Calvinism vs Non-Calvinism: A Parable by Peter Lumpkins

Does strict Calvinism and non-Calvinism have identical salvific visions?  I do not think so. Indeed I think, in the end, the two redemptive visions are incompatible with each other, and at least one is incompatible with the gospel record. Of course, my saying so does not make it so. Nonetheless, it is my interpretative judgment as I understand the Word of God.

Though I’ve not pursued much in the form of fictional writing, I do enjoy creative writing, especially attempting to capture the “big ideas” of theology in short story or parable form. 

Several years back on another blog platform, I penned a parable which I believed captured the difference in redemptive visions between strict Calvinism and non-Calvinism.  Entitled “Eternal Salvation: Two Doctrines, Two Destinies” it drew a tremendous amount of dialog (unfortunately, I lost the dialog when I changed platforms).

Below is a revised version.  I remain convinced the story eye-balls the essence between a strict Calvinistic view of salvation and a non-Calvinistic view.

 The following story concerns two brothers; one is saved, the other lost—that is, two very different destinies. Also, alternate salvific visions are presented through which these brothers reap their destinies. That’s the two doctrines--one vision of eternal salvation is the strict Calvinist view and the other is the non-Calvinist view.

Now, the story…

Once there were two brothers—Bob and Dan–fishing off the coast of Florida. Fishing had become a lifetime pursuit with these bachelors. Always going a little farther from shore, risking more and more in their fishing pursuits, their passion for fishing knew no end. And, the more they traveled from shore, the more they were harassed by the coastal police.

In fact, Bob and Dan developed an innate hatred for the police, so much so, that they shook their fists at them at every opportunity, made vulgar gestures to them, and cursed the police with hateful remarks. They considered the police a threat to their love for fishing. Besides, the patrolling of their boats and the sound of their choppers kept the biggest and best fish away.

One day a freakish event took place.

The brothers had drifted far from shore. Suddenly, surrounding their boat, were hundreds of great white sharks! They couldn’t believe what they were seeing. As far as they could see, sharks were everywhere.

But the worst was yet.

Their boat began to rapidly fill with water. Only minutes till they were shark food! Frantically, they scurried about the boat with not a clue what to do. 

Just then, the shore police chopper hovered directly over them. One would think they would be jumping up and down for joy.

Not so.

Rather, they did as they had always done. They began to swear and curse and throw obscene gestures toward the police. So much they hated the police that they actually forgot all about the danger they were in.

Then…

Out of the chopper, a single rope was lowered. An officer stood in the boat next to them. Both Bob and Dan were furious the officer possessed the audacity to board their boat.

To Bob, the officer began to plea: “Bob, listen to me very carefully. You are in grave danger. You have not trusted me before. In fact, you’ve hated every thing about me. But this is one time you must listen. The boat will sink. It’s now only a matter of minutes. If you do not calm down, trust me, and allow me to fasten you securely in this lift, you will die. Do you understand?  You are about to die.”

Bob would not listen, however. He rebuked the officer even more. He told him to leave and that he’d rather sink in the boat than to be carried to safety by the officer. Again, the officer pleaded with Bob: “Bob, there is not much time, now. The boat is sinking; the sharks are coming; and you will not be spared. Trust me, Bob. Just trust me.”

Upon this, Bob’s countenance began to change. He calmed down a bit. In fact, he said to the officer: “What do you want me to do? I am willing to do anything to get out of this boat and be spared.”

The officer replied: “Nothing Bob. Not a thing. Just be still and do not move. I will fasten you in the lift and you will be hoisted to safety.”

Bob replied: “May I not fasten myself in?” 

“No!” the officer sternly shot back. “You cannot do anything at all. The latch can only be fastened by me. Were you to do it, the hoist would fail. Just relax. Simply do not resist and you will surely be carried to safety.” 

Bob settled back, and the officer carefully secured Bob in. He was carried to safety in the chopper. 

The rope again was lowered.

The officer turned to Dan, who by this time, had fallen into a raging fit of anger and conceit. “You tricked my brother! He hates you as much as I do! Leave me alone. Curse you, I say! Curse you!”

The officer replied: “Dan, I know you hate me. But know I have never hated you. All the times I patrolled this shore, I was thinking about you. I knew these waters were shark-infested even though you didn’t. That’s why I was so close by.”

“Liar! All you’ve ever done is hound me to no end! All I’ve ever wanted is to fish with my brother. Now you have taken him from me! Go away! Leave me to myself”

The officer plead with Dan: “Dan, Listen. Time escapes us. The boat is almost under. The sharks are frantic. So little time…So very little time, I say. Please. Allow me to take you to safety. As I said to Bob, I say to you: relax, allow me to fasten you into the lift, and I alone will hoist you to safety. Please. I have my orders to save all who will come.”

Upon that--though Dan still raged on the inside--he sat back and allowed the officer to begin placing him in the lift.

Suddenly, Dan stood and shouted: “Liar!  What am I doing! Get out of here. Leave me alone! I hate you, I say, I hate you! I’d rather perish with the sharks than be safe with you! You tricked my brother but won’t trick me!”

And then, Dan did the most awful thing: he dove headlong into the shark-infested waters, choosing rather to perish in the sea than being hoisted to safety.

One doctrine—non-Calvinism—with two very different destinies.

 

Now, let us notice the second doctrine—strict Calvinism—also with two destinies.

Just then, the shore police chopper hovered directly over them…

a single rope was lowered. The two brothers began to swear and curse and throw obscene gestures toward the officer who stood before them.

The officer focused intently at Bob and said: “Bob. Listen, the time is now. I know you have hated me all your life but all I have ever done has been for you. I have ever cared for you. Each time you left the shore, I watched over you. I knew these waters were shark-infested even though you didn’t. That’s why I was so close today. I came to carry you to safety.”

Upon this, Bob began to swear and curse and fling obscene gestures toward the officer. “Not on your life. I hate you, I say, I hate you! Leave me. I’d rather perish in the sea than go to safety with you.”

Then, Bob did the most awful thing: he dove toward the water where the sharks were thickest. But the officer caught Bob in mid-air and flung him back into the boat! Bob kicked and screamed for the officer to stop touching him. “I hate you!” he shouted, “I hate you!  Leave me alone!”

Quickly, the officer pulled out a hypodermic needle, poked him in the neck, and Bob immediately relaxed in his arms. The officer strapped Bob in and hoisted him to safety.

When Bob was securely inside, the chopper headed toward shore. They had strict orders to only save Bob.

With that, I am…

Peter

Comments

[Benji Ramsaur]

Peter,

I understand that analogies can break down at some point. However, I can't buy the "hypodermic needle" description as a fair representation of "strict calvinism".

What is in the needle is natural and it goes into the natural body and affects the natural body. However, what strict Calvinism is referring to is the spiritual and thus the nonmaterial realm.

Of course I would think that you are using the natural to describe the spiritual realm according to SC (Strict Calvinism).

However, I am having a difficult time seeing the hypodermic needle as something which could describe changing the nature of man.

That spiritual part of man--his nonphysical heart...his nature--must be changed for man to be able to respond in faith would be strict Calvinism IMO.

I think a better description of SC would be that God performs "spiritual" heart transplant surgery and that He does this without the sinner's permission through the gospel and that the sinner's "free" response to this change is trust in and love for God.

[Benji Ramsaur]

Peter,

Something like what I am talking about can be seen in the biblical example of Lydia I think. The gospel is spoken to her and the Lord does something to her heart [i.e. opens it] and she responds with a response of commitment, as I see it, to the gospel message [Acts 16:14].

She was already listening so the result of the Lord opening her heart could not be it caused her to merely do what she was already doing.

I think the NLT brings out the meaning of what happened pretty well in that text.

[J. K. Jones]

My problem with the whole analogy is that God is the one doing the convincing. How could almighty, all-knowing, all-good, and all-loving God fail to convince anyone who He wanted to convince? The police officer is simply not as convincing as God would be.

Now we have a basis for Calvinism: God can convince anyone. God does convince some, and that is some more than deserve to be saved.

[peter lumpkins]

Benji,

Thanks. You do not "buy the "hypodermic needle" description as a fair representation of "strict calvinism"." Fair enough. What is your objection (s)? a) what's in the needle is "natural" b) needle contents cannot "change the nature of man."

On the other hand, I perceive neither of these two criticisms affecting my meaning, Benji. A) I did not state the content of the needle. In fact the content is completely irrelevant. One can call it boo-boo juice if one likes. It is completely coincidental as is the "hypodermic needle" to the meaning.

B) while you cannot accept the needle contents to "change the nature of man," I'm wondering why would that be a valid criticism? Again, the needle contents per se *remain irrelevant* to the meaning. In addition, the function or purpose of the needle contents--which, by the way, *is* detrimental to the meaning--is to necessitate the unwilling person into a willing person. Or, as both the London Confession and the Westminster Confession make very clear, "being made willing." Bob was simply "made willing," that's all.

That's for your helpful notes, Benji.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Dr. James Willingham]

The night I was converted, Dec.7,1957, I saw the Lord Jesus standing about 8 pews in front of me, facing me, with a hand raised like he was knocking, and he was looking at me. My response was let me out of here. I left at the end of that service determined to tell no one of what I had seen (it is really hard on an atheist which I was then, when God shows up knocking at his door). Two blocks from my home something or someone changed my mind, and I decided to tell my mother. That night I was converted and tears of joy when the burden was lifted from my heart (a burden I didn't even know I had until then). Rev. 3:20 sums up what happened at that Youth for Christ meeting in St. Louis, Mo. at the Lindell Bible church, and Acts 16:14 sums up what happened before I got home. It took me about 5 years to figure out that the real cause for my salvation was the mercy and grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, something so wonderful that no sinner can resist it, when God is so pleased. And Whitefield and Wesley spelled it out right. Whitefield planned for Wesley to preach his funeral, and said he would not see Wesley in Heaven, because he would be so close to the throne and he (whitefield) so far he wouldn't be able to see him. Wesly preached the funeral and said, he did not expect to see Whitefield in Heaven, because he (Whitefield) would be so close to the throne and he(Wesley) would be so far from it that he would not be able to see it. O for a thousand tongues to sing our great redeemers praise. Since representatives of both have given their lives to advance the cause of Christ, it behoves all of us to be kind to the rest of us, after all we are God's children only by His choice and adoption, whether we understand it or believe it or not. To night I preach on a Ps.65:4 in a church founded by a pastor who helped to draw up the Sandy Creek Confession of Faith in 1816 that affirms belief in election from eternity and effectual calling, the same truth written in the Abstract of Principles of Southern Seminary by the son of another member of that Sandy Creek committee, Basil Manly, Sr. O yes, and the chairman of the Sandy Creek Committee was Luther Rice who go baptists to enlist in the cause of missions, thus, launching the Great Century of Missions, and Rice thought that Election and Predestination were in the Bible and one had better preach it. Some once said, they are invitations to be saved. What a thought! Particular Redemption, limited atonement Baptists in the South helped launch the Great Century of Missions - not the Generatl Atonement General Baptists. Things are never what they seem. And the great awakening coming might well take the whole earth and every soul in it. After all, Mr. Spurgeon prayed for such in his Evening devotions for August 6 and December 24. Not bad for a five point calvinist/Sovereign Grace believer. I really prefer the latter term as I found people in church history getting burned to death for these teachings before John Calvin was ever born, let alone converted.

[peter lumpkins]

J.K.

A couple of things. First, I fear you do not consider the full implications of strict Calvinism. In strict Calvinism, "convincing" remains utterly irrelevant. Spiritually dead men cannot be convinced of anything. It is impossible to convince them--utter spiritual inability makes it impossible. Hence, the necessity for extraordinary measures--a poke in the neck before they irresistibly respond.

Unlike strict Calvinism, non-Calvinism is not dependent upon a poke in the neck; or, if it is required as in classical Arminianism among others, it is in the form of 'prevenient grace' but does not irresistibly necessitate submission. Hence, "convincing" and "convicting" are very appropriate considerations (cp. John 16:7-16).

Second, you ask "How could [an] almighty...God fail to convince anyone who He wanted to convince?" (bold mine). Framed in this way, of course, it would be hard to argue the contrary. God is God, after all. Nonetheless, the problem is not *can* God--as if there is a question concerning His power--but *does* God and/or *will* God and/or *has* God. Hence, the questions surround how He chooses to normally deal with human beings He purposely made in His image.

With that, I am...
Peter

[arnold]

Mr. Lumpkins, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

[peter lumpkins]

Dear Arnold,

Why, thank you, my good fellow. You've made my afternoon! :^)

On a more serious note, I do hope with all my hoping I continue receiving the abundant mercies from our Lord I do not now nor ever will deserve, just as you generously requested.

With that, I am...
Peter

[J. K. Jones]

Peter,

The question is how does God change the heart. He gives new life, in part, by convincing a person. Giving a new heart with new desires. I don’t see anything non-Calvinistic about that.
“ Spiritually dead men cannot be convinced of anything. It is impossible to convince them--utter spiritual inability makes it impossible.”

But the Spirit acts such as to give them a new heart, and giving them new desires is a part of that. “Convincing the heart” is Calvinistic language.

Ultimately I am just pointing out that your system has problems to. You have to recon with the fact that God does not convince some people. If He does not convince them, it is ultimately because He does not want to. Why do you think He does not want to?

JK

[peter lumpkins]

J.K.

I'm afraid there's a bit of confusion. In your first comment, J.K., you clearly made the issue the *power* of God. You asked, "How could [an] almighty...God fail to convince anyone who He wanted to convince?" concluding the coastal guard was simply "not as convincing as God would be." This concerns God's ability, His *power*, J.K. Those were your words I addressed.

Now, however, you assert, "The question is how does God change the heart." But this concerns His *method* not His power, which is essentially the point I made! My last line concluded, "Hence, the questions surround how He chooses to normally deal with human beings He purposely made in His image." Now, I like the fact you agree with me. But you've created some confusion by appearing to take issue with my point. Better work on that one.

And, no, "convincing the heart" is hardly the language of strict Calvinism. Once again, for strict Calvinists--or we might say Calvinists who have taken on the "Reformed Dortian Calvinism" of the 'born-again before faith' variety--total depravity reduces to total inability. Dead men do not need convinced hearts; dead men require new, spiritually resurrected hearts. What could they spiritually hear to convince them? What could they spiritually see to persuade them? What could they spiritually embrace to change them? They are spiritual corpses. They cannot believe anything. Hence, how can they be persuaded to believe what is not possible? The key passage, of course, is Eph 2:1, et al.

In addition, I gave two examples of the language strict Calvinists historically employ (2ndLC and WCF)--"being made willing."

On the other hand, few if any strict Calvinists make John 16:7-15 the "language" of their understanding of how the Spirit operates. Why? Because convincing the mind and/or heart presupposes an ability--perhaps a faint ability but nonetheless a real ability--for perception and reception to transformation. This completely upsets the entire theological scheme of born-again-before-faith advocates. It simply goes against the grain of their salvation scheme.

Now, as for "my system" to which you alluded, once again, there's confusion. I have not stated "my system" but attempted to draw a difference which makes strict Calvinism, strict Calvinism. But, if I do state "my system", you'll be the first to know ;^).

With that, I am...
Peter

[Ron Hale]

J.K.
A couple of questions ...

1. Was Adam dead in his sins after he sinned in the garden?
2. Did he hear the Lord God walking in the cool of the day?
3. Did he hear the Lord, when the Lord called to him?
4. Did Adam talk to the Lord?
5. Did Adam receive the skins [for covering]from God in place of the fig leaves?

Blessings!

[Michelle]

This is a great analogy and reminded me of a similar one I used years ago to demonstrate how asking/desiring Salvation is not a "work" when I debated with some Calvinists.

In my analogy, (much simpler and more boring, lol) it was the Titanic that sunk. It was dark and it was night. Their are two people in the frigid water both dying. They both need saving and are in the same fix. One of the people hears a rescue boat approaching and begins to yell, "HELP! SAVE ME!" and the other person refuses to yell for help (perhaps they didn't believe that a boat exists, or maybe they think that asking for help is ludicrous since the Rescuer will save whom He will save). Whom does the rescue boat choose to save? Obviously the one who trusted them enough to ask. Did they save themself? Nope. They could have yelled till they were blue in the face and it wouldn't have saved the person. The salvation was all the part of the Rescuer.

I thank God for His saving grace. I thank God that His saving Grace is available for anyone who believes with a saving faith. I can hear my old pastor, Larry Brown, singing right now, "♫♪Thank God I am free, free, free, from this world of sin...I'm so glad that I found out, He would bring me out and show me the way...♫♪"

[William Marshall]

Bro. Peter (and Michelle),

I think both of the analogies give too much credit to men. The Bible makes it clear that men are dead in their sin (Eph. 2:1, as Peter noted above) and that they are not seeking God (Rom. 3:10ff). Thus, to follow Bro. Peter's analogy: the men have always been fishing over sharks, they have always been in grave danger, their boat has always been sinking, they just don't know it. They love where they are. They love their sin (their 'fishing') and if left to themselves they would fish themselves all the way into the water. Their minds are blinded (2 Cor. 4:4). What they need is to have their eyes opened to the danger all around them (the cost of sin). They need to see the beauty of Christ and why they are so desperate for Him. God must shine in their hearts (an act that Paul connects with creation) "to give the light of the knowlege of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ" (2 Corinthians 4:6). When God does this, men turn from their sins and trust in Christ. Until God does this, no man will ever leave the boat (their sin). As Peter you have noted in your comments, so much depends upon what the Bible teaches about man's condition prior to coming to Christ. Thanks,

wm

[Benji Ramsaur]

Peter,

In order for there to be a fair representation of SC, I think your analogy would have to relate to the change in the nature of man.

Merely getting some analogy to describe the unwilling "being made willing" without that analogy relating to man's nature is not good enough because it says too little IMO.

I believe SC says that man believes because man is changed.

You've got man being made willing from a "hypodermic needle".

[Dr. James Galyon]

The first story sounded much more like Calvinism to me than the second. Guess it depends on the definition of "strict" Calvinism.

[peter lumpkins]

Michelle,

Thanks. One of the truths you illustrate concerning "faith" not constituting "works" is a key focus upon which to dwell with many Calvinists. Contrary to what some Calvinists imply, the Bible is clear that faith cannot be works, and hence does not constitute our being a "good person" and worthy of eternal life.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Benji,

'You've got man being made willing from a "hypodermic needle."' Correct, Benji. But again, the needle is coincidental. If I changed it to a pill, your criticism would be unchanged. In fact, there is potentially nothing to which I could change it that satisfies your criticism, which, in my view, makes your criticism relatively moot.

And, to require an analogy to identically correspond to its intended object--which is what I hear you suggesting--grossly overstates analogous inquiry. In analogies one does not look for exact representation in secondary components, which, by the way, you've twice mentioned by focusing on the hypodermic needle. Such is really beside the point.

Rather one looks for strengths and/or weaknesses in the primary component of the proposed analogy, the primary component being structural identity. From what I can tell, no one thus far has really challenged the primary component of the present analogy (not to say it cannot or will not be challenged obviously).

Perhaps you've come closest to it by suggesting that my premise about Strict Calvinism's necessity for spiritually dead corpses to be "made willing" to come to Christ "is not good enough because it says too little [about Strict Calvinism]." However, the burden of proof is upon you, Benji, to demonstrate precisely why my premise is fallacious. What is absent in my "being made willing"--the language of the Westminster Confession--that is necessarily present in your corrective phrase, "changing the nature of man"?

Thanks again for the exchange.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

William,

I appreciate your commentary. The only weakness you pointed out about the analogy which I see is your point about "giv[ing] too much credit to men." You further conclude, "so much depends upon what the Bible teaches about man's condition prior to coming to Christ." Correct. And there is a gap between what Strict Calvinists insist the Bible teaches about human depravity and what Non-Calvinists as a general rule embrace. As for giving "too much credit to men" I can only say, if a man attempts with all his being to self-destruct (which is what the analogy makes clear), I'm confused as to how "too much credit" remains for them to seek after God.

Anyways, thanks again.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Benji Ramsaur]

Peter,

You said "And, to require an analogy to identically correspond to its intended object--which is what I hear you suggesting--grossly overstates analogous inquiry."

I don't think that is what I am saying. If you have James Montgomery Boice's "Foundations of the Christian Faith", I would encourage you to look at the analogy he gives on pg. 212.

I think his analogy is fair without identical correspondence.

[Benji Ramsaur]

Sorry Peter, it is not Pg. 212, but 213.

[Benji Ramsaur]

Peter,

Allow me to add on to Boice's analogy because I noticed that he just dealt with the inability of an animal in relation to its nature:

If the nature of a carnivore was changed to a herbivore, then the eating habits would change for that animal and vice versa.

[William Marshall]

Bro. Peter,

I don't understand this sentence: "if a man attempts with all his being to self-destruct (which is what the analogy makes clear), I'm confused as to how "too much credit" remains for them to seek after God." Are you referring to both men in the analogy or only the one who chose to reject God's offer? Sorry, just trying to understand your comment.

wm

[J. K. Jones]

Yes to number 1. And God convinced Him / gave him a new heart to recieve blessings.

[J. K. Jones]

A person must be born again, and part of that experience is being convinced. "Being made willing" is not the only phrase used. See the Westminster Cofnession's "enlightening their minds, spiritually and savingly, to understand the things of God, taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his almighty power determining them to that which is good" (Chapter 10).

How can you enlighten the mind to understand without convincing?

[J. K. Jones]

Amen. The first story has God showing up uninvited to work on the hearts and wills of the men in the story. I like what you say.

[Ron Hale]

J.K.
I'm open to learn; where does it say in Genesis that God convinced Him/gave him a new heart to receive blessings?

[Don Johnson]

Ron,

You are correct. God does not give a new heart UNTIL one believes. The new heart always comes after faith, never before.

[peter lumpkins]

J.K,

None of the other language is relevant, J.K., neither to the point I've made here nor to the success of the parable, unless you interpret "being made willing" to be significantly less than I presume Strict Calvinists, in fact, mean by it.

As for your final question, one has to laugh: "How can you enlighten the mind to understand without convincing?" Excuse me?

J.K., you're either not reading the comments, not paying attention, or are very forgetful Frankly, either one makes me want to just drop it. Here's why. The last comment you wrote to me above (#9), you virtually cloned my question to you as I showed in comment #10. Now you do virtually the same thing again by inquiring how one may be enlightened without convincing. J.K., I asked a series of questions amounting to the same thing above:

"Dead men do not need convinced hearts; dead men require new, spiritually resurrected hearts. What could they spiritually hear to convince them? What could they spiritually see to persuade them? What could they spiritually embrace to change them? They are spiritual corpses. They cannot believe anything. Hence, how can they be persuaded to believe what is not possible?"

J.K. the question you ask is one you must ask yourself presumably as a Calvinist. As a non-Calvinist, I assure you, there is no problem whatsoever in answering your question, for non-Calvinists, as a general rule, do not assume nothing spiritually exists to persuade as do Strict Calvinists. Persuasion makes sense in a non-Calvinist paradigm because non-Calvinists do not presume the total inability of those who hear; Strict Calvinists do. No ears exist to ear persuasion to faith without first being born again.

But even so, persuasion still does not fit after the new birth either, because one who is born again is irresistibly brought to faith. In short, one cannot *not* believe; one *must* believe. Hence, to speak of being persuaded to believe what cannot be disbelieved is patently absurd.

Try all you wish but it seems to me persuasion is a theological fish out of water in Strict Calvinism.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

William,

Actually, take your pick.

On Calvinist assumptions, I think it's clear that "Bob" had no ability whatsoever in responding to the officer's pleas. In other words, he could not hear what was "best" or "safe" for him, and chose to self-destruct by diving toward the water. The officer catching him in mid-air flinging him back shows no signs of cooperation (synergism) on his part. And, the poke in the neck is indicative of something completely outside himself to accomplish and at the complete discretion of the officer to use (sovereignty), a means denied to, or rather, "passed over" Dan (unconditional election).

Hope this helps.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Benji,

Unfortunately, no Boice in stew. Sorry.

With that, I am...
Peter

[michael]

Peter,

From where I sit I would observe that one of the brilliances of the analogy is the helicopter!

Without the "Law" I would not know I covet! I would not know I was dead in trespasses and sins. I will be bold and assert that the substance inside the needle is the Law of Righteousness coming alive in me and I died following it's work in me.

Rom 7:9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died.
Rom 7:10 The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me.
Rom 7:11 For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me.

The words above from the commenter William Marshall with that caveat that the helicopter represents the Law of Righteousness coming alive in me makes sense then. Setting aside the premise of a Strict Calvinist and non-Calvinist and just dealing with a person dead in trespasses and sins, his words would make sense, then; here, his words: Thus, to follow Bro. Peter's analogy: the men have always been fishing over sharks, they have always been in grave danger, their boat has always been sinking, they just don't know it. They love where they are. They love their sin (their 'fishing') and if left to themselves they would fish themselves all the way into the water. Their minds are blinded (2 Cor. 4:4). What they need is to have their eyes opened to the danger all around them (the cost of sin). They need to see the beauty of Christ and why they are so desperate for Him. God must shine in their hearts (an act that Paul connects with creation) "to give the light of the knowlege of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ" (2 Corinthians 4:6). When God does this, men turn from their sins and trust in Christ. Until God does this, no man will ever leave the boat (their sin)

However, one thing does seem to puzzle me when you respond to Dr. Willingham this way. It seems your analogy breaks apart by these words and it strikes me odd that it does IMO:

A couple of things. First, I fear you do not consider the full implications of strict Calvinism. In strict Calvinism, "convincing" remains utterly irrelevant. Spiritually dead men cannot be convinced of anything. It is impossible to convince them--utter spiritual inability makes it impossible. Hence, the necessity for extraordinary measures--a poke in the neck before they irresistibly respond.

Unlike strict Calvinism, non-Calvinism is not dependent upon a poke in the neck; or, if it is required as in classical Arminianism among others, it is in the form of 'prevenient grace' but does not irresistibly necessitate submission. Hence, "convincing" and "convicting" are very appropriate considerations (cp. John 16:7-16).

[J. K. Jones]

God called out to Adam (Gen. 3:9). God didn't wait for the man to come to him. God called and the man responded.

[J. K. Jones]

Peter,

“As a non-Calvinist, I assure you, there is no problem whatsoever in answering your question, for non-Calvinists, as a general rule, do not assume nothing spiritually exists to persuade as do Strict Calvinists. Persuasion makes sense in a non-Calvinist paradigm because non-Calvinists do not presume the total inability of those who hear; Strict Calvinists do. “
Answer plainly, please:
If God can convince anyone, why doesn’t He convince everyone? (Why does the Almighty fail to do something He tries to do?)

Some of what you are saying is true, but I am evidentially not very clear in my presentation, or you would have grasped it.

God works new birth in the heart by the Word and His Spirit. He changes a person’s mind. The person with a new heart is convinced because he is given ears to hear, but he is still convinced by a message that should convince everyone. His blinders are removed, and there is much to see.

The person with a new heart repents and believes. He does this, not God. It is of his own free will/agency, his will having been freed of its bondage to sin.

I’ll recommend a short book at this juncture: “A Primer on Free Will” by John H. Gerstner. It is a defense of the Calvinist notion of 'free will' by a first-rate Calvinist theologian.

With That I Am,

JK, Presbyterian Layman

[peter lumpkins]

Ron,

I think our brother J.K. may be missing with your point as he missed with mine concerning persuasion. In order to be persuaded to *act on* or *believe* something, there must first exist one who is able to respond to stimuli. To you he replied, "God called and the man *responded*" (emphasis mine). If the man is spiritually dead--i.e. total inability--as Strict Calvinists maintain, what in man responds?

It seems to me one cannot have his theological cake and eat it too.

With that, I am...
Peter

[J. K. Jones]

Interesting you do not address me directly. I don’t do this sort of thing for a living. I am an engineer by education and training. Please be patient with me.

Of course God changed Adam's heart, or he would not have responded. God changed Adam's heart through His call. “…how are they to believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?”

How do I know this? Because “unless a man is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God” and "the flesh profits nothing" and "no one comes to [Jesus] unless the Father who sent [Jesus] draws him.” The New Testament interprets the Old Testament for us.

[J. K. Jones]

There is another book that might be helpful: "Physicians of Soul” by Peter Masters. Regeneration is a process.

What good is it to have cake unless you eat it?

[Ron Hale]

J.K.
The book of Genesis is very helpful; it is the best book that I can recommend to you. For if you get it right in the "beginning" you will have it right.

Adam and Eve had a free will "before" the fall. Man was created in the image of God [Gen. 1:27].

They took of the fruit and did eat after being commanded not to eat of the tree. They even chose to make excuses about this "free choice" after God called out to them in Gen. 3:9.

Adam blamed the Woman. Eve blamed the Serpent. And the Serpent didn't have a leg to stand on. :)

After the fall into sin, we see that the image of God in man is "not" totally erased. Adam can "hear" and "respond" to God even though he is spiritually dead. There is no hint of total inability in Gen. 3.

There is no mention in Gen. 3:9 that God regenerated Adam's heart.

The only indication [hint] of salvation in Gen. 3 comes in Gen. 3:21 where it says, "The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them."

Blood had to be shed for this skin covering. Adam and Eve had covered their shame with fig leaves. God offered them the skins. Did they choose to receive them? Did they choose to recieve them in repentance and faith?

We'll know in eternity.

But, we know from reading Gen. 3:9 ... there is no mention of a changed heart from the calling out from God. God was seeking them out and showing them their sin. And they played the blame game.

[peter lumpkins]

J.K.

While you quote me correctly, I fail to see the connection between the question posed and your quote from me. I asserted the *total inability* of the Strict Calvinist paradigm that stands as the deal-breaker on the issue, a deal-breaker not inherent to non-Calvinism (whether semi-Augustianism, Arminianism, or the so-called semi-pelagianism). Strict Calvinists shoot themselves in the theological foot by pleading *total inability* but nonetheless insisting on a "response to God's call" (as did you in your response to Ron). Please read my comment to Ron (#34).

As for your question, J.K., "If God can convince anyone, why doesn’t He convince everyone? (Why does the Almighty fail to do something He tries to do?)..." (bold mine). I do not know the answer to that, but I am comfortable suggesting this: framing redemption in terms of *raw power* as you seem to do (note the bold words) is, from my perspective, misguided.

If the question is whether God possesses the ability to persuade everyone, hands down every Bible-believing non-Calvinist would readily say, "Of course!" just as every Strict Calvinist I suspect would respond to inquiry whether God could monergistically rebirth every human being if He desired to do so. Power on God's behalf is not in question from anyone in the theological pack I run.

The significant question is, according to biblical revelation, how has an omnipotent God chosen to normally deal with wayward, rebellious creatures He made in His image, especially in dealing with them for redemptive purposes. In Strict Calvinism, total inability implies the necessity of an irresistible divine "zap" (no disrespect intended) since no ability exists in a spiritually dead corpse. Such is a fundamental difference between Strict Calvinists and non-Calvinists like myself. Consequently, there is no persuasion involved. Persuasion presumes the existence of human ability to be persuaded. Strict Calvinism presumes a spiritual vacuum.

For me, I simply do not read the biblical material teaching this.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

J.K.

Sorry. I meant no disrespect toward you in speaking to Ron (we're friends). But know this is a public thread. Know also none of us blog for a living or are professional thelogians (so far as I know).

I'm in and out, having to deal with domestic issues...

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Oh, by the way, J.K: I have Gerstner's book. And, if I may, I do not think there is a more explicit denial of free human agency available than John Gerstner's position. And, for the record, he unfortunately went theologically wacko before he died fully embracing theological Hyper-Calvinism.

With that, I am...
Peter

[volfan007]

Peter,

Those nasty, little facts that you keep bringing up seems to always stand in the way of people feeling good about thier SYSTEM of theology.

God bless you, Peter.

David

[J. K. Jones]

Don't you see that your admission that God could convince everyone but chooses not to leaves you in the same boat as a Calvinist? God chooses to convince some and chooses not to convince others. God tries hard enough with some and not hard enough with others. Whatever the reason he chooses not to, that is the fact.

Gerstner's book is a good one. It denies libertarian free-will, but not free-will / agency. He follows Johnathan Edwards.

People are given the ability to be persuaded by the action of God.

I am not familiar with Gerstner's writings in which he went hyper-calvinist. I do note that you do not use the term hyper-calvinist with much precision. You would probably consider me one, even though I am as evangelistic as the next Christian.

I hope and pray the domestic issues you refer to are easily resolved.

[J. K. Jones]

volfan? As in Tennessee Volunteers. I hope so, I am the fourth generation of my father's family to attend UT.

I don't feel good about any theological framework I hold. That is, I am not so comfortable with it that I will not learn or change to fit the facts.

[volfan007]

JK,

I'm glad that you're a TN boy. Peter is also a TN boy. And, yea, I'm a TN Vol fan. My dad is a TN Vol fan. And, his daddy would've been one, if he'd have known what a football was. But, he lived so far back in the hills that he probably never even heard of a football.

Anyway, JK, in comment #42, when you said, "God chooses to convince some and chooses not to convince others. God tries hard enough with some and not hard enough with others. Whatever the reason he chooses not to, that is the fact;" you're kind of missing the point. I really think that you're really delving into the realm of speculation. But, what Peter is saying is that man really does have a choice. That's why he can be persuaded, or not persuaded. It's not that God chooses to do enough to cause one person to be saved, and He chooses to not do enough to bring the other person to salvation. It's more of a person really having a choice to make, with the light that he has shed upon him.

You see, it's like with the serpent on a pole, in the wilderness, with Moses and the children of Israel. The pole was put up for all to see; all could be healed; IF they'd just look at the serpent on the pole in faith, to be healed. Those that looked in faith were healed. Those that didnt look to the serpent on a pole...for whatever reason they didnt look...died of the poisonous snake bite. But, they could've been healed. They chose to not do it; it was not that God didnt want them to be healed. It was not that God "did enough" to cause some to look, and He "didnt do enough" to cause others to look. It's just that some did, and some didnt; although they could have all been healed. But, God is the One, Who told them to make a pole with a snake on it. It was God, Who chose to heal all those snake bitten people, who would look in faith. It was God, Who did the healing. All the people had to do was to look to God in faith...no works...in faith, and they would experience the healing of God and His healing power.

The same with salvation, JK. John 3.

David

[peter lumpkins]

J.K.

To the contrary, J.K, my agreeing (not 'admission') God could do A--i.e. He possesses the raw ability to do A--implies nothing about being "in the same boat" as Strict Calvinists.

What I suggested is, biblical revelation does not teach as the normal way God deals with rebellious, sinful human beings, God's raw power. Rather, it's about method or means if you will. Powers needs no means nor expects response, and therefore requires no persuasion. Power does; power acts; power forces. And, in Strict Calvinist positions, the power stands unequivocally irresistible.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

J.K.

You may believe as you wish about Gerstner's little denial of free will and embracing philosophical determinism. Understand, however, there is much more to be said than Gerstner's ABC booklet.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

J.K.,

A couple of things I note overlooked in the comments to me. It's been one of those days (oh, and I appreciate the blessing you plead my way).  First, Gerstner stated his allegiance to Hyper-Calvinism in the foreword to David J. Engelsma's book, Hyper-Calvinism and the Call of the Gospel.

Second, you suggest I do not employ “hyper-calvinist with much precision.”  To the contrary, I am very picky about whom I label a Hyper-Calvinist.  Consistent with my precaution, so far as I know, only one person I’ve actually dubbed as Hyper-Calvinist  on this site (James White; but now it’s two with John Gerstner).  Apparently, however, you are aware of many other loose usages of the term, since you claim I lack “precision” in employing it.  If you get a chance, please let me know of them.

With that, I am…

Peter

[J. K. Jones]

Volfan007 and Peter,

Okay. We must agree to disagree on the persuasion issue. I will put in another plug for the first major section of Peter Master’s book “Physicians of Souls.” He’s the current pastor at the Metropolitan Tabernacle in London. He points out that the Puritans would agree with me contra John Murray.

Peter,

There is another aspect to this. I herby grant your analogy in order to argue a different aspect (I don’t really agree with it, I just want to point something out).

How would a real police officer respond in the situation you are describing in scenario #2? Would he do what is necessary to save the life of the man irrespective of the man’s wishes? It would not be the first time that a police officer foiled a suicide attempt, and a suicide attempt is exactly what you are describing.

I do not think that we are under obligation to grant the wishes of those who are insane. I would submit that unregenerate people fit the definition of insanity quite well. Their wills are so bound to sin that they will not make a decision to accept Christ, even though the decision to accept Christ is the only rational one in their case. Regeneration frees a person more so that it binds a person.

Of course, God is different from the police officer. He could save everybody. He just chooses not to do so. He owes salvation to no one. Anyone He saves is a recipient of grace.

Peter,

I was referring to the fact that I don’t think White is hyper. Of course, as with Gerstner, I have not read everything the man has written.

You mention “ABC.” Please share with me a full book title. I would like to look up your references.

I would be very interested to know what it is exactly that makes either of these two hyper. If you have already posted on this somewhere, you could just give a link. My Grandfather was a Primitive Baptist Elder, so I have had an up close and personal view of “hard-shell” hyper-Calvinism.

JK

[peter lumpkins]

JK,

Thanks.  And, I am perfectly amenable to leaving it as a disagreement on persuasion.

As for your comment about the analogy, I do not think at all the element of "insanity" assists in critiquing the analogy or accurately portrays what the Bible reveals about total depravity whether it be the 'total inability' brand of Strict Calvinists or the human depravity focus of non-Calvinists.  Indeed it would be necessary to modify the term "insanity" so much from its normal usage as to create fundamental confusion on various levels.

Further, I do not disagree with your focus on freedom from bondage. I think such closely resembles what Wesleyans and other Arminians and Non-Calvinists mean by 'prevenient grace' (or, in my case, what Jesus means in John 16 about the Holy Spirit "convicting the world of sin...").  So far so good.  However, JK, that's only one side of the proverbial coin.  The other side is, for Strict Calvinists (and to a lessor extent all Calvinists), *freedom from* is simply not good enough. Rather, even if a person *is freed* from shackles, no guarantee exists they will turn to Christ. Hence, it is not the beauty of Christ that draws them, but irresistible electing grace that compels them. Or, in WCF's clear phrase, "being made willing."  They cannot not disbelieve; they *necessarily must* believe.

This side of the coin becomes the tipping point for non-Calvinists such as myself who see no such template in Scripture.  Indeed this formula works well when speaking of matter. Rocks are acted upon by force. They do not nor are capable of resisting. On the other hand, we are not mere matter; rather we are beings made in God's image, in God's likeness. Albeit fallen, we nonetheless actually do respond to stimuli.

For my part, Calvinist are entirely misguided in citing--as R.C. Sproul so often does--the creation of matter in Gen 1-2 as indicative of the way God relates to us as human beings. 'He spoke and it was,' they say, 'and matter did not resist the Sovereign." True. All true.  Yet to apply such as the normal way God deals with humans made in His image is fundamentally unwarranted, and goes against the grain of biblical revelation.  Anyways...

As for the "ABC", my apologies.  I was referring to several little books by Gerstner which he penned, one of which is the free-will denial you referenced.  Another is entitled "The ABC's of Assurance." I have several of them. My mind was on the "ABCs" when I wrote the comment. I frankly recalled the series being entitled the "ABCs" because of the length I suppose.  Anyways, my apologies for the confusion...

As for White & Gerstner being Hyper-Calvinists, I suggest you digest David Allen's chapter in Whosoever Will, who documents thoroughly James White’s views as Hyper-Calvinism. Also, Tony Byrne has much to say on both White and Gerstner, who, in the foreword I mentioned above, does not embrace the well-intentioned offer of the gospel to all people--a key indicator of Hyper-Calvinism.  Tony (himself a convictional Calvinist) focuses on primary documents and has perhaps the largest collection of primary documents pertaining to Hyper-Calvinism on the net.

Hope that helps.

Grace, JK.

With that, I am…

Peter

[J. K. Jones]

“…even if a person *is freed* from shackles, no guarantee exists they will turn to Christ.”

I disagree. The message of what Christ has done is so captivating that a person freed from the bondage of sin could not possibly fail to follow it. They have new life and new goodness within them, and they flee to Christ as naturally as sparks fly upward. They choose.

Westminster: "This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man, who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit, he is thereby enabled (!) to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it.[Chpt. 10, 2.]"

If a person does not freely offer the gospel to all, I would agree they are hyper. I will check it out.

Thanks for the references. I will review ASAP.

As for “Whosoever Will,” I am working up a full critique of that book for a series of blog posts over at my place. I will finish each chapter. I’ve been away from the project for a while because I am in grad. school at Union University. Their MBA program has me quite busy right now.

Thank you for being a gracious host on your blog. I will return. I find much we agree upon.

JK