses according to his greatest desire, which I believe is true. By the way, if man always acts according to his greatest desire (his nature), that means the greatest desire makes the choice inevitable, irresistible.)
Thus, if God gives them this greatest, irresistible desire, then and only then will they choose Him. So God gives primary desire, which man cannot resist, thus man MUST choose God. Okay…er, question: How is this not really God choosing FOR man. God is FORCING choice. This is the inevitable conclusion from this argument. The formula is: God = man’s GREATEST desire = irresistible choosing of God. So, logically it follows: God = irresistible choosing of Himself (A = B = C, so A = C). Hmm…that seems, er, weird.
Let me say it this way: God not only has to grant desire, but he has to make it THE greatest spiritual desire. So it’s not just God giving desire, but making the desire irresistible by making it the greatest. Thus if greatest desire = inevitable choice, then greatest desire means, by definition, you have NO choice but to accept that thing. Choice, in relation to God, is an illusion. And the Calvinists nod and applaud. Argo has finally seen the light.
But not so fast.
How do you reconcile this with man’s culpability? God giving man his greatest desire then becomes, in effect, God choosing for him.
Hmm…it’s not God CHOOSING him, it’s choosing FOR him.
But the Bible never speaks of God choosing FOR man, but CHOOSING him. So, I disagree with the entire premise of the Calvinist argument. I say that God may grant revelation, he may even grant a desire, but ultimately man has to make the conscious choice that THAT is his greatest desire, and will choose it thus. Otherwise, it’s not God choosing man, it’s God choosing FOR him.
To say that God acts as man’s conscious mind in this choice renders the whole idea of Salvation moot. You are saying that Jesus died on the cross, not for man to choose Him, but for God, through man, to choose Himself. In effect, you are saying that God chooses Himself, through man, and that’s how man is “saved”.
This is even worse than I thought because this makes man nothing but a conduit for God to find acceptance in Himself, which is at best redundancy, and at worst…uuuuh, blasphemous. So man isn’t man, he’s Middle-Man. And all of a person’s life merely becomes either: man going to hell for no just reason, because their nature = greatest desire (i.e. to resist God) = automatic hell…unless God chooses HIMSELF, through man, in which case, man somehow gets the credit for his “choice”, which he never made, and goes to heaven.
This cannot possibly be true. Therefore, the ONLY explanation is that man MUST be able to FREELY choose to act upon the greatest desire, or to not act upon the greatest desire. The greatest desire, as well as the choice, must proceed from man, not God.
That last sentence should read: Any choice, must be independent of desire, regardless of the level of preference, and must proceed from man, not God.
Also meant to say in there, (this presupposes that man always acts according to his greatest desire, and I DO NOT agree with this).
Indeed, man may choose according to his greatest desire MOST of the time…that may be his natural inclination. But it does not follow that he MUST choose according to his greatest desire.
I may desire to drive, but I walk. I desire to stay in shape, and walking will help that, and this is a good chance to walk. But that doesn’t make “I walked, in spite of my desire to drive” untrue. When it came to walking versus driving, I chose to walk, against my greatest desire for THAT particular choice, which was to drive.
Walking because of ANOTHER desire to stay in shape is a SEPARATE issue.
Remember, the choice is walking or driving. Not staying in shape and driving. He desires to drive, but walks instead. Thus, man can act against his greatest desire. Randy COULD choose to eat garbage. Though he may never want to, doesn’t mean that he never will choose to. If someone threatened me with a gun to my head and said “eat the garbage”. I would CHOOSE to eat it, even though I desired NOT to. The choice is eat garbage or not eat garbage. It isn’t: eat garbage or die. That is a SEPARATE choice. They may be operating together, but they are separate nonetheless.
So yes, I am saying that man CAN choose contrary to nature, or greatest desire.
You may desire to continue in debauchery and selfishness because it’s so much fun, but you instead choose Christ (because you hear a great sermon or something). Remember, the choice isn’t debauchery or hell, the choice is debauchery or obedience to Christ. Debauchery or hell may indeed BE a choice, but it’s a separate choice. It is YOUR faith which makes you take the leap of deciding that obedience to Christ means avoidance from hell, which is better than debauchery.
But, you know. Thinking about it…the above argument is probably moot. Even if you prove that man must act according to his greatest desire, in order for salvation not to be God choosing FOR man, and thus, really, God choosing himself on behalf of himself, you’d have to conclude that man is capable of choosing what his greatest desire actually is. Either way, it boils down to choice, which must proceed from man, and must be free.
But the above argument is probably moot. If choice is linked to desire, then man must be able to choose his greatest desire, and then choose it. If not, it’s merely God choosing Himself on His own behalf. This is impossible.
Boy what good discussion…..
I will have to say to this goes back to the garden. We are made in Gods image right? We were meant to have fellowship with God unhindered by sin. I do not believe Adam and Eve were perfect but were innocent; they had no concept of what was evil, but were capable of knowing it. If they would have been perfect they would not then have sinned. When they fell they were estranged from that intimate fellowship/friendship with God, but…..still they retained the image of God. They still retained the knowledge of knowing God but now they knew evil. Another point that we tend to forget that now men not only have to deal with their own sinful flesh, but also man has to deal with the world and the adversary, Satan. We have three things against us. I also believe that since we are made in the image of God we have been given in our souls the tools such as faith. We know that faith is given to all men, however, men can by choice, choose to put their faith in world. It is impossible for man to be able to by himself choose God without the drawing of the Holy Spirit because we are dealing with three things against us: ourselves, the world, and Satan. This to me (even though such a great mystery) is where the choice of man along with the drawing of the Holy Spirit will put right the fellowship and friendship with God by our belief in Christ as Savior. We are now called priests and co-laborers with Christ.
Men are not mere puppets or pawns. God gave His life, His Word, and His Holy Spirit for one reason and one reason only -to restore the earth and His rightful, intimate relationship with man. Now as His children we are NOT subject to His wrath anymore.
This is the problem with Calvinism- unbelievers already have a wall /veil between them and God. When the believer comes to Christ the veil is ripped and now we unlimited access to God through our High Priest Christ. Calvinism puts back up the wall/veil and declares we are still under the wrath (I know because I heard it); we are still depraved. This is tragic because it robs us of joy and assurance in our standing with Christ. We should not put on the burden of TULIP and trying to understand it. We should be about telling others about Christ, doing good works because we love Him, and growing in Him and love for others.
One question I would like to know and it is a simple question- how come the teachings of Jesus and the apostles were so uncomplicated, simple in language and meant to learn, yet the many documents of well known Calvinists are complicated and difficult to grasp?
Where does the Bible say faith is given to all men?
Trust4himonly,
If you can understand the convoluted stuff Paul D writes, reading any Calvinist should be a piece of cake. The only difference is that Paul makes statements that have no resemblance to reality whatsoever.
trust4himonly,
You do know don’t that Peter thought Paul’s writings were hard to understand don’t you?
trust4himonly,
Whatever you may have heard, Reformed theologians don’t think believers are still under God’s wrath. It sounds as if you have been exposed to someone who didn’t have a clue what the Reformed faith is all about.
If someone put a gun to my head and told me to eat garbage or he would kill me, assuming I wanted to live, I would still be choosing according to my highest inclination if I ate the garbage. My choice would be governed by what I believed to be in my best interest. The choice though freely made, would not be free of considerations that contributed to it.
trust4himonly,
If you would like to see what I have written concering the believers free approach to God, look for the book I have posted online. It is called “In These Last Days.” You can find a copy of it at http://www.new-covenant-theology.org.
What I meant by that Randy is faith by definition is confidence or trust in something or a person; a belief in God or in doctrines or religion; belief in anything such as a code of ethics. So everyone is given that faith because if we were made in the image of God we would have had His traits, right ?Even if they may not have a faith in Jesus Christ the trait of faith is still there even though it is a dead faith ? They have some kind of faith whether it may be atheism or Buddha- that is what they have put their trust in? I do not believe we are given faith right at the time of salvation- I believe we have already had it but it was a dead faith until the Holy Spirit revealed my need for a Savior.
But Randy I do not find the Bible difficult (granted there are some difficult passages but over all not so much) – I do find Calvinism quite difficult to digest and very depressing. I would say dead. Peter had a hard time understanding because he was still thinking of Christ teachings in the Jewish tense. He grasped what Paul was talking about after awhile. Ok now Calvin on the other hand was not an apostle and so I am not beholden to his teachings- nor do I particularly cared for his way of dealing with heretics. Whoo…. glad I did not live in Little Geneva.
Trust4himonly @ 6:30 -
I had this discussion with Argo over at ST a while back. We are made in the image of God male and female, and God declared it was good, even very good. I made a point that if we are made in the image of God, then how can we be so “totally depraved” that we cannot recognize and make a choice to serve God? I understand that man is now corrupted and separated from God because of the holiness of God. But is the evil we are now aware of so powerful that it can nullify every ounce of the knowledge of God that He put in us? Is the power of that evil more powerful then what God imparted in us of His image? Did God tell Adam and Eve that they were totally and completely depraved after they sinned? There were consequences and many through the ages have gone further and further into the realm of depravity and refuse to acknowledge their Creator and Lord. But, we are all without excuse as Rom. 1:18-23 states. If we are without excuse, then we must (be able) to know Truth!
Argo -
Suppose you adored chocolate ice cream. If that flavor were available, you would always choose it over other flavors. This has been true for decades.
On your birthday, your parents, for dessert, served only chocolate ice cream. You gladly ate it. Did they force you to eat it? Did they somehow eat it for you?
When God regenerates someone, that person sees the beauty of Christ for the first time. His beauty and perfection surpass anything he’s ever seen. God also gives him faith and the ability to exercise it. The person chooses to exercise faith to receive Christ because his greatest desire is to do so.
Of course, it’s not a perfect allegory. My only point was that neither your parents nor God forced you or the person to choose what you both chose. Indeed, God manipulated the circumstances to help achieve the desired result. If He did not do that, how many people dead in their sins would choose Jesus? The grand sum of zero.
God is under no obligation to save anyone. He chooses to save some, but He doesn’t force them. People are not dragged kicking and screaming into the Kingdom. They make a choice.
Concerning the walking/driving situation: You say that, though your desire is to drive, you choose to walk in order to stay in shape. You say choosing to walk is a separate issue. But it’s not. The issue is: Should I walk or should I drive? You have a desire to drive for a certain reason, and a desire to walk for a certain reason. The different reasons don’t make them separate issues. You value the reason to walk over the value of the reason to drive. Because of this, your desire to walk is greater than your desire to drive.
Desire can correlate with what gives you pleasure, but it can be overruled by desire for something of greater value that is not pleasurable, or at least is a different kind of pleasure; a higher pleasure, if you will. A doctor who is a hard-core hedonist will finish eating his delicious meal before going to the scene of someone who has collapsed at the other end of the restaurant. He desires the immediate pleasure over the different kind of pleasure of practicing his profession, and of helping people. (Let’s hope none of us is ever at the mercy of this guy.)
Argo,
I’m not committed to the view that the will necesarrily moves in the direction of one’s greatest desire. I do, however, think it’s plausible–more so than the view that a person does what he wants to do least. I’ve been running through examples in my mind and I can’t think of a single case where one would choose anything other than what he wants most. Even the chronic alcholic, desperate for a drink and desiring to calm his cravings, sometimes decides against it, either temporarily or permanently. He does so because, at least at the moment of his choosing, he desires a more gratifying, sober life in the future rather than the immediate satisfaction of his craving…
In any case, even if we reject that view, I still do not see how we can have free will (again, in the sense of equal ability to choose between two incompatible lines of action). God’s foreknowledge and omniscience alone seem to imply that we do not, and, indeed, cannot. I’m sure you will grant that God from all eternity knew that Jesus was going to be crucified by his enemies. If there was any possibility that Jesus’ enemies could have chosen not to kill him, then God could possibly have been wrong. The very fact that He knew beyond all doubt that they would choose to do so implies that no other choice was possible (for if another choice was possible, there is the possibility of His being mistaken before the fact). This, however, does not mean that it was God who made their descision to crucify Jesus inevitable, but SOMETHING must have made it so. If not God, what?
The same thing holds for all choices. If God has from all eternity known that I was going to believe upon Jesus for salvation, then there was no possibility of me doing otherwise–otherwise God could have possibly been wrong. If this inevitability does not depend upon God, then upon what?
Does this view of the situation imply that we are puppets, as some have suggested? Well, hardly. Unlike puppets, we have volition. We have our own choices to make. Even if God predetermines what they will be, they are our choices nonetheless. God does not choose for us, and He does not believe for us. He chooses what our beliefs and choices will be. They are not “forced” either; they feel natural to us, and we do (ordinarily) what we want. No puppet does anything of the sort.
But what about responsibility? If God foreordains whatever comes to past, how can we be held responsible by Him when we sin? I think we need to ask, “What is it to be held responsible?”
Would this be a fair definition? “One is responsible when he can be justly called to account by a superior authority.” If we can grant that, then harmonizing God’s sovereignty with man’s responsibility may not be such a terrible dilema after all. We may not even have to resort to “paradox” any longer! Since there is no standard of justice existing external to God to which He must submit Himself in order to act justly, we must say that justice is what God does–or at least, it is the way He is by nature, and His actions are reflective of who He is. Thus when God–who is certainly a superior authority to us–call us to account, He does so justly (whatever He does is just); and since we are justly held accountable by Him, we are (by definition) responsible.
Thoughts?
Bridget said:
” If we are without excuse, then we must (be able) to know Truth!”
You nailed it. If men are responsible on the day of judgement, they must be culpable. The only way they are culpable is if they can freely know truth and it is in their power to freely choose it. In the end, circumstance and desire are really irrelevant; choice is what matters. Choice must be free if it’s independent of desire; if it is not, and choice and desire are working in tandem, then they both must be free. Any other way and man cannot be justly held responsible for anything. In order for salvation or damnation to be just (and real…damnation and salvation for nothing/from nothing are not, by definition, salvation or damnation, making God’s Word a lie. Impossible), man must have the ability to freely choose. God cannot choose for him, nor can God create circumstances that are irresistible (meaning, he GIVES you an awareness of your greatest desire, which you MUST act upon, because you cannot resist your greatest desire by definition; if you could, this would prove that choice is not dependent on desire) ,because this would mean that God has chosen FOR you. Again, the formula:
God = greatest desire = irresistible desire = choice = salvation OR damnation. From which logically follows God = arbitrary salvation or damnation = man is not culpable = man is irrelevant = God is unjust OR a time waster OR both
Because God is perfect and we know from scripture that God is both just and a good steward of all His creation, the Calvinist idea of predestination simply cannot be true. It is either a mystery–that is election exists in tension with free will–,or predestination is a concept the Calvinists are not getting right.
So, really, the whole argument over desire and preference leading to choice is ultimately irrelevant. Choice is from man and it must be free. If that means that choice can exist independent of greatest desire, so be it. If it means that choice is dependent upon greatest desire, then man must freely recognize his greatest desire and then choose it.
Joey,
I have often chosen a different ice cream to eat than my favorite. I wanted to try something new. It’s that simple. Thus, it is a fact to say I chose apart from my greatest desire/preference. That is NOT disputable.
Randy and all,
I just disagree. We are speaking of different choices. Simply giving one choice a greater preference in your mind over the other choice does not nullify the first choice. Just because there is only ONE outward action/conclusion, doesn’t mean that there is only one choice. There are two choices, one conclusion. This is imminently possible. Here’s why:
In the example above with the garbage and the gun, the choice to eat the garbage or not to eat the garbage is one choice. The choice to eat the garbage or die is another choice. The second choice may supersede the first choice in its importance in your mind, but that doesn’t negate the fact that you are eating the garbage contrary to your desire to not eat it (what I am calling the first choice)…that is a fact. You REALLY don’t want to eat the garbage according to the first choice. You want to eat it (in conjunction WITH your desire) for the second choice. For the first choice, you are acting against your desire; the second choice you are acting in accordance with it. There is only one action, however, it is is related to two SEPARATE choices. Again, for the first choice, the action is contrary to your desire. The second choice, your action is in accordance with it.
Thus, you can argue that one CAN act contrary to his or her desire for any given choice. Choice is a cognitive process. An action can be in accordance or against different choices made in the mind; that doesn’t mean the choices do not exist and are not made cognitively.
We may just have to disagree on this.
(By the way…I was “anonymous” a few posts up. Posted from my wife’s computer; so my blog name did not appear.)
Sorry, Joey. It was JeffB who mentioned the chocolate ice cream.
Joey, awesome post. Great thoughts and questions. I’m going to take some time to think of them deeply and then respond. Thanks!
Joey,
I still need to think more, but I believe your conclusion runs into the same dilemma of making man irrelevant as I’ve described before. I could be wrong, but I think you are saying that whatever God does is just; by our nature, we cannot meet His definition, so he must do it for us, in order for us to be saved. I get this, if you are referring to Christ’s atonement. THAT is God’s propitiation. WE must choose Christ, though. Christ’s sacrifice is the answer, not Christ’s sacrifice AND God’ choosing to accept Him FOR man. If God has to be both the sacrifice and the desire and/or choice to accept it, then God is merely accepting Himself through man. Man, again, becomes a pointless part of the equation. So, God created the predestined man so that he can have him live on earth, and go through it all, just to wind up in heaven? Then life on Earth becomes a mere formality. Irrelevant. And…the logical conclusion is that man himself is a formality. Irrelevant. God wasted His time in creating him. God cannot waste time, so predestination, as it is generally Calvinist-ically explained, cannot be true.
In relation to the idea of inevitability of choices.
I would say that simply because God knows the future and can experience it, and interact with it (the definition of omnipresence), doesn’t mean that our choices aren’t free. I do not accept that foreknowledge and free will/choice are mutually exclusive. And that is the crux of my theory. It sounds contradictory, but I don’t know how else to state it: All choices, ONCE MADE, are for all time, before and after, inevitable. Inevitable, because by definition they are in the past, and we cannot relive the past, and even if we could go back in time, the same choice would always be made the same way. By definition, reliving the past is reliving it EXACTLY and that means making all the SAME choices.
But see, God can operate both linearly AND omnipresent-ly. He is not bound by our linear time frame, thus he can see and experience our entire life all at once, beginning to end, forward and back. But this does not negate our freedom to choose. We are born purposely to help define the entirety of our existence BECAUSE of our ability to make our choices freely.
Our contribution to our existence, that is, our free will, does not make God less omnipotent or omnipresent (we need to start thinking of God as not bound to our linear continuum), but neither does Gods’ omnipotence or omnipresence make our will less free. In order for God to be both powerful and just (perfect) these two ideas, I submit, must be true.
Inevitability of choice, once made, is the only way I can logically reconcile it.
“Joey,
I have often chosen a different ice cream to eat than my favorite. I wanted to try something new. It’s that simple. Thus, it is a fact to say I chose apart from my greatest desire/preference. That is NOT disputable.”
Argo, since I brought up the ice cream analogy, you probably meant me, but that’s okay.
Maybe we should drop the word “desire” because it’s so associated with pleasure. The point is, you look at all of the factors involved in making a choice, and then you make it. There is only ONE choice. What you choose is what you MOST WANT GIVEN ALL THE FACTORS INVOLVED. Someone would PREFER not making his trip shorter in order to go home and attend his son’s baseball game. Nevertheless, he decides to go home and attend the game. He wants to please his son more than he wants to please himself. Or he wants to prevent his wife getting angry at him more than he wants to not shorten his trip. In any case, he looks at all the factors and makes the choice. His choice is ALWAYS in accordance with what he most wants in the situation. If what he wants most is to prevent his wife’s anger, then he chooses accordingly, even though he would receive more pleasure if he stayed on his trip.
If what he wants LEAST is for his wife to be angry at him, why would he choose to stay on his trip, all other things being equal? By that I mean not introducing some other factor which would make him want to stay on his trip more than he wants to avoid getting his wife angry at him. The point is, we always choose what we most want (or most want to avoid), given all the factors. I am assuming the person is able to clearly see the factors and make a choice accordingly.
Argo, you chose a different ice cream because you wanted to try something new more than you wanted your favorite.
Argo, I saw your 10:08 comment after I posted mine.
“It sounds contradictory, but I don’t know how else to state it: All choices, ONCE MADE, are for all time, before and after, inevitable. Inevitable, because by definition they are in the past, and we cannot relive the past, and even if we could go back in time, the same choice would always be made the same way. By definition, reliving the past is reliving it EXACTLY and that means making all the SAME choices.”
And here is the main crux:
I submit that even God cannot go back in time, and affect our choices…that is make them different from what we inevitably made them…because, if He did, he’d be violating the freedom of our choice/will, which would render man’s existence pointless, because God would be in control of man’s choices. God does not need man for Himself to choose to DO anything. He can do anything he wants, without man. Thus, any choice man makes, must be from man. Not from God.
JeffB,
Again, we’ll have to disagree. I stand by my previous opinion. I do think that choice is independent of greatest desire. You may be right that one outcome is of one choice, but that doesn’t mean that there is not another choice operating at the same time, and being decided cognitively, seperately. I preferred chocolate, but I choose vanilla is a true statement. That’s all I’m saying. But regardless, it has no bearing on free will. If greatest desire = irresistible choice, then man must freely decide what he desires most.
Argo,
If something sounds contradictory, shouldn’t one do his best to iron it out if it is possible? If one runs through the difficulty again and again in his mind, and each time he does so he arrives at what is to all appearances a contradiction, how can it possibly be accepted? Truth does not contradict. If it seems to, we have made an error in our reasoning. It bothers me sometimes that people are so ready to accept paradox–espeacially when “paradox” is conceived as a (humanly speaking) as an unresolvable contradiction. A real paradox is a seeming contradiction which, upon further inspection, turns out not to be a contradiction at all.
Now, when thinking through the implications of what Scripture has to say about God’s soverignty and man’s responsibility, we seem to run into difficulty. There appears to be tension between the two. When this sort of thing happens, the one who believes the Bible to be God’s inerrant Word has two choices. He can 1) adopt the view that the teaching of Scripture is paradoxical, or 2) he can hold that since “paradox” is a subjective thing (since a paradox is not a real contradiction objectivly speaking), the confusion must exist in his own mind. The second view seems the more humble of the two. Rather than blaming the confusion on God’s “paradoxical” (seemingly contradictory) Word, he says to himself, “No, God’s Word is not paradoxical–not, at least, in the sense that it contains humanly irreconcilable contradictions. His Word was written for humans and is meant to be understood by them. The confusion, then, must exist in my own mind. I must have made an error in interpretation somewhere; perhaps I have imposed an unbiblical definition on a key term; maybe my exegesis of ‘that’ passage was mistaken. I will go back, re-check my premises, and try to discern where I made my error. Hopefully I’ll find it. But even if not, I will not say that the difficulty lies in God’s Word. His answer is not both ‘yes’ and ‘no’.”
My statement that “whatever God does is just” was in the context of defining responsibility. It was meant to answer the objection that God would be unjust to hold man responsible for sinning if his (man’s) sin was inevitable. But that does not seem to be the case, logically speaking: it is not a valid implication of the view we are discussing. How can man not be justly held responsible for what he does when 1) to be responsible is to be justly held accountable by a superior authority, and 2) God is a superior authority who holds us justly accountable? Whatever He does is just. There is no standard of justice that is external to God or independent of God to which He must allign Himself in order to qualify as being good or just. It may not seem just to some people–even the majority of people–that God holds us responsible for our sins even though they are inevitable. But if God does in fact do so, it MUST be just. Maybe the problem is we have an unbiblical concept of justice?
God has given man certain laws/commands which are appropriate for our creatureliness. Not being God ourselves, it is not true that whatever we do is just. Our actions are good or just insofar as they are in accord with God’s commandments. God Himself, however, is not under Law. And consider: Can God covet or steal when the cattle on a-thousand hills are His? Can He commit adultery? Law is for man. Consequently, there is nothing which can condemn God in anything He does, nothing which forbids Him for doing as He pleases.
I don’t see how this view makes man irrelivant? It seems that he is still very much involved. Do you mean that it makes our choices irrelivant? How could that be possible when our choices are the means unto God’s chosen ends? “Man’s choices are irrelivant”, then, doesn’t follow from the view being advocated. Nor are our choices without eternal conequences. Even if God predetermines what our choices will be, they are still our choices. God may have predestined me to believe upon the Lord Jesus for salvation, but I’m still doing the believing. Suppose God from all eternity decreed, “On ‘such and such’ a date Joey will belive the Gospel.” When that date comes I will without fail believe the Gospel. In so doing, I will simply be doing what God decreed I do. He also decreed all the various and sundry other things (the means) which led up to that point. I have all along done what I wanted to do, so that there was no coersion, no going against my will. But what I have wanted has been preordained.
There are countless biblical passages that speak of God controlling all things, right down to the thoughts and actions of man. Is not the kings heart in the hands of the Lord, and does he not turn it wherever He will? Did not those who crucified Christ do exactly what God ordained they do? Did not control the thoughts of an army in order to bring evil upon Ahab? Didn’t He harden Pharoh’s heart? Did he blind the mind of the Jewish people? In what sense, Argo, are thoughts that are being controlled by God free? How would you define “freewill” within the context of God controlling one’s thoughts and actions?
It’s been fun. I’ll let you have the last word.
Joey
Actually, I’m not sure you can ever say that it is impossible to desire something. This is a common theme in Calvinist predestination theology. We will never desire God, therefore, he must elect us.
Going back to ice cream and garbage. How can you really say you will never desire to eat garbage? Eating garbage will never be your greatest desire (choice)? I thought about that for a bit. I thought, you know, actually, I’d love to be able to eat garbage, because that would pretty much guarantee I’ll never starve. I CAN’T eat garbage, because I’ll get sick and die, but I desire to, because then I’d never go hungry.
I can desire for chocolate ice cream to be my favorite. Like, it is the favorite of all the cool people at school, and I want to fit in, therefore, I desire to have chocolate be my favorite. I can’t force myself to like it better than vanilla, but I can desire that I might like it better than vanilla.
In the same way, apart from God, I can desire to be saved, I can choose to want to be saved more than not be saved. I cannot save myself, but I can desire to be saved…yes, apart from God. I can recognize through many means that there is a God and it would be great to be reconciled to him and to go to heaven. I can’t make myself go to heaven, but I can want to. That ability to desire and to choose is ingrained in every human being from their creation.
God doesn’t need you to choose Himself. He is not self contradictory. He doesn’t need you for anything. That’s why predestination cannot be true. YOU need to desire and choose Christ with the rational mind he gave you when you were made in His image. Calvinists are saying that God chooses Himself through us; God saves HIMSELF, by accepting HIMSELF, through a lump of totally depraved, mindless flesh called YOU.
They are saying that God dies on a Cross so that He can save Himself by believing in Himself. This IS the logical conclusion of the theology. YOU are irrelevant, depraved, with no faculties to choose or desire God, and following that, no faculties to grasp salvation, even if all of God’s standing on ceremony was for you in the first place. You’d have no mind or frame of reference to understand it.
Hi Joey,
I said my theory sounds like a contradiction; not that it IS a contradiction. All choices are inevitable ONCE they are made sounds like a contradiction. I explained above why it ISN’t really.
You said, “When that date comes I will without fail believe the Gospel. In so doing, I will simply be doing what God decreed I do. He also decreed all the various and sundry other things (the means) which led up to that point. I have all along done what I wanted to do, so that there was no coersion, no going against my will. But what I have wanted has been preordained.”
Joey, you can only believe the gospel when you believe it, you cannot believe it before. When you say “It will happen without fail”, you are saying, in effect, that it is ALREADY made. That is impossible. It is not inevitable until it happens (like my theory; it’s not a contradiction because God can see all time all at once; just because He can see the inevitably of your life and your choices, and declare it thus, does not mean you do not FIRST have to make the choices). You simply CANNOT choose something BEFORE you choose it. If you believe the gospel before you believe it, that’s not God decreeing…that’s God doing it for you. You are right, it’s not coercion, it’s, well…programming. That’s would be like programming my coffee machine to make me coffee at 6 AM and then declaring that my coffee maker chose to make me coffee when 6 AM arrived the next morning, and giving it a reward…or, if it broke and didn’t make the coffee, punishing it with an eternal hammer. Your definitions of predestination simply do not work. Any angle you look at it, YOU become irrelevant. The only way you cannot be irrelevant, and actually justly receive reward or condemnation is if YOU freely choose of YOUR OWN volition. Any argument that ends with God did it FOR you in some such fashion or theological argument, renders your entire life, and worse, Christ’ sacrifice, moot. It is impossible to say that God accepts for you, or God sends you to hell for you, and also call Him just. It is not not accepting paradox. It’s not accepting the impossible. Justice is justice, and injustice is injustice. They are not relative for God any more then they are for us. God does not break His own objective definitions of justice because in doing so He would be declaring them less than perfect. Impossible. God does not exempt himself from justice just to play games with man. He’d have better spent His time playing cosmic tiddly winks.
It has been fun. Thanks for your insight.
Joey -
Good comment. One of the classic instances of God having His will done without interfering with the will of man is the case of Joseph and his brothers. What the brothers meant for evil, God meant for good.
Argo -
“Desire” is fine with me as long as we realize that we can desire something for reasons other than pleasure, as you yourself seem to be saying.
As far as desiring to desire something, also fine. I sometimes ask God to enable me to desire to not perform a certain sin.
“In the same way, apart from God, I can desire to be saved, I can choose to want to be saved more than not be saved.”
What a Calvinist says about this is definitely not what a non-Calvinist wants to hear, and I’m sure you’ve heard it many times. Briefly, there are quite a few passages in Scripture that says that man does not desire God, that man even hates God. There are no hints of exceptions. Also there are passages that say that no one does good; no, not one. There are those that say man doesn’t understand spiritual things, that he is spiritually dead. I don’t believe the contexts of these passages contradict these evident meanings.
A spiritually dead person can seem to want God, but what he wants are the good things that God can bring him, not God for Himself. He must be made spiritually alive before he even wants God for Himself. Some of the words used in the Bible to describe what God does when he makes someone spiritually alive is “quicken,” “regenerate,” and “make alive.”
As I said in a previous comment, when someone is made alive, he is for the first time capable of loving God for Whom He is, and therefore is capable of a genuine choice (not God choosing through him) to be reconciled with Him and to truly repent of his sins. I realize that, on a psychological level, it can seem that we’ve wanted God for years and God doesn’t respond. I think we have to take Scripture’s Word for it even when we don’t feel this is true.
To use a crude analogy: You can desire from now through eternity that your coffee machine will make you coffee, but, barring a miracle, it will not do so until you plug it in.
Hi Jeff,
I do want to be clear that I’m not saying that God is beholden to man’s choice. I’ve never said or implied that. I’ve acknowledged several times that God is omnipotent (in fact, I stated that His omnipotence is precisely why man can have FREE choice; if he was not all powerful, He would find himself needing to exert direct control over man’s mind as a matter of course…what I meant when I was giving the example of the coffee maker; programming man..and it doesn’t matter who plugs it in, the coffee maker still cannot choose to make coffee; the same guy who plugged it in has to make it). The example of Joseph is a good one. God’s will cannot be thwarted, regardless of man’s free choice, and indeed, in this example in SPITE of man’s choice. As I stated, man’s free will does not limit God’s omnipotence. And, God’s omnipotence, it follows, does not limit man’s free will/choice/desire/whatever. Again, implying God needs to channel himself, or program man to achieve his ends, necessarily limits his power…free will AFFIRMS it.
The verses about God’s control I would ask that you would study again. You will often see it is God exercising His divine right of control over the hearts and minds of those He created in response to the specific choices that THEY made (such as the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart; the using of pagan Kings, who’ve already rejected the true God willingly, etc.) in order to make a point. In the case of Pharaoh: you want to be stiff-necked, fine…your choice; God will oblige you to your will and make His power even that much more profoundly known. God didn’t harden Pharaoh’s heart because He NEEDED to use Pharaoh to achieve His end, he used him because Pharaoh had already chosen to turn away.
Okay, so let’s say for the sake of argument that I concede your premise: “God makes it so man can love God for who He is for the first time and make a genuine choice”. So…are you saying that man then must make the choice, thereby implying that he might NOT make it?
If you say that he will not resist the choice, you must concede that it is really God making the choice FOR man. If God gives man a choice that MUST go a certain way it is a.) NOT a choice for man and b.) if it is a choice it is made by God, not by man. Simply saying “Well, man is still making the choice, it’s just that it’s a choice that can’t be resisted” is false logic, and simply proves that people will sometimes resort to irrational points to “prove” their argument. If it can’t be resisted, it’s not a choice. Man is irrelevant to the equation. Man is getting a reward that he was never given the power to accept. And if man cannot accept it, he CANNOT receive it. It can be thrust at him, but it can never be appreciated; never received into his heart.
On the other hand, if you say man must make the choice, you are agreeing with me that man does in fact have free will to choose Christ or not to choose Christ, and you have conceded my argument. Any so-called Biblical examples of God usurping man’s will for His own ends becomes either false, or merely tangential/circumstantial/exceptional..anything but the norm, and certainly of no consequence to man’s salvation.
This is an argument you cannot win, if I may be so bold. At some point you are going to have to concede at least that it is a mystery (I don’t agree, incidentally). There is no getting around it. Either God must choose for man or man must choose for himself. You will find no middle ground here, there, anywhere. Contradictions mean they contradict. Joey was right…it’s not paradox, it’s contradiction…the two ideas CANCEL each other. So how can they both be true in or out of the Bible? There is no way to reconcile it, in my opinion. Either man is rational or he is not. He cannot be both able to choose and not able to choose; and what kind of God needs to make THAT the way to get salvation, anyway?..resorting to contradictions, nonsense in every conventional/rational sense. We aren’t talking about “vain philosophies” or the “wisdom of men”, we are talking about preaching to non-believers that one is saved and lives their Christian resting squarely upon the premise of two big fat mutually exclusive ideas. No wonder people go out of their way to avoid churches.
Calvinists cannot have it both ways. And, incidentally, they don’t really believe in the “paradox” either. What they believe is that people are totally depraved barbarians that have no claim to their own minds and thus must be governed and forced into heaven by hook or crook by the divinely appointed pastors. And that’s why Calvinists are so prone to being spiritual bullies and tyrants.
Oye…that was me, Argo. Wife’s computer again.
Bridget,
You might want to study what Calvinists really believe, not what you imagine they believe. No Calvinist believes sinners have no knowledge of God and no Calvinist believes sinners have no will or choice. What we believe is that sinners are hostile to the God they know. This is true because Adam deliberately rebelled against God as the representative of all his offspring.
Argo -
You make some good points. I’d like to start with specifics and then move outward to the larger questions.
God changes a person so that his/her will genuinely desires Him. God never forces Himself on someone whose will rejects Him.
It’s true, however, that a regenerated person will always want God. The rate is 100%. So, yes, the person’s will is not autonomous (completely free). He wants what he wants; he doesn’t want what he doesn’t want.
I think you are saying that this is actually God choosing God, and the person is irrelevant. There is a sense in which this is true. Someone once said that the Calvinist view of election can be summarized in three words: “God saves sinners.”
When God decides to save someone, that person is going to be saved. (Outside time, already is saved.) He creates conditions which will lead to a person choosing God.
The Arminian position is that God affords everyone the opportunity to choose Him, but only some will. So the formula is “God tries to save everyone, but only some will choose Him.” This view seems to respect man’s free will more than the other view.
But what if all people, because of their spiritual deadness, will not choose Him? The rate of non-choosing is 100%? Is this what we want? I guess it’s more “fair” because God does not intervene to enable anyone to choose Him – He treats everyone exactly alike – He does nothing for everyone.
I realize that you may not accept the premises that lead to these conclusions. But suppose these premises are correct (biblical)? Isn’t it better that SOME be saved rather than NONE be saved?
This is a hard saying:
“So then, He shows mercy to those He wants to, and He hardens those He wants to harden.
You will say to me, therefore, ‘Why then does He still find fault? For who can resist His will?’ But who are you, a mere man, to talk back to God? Will what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ Or has the potter no right over the clay, to make from the same lump one piece of pottery for honor and another for dishonor? And what if God, desiring to display His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience objects of wrath ready for destruction? And what if He did this to make known the riches of His glory on objects of mercy that He prepared beforehand for glory….” (Rom 9:18-23)
I realize that the context for this is a discussion of Jews and Gentiles, but I think it also applies to individuals. My point is that it isn’t for us to decide just where God’s sovereignty sometimes yields to human free will; and the benefit of the doubt should always go to God’s sovereignty, which goes against our “natural” way of thinking. At some point, we have to make up our minds that God is good even though there are things in Scripture that seem to go against that.
(The $64,000 Question [which shows my age]: Why did God create man when He knew that vast numbers of them would suffer throughout eternity? Wouldn’t it be better for man to have never existed?)
Well, I said I’d get to the larger questions.
“What [Calvinists] believe is that people are totally depraved barbarians that have no claim to their own minds and thus must be governed and forced into heaven by hook or crook by the divinely appointed pastors. And that’s why Calvinists are so prone to being spiritual bullies and tyrants.”
If possible, please show some documentation for this.
Where?? Does it say in Scripture that Jesus Christ came to save only some? Countless Scripture states otherwise.
Romans 1:16 states “power of God to salvation to everyone who believe ”
Titus 2:11;
Luke 9:56 – the Lord did not come to destroy but save; Luke 19:10 – Jesus came to seek and save the lost – who arr the lost? ALL OF US.
If Jesus was to come to save only some He should have been honest and said only a few would make it.
John 3:17- God did come to condemn the world- so God did not designate some to go to hell.
John 10:9 – ANYONE who enters will be saved- this requires action on the part of the person
John 12:46-48- whoever believes in me should not abide in darkness and whoever does not believe in my words- this requires action on part of the person
Acts 2:21- WHOEVER calls on the name of the Lord
John 3:17. God did NOT come to condemn…….. Sorry typo.
Hi Jeff,
Great discussion with you. I will leave it with this: My firm belief is that all are able to repent, and, as trust4himonly explained, there are many verses to support this. The fact is that the doctrine of election, some saved, some not, makes the person irrelevant, and thus, the cross irrelevant. In answer to your $64,000 question I will simply respond as I have before: Man’s free will does not limit God’s omnipotence or omnipresence. And vice versa. Just because God can see all and know all does not mean that he is responsible for the choices of those who reject him. True, God is sovereign. But He is not unjust. There are things of God we cannot know; but there are also things we MUST know in order to understand how great a reward the Cross is. If you are saved anyway, in spite of yourself, the Cross is indeed very, very small. And I will never subscribe to any doctrine that, regardless of how you spin it, makes the Cross so very, very useless. To those who subscribe to the doctrine of election: You are the ones who scoff at the magnitude of God’s power and the power of the Cross. That God can speak to, save, and overcome a world that has been given the ability to freely access choice, knowledge, good and evil, through ownership of their own rational minds–that the Word of God can prevail against a race of men and women who have been given the ability to THINK–speaks to the incomprehensible power of the Creator.
My “documentation” is fifteen years in Sovereign Grace Ministries, with a front row seat to the lording,hypocrisy, intimidation, and control that proceeds from the doctrine of Calvinism that they practice to a tee. My documentation are the hundreds of firsthand stories on several websites from the abused who line the ditches in front of SGM churches (if you want more “documentation”, visit SGMRefuge, or SGMSurvivors). My documentation is the doctrine of total depravity. Total depravity is gnosticism. Gnosticism is what I have described. .
As far as Romans 9…I would say that we all need to look at this section of scripture with caution (and I mean both sides, free will and election crowds…so I include myself in this). I do not believe that this is a treatise on proving why man ultimately does not have free will and that all salvation and damnation are merely byproducts of God having mercy and hardening whom He will. It is too easy to over think this and ascribe more to it than what it’s saying. All Paul is saying is that God’s will always prevails, and that He will do what he pleases with whom He wants anytime because He is God. He is not absolving man’s free will or responsibility and ability to “REPENT and believe”; merely stating that nothing supersedes God’s objectives.
In Romans 9 Paul is carefully building and argument as to how it is that the gentiles are now grafted in, and at that time, it seemed that the Jewish nation was moving away from God’s purpose. He is using examples of Old Testament episodes to show that it is not the Jews “claim” to be the “chosen” ones that will save them. Only Christ, and lest they get too haughty about what they perceived to be the promise, which was OUTSIDE of Christ, they needed to be reminded that God had in the past show that He, not ANYTHING else (not lineage, not being the “chosen” ones), determined outcomes. Paul uses what can be described as a hypothetical in vs. 22 “What IF…” and then he gives an example to back up his theory. “What if” implies possibility, not fact.
All Paul is doing is explaining that the Jews are not in a position to argue or question God on why He does what He does. For Calvinists to use Romans 9 as a way to say that man is essentially moot in the whole process, and that he was not created with a free choosing mind is, I think, way overstepping Paul’s point.
As for the free-will folks, Romans 9 is a cause for pause in our argument. We need to reconcile that just because we have free will, God is not bound by it or anything else. He will do what He will do and it is always GOOD, even though it MAY run contrary to what we believe is just for any given situation.
trust4himonly:
Mt. 20:28 – “The Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for MANY.” Mt. 26:28 – “…for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for MANY for the forgiveness of sins.”
Heb. 9:28 – “Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of MANY.”
Mt. 22:14 – “For MANY are called, but FEW are chosen.”
There are more. Also passages referring to God’s “elect,” those He “called,” “appointed” (e.g. Acts 13:48b – “…and all who had been appointed to eternal life believed”), etc..
Rom. 1:16 – This doesn’t say or imply that Jesus came to save everyone; only that everyone who believes will be saved.
Tit. 2:11 – In context, vs. 2-10, this seems to refer to all TYPES of people.
Luke 9:56 – Nothing about saving everyone. Luke 19:10 – In context, Jesus was saying that he didn’t come to save those who didn’t need it, but those who are lost.
Jn 3:17 – In Jn 9:39, Jesus says, “For judgment I came into this world.” Also, He talked about hell a LOT (e.g. Mt. 5:22, 29-30; 10:28; 11:23; 16:18, 18:9, etc).
The rest of the verses – I never said that salvation doesn’t require action on the part of the person saved. I only said that God initiates the salvation process.
Argo -
I enjoyed the discussion also.
As i said in an earlier comment, I have no reason to doubt what you and others have heard and experienced of false teaching about total depravity, as well as other about doctrines. I’ve been reading those blogs (and TWW) almost every day for over a year. I’m very sorry that you and others went through all that crap.
All the documentation has come from the very believable stories of the victims. Some documentation from the victimizers (from a paper, a speech, etc.) isn’t necessary, but it would be good to have.
Well Jeff to your verses these are right on track too….of course there will only be those few because many will not believe and therefore will not be of the called or elect. I personally believe predestine means as a people- the church are predestined to be called by God; predestined to be saved by God as a people set apart. This I believe is as a collective whole. Just as Israel, as a country, was predestined and called as a nation unto God. But each person has a responsiblity to freely choose whether they want to serve God or not. The Bible is filled with decisions that God expected individuals, Israel, and the church to make. He would not have put expectations on the backs of His creation and then pull the rug and say “Well, it really does not matter because I predestined it to happen so whatever you have chosen is mute anyway.” That is a cruel joke to play and I know God does not play cruel jokes. He states it clearly in Scripture that He wants all to come to the knowledge of Christ, yet many will not. Now IS it the Lord Jesus who brings us to Salvation? Of course but that was already extablished at His death and resurrection and the sending of the Holy Spirit to guide in ALL truth, but I believe that we have a responsibility to seek it.. Why then would Jesus say SEEK and you WILL FIND? Why in the world would Jesus be knocking at the door if He was not waiting for you to open it? What a silly illustration to make if this was just based on the Calvinists viewpoint. Why would there have to be a door and why would Jesus say SEEK if every decision was preplanned in the first place? Does not make sense. The Bible is filled with action verbs- to do, to go, seek and find, obey, listen- all requiring thinking skills and reason and action.
Luke 9:56 Well of course because those who don’t NEED it means they chose not to want it; but those who knew they were lost wanted it.
I meant “moot anyway”.
“The rest of the verses – I never said that salvation doesn’t require action on the part of the person saved. I only said that God initiates the salvation process.”
Hi, Jeff…well, I might be able to concede that point. However, if you are saying that God’s initiation means that man will choose God; that is, this initiation results in utterly irresistible action to accept God on the part of the believer, then I have to veer off there. That essentially is just another way of saying God picks and chooses on a whim.
I understand that this topic can get so nuanced and tedious that people eventually shrug and say “Well, who knows; God’s will be done.” But I think it is so very important to have a real, conscious grasp on this because so much of how we view people and the world depend on it. Romans Chapter 9 IS very compelling for your argument, and I admit it gives the “free will”: crowd just pause. But in light of all of Romans, it’s hard to make the argument that it means “election”, as in, man has utterly no say. If you look at Chapter 5 (?), Paul is talking about salvation by “faith” by those who “believe”, not “works”. So faith and belief are not works. So to say free will means man is working for his salvation is wrong. Belief comes first, then faith, then works (sanctification, I mean). The “believing” has to be from man’s choice. The saving faith may be from God, but the belief is of man’s free will. I have yet for anyone to offer a compelling argument as to how man is not utterly irrelevant if the concept of “election” as Calvinists understand it is accepted. And if man is irrelevant, then how can the cross be relevant? I just plead with people to take a minute and think about this…not filter it through a verse, but just think. If man cannot choose, and God must choose for him or somehow compel him to irresistibly choose, how can he be relevant? If he is given a reward he does not have the power to accept, how can Christ’s Cross be truly appreciated? And if the greatest sacrifice on earth cannot be appreciated or received by the “elect” it was designed for, how can it be truly great? How can it have any real meaning?
Jeff, it is clear you are a very kind person. I’m sorry I come off strong in my responses. I honestly love people, and don’t mind disagreement. I’m learning how to be a “better blogger”, so to speak. LOL!
I really do HATE angry conflict, but I realize that my heated responses sometimes bring it on or stoke the fire of some. You’ve been very kind to me in light of my responses, and I so appreciate that. You are much more mature than I am, I think.
For documentation: Here is a sermon by Tiim Shorey, a pastor for SGM who gave a guest sermon at Living Hope Church in Harrisburg, PA entitled “Reality Check: Real Hearing”. In it, you will hear him describe how the sermons of the SGM pastor are every bit as binding to the believer as God’s word; in fact, he advocates spending less time reading Scripture and more time applying sermons. Why? Because the average Christian has not been specially ordained by God to really understand God’s word.
I think this will help you see exactly where I’m coming from. I would love to hear what you think. Here’s the link: http://www.lhc-pa.org/guest-speakers/
Argo and trust4himonly,
I was a believer for a few years before someone gave me an article about the Calvinist view of election. As I recall, I was somewhat shocked. I had objections that were similar to yours. I only came around to believing it after a lot of time and study. Even now I see that it’s not a belief that is so crystal clear from Scripture that I have absolutely no doubt about it. Thank God it’s not a first-tier doctrine. I would not defend it with my life.
I am aware that there are verses that “don’t fit” this view of election. I think there are reasonable explanations for some of them and maybe not so reasonable for others. I do think that Scripture is weighted more on the Calvinist view than on the Arminian view. Of course I am not referring to the caricature of it practiced by many (all?) of the New Calvinist leaders. We will have to disagree on whether or not Calvinism was always like this.
Since words like “predestine” and “election” are in Scripture, we must all in good faith try to determine what they mean. It’s an in-house debate among believers.
I agree with Paul that the justification/sanctification issue is more important. Anyway, I think we’ve gone about as far as we can on this topic.
Argo, I appreciate your kind words. It’s taken me an embarrassingly long time to not take it personally when people “attacked” my viewpoint. You come across as more frustrated than angry, and I fully understand that. The topic lends itself to frustration. Thank you very much for the link; I’ll listen to it soon and give you my “report.”
Jeff you have been very gracious so I certainly don’t have any gripes.
I will have to say I am definitely not an Arminian because of their total free will; that God does not involve Himself in any way. Also Arminianists a works based doctrine- in this I heavily disagree.
I do believe in the fact that predestination and free works side by side; I do not completely understand that but Paul stated that the church was a mystery. I think Calvinists go to far in trying to explain something that maybe God leaves to Himself and we are to accept that these two (predestination and free will) are in perfect balance to each other. When a side, such as Arminianism or Calvinism, go too far into one then this is where things get screwed up. I see both predestination and free will, but I also realize my incability of understanding the complexity of how it works together for Gods glory. It is indeed a mystery. When I went to a Reformed church I did start to think everything was predestined, but then started to noticed that there were contradictions and confusion with was being taught and actually practiced. I left church with doubt about my standing with Jesus Christ and the personal relationship I had with Him once before was diminished. It was a horrible experience because to go through a spiritual estrangement was not something I went through before. I feel that Calvinists cross the line and try to make more of what the Bible says about predestination and many other things- they in my opinion ADD to Scripture certain doctrines that may not be accurate and then state what they have come up with as Gospel. Very dangerous in my opinion to play this game.
I am truely sorry for the errors- my kindle fire gets funny with words..
Sometimes it changes my actual words mid- stream. Lol
trust4himonly,
Thanks. I have no gripes with you either.
To give it its due, Arminianism doesn’t believe that God doesn’t involve Himself. They see salvation as man doing his part and God doing His part.
You’re right, the intersection of God’s sovereignty and Man’s free will is ultimately a mystery. If any Calvinist says that he understands it completely, he’s a fool.
Sorry about the experience you went through. I’ve gone through something similar, though not involving a doctrine, and, yes, it’s painful.