John Calvin Goes to Berkley: An Unusual Twist in the Calvinist-Arminian Debate: A Book Note by Peter Lumpkins

Student minister, James G. McCarthy, who’s served on five university campuses (including Berkeley) has authored four books, the last of which is his first novel, John Calvin Goes to Berkeley. Being the first in the University Christian Fellowship Series, this volume was published by City Christian Press, San Jose, California, 2010.

The plot centers around five students who are a part of the University Christian Fellowship Bible studies.  Peace reigns in the fellowship until the inevitable issue surfaces concerning predestination.  Then, division becomes deeply embedded, and the only solution is to solve the mystery which has stumped theologians for centuries—the paradox starring man’s free will and God’s sovereignty.

I found the dialog between the students wrestling with the issue quite familiar but nonetheless highly accurate, gauged by my own experiences. McCarthy does well in polarizing the theological notions which divide Calvinists from non-Calvinists, especially free will vs. God’s sovereignty and evangelism vs. non-evangelism (i.e. hyper-Calvinism).

If you’re looking for a pleasant break from wading through technical theological jargon, you would benefit from McCarthy’s book.  In addition, college ministers and student pastors would gain an accurate inside scoop about what’s hot on university campuses. The author even offers a helpful study guide for small group studies on John Calvin Goes to Berkeley.

With that, I am…

Peter

Comments

[Luke]

Two thumbs up for the book. I can see it from where I sit. In many ways, the book was all too real. Many of the conversations I've heard before or observed just with different characters. I heartily recommend the book.

[Don Johnson]

Peter,

Though I haven't read the book, I did check out Mr. McCarthy's site. From the limited information on his site it would appear that he's on the right track. I agree with his statement:

"The Calvinists say that the sinner can't respond until he is born again, so before anything else can happen, God must quicken or regenerate the dead sinner. Once the person has been born again, then he can believe; after that he can repent. They have it all backward."

I believe the first way for the TULIP to fade and wilt is to recognize the Biblical doctrine that Faith always precedes Regeneration.

The Calvinist belief that Regeneration precedes Faith is necessary to maintain their doctrines of "Total Inability" and "Irresistible Grace." Scripture however, proves them wrong.

[Scott Slayton]

Don, your assertion that Calvinists need regeneration to precede faith in order to maintain Total Inability and Irresistable Grace doesn't make much sense. Actually, the Calvinistic understanding of regeneration preceding faith is in many ways built on the foundation of Total Inability. The case for Total Inability (apart from the work of the Spirit) is founded upon texts like "no man seeks after God," "no man may come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him," and "we were dead in our trespasses and sins. The doctrine of Total Inability does not come from logic, but from wrestling with the meaning of biblical texts.

[michael]

I am grateful to God for the Salvation He gives me daily through Jesus Christ.

I now have access to the Father by One Spirit through Christ.

Don: "...I believe the first way for the TULIP to fade and wilt is to recognize the Biblical doctrine that Faith always precedes Regeneration.".

From my point of view, that is an irrational premise.

The definition of Faith is based in an "activity", something hoped for.

God begins in me where Eve and Adam ended my life too. If you eat this fruit you shall surely die. They ate. They died. Hence we all now have an appointment with death.

The spiritual death effected by Adam affects all natural human life after him.

It is therefore necessary "before" hoping in things not seen to be made alive to hope in these things which is where Scott Slayton points us to:::>

Luk 18:31 And taking the twelve, he said to them, "See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written about the Son of Man by the prophets will be accomplished.
Luk 18:32 For he will be delivered over to the Gentiles and will be mocked and shamefully treated and spit upon.
Luk 18:33 And after flogging him, they will kill him, and on the third day he will rise."
Luk 18:34 But they understood none of these things. This saying was hidden from them, and they did not grasp what was said.

Paul, years later and after he too was enlightened by Christ, wrote it this way:

Eph 2:4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us,
Eph 2:5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ--by grace you have been saved--
Eph 2:6 and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,
Eph 2:7 so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.

Now, put down your stones! This argument hasn't gone anywhere since the days it began at Dordt!

Let's be civil and agree to disagree? Nevertheless, Jesus Christ is "My" Lord and His Gospel is now "My" Gospel. Is His "yours"?:

Rom 2:15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them
Rom 2:16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

and

Rom 16:25 Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages
Rom 16:26 but has now been disclosed and through the prophetic writings has been made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith--
Rom 16:27 to the only wise God be glory forevermore through Jesus Christ! Amen.

[Don Johnson]

Scott,

Thanks for responding. I need to keep this short as I'm off to church. I'll have more to say later tonight.

One question before I go. What do you, or Calvinists in general, mean when you say "we were dead..."? What is your definition of dead?

Thanks

[Ron Hale]

I look forward to ordering and reading the book.

However, the greatest theological discovery of the 21st century is that there is no "Divine Decree" taught by Calvin.

It was a figment of his philosophical imagination.

Calvin used this philosophical expression to support his belief that God in his sovereignty had predestined some people to reprobation (hell) for no fault of their own. He rationalized that if God determines all that happens (borrowed from Augustine) and that not all will be saved, then by some divine decree God must have willed it.

In order to fit neatly and nicely into Calvin's very tight system of thought, this seemed most logical.

However, just because John Calvin said it doesn't make it true.

My prayer is that many will ... tear down the intellectual idol of an all-determining fatalistic blueprint that was constructed in the legalistic and philosophical mind of a man and exchange it for the simple life of faith that thrives on agape love and a God that responds to a people of prayer.

[Don Johnson]

Ron,

I agree completely.

[peter]

All,

For those interested, Don Johnson, the commenter on this thread, has a book entitled "And the Petals Fall: A Rebuttal of TULIP Theology." And, while I have a copy, I've not thoroughly read it. I plan to put up some notes about it when it comes its turn (from an ever-growing stack of books in my books-to-read corner of my study).

Nonetheless, "in advance" I highly recommend Don's book not because I've read it in its entirety (as I said, I have not) or necessarily agree with the way Don makes all his arguments (there's room for discussion on some of the points he makes). Rather I recommend Don's book because he is a very clear writer. In fact, he is exceptional (one may purchase the book here).

With that, I am...
Peter

[Don Johnson]

Peter,

Thanks for the plug. I do however want the readers to know I'm not simply posting to sell books. Which is why I did not mention the book or provide a link to my site.

This is a subject I'm very passionate about.

[peter]

Don,

Understood. I think you're presence has demonstrated such and stands as one reason why I do not mind at all plugging your book, Don. I appreciated the parts I did read as I scanned it. And, like I mentioned earlier, your style of writing is very clear and winsome.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Don Johnson]

Michael,

"From my point of view, that is an irrational premise."

I understand why you would think it to be irrational. However, it is Scriptural. Faith always precedes Regeneration. The Bible never teaches that Regeneration precedes Faith.

I could give several examples where Scripture clearly indicates Faith precedes Regeneration, but for now I'll give just one.

Acts 11:18
"When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life."

Notice the last three words of the verse, "repentance unto life." If the Calvinist view was correct the verse would say "life unto repentance." Life starts at regeneration which, according to Luke in this verse, is preceded by repentance. Because repentance and faith go together the only reasonable explanation for Acts 11:18 is Faith precedes Regeneration.
I'll give more texts if you would like.

And yes, we can agree to disagree if that is your desire.

Thank you for responding.

[David Benjamin Hewitt]

Dr. Lumpkins, since you invited me to participate if you were to bring up the subject, and since the content of the thread has gone this route, here I am. :) A good day to you.

I believe it was Ron who said:
"However, the greatest theological discovery of the 21st century is that there is no "Divine Decree" taught by Calvin.

It was a figment of his philosophical imagination."

Don then agreed.

I of course disagree. This is a broad, sweeping statement with an accusation. The implication is that modern Calvinists such as myself are also engaging in philosophical reasoning to maintain our belief in God's eternal decree rather than the exegesis of Scripture.

This is simply untrue. The whole point of any of Reformed Theology, in this case the TULIP, is built in exegesis and reasoning from the Scriptures. I'll provide but two examples, though there are many more I could refer to, that put forward God's decree. I have chosen these two texts in particular because God's decree (His eternal determination of all events) and God's moral will/law (that which He has commanded that men do or not do) are both shown in both texts. First, we visit the Old Testament.

Judges 14:1-4 ESV Samson went down to Timnah, and at Timnah he saw one of the daughters of the Philistines. (2) Then he came up and told his father and mother, "I saw one of the daughters of the Philistines at Timnah. Now get her for me as my wife." (3) But his father and mother said to him, "Is there not a woman among the daughters of your relatives, or among all our people, that you must go to take a wife from the uncircumcised Philistines?" But Samson said to his father, "Get her for me, for she is right in my eyes." (4) His father and mother did not know that it was from the LORD, for he was seeking an opportunity against the Philistines. At that time the Philistines ruled over Israel.

Please note: what was Samson wanting to do? He was wanting to take a wife from among the Philistines. This of course was forbidden in Israel; they were not to intermarry with the nations around them (Deuteronomy 7:1-6). Therefore, it was sinful for Samson to do this. It was also right for his parents to object to it, because they were telling him to follow what God has commanded. Samson, however wanted his sin, and proceeded. He was responsible for his sinful action -- yet, is this the whole of the story? It is not.

The passage tells us that "it was from the Lord," because God was seeking an occasion against the Philistines. What was from the Lord? The only antecedent that we can find it the whole situation of Samson going after a foreign woman. Someone might ask, wasn't this a sinful action? Of course it was. Did God determine that it would be? Again, according to the passage, the answer is yes. How can this be? It is so because God has decreed that it take place, and also that Samson was the one sinning. Samson was doing what he wanted to do in his sinfulness, though it is clear that God determined it to take place. The Bible is teaching both.

Now for one from the New Testament, a statement from Jesus:

Luke 22:22 ESV For the Son of Man goes as it has been determined, but woe to that man by whom he is betrayed!"

Why does Jesus say that the person who betrays him has a woe upon him? The person, Judas of course, was going to be punished, and why? The reason is because he would do something horribly wrong. It was sinful to betray Jesus and hand him over to death. It was what Judas would do (and now of course has done) and would be responsible for his evil action.

At the same time, what else does Jesus say? He says that he was going "as it has been determined." None of this was by accident; this whole situation was determined by God and it led to the crucifixion of Christ. Judas was the person who was determined to betray Jesus -- but again, who was responsible for his actions? Judas of course was.

This is what has led historic Reformed Confessions, such as the LBCF 1689 to say what they have about what are called primary and secondary causes, this from section one of chapter three:

"FROM all eternity God decreed all that should happen in time, and this He did freely and unalterably, consulting only His own wise and holy will. Yet in so doing He does not become in any sense the author of sin, nor does He share responsibility for sin with sinners. Neither, by reason of His decree, is the will of any creature whom He has made violated; nor is the free working of second causes put aside; rather is it established. In all these matters the divine wisdom appears, as also does God's power and faithfulness in effecting that which He has purposed." (modern language version)

I hope that helps explain what Reformed Christians mean with regard to God's decree.

sdg,
dbh

[David Benjamin Hewitt]

Ah, one more thing. I overlooked it previously:

Ron said:
"My prayer is that many will ... tear down the intellectual idol of an all-determining fatalistic blueprint that was constructed in the legalistic and philosophical mind of a man and exchange it for the simple life of faith that thrives on agape love and a God that responds to a people of prayer."

Calvinists don't believe what you posted here. :) The determinism that the Bible teaches is not fatalism. People do make real choices, and though they are determined, they are real and have consequence. Calvinists also believe, as the Bible teaches, that our lives must thrive on "agape love and a God that responds to a people of prayer."

sdg,
dbh

[Don Johnson]

David,

I think RC Sproul would take issue with "a God that responds to a people of prayer."

I'd like to hear your thoughts on the faith - regeneration order.

[David Benjamin Hewitt]

Don said:

"Notice the last three words of the verse, "repentance unto life." If the Calvinist view was correct the verse would say "life unto repentance." Life starts at regeneration which, according to Luke in this verse, is preceded by repentance. Because repentance and faith go together the only reasonable explanation for Acts 11:18 is Faith precedes Regeneration."

This suggests that "life" in the verse you cited equals regeneration. I would suggest that it does not, but rather meaning eternal life. That is, God granted them repentance unto eternal life. Of course, without repentance no one will be saved and thus inherit eternal life.

It might also be useful to point out that saved <> (does not equal) regeneration. Regeneration = born again; saved can sometimes = justification, but it is better to look at it this way:

Election + Effectual Calling/Regeneration + Justification + (some of) Sanctification = Saved

Of course glorification fits in there too, but it is future.

sdg,
dbh

[David Benjamin Hewitt]

Don said:
"I think RC Sproul would take issue with "a God that responds to a people of prayer.""

Maybe, but it depends on how you qualify it. If you mean by it, "God changes his mind about how he was going to act because of man's prayer," then Dr. Sproul I am sure would disagree with that statement, as would I. On the other hand, if one were to mean (as I do), "God works in and through the prayers of His people, granting some requests, denying others," then I would be in total agreement, as I also suspect Dr. Sproul would be.

This of course also must be understood that, even the prayers made are what God has determined, but also to say that if the prayers didn't happen, then the result wouldn't have either. Same thing with evangelism.

Here is what I mean:

Romans 10:13-15 ESV For "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." (14) But how are they to 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? (15) And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!"

Will people believe without hearing? The implication of this passage is no, and I agree with that. People must hear the Gospel! It is what God works through to bring His elect to Himself. Without evangelism therefore, there is not going to be salvation. So, if no one ever heard the Gospel....then it follows that there are no elect.
At the same time, if there are elect, then there must be evangelism for them to hear. If God is going to bring about say, the healing of person X and desires to do it through answering a prayer, then that prayer must take place.

More simply, if A wishes to effect Z by means of Y, then Y must necessarily happen.

Such is why evangelism and prayer are not optional but necessary in fulfilling the purposes of God (aside from the not-so-small fact that God has commanded both of them).

With regard to regeneration and faith, I won't say much at the moment, but start of with a Scripture, and then we'll go from there:

John 3:3-8 ESV Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." (4) Nicodemus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?" (5) Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. (6) That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. (7) Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' (8) The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit."

Unless one is born again, such a person cannot even see the kingdom of God. Repenting and believing seems to suggest that a person has seen something of it. :)

Perhaps more, but I have other work to which I must attend.

sdg,
dbh

[Don Johnson]

David,

I think you're missing my point. You say "repentance unto life" means eternal life and not regeneration. I agree that eternal life is in view but life or eternal life starts with being born again, quickened, made alive or regenerated, whichever term you prefer. There can be no eternal life until one is first given life. And according to Acts 11:18 that life is preceded by repentance.

The only way around the verse would be to say: God first makes one alive, then they repent and believe, then the life they were first given now turns into eternal life. I suspect you do not believe this. That would only leave the option that repentance must precede any kind of spiritual life. Whether it's the quickening or eternal you can't have one without the other.

Faith precedes Regeneration.

[Ron Hale]

David,

You will note that I never spoke of Calvinists, only of John Calvin.

You said, "The determinism that the Bible teaches in not fatalism. People do make real choices, though they are determined, they are real and have consequences."

Again, I only spoke of Calvin and his beliefs.

Calvin said, [3:21:5] "By presdestination we mean the eternal decree of God by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestined to life or death."

The scriptures you provided do not undergird Calvin's philosophical imagination of "the" eternal divine decree.

He was a determinist of the highest order.

[Don Johnson]

David,

Here's another text showing faith precedes regeneration.

Galatians 3:26
"For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus."

The verse states we are children by faith. The verse does not say: we have faith because we are children.

I believe it is clear from the verse that faith must come first. The other question to ask is: When does one become a chid of God? There is only one possible answer. The moment a baby is born physically he becomes a child of his or her parents. So too, when a person is born spiritually they become a child of God the moment regenerated.

When one is born again they become a child of God at the exact same instant of their new birth. Therefore the only possible conclusion that one can draw from the verse is: Faith precedes Regeneration.

[michael]

Don,

this is Peter's penny, nickel, dime, quarter and 50cent piece so I will go for it on a dollar billing if he allows it?

Again, we will have to agree that we disagree on what comes first, regeneration or faith?

Did you not understand my point? You said you did.

Let me ask you, have you ever been to an open casket funeral? I suppose you have?

Tell me, what about the "ears" of that dead person, are they "living" and "hearing"??

With that, I would make this claim to see if at least there is something we can agree on? "God sent Jesus to die on a cross for our sins, He was then buried and then He rose again from the grave".

Would you agree that that claim is correct? And, this verse, is it speaking about Jesus?:::>

Mat 1:21 She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins."

[David Benjamin Hewitt]

Don,

You said:
"I think you're missing my point. You say "repentance unto life" means eternal life and not regeneration. I agree that eternal life is in view but life or eternal life starts with being born again, quickened, made alive or regenerated, whichever term you prefer. There can be no eternal life until one is first given life. And according to Acts 11:18 that life is preceded by repentance."

I don't think I am missing your point; perhaps I missed it a little. Regardless, I certainly need to be more clear in my presentation.

My point about saying that it was eternal life was to suggest a future reality and to say that is what Luke meant in Acts 11. The thought flows from the fact that the Bible talks about us having been saved, that we are being saved, and that we will be saved.

At the same time, I am not convinced that understanding is correct of Acts 11:18. What seems more likely, given that they are describing that Cornelius and the others were saved. There is no salvation without repentance of course; it is probably not correct to read "regeneration" into Luke's use of the term translated "life." Given that we only have one verse in a historical account rather than a particular teaching on a subject, it really can't be substantiated that "life" means what you say it does.

I should have looked at it more closely before I made my first statement in response to you. :)

You also said:
"Galatians 3:26
"For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus."

The verse states we are children by faith. The verse does not say: we have faith because we are children."

I would agree that we are children by faith. I think the problem is that you may be confusing terms, at least with how I and other Calvinists use them, to describe distinctions made in Scripture.

Saved (ie, being God's child) does not equal regeneration. Regeneration = the New Birth.

Such is the way we must read John 1:12--13:

John 1:12-13 ESV But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, (13) who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

Who get the right to be children of God? It is those who "receive Him" and I understand that to mean believing in Jesus, having true faith accompanied by repentance.

Verse 13 explains why they had faith. They were born....of God. Their faith didn't produce the birth, but it was God that gave them new birth and (I would argue, instantly) produced faith in them.

sdg,
dbh

[Don Johnson]

Michael,

No, dead a body can't do anything. But dead people can see, hear, taste, feel, talk, and even have concern for lost souls. Read the account of the rich man in Luke 16:19-31.

Did the rich man become spiritually alive after dying physically? I believe your answer is no. I would then ask if "Total Inability" is correct: How did the rich man (who was still dead) have more "ability" after he died physically?

Yes, I agree completely with Gospel message of the death, burial and ressurection of Christ.

And yes the verse is speaking about Jesus. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

[David Benjamin Hewitt]

Ron said:

"Again, I only spoke of Calvin and his beliefs.

Calvin said, [3:21:5] "By presdestination we mean the eternal decree of God by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestined to life or death."

Thing is though, I would agree with what Calvin said there. :) Ultimately, he is correct. However, that doesn't contradict anything that I've already said either. ;)

sdg,
dbh

[michael]

Don,

my points are, one, we agree that Jesus Christ is Lord and has the final say, with Our Heavenly Father and the Holy Spirit, who gets to come alive in Christ and who does not seeing the Three are in total agreement with each other and we are in total agreement with Them! Two, we do not agree on which comes first, regeneration, I believe; and Faith, you believe.

My question is this, what is the "major" fatalistic error believing only the one way you believe and not the one way I believe?

We both believe it is Christ's work that gets us to Heaven and no work of our own, right? Or am I missing something here with regard to you?

Are you monergistic or synergistic?

Monergistic being found alive, dead in trespasses and sins and we must be born again so as to believe Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

Synergistic being found alive, dead in trespasses and sins and we make the choice to believe Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

Does it really matter that I believe I must be regenerated, or "made alive" to believe and receive the Faith once delivered to the Saints and you believe as a dead person spiritually you believe and receive Faith first and then you are made alive?

[Don Johnson]

David,

I had a lengthy response written and completely lost it in cyber space and I don't feel like doing it all over. My comments will be brief concerning your last post. If I'm not clear about something please ask for clarification.

Eternal life begins when one is given life (regeneration). There is no mention of life before repentance therefore all life whether being made alive or eternal life occurs after repentance.

What do you think it would mean if it said "life unto repentance"?

I'm not confusing terms. I know saved does not mean regeneration. And I know regeneration = born again.

My point on Gal 3:26 is simply that a person becomes a child of God when they are born of God. Since faith precedes becoming a child, then by logical extension it must also precede the new birth.

I think its a big stretch to infer those who were born in John 1:13 is refering to why those believed in verse 12. I think anyone reading the verses would naturally think being born of God would conclude its refering to becoming a child of God. One is not born of God, then believe and then become a child of God.

I believe God used simple words as "born" and "children" so we could easily relate the spiritual birth with physical birth. And if this is the case nobody would think being born of God meant they were given the ability to believe.

[peter]

David,

I am not sure why you think I brought up the particular point you’re making on this thread, but thanks for your comments.  And, though I don’t want to interject myself into the conversation you, Don and Michael are having, since you mentioned my name as the recipient, I’ll offer a few remarks.

You deny modern Calvinists such as yourself  engage in philosophical reasoning to maintain your belief in God's eternal decree rather than the exegesis of Scripture. So far so good, unless you mean by such a denial that no philosophical reasoning is employed by Calvinists such as yourself to maintain your belief in God’s eternal decree.  Unfortunately, the latter is what you apparently mean for you go on to insist the “whole point” of any of Reformed Theology, in this case the TULIP, is built in exegesis and reasoning from the Scriptures.” If you do mean this, David, I, for one, am unconvinced, you can consistently hold to it.

For example,noting from your conclusion on the two texts listed, you cited the authors of the London confession as having in mind “what are called primary and secondary causes…”  Really?  David, to speak of secondary and primary causes is completely foreign to Scripture and is lifted from philosophical inquiry.   Hence, when you start employing those terms, you are not employing Scriptural categories but philosophical ones.  Understand:  I am at this point not denying the truth of primary and secondary causes.  They may very well be correct.  However, to suggest biblical exegesis is the basis for the categories you employ  (I assume you agree with the LC’s authors’ reasoning) is a position which cannot be credibly maintained.  At least the way I see it.

In addition, you conclude that “Judas was the person who was determined to betray Jesus.”  That is not what the text says, David. Instead you are working on what you believe is an implication of the text, a deduction if you will. You apparently think the only correct deduction from the text is that Judas was the person who was determined to betray Jesus.  Why?  Why is that the only legitimate deduction?  Could it not be that the sovereign, omnipotent, omniscient God of the Bible freely determined to use the freely chosen betrayal of the man, Judas rather than determining the choices of the man, Judas?  There is a significant difference from my perspective (by the way, so far as I know, no Bible-believer holds it was an accident).

Finally, for my part I am very uncomfortable with the way you’ve framed Samson’s actions:  “Therefore, it was sinful for Samson to do this…Did God determine that it would be? Again, according to the passage, the answer is yes.”  To the contrary, the passage says no such thing.  And, so far as I am concerned, David, it’s assertions similar to the above which provoke images of God as the author of sin which ceaselessly haunts Calvinism.  If God determined Samson’s sin, then God is responsible and Samson is not.

Nor does it assist to say, “Samson was doing what he wanted to do in his sinfulness…”  This particular nuance is a subtle shift which, in my understanding of it, ends up negating determinism, or at minimum, muddies the water.  All one has to ask is, how did God know what Samson wanted?  The determinist must answer, because God determined what Samson would want, going right back once again to God being the author of what Samson wanted. But if God is the author of what Samson wanted, and what Samson wanted was sin, then, God is the author of sin.

All in all, David, I find your claim that no philosophical reasoning is employed by Calvinists such as yourself to maintain your belief in God’s eternal decree to be inconsistent with how you actually argue your case.

With that, I am…

Peter

[Don Johnson]

All Calvinists,

The following is my third proof text showing faith precedes regeneration. This one is my favorite because it is the only verse in the Bible that mentions the word "regeneration" with respect to the new birth.

Not only does the verse mention "regeneration", but it partially defines the word. Which leaves no room for doubt in the Ordo Salutis as to where "regeneration" should be placed.

Titus 3:5

"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost."

My first question would be: What is washed?

I would be very interested in the Calvinist's answer to that question.

But instead of waiting I'll give you mine.

The washing of regeneration I believe must be the washing away of our sins. I say that because I don't find anything else in scripture that it could possibly be. Note the following:

Rev. 1:5
"...and washed us from our sins in his own blood."

Acts 3:19
"Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out."

Acts 10:43
"...whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins."

Acts 22:16
"...and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."

Romans 3:25
"... a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins."

Assuming I am correct on the washing of our sins; my second question would be: Do sins get washed away before or after one repents and believes? The above verses should help answer that question if you have any doubt.

I trust you all said one repents and believes before washing.

Now my third question: If repentance and faith occur before our sins are washed, does that not prove they must also precede regeneration since regeneration is the washing of the sins?

The washing of sins is not the only thing involved when one is regenerated, but it is the part God wanted us to know.

Even though Titus 3:5 should settle the fact that faith precedes regeneration, I'll have more texts to further substantiate the point.

[peter]

Don,

Sorry for taking so long to post your comment. II've been away.

With that, I am...
Peter

[David Benjamin Hewitt]

Don and Peter:

I haven't forgotten you all -- just busy this week. I am preaching this Lord's Day at my church in both our services and much of my time this week is taken in preparation for that most sacred duty. Your prayers are appreciated to that end!

So, I do have some things I'd like to say in response, but such will likely have to wait until after the 4th. :)

sdg,
dbh

[michael]

Don,

a fairly good, clear perspicacious argument.

However, I will address this part after taking some time to ponder and spend time before the Lord for a 'fresh' drink from on High:::>

Assuming I am correct on the washing of our sins; my second question would be: Do sins get washed away before or after one repents and believes? The above verses should help answer that question if you have any doubt.

I trust you all said one repents and believes before washing.

[michael]

Don, here we go, go, go, go:::> :)

I asked in an earlier comment above: "My question is this, what is the "major" fatalistic error believing only the one way you believe and not the one way I believe?"

In your view, is there a fatal error here for one side?

I also asked: "We both believe it is Christ's work that gets us to Heaven and no work of our own, right? Or am I missing something here with regard to you?

Are you monergistic or synergistic?"

Can you address these questions for me?

This be helpful for me to establish my rationale for "Faith".

[peter]

David,

Not a problem. You're wise in setting the top priority. As for responding later, I haven't checked but the post may close on comments (by default, it's two weeks).

With that, I am...
Peter

[Don Johnson]

Michael,

It would not be fatal for either of us, but could be for those presently outside of Christ. Not knowing exactly what you believe it would not be wise for me to put words in your mouth.

It depends what you mean by monergistic and synergistic. I'll tell you what I believe and you can tell me which of the two I fit into.

I believe man is lost and is not capable of saving himself. There is no good in man which would merit God's grace in saving him. Man's only hope of salvation is in believing the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit using the Word of God works on the heart of unbeliever to bring about repentance and faith. Those that repent and believe the Gospel have their sins washed away through regeneration and immediately become a child of God.

Lastly, "perspicacious" really Michael you're killing me. Took me half the day to find out what it means. I'm just a dumb country boy. Keep 1 Cor. 14:9 in mind when addressing me.

Thanks

[Steve]

Hey Peter,
may i say with John Beveridge
"Some fast by Calvin hold.
Some for Arminius fight,
And each is mighty bold,
And seemeth surely right:
Well though with Calvin I agree,
Yet Christ is all in all to me."

[Don Johnson]

Steve,

Cute poem.

But if Christ is all in all to you, well then with Calvin in much you must disagree.

[Steve]

Of course.. I don't agree with calvin on baptising infants etc etc.. and there are probably many many things you and I would disagree about Don...but I cou;ldn't find anything to Rhyme with Johnson. :)

[Don Johnson]

Steve,

Care to share any of those things in which we would disagree, other than poetry.

[David Benjamin Hewitt]

Good day to you all, I am back. :) I don't know how long this thread will continue -- perhaps Peter will be willing to extend it. :) First, I'll talk to Don about a few things, then work on Peter's comment, which, I might add, I appreciated.

Don said:
"My point on Gal 3:26 is simply that a person becomes a child of God when they are born of God. Since faith precedes becoming a child, then by logical extension it must also precede the new birth."

A person becomes a child of God when God saves that person. Though I think some places talk about a child of God being born of God (like John 1:12--13) that isn't Paul's understanding in Galatians 3:26. I actually preached on Galatians 3:23--29 this last Lord's Day; it was where I was in the book of Galatians. :) I have had a little time to study the matter. So, I'll provide it here and then what Paul means by becoming a son of God:

Galatians 3:26 ESV for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.

Paul says explicitly that we are all sons of God through faith. So, what does Paul mean when he says we are sons? That is, how does Paul see us becoming sons?

From what I have read here in this thread, you believe that, without exception, the Bible is talking about regeneration when it refers to people becoming God's children. Paul doesn't allow us to think that in this passage. Let's look ahead just a few verses into chapter four to see what I mean by that:

Galatians 4:4-6 ESV But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, (5) to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. (6) And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!"

Paul has already said in chapter three that we are sons by faith in Christ. So, how is it that God receives us as sons? Paul elaborates in chapter four: He adopts us. We are adopted as sons by God. This is what makes us His children. Adoption is something that I left out of the ordo salutis that I posted a few comments abosve; I apologize for that. However, the fact remains that adoption is a critical part of our salvation, into which justification leads immediately. So then, for Paul, becoming a son of God = adoption, not regeneration. I also might add that adoption is something that God does to and for us, not something that we choose to have happen. :) God is the subject of the verb; we, as His sons, are the objects.

Being born from above, of being regenerated, makes us spiritually alive; adoption makes us God's sons.

About what you said concerning John 1:12-13:

"I think its a big stretch to infer those who were born in John 1:13 is referring to why those believed in verse 12. I think anyone reading the verses would naturally think being born of God would conclude its referring to becoming a child of God. One is not born of God, then believe and then become a child of God."

I do not think it is a stretch at all. The reason for that is because of the main thrust of the two verses. John's main point is in verse 13, not twelve. What I said is accurate, but is a conclusion based on exegesis that I didn't provide. Allow me to do so now. :)

John 1:12-13 ESV But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, (13) who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

John explains something in verse 13 about the people he introduced in verse 12. It is as if John is saying, "Those who believed in Jesus, who received Jesus, to whom God gave the right to be His children, that is something we should know about those people. They have been born --" and then he launches into the description. Please note the use of the word not and what is governed by it: NOT of blood, NOT of the will of the flesh, NOT of the will of man.

They are not born “of blood” – not human ancestry, important for Jews of the day to understand. Not by “the will of the flesh” – too weak, didn’t have the power to make it happen; John's use of the word for "flesh" in his Gospel to discuss the weakness of the flesh rather than its sinfulness so much (contra Paul's usage), especially when one considers the next verse. Our flesh cannot produce God’s work. Further, this birth is not “of the will of man.” Man’s will doesn’t effect it, cannot bring it about.

So what then does bring about this new birth? It is "of God." God is the One Who effects it. We believe; God does not believe for us -- believing is an act of the will (an enabled will I would of course say, given by God's Spirit). However, John here explicitly says that this New Birth is "not of the will of man."

So, the question that follows seems obvious, does it not? If the new birth is not of the will of man, how can believing effect it in any sense? John says that it cannot, because God's giving new birth is "not of the will of man."

God makes a man to be born from above, and there is nothing in man's ability, his ancestry, or his will that makes it happen. God makes it happen, turning people from God haters into God lovers, into people who are like those described in verse 12.

sdg,
dbh

[Steve]

ummmmmmm sure.. eternal security... John 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”
John 6: All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. 40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

John 17:8 For I have given them the words that you gave me, and they have received them and have come to know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me. 9 I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours. 10 All mine are yours, and yours are mine, and I am glorified in them. 11 And I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one. 12 While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled. 13 But now I am coming to you, and these things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy fulfilled in themselves.

1Peter 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4 to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, 5 who by God’s power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

1Peter 5:8 Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. 9 Resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same kinds of suffering are being experienced by your brotherhood throughout the world. 10 And after you have suffered a little while, the God of all grace, who has called you to his eternal glory in Christ, will himself restore, confirm, strengthen, and establish you. 11 To him be the dominion forever and ever. Amen.

[Ian D. Elsasser]

Don Johnson said, "The Calvinist belief that Regeneration precedes Faith...."

Not all Calvinists believe regeneration precedes faith. Some hold that faith precedes regeneration (ex., Millard Erickson, Christian Theology), while others believe these are simultaneous and coexistent, so that where you have one, you have the other.

[David Benjamin Hewitt]

Don, with what you said regarding Titus 3:5 --

It is best not to take a verse or two (or part of one) and try to build a doctrine on it. John's point in chapter one that I previously discussed is the conclusion of a discussion about Jesus's coming started in verse six, and those two verse are where he makes his point.

With regard to Titus 3, there is indeed a context that helps us a bit:

Titus 3:4-7 ESV But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, (5) he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, (6) whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, (7) so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

Before addressing verse 5, it is important to note that justification, which is by faith, which Paul also says is by grace (something that I attempt to address here). He says that we are justified so that we might become heirs; the "so that" connects with the subjunctive verb in the next phrase. It's a hina clause arrangement, indicating purpose. Note also the reference to becoming heirs. Compare this with Galatians 3:29 and the verses in chapter 4 that I mentioned above.

But I get ahead of myself a little bit. :)

It's interesting to note what all Paul says with regard to God saving us. All of those verses I cited above may well be in the same sentence. He saved us "according to his own mercy" by the "washing of regeneration." It also includes "being justified by his grace" and becoming "heirs" which Paul talks about more in Galatians which I've already mentioned.

That kind of looks like the ordu salutis that Calvinists maintain. :)

You asked what we are washed from, that is, what is washed by this regeneration. I think the answer is given to us in the text: we are washed. God saved us; he regenerated us; He justified us; He makes us heirs. So, it follows that we are what are washed in the regeneration that Paul describes here. We are made clean, and indeed, it is from sin as per verse 3 that I didn't cite. These parts of salvation are quite related to each other, but we must be careful only to ascribe to them what the Bible does. That is, by believing we are justified; when we are justified, we are then heirs. How are we regenerated? Paul says that washing accompanies it of course, probably because regeneration, God causing us to be born again, brings about this great salvation from sin that you and I enjoy.

That is how I would see it. :)

sdg,
dbh

[Don Johnson]

Steve,

Was there something there that I'm suppose to disagree with.

[Don Johnson]

Ian,

Yes, I know some Calvinists believe that faith precedes regeneration.

When I use the term "Calvinist" I'm primarily referencing those of the Reformed persuasion. I should have been more specific.

If I'm not mistaken, I believe all the Reformed folk believe regeneration precedes faith. At least that's my understanding.

[Don Johnson]

David,

Thanks for responding to Titus 3:5. You are actually the first person to give their thoughts on the verse. Every other time I offered the verse it is either ignored or the thread is promptly shut down. So thanks for taking the time and effort. However, though you gave a careful well thought out response, you did not address my questions. So I'll try a different approach.

1. Is the washing of regeneration the washing away of sins? (use verses from my previous post)
A. If yes, procede to question 2
B. If no, provide Scriptural support

2. Since it is the washing away of sins, does one believe before or after this occurs? (again you may want to use the verses listed above)
A. If before, proceed to question 3
B. If after, provide Scriptural support

3. Since believing precedes the washing, does that not prove faith precedes regeneration?
A. If yes, advance to Go and collect $200
B. If no, provide Scriptural support

4. If you answered A to all three questions, you qualify for an exclusive showing of my next proof text. But hurry they won't last long at these prices.

I trust if nothing else, I made you smile.

[Don Johnson]

All Reformed Calvinists,

If regeneration precedes faith, why is there not a single case of where it is clearly shown or inferred, of a person being regenerated, then having faith to believe, which then brings salvation?

There are plenty of cases which show the last two, but none that I'm aware of showing all three.

I think that should be a big clue as to the validity of the doctrine.

[David Benjamin Hewitt]

Don:

I'll get to your comment after I address Peter's; I simply ran out of time to do it, and I want to be sure to address everything addressed to me. :)

This is a great conversation, imho.

sdg,
dbh