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. JeffB's avatar JeffB said, on July 19, 2012 at 8:43 PM

    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.

    Like

  2. Unknown's avatar Anonymous said, on July 19, 2012 at 9:57 PM

    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.

    Like

  3. Argo's avatar Argo said, on July 19, 2012 at 9:57 PM

    Oye…that was me, Argo. Wife’s computer again.

    Like

  4. gracewriterrandy's avatar gracewriterrandy said, on July 19, 2012 at 10:01 PM

    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.

    Like

  5. JeffB's avatar JeffB said, on July 20, 2012 at 2:02 PM

    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.

    Like

  6. trust4himonly's avatar trust4himonly said, on July 20, 2012 at 4:19 PM

    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

    Like

  7. trust4himonly's avatar trust4himonly said, on July 20, 2012 at 4:21 PM

    John 3:17. God did NOT come to condemn…….. Sorry typo.

    Like

  8. Argo's avatar Argo said, on July 20, 2012 at 9:35 PM

    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. .

    Like

  9. Argo's avatar Argo said, on July 21, 2012 at 8:13 AM

    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.

    Like

  10. JeffB's avatar JeffB said, on July 21, 2012 at 12:19 PM

    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.

    Like


Leave a reply to JeffB Cancel reply