Paul's Passing Thoughts

The True Gospel Verses Calvinism: Part 1

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on July 15, 2012

“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.

176 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Argo's avatar Argo said, on July 19, 2012 at 10:08 AM

    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!

    Like

  2. Argo's avatar Argo said, on July 19, 2012 at 10:45 AM

    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.

    Like

  3. Argo's avatar Argo said, on July 19, 2012 at 10:57 AM

    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.

    Like

  4. JeffB's avatar JeffB said, on July 19, 2012 at 10:59 AM

    “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.

    Like

  5. JeffB's avatar JeffB said, on July 19, 2012 at 11:01 AM

    Argo, I saw your 10:08 comment after I posted mine.

    Like

  6. Argo's avatar Argo said, on July 19, 2012 at 11:02 AM

    “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.

    Like

  7. Argo's avatar Argo said, on July 19, 2012 at 11:07 AM

    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.

    Like

  8. Joey's avatar Joey said, on July 19, 2012 at 2:03 PM

    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

    Like

  9. Argo's avatar Argo said, on July 19, 2012 at 2:09 PM

    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.

    Like

  10. Argo's avatar Argo said, on July 19, 2012 at 4:57 PM

    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.

    Like


Leave a comment