« Closing in on Ed Stetzer: My 350th Tweet! by Peter Lumpkins | Main | 1 Corinthians 4:7: Does it Distinguish Between the Saved and the Unsaved? by Peter Lumpkins »

2010.12.14

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Diana

wow Peter - great post.

Ron Phillips, Sr.

Peter,

My favorite line from this post is your last, which truly sums up our Baptist heritage: Being Baptist I need not lay claim to either.

AMEN!

Blessings,

Ron P.

A.M. Mallett

This is a good endorsement of William's on-line work. The young man professes what he has come to believe through ardent study of scripture and has disciplined himself with irenic purpose.
I am still remaining, years now, for a Calvinist to "name some".

Debbie Kaufman

Peter: You cannot use a human being to try and explain the work of God. God is God and has the power to do anything, even change a heart to understand and accept the Gospel. Human beings do not have that power. Your example is flawed in that respect.

Bill P

I think both sides may be missing the mark in an attempt to make a clear illustration. The truth is that the person in the fire is spiritually dead. A dead man can make no response! He must be rescued! It would be like preaching in a graveyard and expecting the people to rise from the dead. God must first quicken the heart, make one born again, open the eyes and then the person can respond in faith and repentance.

Frankly I think both sides in this debate should spend more time preaching a clear Gospel message to all people and all nations. I am happy being Baptist and partnering with all those who preach the Gospel clearly and call all mankind to faith and repentance in Christ.

Bill P.

peter lumpkins

Diana

Thanks! Hope you have a great Christmas...

Ron,

Thanks brother. I kinda am partial to that line as well ;^)

Have a great Christmas, my brother...

With that, I am...
Peter

peter lumpkins

Debbie,

"You cannot use a human being to try and explain the work of God..." I think in light of the Man from Galilee, you perhaps need to take your objection up with God Himself...

Bill P.

You write, "I think both sides may be missing the mark...The truth is that the person in the fire is spiritually dead. A dead man can make no response!"

And, just what do you think is meant by the "foreign language" and "The “Fireman” does something to Frank to make him change his mind," Bill?

With that, I am...
Peter

William Birch

Bill P.,

A dead corpse cannot believe in Jesus Christ, you're right. But a dead corpse cannot reject Jesus Christ either. Tempt him all the live-long day, but he will not reject Christ. The "dead corpse" analogy is insufficient. "Dead" means "separated" (cf. Eph. 2:1 with 2:12; Luke 15:32; Isa. 59:2).

Paul explicitly taught that faith precedes regeneration: "And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses" (Col. 2:13 ESV).

Note that God "having forgiven us all our trespasses" precedes our being "made alive together with him." First we are forgiven of our sins, and then we are made alive, or born again. Paul taught that we are only forgiven and justified by grace through faith in Christ (cf. Eph. 2:8; Rom. 5:1). Hence faith precedes regeneration.

I will not soon forget when a five-point Calvinist seminarian friend of mine discovered this in Greek class. He approached his five-point Calvinist professor at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary and asked him how this can be if regeneration must precede faith. The professor was stumped.

My friend is still a Calvinist, but he no longer believes the philosophical theory that regeneration precedes faith because Scripture itself does not teach it.

God bless.

William Marshall

Bro. Pete,

My struggle (and perhaps others) with the Arminian perspective takes a slightly different slant. I acknowledge that neither you nor William Birch nor any other believer that I know want to take credit for saving themselves. We all agree that God gets glory for our salvation. Thus, Birch is right to claim: "It is utter nonsense to suggest that the Arminian saves him- or herself, and thus garners all the credit."

Yet, the question that hangs me up is what distinguishes the believer from the non-believer in the Arminian understanding of salvation? As you imply in your analogy, God is not the difference because He treats both (or all three) the same. So then, why is Frank saved and not Joe or Bill? The Arminian answer is that Frank is saved because he chose to follow and both Joe and Bill did not. In one sense, the Calvinist would agree. Yet, why did Frank choose and Joe and Bill refuse? What differentiates them? The Arminian will reply: 'They distinguish themselves by their individual choices. God did not distinguish between them. The difference between the saved and the unsaved is the choice of man.' If the above is true, then even if Frank does not get credit for his salvation, he does get credit (or glory) for distinguishing himself from Joe and Bill. He made the right choice in and of himself and they made the wrong one in and of themselves.

So, how does the Calvinist deal with this? The Calvinist agrees that Frank must chose (he must repent and believe), but that choice (man's choice) is based upon God's choice (election). Thus, what distinguishes believers from non-believers for the Calvinist is not man's choice but God's choice. We have no glory over God or even over those who are not believers.

Of course, the question remains: which does the Bible teach? Does the Bible say that God's choice is based upon man's choice (more Arminian view of election) or man's choice is based upon God's choice (Calvinist view)? That is perhaps an oversimplificaton of the issues, but it is an important (and I think helpful) question. Thanks,

wm

Stephen M. Garrett

Dear Peter:

Why the Difference?

"For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?" (I Cor. 4: 7)

The Arminian view of election represents the Father as choosing those who have made themselves different from others by an independent act of their free wills. They differ from another, not because God has made them different, but because they have made themselves different. But Paul, in this passage, represents saving differences as the result of God's giving.

Paul argues that this gracious system or paradigm of conversion, eliminates all boasting, or crediting oneself. The opposite system, where the creature is credited with making the difference, does in fact promote creature boasting. If I am the one who has made myself different, then I may take credit for that difference. But, Paul argues that sinners cannot credit themselves for their being different.

If they have faith, and therefore differ from others who are without faith, then they can only give God the credit for it, he being the one who made them different by giving to them what he did not give to another.

Why was one part of the lump of clay chosen for becoming a vessel of mercy and the other part not? Was one part of the clay different from the other part and God selects the better part? Does not the apostle say that the vessels of mercy come from "the same lump" as the vessels of wrath? If all parts of the lump are the same, then he is not choosing to make part of it into vessels of mercy because it is different from the other part. A difference does come to the clay, but it is not a difference naturally, but a difference that results from the choice and work of the Potter.

Barnes, in Barnes notes, said "That proud Arminian, Grevinchovius (17th century Dutch theologian), in answer to this text, said,

"I make myself to differ; since I could resist God, and divine predetermination, but have not resisted, why may not I glory in it as of my own?'"

Why did one person heed the fire warning and obey? Is God the one who is to be credited with the difference? Or, can the person who heeded the warning say to those who did not heed, "It is your fault for not heeding?" And, conversely, can the one who heeded not thank himself for heeding?

Will the one who heeded say to God - "you made me to differ from the one who did not heed?"

Blessings,

Stephen

peter lumpkins

William,

Thanks for logging on. I'll try later in the evening perhaps to get back on. I have to prepare for airport to pick up Berry & family. They're from Sweden...

Stephen

Thanks. See above.

With that, I am...
Peter

Mary

I'm going to try to articulate something as this is rolling about in my mind and I don't know if I can do it well, but here it goes.

Calvinist often ask the question "Why does one man choose and another not?" And my first thought is "who knows?" does the Bible explain this? I think the answer has to do with pride which of course goes back to why did Adam eat the apple. To use the fire analogy, those who chose not to go with the firemen probably had thoughts of this fire isn't so bad or is this fire even real? Or I can save myself by doing this or that "right" thing. Ultimately the "fireman" isn't going to just allow me to perish in the fire. Or I don't believe in the fireman and nothing is going to happen once the fire completes it's destruction. No life after the fire.

You oftern hear "well course if man had free will he'd choose to not go to hell" Really? He could not choose to think God's not real or hell's not real or he's not really that bad and in danger.

So I say all that to get to this point if I can state it clearly - If the Bible teaches that men choose, yes or no and someone is saying to themselves "well the problem that I have with that position is I don't know why anyone would make the wrong choice" then it would seem what they're really saying is God is not making sense to me, I can't put him in a box and since I can't understand it then it must not be true.

Not all of our questions have answers, but if anyone is saying "I like this position better than that one because it makes sense to me," I think you have to be careful of cramming your doctrine into the Bible rather than allowing the Bible to dictate doctrine.

Now of course I understand people are going to say "well it's not my thoughts but what I believe the Bible says" but if one is given Biblical evidence contrary to what you believe the Bible teaches and you reject those arguments based on what you believe intellectually without backing it up with the Bible then are you relying on your intellect or the Bible. At the end of the day it has to be "this is what I believe the Bible teaches" period and not "this way makes sense to me so I believe this is what the Bible teaches." And of course everyone will say "of course this is what the Bible teaches." It just seems when you wander around thinking just because we don't get a clear answer to this question or that one that it's not really what the Bible teaches that we're looking for but answers to some philosophical question or another so we can pat ourselves on the back for putting God in a neat tidy box and say "Yes I have God all figured out".

William Birch

William Marshall and Steven Garrett,

I decided to respond to you both very briefly, since you share a common argument regarding humanity being the decisive figure in salvation.

First, in Arminian theology, God is still the One deciding factor in humanity's salvation, since salvation is first and foremost His idea -- His action -- His power. His desire is that all be saved (1 Tim. 2:4); though we all know that all will not be saved (Matt. 7:21-23; Rev. 20:11-15).

Second, God has decided to save "those who believe" (1 Cor. 1:21; cf. John 3:36). I have no doubt that you both agree with this. But where in Scripture are we taught that God has decided that this one will believe, by God's eternal decree, and not another -- again, by the same (or, in the double predestinarian's mind, another) eternal decree?

Jesus said, "Everyone who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. . . . And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand" (Matt. 7:24, 26 ESV).

From the Calvinist's point of view, it would appear that Christ Himself is granting the "wise" believer credit for his or her salvation. But we know this is not the case. A person is not credited for his or her deliverance (say, from drowning) by stretching out his or her arm to the one in the boat ready and able to save. If the savior in the boat had not come along, with a desire to save, then that person could not be saved. Still, all credit goes to the savior and not to the one saved.

In a similar manner, the individual graced of God to believe (John 6:44, 65; 16:8-11; Rom. 2:4; Eph. 2:8-9; Phil. 1:29) must still believe -- meaning that you must believe: God will not believe for you. Believing in Christ is in no fashion a work or a credit (Rom. 4:4-5). Instead, God has promised to justify the one who believes in Christ (Rom. 4:3).

God bless.

Debbie Kaufman

Peter: The Man from Galilee was 100% human and 100% God.

Don Johnson

William Birch,

You are correct in stating Col. 2:13 clearly teaches that faith precedes regeneration. Even though there are several other verses which also teach the same truth, Col. 2:13 should by itself show the Calvinist doctrine of "irresistible grace" has some problems.

peter lumpkins

Debbie,

Which does nothing to the point I made. Even so, not really interested in an exchange with you.

I trust you and your family have a merry Christmas and wonderful New Year.

With that, I am...
Peter

Don Johnson

William Marshall,

I agree the question to ask is "what does the Bible say."

Though I'll get some heat on this, I'll give you what I believe the Bible teaches.

I believe in the matter of salvation, the Bible teaches God chooses or elects a person when they become saved. Just as Israelites become part of the elect nationally by their physical birth, so too those who have trusted Christ as their Saviour have become God's elect by their spiritual birth.

Its true, God chose certain people for different tasks. Such as Moses to lead the Israelites or who should be king. But in salvation, God choses or elects those who choose Him.

peter lumpkins

William

Thanks.  I always look forward to your comments, William, because you make it very clear you’re not calling into question faith’s integrity of the non-Calvinist when he or she answers the questions different from you. Fully aware of their repulsive inner reaction when it’s unnecessarily pressed they, in fact, *are* consciously and, at times, deliberately robbing God of His exclusively deserved glory for their sincere faith in Christ, you log your dissent with honor and respect.  Know you and the few “Reformed” like you are appreciated.

I understand your struggle, I think, to be the quality which “distinguishes” believer from non-believer in the Arminian understanding of salvation? Birch has already given a worthy response specifically speaking  personally as a self-confessing Arminian believer. I encourage you to exchange with him.  He has similar temperaments to your own approach to this issue and I guarantee you will not be sorry.

With that in mind, I will speak from my own brand of Calvinist dissent (not being a conscious, self-professing Arminian myself) realizing, of course, there will be some overlap in view among most biblical non-Calvinists.

First, when you call for the difference between believer and non-believer, you ipso facto leave God completely out—“God is not the difference because He treats both (or all three) the same.” I ask you, however, what makes you conclude He treats them all the same? While it’s true in a non-Calvinist framework, there is little, if any, focus on a “secret,” unseen “efficacious call” to the elect only in distinction to a more “general” call to all people which presumably in your view distinguishes one man from the other two, still there is no reason to ultimately conclude, at least from heaven’s perspective, “God is not the difference.”  Of course He’s the difference.  God electing those who by faith receive His Son cannot by any stretch be described as “God is not the difference”(Hold on!  I’m not through see below).

Nor is Arminianism’s answer, at least as I see it, “Frank is saved because he chose to follow and both Joe and Bill did not.” I have to tell you, it simply is incorrect to frame the non-Calvinist’s salvific thrust in terms of free will which is precisely what you’re describing when you position the Arminian/non-Calvinist as being saved based upon choosing to follow.  No, the non-Calvinist affirms as does the Calvinist (I hope) that if a person is saved, he or she is saved because the grounds for his or her salvation has been irrevocably and eternally established—the death, burial and resurrection of Christ—and he or she believes the gospel. Simply put, Frank is saved not because he chose to follow Jesus; rather he chose to follow Jesus because He believed on the Lord Jesus. Faith is primary.  Contrarily, both Joe and Bill were not saved not because they chose not to follow Jesus—at least in the primary sense—they chose not to follow Jesus because they did not believe in Jesus. Faith is going to be the distinguishing factor—“by grace are ye saved through faith.”

In my view, Calvinists frequently frame their questions toward non-Calvinists heavily cloaked in terms of “free will,” as if free will is the warp and woof of non-Calvinist soteriology. It is not. Not that there is no substantial difference concerning free will; however, non-Calvinism, so far as I know, does not hang their theological hat on free will’s hook.  Rather it is just one element to consider with the larger focus on faith in the Lord Jesus. Hence the assertion you placed in the Arminian’s mouth is hardly what the thinking Arminian would say: “The difference between the saved and the unsaved is the choice of man.'. No. The difference between the saved and the lost is much, much more—a loving God, a dying Savior, a convicting Spirit. Why on earth you would reduce the sweep of salvation for the non-Calvinist to a single, human decision makes no sense whatsoever, William.  None. 

I do have a question for you. Presumably you believe the difference is God’s electing love.  He chose Frank and chose neither Bill nor Joe and did so from eternity.  Indeed it was fixed long before Bill or Frank was ever born.  In fact, it was so fixed, that nothing Bill or Joe could have done would have changed things in the least.  According to the way I understand your view, it remained impossible for things to be any different than they were on that fateful day. Namely, Frank could not not walk away from the burning building alive, and it remained possible for neither Bill nor Joe to get out alive. Fixed from eternity, Frank was saved and fixed from eternity both Bill and Joe would burn in the flames.  Does this accurately describe your view?  If it does not, please adjust it to suit you.

If I am correct, I am baffled why you would be “hung” on the question of human choice.  Why not, if you want to be “hung” on a question, why not this one: why, of three individuals between whom there is no difference regarding the reasons for God’s actions—that is, all deserved to be burned alive—He fixed it for Frank to be saved but also fixed it for Bill and Joe to burn? Even more problematic, why not ask why God reprobates any, since God is free and able in every sense of the term to save all people since, given your understanding of compatibilist free will, He would not over ride anyone’s freedom and all could be saved? Saving all would not take away from His glory one iota since He gives salvation freely. He owes salvation to no one as we are often reminded by our Calvinist brothers.  

Were I to be asked, the latter two questions are far heavier questions to consider than the one you appear to be “hung” on--precisely how free will theory works itself out in everyday affairs in the Christian experience.

I know I wandered away from home a bit. But blame that on William Birch.  he used all the juicy verses I was going to use ; ^ ) 

Grace, William. I’m sure you’ll have questions. I’ll be glad to get to them as soon as I can.

With that, I am…
Peter 

peter

Stephen,

Thanks. First, one difficulty I note in following your comment, Stephen, (containing the question of which is very similar to William’s, so I’ll refer you to my initial response to him) is the way you characterize the non-Calvinist position. You write, “The Arminian view of election represents the Father as choosing those who have made themselves different from others by an independent act of their free wills” (all emphasis mine here and following). In fact, you repeatedly employ similar descriptors throughout your comment::

  • they have made themselves different
  • the creature is credited with making the difference
  • the one who has made myself different
  • sinners cannot credit themselves for their being different
  • can the one who heeded not thank himself for heeding?

Stephen, you’ve described exactly who?  None other than a faithless, lawless rebel against God. Only people outside Christ reasonably and biblically look to themselves as making the difference in salvation.  You’re describing rank humanism not biblical Arminianism in particular--at least classical, evangelical Arminianism--nor biblical non-Calvinism in general.  Can to point to a single phrase in the theology of biblical Arminianism and/or non-Calvinism which definitively demonstrates your characterization of their view?  If so, I’d like to know it (although see below)

In addition, how do you conclude that, for the Arminian (and presumably all biblical non-Calvinists), that they make themselves different by an independent act of the free will?  Independent act? In what way?  How can an act be independent when it is impossible to perform apart from the special work of grace God works upon the interior of the individual which is precisely what all Arminians and non-Calvinists non-negotiably insist?    The fact remains, there is barely a razor’s edge difference between the classic Arminian and Calvinist at the initial juncture when God meets man’s soul. Now that’s not to say the divine connection is not teased out differently.  It most certainly is.  However, both Arminian and non-Arminian accept, in some measure, what’s come to be called (mostly by the “Reformed”) monergism.  In short, God does the acting on the soul using gospel means. And apart from God’s sovereign acting through gospel means, humans remain hopelessly in their sin.

Hence, the difference is not—non-Calvinists make themselves different by an independent act of free will. To the contrary, non-Calvinists are just as passionate about the inability of “making themselves different” as the strongest Calvinist. Rather the difference seems to me to be: a) the nature of the monergistic work God unilaterally performs in the heart of the individual through gospel means; b) whether or not the monergistic work itself is resistible.

What I hear from most Calvinists (not all) is, the nature of the initial monergistic work through gospel means is equitable to the new birth (a view I realize you reject, Stephen; nonetheless, I still hear it often). Indeed the work God performs at this stage is so powerful and so complete, there is no turning back, no resistance possible, nothing to do but believe. In fact one cannot not believe (more on this below).

On the other hand, for the non-Calvinist, many times they refer to this movement of God as being “under conviction” or the “convicting work of the Holy Spirit.”  Most Arminians dub this “prevenient grace” concerning which no one may come to God apart from this they view as God’s gracious monergistic action (Arminians are not united when the special grace actually comes. For some, God only works this gracious way when accompanied by the preached gospel. For others, they take a more universalistic interpretation based upon Roman 5 arguing Christ’s death made prevenient grace possible for all. Birch is much more capable explaining the differences among Arminians on this than I). Even so, the point I must press is, no biblical non-Calvinist would ever, ever accept the horrible assertion about “making themselves” by an “independent” act of “free will.” Such is theologically repulsive to them.

Additionally, the non-Calvinist (at least this non-Calvinist) insists that the resistibility factor exists as one of the key components which divide the Calvinist from the non-Calvinist.  The question is, is it possible that the monergistic work of God can be fought and resisted successfully? For the Calvinist, the answer is obviously, “No. One cannot resist this work.” For the non-Calvinist, the answer must be, “Yes. This monergistic work can be resisted and successfully fought against. Indeed it may even be rejected, spurned and blasphemed.”  Just as obvious is the reason why they offer different answers.  The nature of the monergistic work. The classical Arminian, for example, argues a depraved person cannot believe for the same reason a Calvinist believes a depraved person cannot believe—inability.  J. Arminius himself argued for a strict Calvinist understanding of total depravity, employing all the biblical metaphors which demand the sinner is “dead” and lifeless and cannot make a “decision” for Christ. He does not want Christ nor the things of God (perhaps I am misunderstanding Arminius and William Birch is welcome to correct my flawed understanding of him).

However—and here is the “catch” so to speak—while the classical Arminian embraces the inability of depraved persons to believe and thus requires the special work of grace to fully enable them to believe the gospel they hear, what they do not demand is what Calvinists add to the equation—the inability to not believe.  In other words, while they believe this grace to be powerful, compelling, and moving, they do not characterize this special grace as an all-powerful, irresistible work of God. Calvinists add this to the mix. Consequently, though non-Calvinists and/or Arminians may find it perfectly agreeable to speak the language of inability with depraved humans requiring God’s divine intervention to be saved on the one hand, but will not hold for biblical reasons this work of grace to be an omnipotent act of God similar to the created ex nihilo order whereby raw matter did not (even could not) resist God’s calling it into existence…when non-Calvinists will not embrace irresistible grace, they are strangely (and wrongly) described as being able to “save themselves” or “create themselves” by a single “independent act of free will.” For my part, this is grossly unfair not to mention the objection itself rests squarely on the assumption that the question of irresistible grace is not a biblically objectionable doctrine.

A few other matters in your comment, Stephen, are notable but I’ll be very brief.  First, you summarized Paul’s words in 1 Cor 4:7 as his “gracious system or paradigm of conversion [which], eliminates all boasting, or crediting oneself.” For the record, Paul was not discussing conversion and he’s certainly not formulating a “system or paradigm of conversion.” Rather he is concerned that the Corinthians lay down their jealousies toward one another (especially concerning the spiritual charismata) and cease being “puffed up” which was destroying their unity and creating division.

Second,  you cite Albert Barnes who says of Remonstrant, Nicolaus Grevinchovius, “"That proud Arminian, Grevinchovius (17th century Dutch theologian), in answer to this text, said, "I make myself to differ; since I could resist God, and divine predetermination, but have not resisted, why may not I glory in it as of my own?'"  A couple of things:  first, I looked in Barnes and could not find the reference to Grevinchovius from Romans 9.  However, I did find John Gill’s comments on Proverbs 8:13 referring to him: “it is the height of arrogancy in a man to conceit he a power to regenerate, renew, and convert himself, and, with the haughty Arminian, Grevinchovius, to say, he has made himself to differ from others; this must be hateful to Christ, by whose Spirit and grace this only is done…” Clearly, Gill associates Grevinchovius with the human ability to regenerate ones self.  If applicable to Grevinchovius’s actual position or not I do not know. As for Barnes’ use of him, could you check the reference again and let me know? 

Second, if these words are accurate, you’ve done what, heretofore, no one has accomplished, Stephen (at least so far as I have challenged them to produce some type evidential sources for the idea of acceptable "self-glory"). I have repeatedly asked for a representative from the Arminian and/or non-Calvinist position who, in fact, embraces the idea that self-glory is morally acceptable. If correct, ever how much I or anyone else would find the quote repulsive, you apparently have produced at least one Arminian who may have embraced such a despicable idea. I intend to check into this a bit further. Thanks.

With that, I am…

Peter 

peter

Mary,

I think you’ve well articulated what we must openly admit—the Bible does not attempt to fully answer all our questions we may pose.  You reasonably ask, “Why does one man choose and another not?" And my first thought is "who knows?" does the Bible explain this?” No, it does not, at least not in any straight forward way so far as I can tell.  There are deductions we make from various texts which may imply an answer. But as honest students of Scripture we express logically deduced doctrines with an extra measure of caution else we may end up, with Catholics, affirming the Immaculate Conception.

You further conclude,

It just seems when you wander around thinking just because we don't get a clear answer to this question or that one that it's not really what the Bible teaches that we're looking for but answers to some philosophical question or another so we can pat ourselves on the back for putting God in a neat tidy box and say "Yes I have God all figured out".

I think you’ve nailed this one perfectly.  I cannot count the times this question has been posed to me from Calvinists: “Why does one believe but not the other?” Is it because of the one’s superior intelligence?  Wisdom?”  Of course, this is textbook, R.C. Sproul who verbalizes this question every chance he gets. Sproul nicely frames it to place the one questioned on the horns of a dilemma. His point is to demonstrate the one person believes because God chose him to believe and the other person didn’t believe because God passed him by. Predestination. Election. That’s the point. In fact, for Sproul, I don’t know if he ever makes a theological point about any doctrine without somehow, someway connecting the point to predestination (I’m half facetious and half serious!).

For my part, I cannot understand how Sproul can be so concerned about that question when, as I noted to William in the comment I left for him, there are much weightier questions which should carry more burden than this one to which Sproul appears hopelessly addicted.

Thanks, Mary.

With that, I am…

Peter  

William Marshall

Bro. Pete,

Thanks as always for your response. I don't have time to respond to it all, but I will try and answer the questions you asked me.

First, you asked: "why, of three individuals between whom there is no difference regarding the reasons for God’s actions—that is, all deserved to be burned alive—He fixed it for Frank to be saved but also fixed it for Bill and Joe to burn?" This is the exact question that Paul is wrestling with in Romans 9:14-24. God has consistently chosen some (Isaac and Jacob) while rejecting others (Ishmael and Esau) in Israel (9:6-13). Such an assertion brings up the very question you asked: "What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part?" And Paul answers: "By no means" (v. 14). He then goes on to describe God's sovereignty over His own mercy (and hardening) in verses 15-18. Thus, Paul's answer to your question is that God is sovereign over His mercy, over those whom He chooses to pardon (which higlights to me why we call it 'amazing grace').

Of course, that does not sit well with us. And normally we respond with something like your second question: "Even more problematic, why not ask why God reprobates any, since God is free and able in every sense of the term to save all people since, given your understanding of compatibilist free will, He would not over ride anyone’s freedom and all could be saved? Saving all would not take away from His glory one iota since He gives salvation freely." Paul answers this question in verses 19-24. Again, his answer is humbling to us: "Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use" (v. 21). Paul disagrees with your assertion that God would get no more glory if He saved all in verses 22-24. God reprobates some (v. 22) "in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory- even us whom he has called..." (v. 23-24).

I admit that these are humbling (and thus hard) answers to your important questions, but they are nevertheless the answers that the Bible gives. I assume that your approach to Romans 9 is different, but I believe it provides the answers for the questions you asked. Thanks again for your time.

wm

ps Tell Berry and the rest of the family I said hello!! You guys need to come up to Lamberts and get some rolls thrown at you!

William Marshall

William B. and Don J.

I encourage you to go back and look at Colossians 2:13 in its context. I admit, William, when you first brought it up it seemed like a straight forward argument. Yet, when I looked the passage up I noticed that v. 14 helps us in understanding v. 13. Together they say: "And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross." The point that Paul is making is that our forgiveness of sins was purchased by Christ at the cross. He seemingly uses the past tense in Greek (aorist) to agree with the other past tense actions in v. 14('canceling' and 'nailing' which are both aorist participles like 'having forgiven'.) Thus, it seems to me that the point Paul is making is that our sins have been forgiven at the cross. Their punishment was paid at Calvary. Yes, we must believe and the Bible does teach that when we believe our sins are forgiven, but Paul's point here is connecting our forgiveness with the actions of Christ at the cross. Hope that helps,

wm

Robert

Hello Peter,

First of all it is clear from your comments that you are aware of how some theological determinists attempt to use Owens’ arguments (i.e. what makes you to differ, under non-Calvinism the person may take credit for or boast in their salvation) to attempt to frame things so that a person’s DECISION saves him or is THE differentiating factor. All of this is misleading and takes us away from the spiritual realities that are in fact the case.
It is an intentional attempt to set up a dilemma: either accept determinism and unconditional election for the explanation of why some believe and others do not OR accept that since it is our decision that saves us we therefore save ourselves and thus may boast about something we do as being what saves us. This is a false dilemma. One can reject both unconditional election AND reject the other and supposedly only other option, THAT OUR DECISION SAVES US (so we may boast in our actions as what saves us and differentiates us from the unbeliever who makes the DECISION not to trust). What makes this a false dilemma is an unstated assumption on the part of the determinist who is attempting to FRAME the issue to their advantage. It is like dealing with a lawyer who also tries to FRAME things to his advantage, to set you up with a leading question that is supposed to leave you with two alternatives (one which is bad for you and which no reasonable person would want to take and the other which of course proves the lawyers case).

One way out of such false dilemmas is to find a hidden and unstated assumption which once brought out shows the question to be both leading and muddled and wrong headed. The assumption of the determinist who tries so hard to set up the non-Calvinist by this framing trick is this: that our initial decision to trust Jesus for salvation IS WHAT SAVES US. This assumption is false and commits what in philosophy is called a category mistake. Allow me to say a few things that will make clear what the categories are and how this category mistake occurs.

First let’s get two errors out of the way and in seeing these errors we can better see the truth of the situation.

One error made by determinists is to argue and claim that regeneration precedes and CAUSES saving faith. The bible does not teach this and in fact as Billy has already pointed out, faith seems to precede regeneration according to scripture properly interpreted.

Now determinists are then quick to react with the charge/claim/error, that if regeneration does not cause saving faith, then the contrary must be true: saving faith CAUSES regeneration. But this is also false.

It is my understanding that regeneration is a unilateral action by God, that God alone can do, that God alone can bring about, that God alone causes to occur. Here is the truth, regeneration does not cause saving faith, saving faith does not cause regeneration, though faith does precede regeneration in time.

Because faith precedes regeneration in time some may mistakenly believe that, therefore since faith came before regeneration, faith MUST HAVE CAUSED REGENERATION.

But this does not logically follow nor does the bible teach this.

We can easily see this if we take another facet of salvation and see that while it occurs subsequently to our initial saving faith, our initial saving faith does not cause or bring it about. All saved persons will be either raised from the dead (if they are physically dead when Jesus returns) or will have their bodies instantly changed into the spiritual bodies that Paul talks about in 1 Cor. 15, and our term for this is GLORIFICATION. Our initial saving faith precedes this event of glorification in time, does it then logically follow that our saving faith CAUSES or brings about our own glorification? No, I believe most of us would have no problem seeing that Glorification like regeneration is a unilateral action done by God alone that we cannot do ourselves. Is it not true that a saved person, someone who trusts in Christ alone for salvation will experience both regeneration and glorification? And isn’t it true that God alone causes and brings about regeneration and glorification? And isn’t it also true that that our actions of trusting God, faith, do not bring about regeneration or glorification?

We have to carefully distinguish our having faith, which is in fact an action that we do, and God’s unilateral actions which he does in the lives/experience of believers. When I speak of “salvation” I am speaking of the actions that God does. And it seems to me that in each case these are things we cannot do, do not do for ourselves, cannot bring about by our own actions, they are actions that God alone does. And he does these actions in the lives of those who trust Him. Though their actions of trust in themselves do not cause or bring about these actions by God. And this is precisely were in my opinion a lot of people err: they again (as with the false conclusion that since faith precedes regeneration therefore faith must cause or bring about regeneration) ***assume*** that if one event (in this case a person’s initial decision to trust Christ alone for salvation) precedes other events (God’s saving of that individual person). That DECISION made by that individual person must have caused or brought about that person’s salvation.

But that is what is in philosophy called a “category mistake”. This is true because the DECISION to trust Christ alone for salvation is in one category (the actions done by people) and the actions by God including regeneration, glorification, the giving of the Holy Spirit/indwelling of the Holy Spirit, JUSTIFICATION, forgiveness of sins, adoption into God’s family, reconciliation to God, etc. the things we consider to be “salvation” belong into another category (the actions that God does that constitute salvation, the actions that God alone does, that God alone brings about).

People do not carefully distinguish these two categories so you end up with the arguments about what makes you to differ (one chooses to have faith the other doesn’t so the one choosing to have faith “saved” themselves or may boast about “saving” themselves, etc.). If one carefully distinguishes what we do (including choosing to trust God for salvation) from what God does (the actual actions that constitute salvation of an individual, again things like forgiving their sins, justifying them, and glorifying them at the end) much of this unnecessary confusion and misleading arguments disappears.

If we ask some simple questions we see how the actions that God does that constitute our salvation, are not things that we cause or bring about, even by our faith. Do we glorify ourselves at the end of time? Do we raise ourselves from the dead at the end? And how about receiving the Holy Spirit? According to the New Testament, the genuine believer is given the Spirit who then indwells them. Do we give ourselves the Holy Spirit upon our conversion? In order to be in a saving relationship with a holy God we need to have our sins forgiven: can we forgive our own sins and then enter into this relationship with God? According to the bible God alone justifies a person, so can we justify ourselves? If we ask these kinds of questions we quickly see that when it comes to the actions of God that constitute our salvation, in each case they are all actions that God alone does, that we do not and cannot bring about ourselves. And this is precisely why the bible teaches that God alone saves people. Now if I sat down with a theological determinist and asked them these same questions I know they would answer that God alone does each and every one of these things. What is puzzling then is why this same determinist would then attempt to set up the false dilemma by the “what makes you to differ argument?” The classical Arminian as well as other non-Calvinists do not believe that we save ourselves by our initial decision to trust in the Lord.

I find it ironic that some who claim they are “God-centered” (the theological determinists who try to frame things as if they alone are “God-centered” in their thinking while non-determinists are humanists or “man-centered” in their thinking) focus so much upon the initial DECISION to trust, while forgetting that our actions (including choosing to trust God) do not in themselves save us. God alone saves us, God alone does the actions that constitute our salvation.

It is actually quite MAN-CENTERED to focus so much upon the initial decision to trust, as if that single decision is what saves a person. Fact is, that decision does not save a person; it is God’s actions alone that save a person.

I also have problems with so much emphasis on this initial decision because some have in fact held to a false doctrine that I personally call “decisionism” (i.e. if a person makes that initial decision to trust in Jesus they are then saved for eternity regardless of how they live subsequently, regardless of whether or not they supposedly make that decision and then live no different, never mature as believers, never do good works, never become committed disciples of Jesus, hey they made that decision at the Christian camp thirty years ago so they “must be saved”). God’s plan of salvation is not aimed at a single decision but is aimed at a lifetime commitment to following Jesus and living in a way that pleases Him. God’s plan of salvation is to get hold of sinners and transform them so that they actually start becoming Christ-like in their thinking and actions. And need I point out the obvious: Jesus said we are to make disciples of all nations (that means people who become obedient followers of Jesus, who live a lifestyle of obedience and fruit bearing). Or put another way God is not after a single one time decision but he is after restoring a person to a proper relationship with God. And a proper relationship with God is not brought about my just a single decision made at one time but by a lifetime of transformation and obedience and growth.

Part of the confusion is due to the fact that God has designed a plan of salvation in which God chooses to save those who trust Him. So people again make the mistake of thinking that our faith is what saves us, that our faith brings about these actions of God. But our faith does not accomplish these things, God alone does. Now it is true that He does these things in the life and experience of those who trust Him, but these things that He does are **not caused by or brought about by** our faith. He chooses to do these things and always does these things in the lives of those who trust Him, and yet their trust is not what accomplishes these things.

Another illustration may help here. Consider the good works and sins done by believers. When it comes to the grace of God in a believer’s life, there is an asymmetrical relationship between the good we do and the sins we commit. In the case of our good works, God through his Spirit and leading and providence, enables our good works. He gives us the Spirit which gives us the ability to live the Christian life. He leads us to do X and when we do it, we did it through his empowering, his enabling, and the fruit that results is really due to Him (so he gets the glory for it, recall what Jesus said about doing your good works in such a way that your Heavenly Father will be glorified). On the other hand, if God leads us to do X, and we then choose not to do it, and so sin, we alone are responsible for our own sin. When we sin therefore it is always and only our own responsibility, God is never the cause of our sin, and the sin occurs when we choose to respond the wrong way to God’s grace. And yet when we do good, we could not have done that good unless God had enabled it, provided the opportunity to do it, given the grace for us to do it.

It seems to me that something similar is also true when it comes to our initial decision to trust the Lord to save us. If we reject the gospel after having had the Holy Spirit reveal Christ to us (which is an incredible grace given to us that we do not deserve and do not seek for), reveal our spiritual condition to us, reveal many things to us, give us grace to lead us to salvation: then we alone are responsible. We alone are to blame for our rejection of Christ, for our rejection of the grace of God towards us. If instead we choose to believe, make the decision to trust, we were only able to believe, to make this decision because we were enabled to believe by the grace of God. In each case God’s grace preceded our “decision” and enabled us to do the right thing. In each case if we made the wrong “decision” (whether it is the believer not doing the good work God is leading him to do, or the unbeliever rejecting the Spirit leading him to Christ for salvation) it is our responsibility, we alone are to blame. And yet if we choose rightly, if we understand the dynamics of God’s grace we see that God is the one who enabled the good choice, the right decision.

And those who understand that it is God’s grace that alone enables their every good action, will be humble people. No one brags when they realize that all good, and their every good action was only possible due to the grace of God. When we receive a gift we do not brag that we received it. The more we understand the nature of the gift and how unworthy and undeserving we are, the more thankful and humbled we will be (which is why Jesus said the one forgiven more would love more). And if we focus on the grace of God rather than the actions of man (including the initial decision to trust God alone for salvation), we will be God-centered. We will be thankful for God’s grace, not believing that our good actions were ever done “on our own” or independently of God’s grace.

It seems to me that the Owenesque type arguments that attempt to isolate the initial decision and then set up a false dilemma between accepting unconditional election or boasting in your correct decision ignore both the role of the grace of God and ignore the nature of salvation (that God alone does the actions that constitute salvation). They also bring in the false doctrine of “decisionism” which leads people to believe that their initial decision to trust in Christ is what actually saves them (when it does not).

If you present the false dilemma of unconditional election or decisionism to me, I reject both and respond that while our initial decision to trust is important, what is far more important is the actions that GOD ALONE DOES THAT CONSTITTUTE OUR SALVATION. I will also respond that in attempting to set up this false dilemma the determinist is also completely ignoring the grace of God in the whole process of conversion. We cannot save ourselves; we cannot even have the faith to trust God unless that faith is enabled by the work of the Spirit in us. The Owenesque arguments focus solely on, and frame things as if the initial decision to trust, as if THAT is what saves us. And that initial decision is not what saves us, so the whole dilemma falls apart. This assumption that our initial decision is what saves us is “decisionism”, it is not biblical nor should anyone determinist or non-Calvinist hold that false idea in their thinking.

It is interesting that sometimes when you talk to cultists they will attempt to argue that if faith is what justifies us, then that faith since it is something that we do, ***is itself a religious work*** so we end up saving ourselves. Their argument amounts to that if we do anything that is involved in the process by which we are converted, then it really is salvation by works. But the same points made against the cultists on this point (including that while God justifies those who have faith, their faith is not what does the saving God alone does the saving) also go against the theological determinists who sometimes argue similarly (I cannot tell you how many times I have had calvinists argue that if faith is something that I do before I was regenerated, then I save myself, my faith is a religious work that I can then take pride in). There is something very wrong when cultists and determinists are making the same points and attacking saving faith as a religious work in which we may boast. I would much rather focus on the incredible works of God in our salvation, the grace of God that leads us to repentance, than a single decision that we may or may not make. I boast in the Lord and his mighty works of salvation, including his regenerating me, his giving me His Spirit, his forgiving my sins, his leading and guiding me daily, and in the end his preparing me for eternal life with him on the New Earth with my glorified body.

Robert

Ron Hale

Peter,
You ask if some forms of Calvinism are hard to swallow? I know of no "chaser" that can make me swallow the bitter doctine known as Limited Atonement.

peter lumpkins

 

William,

Thanks for attempting to answer some of the questions I asked.  Before I forget, since you skipped over the first question I asked, presumably you have nothing to correct in the way I described my understanding of your view how ultimately God’s sovereign election plays out amongst all three men. Namely,

“…it remained impossible for things to be any different than they were on that fateful day. Namely, Frank could not not walk away from the burning building alive, and it remained possible for neither Bill nor Joe to get out alive. Fixed from eternity, Frank was saved and fixed from eternity both Bill and Joe would burn in the flames”

Am I correct to understand you’ll leave this description in tact? Just wanted to be sure in case it comes back up again in the length of this thread.

Now, toward the questions to which you responded. First, I’d hope you would have begun with a bit better approach than simplistically reading my questions back into Romans 9 anachronistically, William.  Second, you’re approaching Romans 9 with a huge pair of theological scissors, carefully snipping the first portion from its greater, broader section in Romans 9-11.

Third, by citing my question (s) as the “exact question” concerning which the Apostle responded two things follow. First, you are grossly ignoring the contextual matters which work against such a proposal.  Those to whom Paul addressed were undoubtedly ethnic Jews who had thoughts of works, heritage, and adherence to the law constituting the criteria for being blessed by God. No such matters are on the radar of the question I raised.

Also, Paul specifically deals with historical matters and service rendered in the here and now—a national election if you will. In other words, concerning the examples Paul sites, as Godet says, “In speaking of Jacob and Esau, either as men or nations, neither Genesis nor Malachi nor St. Paul have eternal salvation in view; the matter in question is the part they play regarded from the theocratic standpoint.” Other reputable scholars could be cited which obviously does not prove my point. What it does demonstrate quite nicely, in fact, is you are much too confident in assuming the objections to which Paul responds are the “exact questions” I asked.  Sorry, William. It just doesn’t follow.

Paul nowhere in the passage that I can see tips his hand he is wedding his thoughts to the eternal destiny of human souls.  Calvinists such as yourself make that leap for him. Nor does the “potter” metaphor follow along the lines of the brand of predestination to which you evidently adhere.  In the description I offered of my understanding of your view—a description you failed to dispute—the boundaries are eternally fixed which are impossible to breach. In other words, it remained impossible for Frank to burn and equally impossible for Bill and Joe to escape. Paul makes no such assertion concerning the “vessels” whether of “mercy” or of “wrath.” In fact, he seems to indicate all are in unbelief that all might receive mercy (11:34). Elsewhere believers were described as “children of wrath” but had escaped it (Eph 2). Moreover, Jeremiah’s “potter parable” which surely was in the Apostle’s mind did not eternally “fix” the destinies of either men or nations: 

“…Behold, as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel. [However]  If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them... If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them” (Jer 18:6-10, embolden mine).

Hence, from my view to read the highly developed doctrine of eternal predestination into Romans 9 is questionable at best. If I am correct, your conclusion that “Paul disagrees with your assertion that God would get no more glory if He saved all in verses 22-24. …” is hardly fair, William, not to mention, if I may be blunt, a complete copout of dealing with the questions I raised. In fact, you didn’t deal with them.  You merely “proof-texted” them and did so with a bit of smurkiness, I might add—these answers are “humbling” and “hard” and “the” answers the Bible gives. No, William. What you did was quote a few verses which sounded like they applied.

Furthermore, my specific assertion you cite—“that God would get no more glory if He saved all in verses 22-24” is incorrect.  This is what I wrote, “Saving all would not take away from His glory one iota since He gives salvation freely.” Thus I really don’t know what you intend because I didn’t write what you paraphrased.  Thus, it’s frustrating to be placed in juxtaposition with the Apostle Paul based upon a botched quotation.

In the end, I’ll be glad to go through all of Romans 9 if that would help.  But whether or not you accept it, William, you did not answer my questions. You only tried to make me look like I was contending for a position directly and obviously opposed to the Apostle Paul. Hardly fair play, brother. 

With that, I am…

Peter

Robert

Hello Peter,

I saw the proof texting from Romans 9 as well and ignored it as it is a stock methodology of determinists (i.e. simply proof text from Romans 9 ignoring the rest of the book of Romans with the goal of setting things up so the poor non-determinist ends up asking the exact questions the Jewish objector asks in Romans 9!). I liked your comments about this as well as how you brought out into the open that this is in fact proof texting. I want to make some comments on your comments here.

You wrote:

“…it remained impossible for things to be any different than they were on that fateful day. Namely, Frank could not not walk away from the burning building alive, and it remained possible for neither Bill nor Joe to get out alive. Fixed from eternity, Frank was saved and fixed from eternity both Bill and Joe would burn in the flames”
Am I correct to understand you’ll leave this description in tact? Just wanted to be sure in case it comes back up again in the length of this thread.”

One of my problems with exhaustive determinism (i.e. the belief of theological determinists that God has predecided how every event that makes up history will go or as their confession states it that God ordaineth whatsoever comes to pass) is precisely what you bring up here. Namely, if all is predecided by God then EVERYTHING IS ABSOLUTELY FIXED. It is already fixed who will be saved as well as who will be eternally separated from God. It is already fixed every sin and precisely how these sins will be committed (by both unbelievers and believers, our sins are just as fixed and necessitated as the sins of unbelievers). It is like a novel in which the author has already decided every detail, with no exceptions, so it is all fixed. The problem is that if everything is fixed then we never ever have a choice and we do everything we do out of necessity. Our every action is directly, continuously and completely controlled by another person (which is why non-determinists often bring up the “preprogrammed robot” or “puppet” analogies).

A quick and simple way to conceive of a situation in which one person completely controls another person is to imagine a puppet master who controls a conscious puppet. The puppet does nothing that the puppet master did not first decide for the puppet to do (whether these actions be “good” or “evil”), so the puppet master’s will is always done, the puppet never has a choice. and yet according to this deterministic scheme, it is decided beforehand that most human persons will be “reprobates” (these are the puppets whose every action is predecided, whose ever action is necessitated, and yet they end up doing and being exactly the kind of puppets that the puppet master wanted them to be and decided for them to be, and then are ETERNALLY CONDEMNED for being and doing precisely what the puppet master wanted them to be). This doctrine of “reprobation” makes God into a moral monster or as Roger Olson sometimes puts it: difficult to distinguish from the devil. And think about it the bible says the devil comes to seek and destroy. And yet the devil is also a puppet under the direct, continuous and complete control of the puppet master so the devil when he seeks to destroy and creates harm does exactly what the divine puppet master wants him to do!

And regarding the identity of the “reprobates” as opposed to the “elect”, this is completely a matter of luck (or bad luck) on our part if determinism is true. In this actual world, if it was decided beforehand for you to be “elect” that is exactly what you will be (and yet God could just as easily have decided beforehand that you would be “reprobate” if he had decided on another story). So salvation is ultimately a matter of luck (you were lucky to be picked to be elect and the reprobates were unlucky to be picked to be reprobates). What we end up with is a world of puppets with one person who has choices (choices which have already been made) and all other “persons” are simply following their predecided roles for the pleasure of the playwright who conceived the whole play and then ensures that it takes place exactly as he predecided it should go.

I sometimes take people through the book of Romans when I first have disciple them as I want them to know NT theology up front from the get go. If you go verse by verse through Romans you notice that much of it is the apostle Paul dealing with JEWISH OBJECTOR’S to his Christian message of justification through faith in Christ.

Significantly, Paul brings up questions by a hypothetical Jewish objector ***already in Romans 3***. And these same questions are repeated in Romans 9 in the same order with the same Jewish objector being answered. I know someone is PROOF TEXTING if in discussing Romans 9 they isolate the text from the rest of Romans as if the same Jewish objector had not already been dealt with in Romans 3. I also know someone is PROOF TEXTING if they speak of Romans 9 without speaking of Romans 9-11 as the unit which it is.

You wrote:

“Now, toward the questions to which you responded. First, I’d hope you would have begun with a bit better approach than simplistically reading my questions back into Romans 9 anachronistically, William. Second, you’re approaching Romans 9 with a huge pair of theological scissors, carefully snipping the first portion from its greater, broader section in Romans 9-11.”

Not only did he snip out portions of Romans 9-11 from his reference to Romans 9 he also snipped out Romans 3 as well as other passages from Romans.

One of the magnificent things about Romans is that Paul discusses some of the same things in the letter at different places and in slightly different ways, so studying it together gives a fuller picture than isolating passages and ignoring the rest of Romans. Again, a perfect example is that Paul has dealt with the same JEWISH OBJECTOR in Romans 3 with the same questions and in the same order. And yet how often do you hear a determinist point out that the objector of Romans 9 is not a modern non-determinist arguing against the determinist error of unconditional election, but instead is a first century Jewish objector who is troubled and antagonistic towards Paul’s doctrine of justification through faith in Christ as the way of being justified before God rather than by keeping the Jewish law as the Jewish objector believes is the way of justification?

One can always tell an anachronistic proof texting is occurring in Romans 9 when the objector is no longer a first century Jewish objector but a 20th century objector to theological determinism! It is a nifty trick that may fool the unwary, but is not persuasive to those who interpret Romans holistically and in its first century cultural context.

“Third, by citing my question (s) as the “exact question” concerning which the Apostle responded two things follow. First, you are grossly ignoring the contextual matters which work against such a proposal. Those to whom Paul addressed were undoubtedly ethnic Jews who had thoughts of works, heritage, and adherence to the law constituting the criteria for being blessed by God. No such matters are on the radar of the question I raised.”

Precisely. The objector in both Romans 9 and in Romans 3 is the same unbelieving Jewish person who rejects justification through faith in Christ and continues to stumble over the stumbling stone (Paul says this explicitly in Romans 9:31-33 “but Israel [and that includes the unbelieving Jewish Objector dealt with in both Romans 9 and Romans 3] pursuing a law of righteousness did not arrive at that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone. Just as it is written, BEHOLD I LAY IN ZION A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE, AND HE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED.” The one who stumbles and is “offended” by Paul’s doctrine of justification through faith in Christ is PRECISELY the Jewish objector Paul addresses in Romans 3 and Romans 9. Paul go on to further describe the mistake of the unbelieving Jewish objector: “For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. For not knowing about God’s righteousness [and one of the major themes of Romans is revealing “God’s righteousness” which is justification through faith in Christ] and seeking to establish their own [which Paul says in Galatians amounts to making Christ’s death unnecessary, cf. Galatians 2:21 “I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law [which is what the unbelieving Jewish objector believed] then Christ died needlessly [if keeping the Jewish law justifies a person as the Jewish objector believer then you don’t need the atonement of Christ to be justified before God]. This brings up another problem with the anachronistic and self serving but wrong determinist interpretation of Romans 9: Romans should also be studied and interpreted in light of what Paul says in Galatians as well (the same Jewish objector kind of thinking that Paul deals with in Romans is also having a negative effect at Galatia so Paul deals with the same erroneous thinking there as well.

“Also, Paul specifically deals with historical matters and service rendered in the here and now—a national election if you will. In other words, concerning the examples Paul sites, as Godet says, “In speaking of Jacob and Esau, either as men or nations, neither Genesis nor Malachi nor St. Paul have eternal salvation in view; the matter in question is the part they play regarded from the theocratic standpoint.” Other reputable scholars could be cited which obviously does not prove my point. What it does demonstrate quite nicely, in fact, is you are much too confident in assuming the objections to which Paul responds are the “exact questions” I asked. Sorry, William. It just doesn’t follow.”

Peter your questions can only be the “exact questions” asked if you are thinking like the unbelieving Jewish objector of Romans 3 and Romans 9 who rejects justification through faith in Christ and advocates keeping the Jewish law as the way of justification. But thankfully you are not!  So this claim falls completely flat.

“Paul nowhere in the passage that I can see tips his hand he is wedding his thoughts to the eternal destiny of human souls. Calvinists such as yourself make that leap for him. Nor does the “potter” metaphor follow along the lines of the brand of predestination to which you evidently adhere. In the description I offered of my understanding of your view—a description you failed to dispute—the boundaries are eternally fixed which are impossible to breach. In other words, it remained impossible for Frank to burn and equally impossible for Bill and Joe to escape. Paul makes no such assertion concerning the “vessels” whether of “mercy” or of “wrath.” In fact, he seems to indicate all are in unbelief that all might receive mercy (11:34). Elsewhere believers were described as “children of wrath” but had escaped it (Eph 2). Moreover, Jeremiah’s “potter parable” which surely was in the Apostle’s mind did not eternally “fix” the destinies of either men or nations:
“…Behold, as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel. [However] If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them... If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them” (Jer 18:6-10, embolden mine)."

Good points.

I would add only that a major reason that many err in their interpretation of Romans 9 is that they come to it as a proof text seeking to support their false doctrine of unconditional election and they fail to distinguish what Paul is primarily talking about (Paul is in fact arguing that God **is** sovereign, and so God has the right and also does in practice, DO AS HE PLEASES, so God is sovereign and God has decided how an individual will be justified, God has decided that salvation will be through faith not the keeping of the Jewish law for both Jews and Gentiles, and God makes all of these decisions because it is up to him as he is in fact sovereign over the nature of salvation and the way of salvation) from what they want it to say (that Paul is teaching their doctrine of unconditional election). It is absolutely true that Paul is discussing God’s sovereignty in Romans 9, but he is not talking about unconditional election of individuals to either salvation or damnation.

“Hence, from my view to read the highly developed doctrine of eternal predestination into Romans 9 is questionable at best.”

Correct, a highly developed doctrine of eternal predestination of individuals to both salvation and damnation is found in Romans 9 only if YOU READ IT IN THERE (i.e. eisegete the text) rather than properly interpret the text (exegete the text and discover the objector in Romans 9 is the same unbelieving Jewish objector of Romans 3).

“If I am correct, your conclusion that “Paul disagrees with your assertion that God would get no more glory if He saved all in verses 22-24. …” is hardly fair, William, not to mention, if I may be blunt, a complete copout of dealing with the questions I raised. In fact, you didn’t deal with them. You merely “proof-texted” them and did so with a bit of smurkiness, I might add—these answers are “humbling” and “hard” and “the” answers the Bible gives. No, William. What you did was quote a few verses which sounded like they applied.“

Peter he ignored your questions and simply engaged in Calvinistic deterministic proof texting from their favorite proof text for unconditional election of individuals to both salvation and damnation! :-) And when that is done properly, :-) by a convinced determinist the non-determinist ends up being the objector of Romans 9 and the objections just happen to be the same objections made by non-determinists against theological determinism today. How convenient for the determinist! And yet how out of touch and far from what the apostle Paul was actually talking about in Romans 9 as well as the rest of Romans 9-11, and the rest of the entire book of Romans.

“In the end, I’ll be glad to go through all of Romans 9 if that would help. But whether or not you accept it, William, you did not answer my questions. You only tried to make me look like I was contending for a position directly and obviously opposed to the Apostle Paul. Hardly fair play, brother.”

Hardly fair play and yet typical when a determinist is proof texting from Romans 9. Peter I would not spend too much time going through Romans 9 because determinists are really not interested in interpreting Romans without their proof texting methodology.

Robert

William Birch

William Marshall,

Thank you for your response regarding Colossians 2:13-14. I remain unconvinced, however, by your explanation.

Clearly, our sins were canceled ("having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us") and have been taken out of the way by God ("having nailed it to the cross") through Christ. We both agree.

However, the work of Christ on the cross for the sin of the world (John 1:29) precedes both our faith or trust in Him and thereby our justification and forgiveness of sins. No one is forgiven of one's sins or justified apart from faith in Him (Rom. 5:1). Hence if faith precedes forgiveness, then again, according to Colossians 2:13, faith also precedes God "making us alive together with Him." Unless, of course, you're suggesting that forgiveness and justification for the elect's sins were paid for and automatically applied to them prior to faith (and I doubt that you are suggesting such). And, of course, unless you're suggesting that the elect are "made alive together with Him" at the cross (again, I know that you are not suggesting such).

For that matter, the theory of regeneration preceding faith (which is not the bulk of the original post, I realize) accomplishes just that: a person is saved (via regeneration) prior to faith in Christ. How is this any semblance of being saved by grace through faith? What happened to sola fide? To "be saved" is to "be regenerated," as Paul writes in Titus.

Paul informs Titus that God "saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior" (Titus 3:5-6 NASB). If God saves us via the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, then again, faith precedes regeneration, for we are only saved, and thus regenerated and renewed by the Spirit (and justified), by grace through faith (Gal. 2:16; 3:24; Eph. 2:8).

Again, to "as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name" (John 1:12 NASB). A person must first believe in His name before he or she can become a child of God. It is believers who "were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1:13 NASB).

I am a little surprised that Stephen Garrett, a self-confessed Calvinist who rejects the theory that regeneration precedes faith, did not take the opportunity to comment on this subject.

God bless.

William Marshall

Bro. Pete,

Sorry if I came off "with a bit of smurkiness." I promise that was not my intention. The questions you asked are hard and difficult. Likewise, the answers that Paul provides for the questions that he poses in Romans 9 are extremely humbling. I was sincerely being honest about that. You asked how I dealt with the questions you asked and the only answer I can give is Romans 9. You argue that Paul is not dealing with "eternal salvation" or individual salvation but "national election." I believe that Paul is dealing with eternal salvation because of what he writes in Romans 9:1-5. He is wrestling with the fact that so many of his fellow Israelites are not believing in Christ, he even goes so far to say: "For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh." He goes on in the chapter to explain why so many have rejected Christ, namely that God has regularly chosen some from Israel to be the true Israel while rejecting others (v. 6-13). Then he poses the questions about God's injustice (v. 14) and who can resist God's will (v. 19), which to me only make sense if he is dealing with more than just 'national election' or the 'theocratic standpoint' of Jacob and Esau (which I don't know if I understand).

But in the end, obviously we have different interpretations of Romans 9. The more calvinistic interpretation (which I hold) provides an answer to the difficult questions that you posed. Since you do not agree with that interpretaton, I understand why you do not feel that I have answered your questions. But what else can I do but state what I believe and why I believe it from Scripture?

Again, I really was not trying to be smug or snarky in any way. I don't want to do that. I was not trying to play unfair either. Sorry about the misunderstanding/miscommunication from my end. We take a different approach to these issues (and Romans 9), but I still count you a brother in Christ. Hope you have a good Christmas with your family.
wm

Robert

William representing the theological determinist thinking of calvinism wrote:

“Sorry if I came off "with a bit of smurkiness." I promise that was not my intention. The questions you asked are hard and difficult. Likewise, the answers that Paul provides for the questions that he poses in Romans 9 are extremely humbling."

This again mistakenly ***presupposes***, assumes, that the objector in Romans 9 is asking the same questions as Peter is asking. And as has already been pointed out by both Peter and myself this is an anachronistic and self serving reading of Romans 9.

This claim that the objector is a non-determinist objecting to the determinist doctrine of unconditional individual election to salvation or damnation is only true if you assume the determinist interpretation which is based upon proof texting and ignoring the first century cultural setting which Paul was actually dealing with. And truth is not determined by merely assuming ones views to be correct. That is called begging the question in logic as I am sure all of you are aware. If we assume exactly what we want to prove then we can prove anything no matter how outrageous or erroneous to be “true.” And if we assume determinism and that Paul himself was a theological determinist, then theological determinism can be justified by proof texting from Romans 9.

“I was sincerely being honest about that. You asked how I dealt with the questions you asked and the only answer I can give is Romans 9. You argue that Paul is not dealing with "eternal salvation" or individual salvation but "national election." I believe that Paul is dealing with eternal salvation because of what he writes in Romans 9:1-5.”

I happen to believe that Paul is dealing with the issue of salvation in Romans 9-11: though he is not dealing with the determinist doctrine of unconditional election in regards to individuals to salvation or damnation. Paul is dealing with the issue which would have been on the minds of his readers as well as their unbelieving Jewish opponents: why aren’t more Jews believing Paul’s gospel if it is really true, has God’s word failed?

Paul’s answer is that God’s plan of salvation is based upon Christ and trusting in Him and in Him alone by faith. God “decides the rules of the game” when it comes to salvation as he is sovereign and so it is completely up to him. He has decided that able minded persons (whether they be Jews or Gentiles) will be saved through trusting in Christ rather than through their own works of righteousness (which particularly in the case of unbelieving Jews was their view that in keeping of the Jewish law they would be justified before God).

The unbelieving Jewish objector of Romans 3 and Romans 9 thinks this is unfair considering who the Jews are (the chosen nation of Israel). Paul responds that first of all God is sovereign (this is shown by a brief history lesson involving God’s sovereignty in the history of Israel, most notably involving the Patriarchs and the rescue out of Egypt from under the power and control of Pharaoh). In addition to the fact that God is sovereign (which Paul argues in the early verses of Romans 9, specifically citing incidents of God’s sovereignty in the history of Israel) God decides the nature of salvation and the way individuals (again both Jew and Gentile) will be saved, and he has decided that it will be by faith in the atonement of Christ, not through the keeping of the Jewish law. Paul does not answer the question by saying that the salvation of individual persons is determined before each person is born by God’s choosing whom to save and damn in eternity (the citation of the choice of one over another before they are born concerns the birthright not their individual salvation and the citation of Jacob and Esau is referring to nations not individuals). Romans 11 especially makes this clear as branches can be broken off by unbelief (the unbelieving Jews represented by the Jewish objector and their objections) and also restored by repentance and belief (if the objector turns away from trusting in his keeping the law to justify him and instead trusts in the atonement of Christ to justify him). The broken off branches are the unbelieving Jews who continue to hold onto and trust in their keeping of the Jewish law to justify them. As long as they hold this view they will end up being damned. But it is not by God’s choice before their birth (God says he desires to have mercy on all, cf. especially Romans 11:32) but by their own unbelief (this point is made most strongly throughout Romans 10 and 11. If they (the broken off branches, the unbelieving Jews) repent, if they believe and trust in Christ for justification, as many Gentiles were doing, they can be saved. So anyone can be saved through faith in Christ.
“He is wrestling with the fact that so many of his fellow Israelites are not believing in Christ, he even goes so far to say: "For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh." He goes on in the chapter to explain why so many have rejected Christ, namely that God has regularly chosen some from Israel to be the true Israel while rejecting others (v. 6-13).
No, No, No, that is not the reason that Paul gives for their Jewish unbelief.

The early verses of Romans 9 again are a “history lesson” showing that God has been sovereign throughout the history and experience of Israel. If the question is: why aren’t unbelieving Jews believing? The answer Paul gives is not: because God chose some to be believers and rejected others before they were born. That is not at all what the text says. The text actually answers this question explicitly. Paul says this explicitly and clearly in Romans 9:31-33 “but Israel [and that includes the unbelieving Jewish Objector dealt with in both Romans 9 and Romans 3] pursuing a law of righteousness did not arrive at that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone. Just as it is written, BEHOLD I LAY IN ZION A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE, AND HE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED.” That this is the problem is further supported by Romans 10:3 “For not knowing about God’s righteousness, and SEEKING TO ESTABLISH THEIR OWN, THEY DID NOT SUBJECT THEMSELVES TO THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD.”

Paul says that the reason they are not Christians, the reason most first century Jews were unbelieving is that they CONTINUE TO stumble on the stumbling stone. Instead of receiving Christ (which the apostle John says at another place is how you become a Christian cf. “But as many as received Him to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name.” 1:12). The unbelieving Jews in contrast by continuing to trust in their keeping of the Jewish law to justify them, were stumbling on the stumbling stone, remaining in their unbelief. And Paul has argued throughout the letter of Romans that THAT is not how a person is justified. Instead it is only through trusting in, placing your confidence in, Jesus’ atonement that one is justified.

“Then he poses the questions about God's injustice (v. 14) and who can resist God's will (v. 19), which to me only make sense if he is dealing with more than just 'national election' or the 'theocratic standpoint' of Jacob and Esau (which I don't know if I understand).”

Again you ignore these same issues and questions that were posed in Romans 3, and ignore the fact that the objector in both Romans 3 and Romans 9 is not a person objecting to theological determinism but an unbelieving Jew objecting to Paul’s gospel.

“But in the end, obviously we have different interpretations of Romans 9. The more calvinistic interpretation (which I hold) provides an answer to the difficult questions that you posed.”

No it doesn’t. It does not answer the questions at all, but evades them. And these what you call “answers” have driven untold millions of Christians away from Calvinism/determinism. Your supposed “answers” are not found in scripture but READ INTO THEM. The Jewish objector in Romans 9 as in Romans 3 is not objecting to Calvinism/theological determinism or to unconditional election of individuals to salvation or damnation. No, they are objecting to Paul’s doctrine that justification is through faith in Christ, not the keeping of the Jewish law.

“Since you do not agree with that interpretaton, I understand why you do not feel that I have answered your questions. But what else can I do but state what I believe and why I believe it from Scripture?”

I hate to say this, but Cultists say exactly the same thing, it is their interpretation versus ours, and their views are also supposedly based solely upon scripture. So they frame things as that they are simply adhering to what the bible says, while we supposedly are not. But everybody says that, and everybody should base their views on what scripture teaches. If Calvinism/theological determinism were true and the actual teaching of the apostles and Jesus then why is it a fact that for the first FOUR CENTURIES OF EARLY CHURCH HISTORY ***no one held to or taught deterministic beliefs***. They believed in “free will”, they believed in “unlimited atonement”, they did not believe that everyone’s eternal destiny was decided by God already and so we are merely living out our already decided and prescripted fates and lives. Calvinistic deterministic ideas do not appear in church history until the early 400’s when Augustine injects these deterministic ideas into the church bloodstream. Causing a disease that the church has been fighting against ever since.

Robert

peter lumpkins

All,

Sorry to be disengaged. Three feet of water under my house...

With that, I am...
Peter

William Marshall

Robert,

I commented to interact with Peter's post and I expected him (and others) to disagree with my comments. But I have to admit I am a little surprised by some of your statements. I get the fact that you disagree with my understanding of Romans 9, but to compare it to a Cultists' approach is too strong. Argue against my interpretation all you want, but let's try and treat each other like brothers in Christ. There are many faithful followers of Christ who agree with me on Romans 9 (and that does not make our interpretation necessarily correct). But it should caution you against such assertions. I am not asking you to change your views, just to be more gracious in your treatment of the views of other believers. Thanks,

wm

Stephen Garrett

Dear Peter,

You find fault with "the way" that I "characterize the non-Calvinist position." In response, I simply disagree, believing that I characterized it accurately. Of course, what I call "Arminian" you call "non-Calvinist."

The "Arminian" position is integrally connected to the "free will" position. Arminians assert, as part of their theology, that the will of man is "free" and "able" to choose, or not choose Christ (either naturally, or by universal prevenient grace).

The word "free" includes the idea of "independence." See any dictionary. Do you deny that the historical Arminian position has been to affirm that the act of the sinner, in choosing Christ, is made "freely"? Does Arminianism not say that the "reason" why one is saved and one is not, is because of "free will"? Does traditional or classical Arminianism not affirm that "it is by a free (independent) act of the sinner that he is saved" (or made different)? Further, does Arminianism not say that God chooses people to salvation who believe by free will act? Do you not affirm that people distinguish themselves, or make themselves different, by their free act of believing in Christ?

Grevinchovius (who I mistakenly refferred to Barnes, but was from Gill, is nevertheless a reliable citation, unless we want to make Gill into a liar) was stating the true Arminian position, looked at logically. “The Arminian view of election represents the Father as choosing those who have made themselves different from others by an independent act of their free wills.” That is an accurate statement. The Arminian view does affirm that people become believers by their own free choice and that this choice distinguishes them from others. If you affirm that God is the one who makes people different, by giving them faith and repentance, then you are espousing Calvinism, not Arminianism.

"Stephen, you’ve described exactly who? None other than a faithless, lawless rebel against God. Only people outside Christ reasonably and biblically look to themselves as making the difference in salvation. You’re describing rank humanism not biblical Arminianism in particular--at least classical, evangelical Arminianism--nor biblical non-Calvinism in general. Can to point to a single phrase in the theology of biblical Arminianism and/or non-Calvinism which definitively demonstrates your characterization of their view? If so, I’d like to know it (although see below)."

I cited Grevinchovius to demonstrate it. Also, Armimians, like yourself, want to fight applying I Cor. 4: 7 to salvation. Paul says that those who reject the idea that they are different because of God's gift to them are ones who have grounds for boasting. Do Arminians accept the idea that faith is a gift of God? No! They say they did not receive faith as a gift from God and Paul says that such a view gives grounds for boasting.

"In addition, how do you conclude that, for the Arminian (and presumably all biblical non-Calvinists), that they make themselves different by an independent act of the free will? Independent act? In what way? How can an act be independent when it is impossible to perform apart from the special work of grace God works upon the interior of the individual which is precisely what all Arminians and non-Calvinists non-negotiably insist? The fact remains, there is barely a razor’s edge difference between the classic Arminian and Calvinist at the initial juncture when God meets man’s soul. Now that’s not to say the divine connection is not teased out differently. It most certainly is. However, both Arminian and non-Arminian accept, in some measure, what’s come to be called (mostly by the “Reformed”) monergism. In short, God does the acting on the soul using gospel means. And apart from God’s sovereign acting through gospel means, humans remain hopelessly in their sin."

Two people hear the gospel and the Spirit works upon them equally. One believes the gospel and the other does not. Why did one believe and the other not? Does the Arminian say it is because of God? No!

It is interesting how you affirm that the experience of conviction of sin is an irresistible act of God. You find no fault with the idea that God convicts, without asking permission of the sinner to do so, but you find fault with him actually giving him faith and repentance in the same way. I find that ironic. I certainly do believe in gospel means.

"Hence, the difference is not—non-Calvinists make themselves different by an independent act of free will. To the contrary, non-Calvinists are just as passionate about the inability of “making themselves different” as the strongest Calvinist. Rather the difference seems to me to be: a) the nature of the monergistic work God unilaterally performs in the heart of the individual through gospel means; b) whether or not the monergistic work itself is resistible."

If you affirm that the reason why you believe, or are different in this regard, is solely due to God, then wonderful! But, Peter, the consequences of your Arminian doctrine will not agree with your avowal. Also, I doubt that most Arminians would affirm that all they have was given to them by God, including their faith and repentance, and that they are different from others because of these gifts. When I debated unconditional personal election this past November, for four nights, the Arminian I debated never took the approach you did. He never said that he disagreed with Grevinchovius. He never denied that Arminianism and free will theology taught that men make themselves different when they believe.

"What I hear from most Calvinists (not all) is, the nature of the initial monergistic work through gospel means is equitable to the new birth (a view I realize you reject, Stephen; nonetheless, I still hear it often). Indeed the work God performs at this stage is so powerful and so complete, there is no turning back, no resistance possible, nothing to do but believe. In fact one cannot not believe (more on this below)."

Peter, again, I say this is ironic. The first initial working of God upon the heart of a sinner, in conviction, is irresistable, and a work God does without the consent of the sinner! Paul says that God will complete any work he begins in a sinner (Philippians 1: 6). Since you make this beginning work of God to be irresistable conviction, then how do you explain Paul's affirmation that God will complete it?

"On the other hand, for the non-Calvinist, many times they refer to this movement of God as being “under conviction” or the “convicting work of the Holy Spirit.” Most Arminians dub this “prevenient grace” concerning which no one may come to God apart from this they view as God’s gracious monergistic action (Arminians are not united when the special grace actually comes. For some, God only works this gracious way when accompanied by the preached gospel. For others, they take a more universalistic interpretation based upon Roman 5 arguing Christ’s death made prevenient grace possible for all. Birch is much more capable explaining the differences among Arminians on this than I). Even so, the point I must press is, no biblical non-Calvinist would ever, ever accept the horrible assertion about “making themselves” by an “independent” act of “free will.” Such is theologically repulsive to them."

That is not true. Bruce Reeves, whom I recently debated, of the Conway, Arkansas "Church of Christ," did not find it repulsive, for he avowed that his theology did teach that men make themselves different by their free act. But, as long as Arminians, like yourself, agree with us Calvinists, in saying that the thing that makes one different from another, in the area of saving faith, is the choice and work of God, then I can feel good.

"Additionally, the non-Calvinist (at least this non-Calvinist) insists that the resistibility factor exists as one of the key components which divide the Calvinist from the non-Calvinist. The question is, is it possible that the monergistic work of God can be fought and resisted successfully? For the Calvinist, the answer is obviously, “No. One cannot resist this work.” For the non-Calvinist, the answer must be, “Yes. This monergistic work can be resisted and successfully fought against. Indeed it may even be rejected, spurned and blasphemed.” Just as obvious is the reason why they offer different answers. The nature of the monergistic work. The classical Arminian, for example, argues a depraved person cannot believe for the same reason a Calvinist believes a depraved person cannot believe—inability. J. Arminius himself argued for a strict Calvinist understanding of total depravity, employing all the biblical metaphors which demand the sinner is “dead” and lifeless and cannot make a “decision” for Christ. He does not want Christ nor the things of God (perhaps I am misunderstanding Arminius and William Birch is welcome to correct my flawed understanding of him).

However—and here is the “catch” so to speak—while the classical Arminian embraces the inability of depraved persons to believe and thus requires the special work of grace to fully enable them to believe the gospel they hear, what they do not demand is what Calvinists add to the equation—the inability to not believe. In other words, while they believe this grace to be powerful, compelling, and moving, they do not characterize this special grace ia an all-powerful, irresistible work of God. Calvinists add this to the mix. Consequently, though non-Calvinists and/or Arminians are perfectly willing to speak the language of inability with depraved humans requiring God’s divine intervention to be saved on the one hand, but will not hold for biblical reasons this work of grace is an omnipotent act of God similar to the created raw matter did not resist God’s calling it into existence…when non-Calvinists will not embrace irresistible grace, they are strangely (and wrongly) described as being able to “save themselves” or “create themselves” by a single “independent act of free will.” For my part, this is grossly unfair not to mention the objection itself rests squarely on the assumption that the question of irresistible grace is not a biblically objectionable doctrine."

If this work of making believers is not always successful, on the part of God, why not? Why does one successfully resist and another does not? Will you place the reason in God or in the creature? If you put the ultimate reason in the creature, then you are in fact saying that the creature makes himself different by his choice not to resist. Besides, I know of lots of scripture that show that the work of "drawing" and "giving" faith is always successful with God, is irrestistable.

"A few other matters in your comment, Stephen, are notable but I’ll be very brief. First, you summarized Paul’s words in 1 Cor 4:7 as his “gracious system or paradigm of conversion [which], eliminates all boasting, or crediting oneself.” For the record, Paul was not discussing conversion and he’s certainly not formulating a “system or paradigm of conversion.” Rather he is concerned that the Corinthians lay down their jealousies toward one another and cease being “puffed up” which was destroying their unity and creating division."

I am confused here. You agree with me when I say that men do not make themselves different, but then disagree that I Cor. 4: 7 has anything to do with it. You want to limit Paul's words to the spiritual gifts he gives to those already saved, but the question obviously is broader. "What do you have that you did not receive as a gift from God?" That is Paul's rhetorical. How can you limit "what you have" to post regeneration gifts?

"Second, you cite Albert Barnes who says of Remonstrant, Nicolaus Grevinchovius, “"That proud Arminian, Grevinchovius (17th century Dutch theologian), in answer to this text, said, "I make myself to differ; since I could resist God, and divine predetermination, but have not resisted, why may not I glory in it as of my own?'" A couple of things: first, I looked in Barnes and could not find the reference to Grevinchovius from Romans 9. However, I did find John Gill’s comments on Proverbs 8:13 referring to him: “it is the height of arrogancy in a man to conceit he a power to regenerate, renew, and convert himself, and, with the haughty Arminian, Grevinchovius, to say, he has made himself to differ from others; this must be hateful to Christ, by whose Spirit and grace this only is done…” Clearly, Gill associates Grevinchovius with the human ability to regenerate ones self. If applicable to Grevinchovius’s actual position or not I do not know. As for Barnes’ use of him, could you check the reference again and let me know? Second, if these words are accurate, you’ve done what, heretofore, no one has ever accomplished, Stephen. I have repeatedly asked for a representative from the Arminian and/or non-Calvinist position who, in fact, embraces the idea that self-glory is morally acceptable. If correct, ever how much I or anyone else would find the quote repulsive, you apparently have at least one Arminian who may have embraced such a despicable idea. I intend to check into this a bit further. Thanks."

I already dealt with Grevinchovius. It was Gill, not Barnes, who said this. But, is the citation not reliable? Was Gill telling a falsehood? It was Gill's comments on I Cor. 4: 7.

Blessings,

Stephen

peter lumpkins

William,

Just a few quick comments and back to pumping water.

First, of course, I believe you; I believe you never intended to “smurkiness.”  Though I cannot say the same for some commentators—even high profile commentators.  Sproul gets his kicks I think in blathering on about our natural sinful bent is toward “Arminianism” which, of course, for him is to be saved—but barely. Even the more careful D.A. Carson mentions Paul’s answers in Rom 9 do not set well with “our flesh” as if the non-Calvinistic answer intrinsically involves fleshly rejection.

Second, I believe you when you say the only answer you could give is Romans 9.  However, what if you asked me, “Why do you embrace a libertarian view of free will?” and my answer was, “All I can say is, what Scripture plainly says, “I make a decree, that all they of the people of Israel…which are minded of their own freewill to go up to Jerusalem, go with thee”?  In addition, Scripture says, “Accept, I beseech thee, the freewill offerings of my mouth, O LORD, and teach me thy judgments” (Ps. 119.108). 

Now, while those are very interesting passages that may somehow relate to human freedom in some sense, they hardly are relevant to a full blown understanding of libertarian freedom would you not agree?  And, for one to flat out read libertarianism into those verses may deserve the charge of anachronism, would you not also agree?  From my standpoint, it remains the same with Romans 9.  While answering with Scripture is surely the most reliable approach to answering objections, nonetheless it also demands the utmost care since it is so easy to overlook contextual matters when passages seem, at least on first reading, to apply so well.

Contrary to my mention of Sproul above, here is Sproul’s humble answer to the questions I posed to you, William.  He writes, “    

The question remains. Why does God only save some? If we grant that God can save men by violating their wills, why then does he not violate everybody’s will and bring them all to salvation? (I am using the word violate here not because I really think there is any wrongful violation but because the non-Calvinist insists on the term.) The only answer I can give to this question is that I don’t know. I have no idea why God saves some but not all. I don’t doubt for a moment that God has the power to save all, but I know that he does not choose to save all. I don’t know why” (Chosen by God, emphasis mine)

Unlike your approach, Sproul answers the burdensome question I had in mind with, “I don’t know.” Noteworthy is, he did not appeal to Romans 9. Could this be because he did not think Romans 9 was applicable here? Perhaps. It’s at least worth thinking about.

Third, even granting to you Paul was dealing with salvific issues in saving Israel and non-Israel, what is definitively absent is, predestination, eternal decree, eternal election, etc.  All of these ideas are either assumed or imposed upon the Apostle’s words William. Nor does he deal with the questions I asked.  Nor are the circumstances remotely related between people within whom the Spirit efficaciously works and people whom the Spirit “passes over” because of predetermination.  All of these Calvinistic ideas remain foreign to Paul in this passage at least as I can tell. If they are not, please point them out in this passage—connect the dots, so to speak.

Fourth, I’ve asked twice for you to qualify the scenario I described pertaining to eternal predestination if it needed to be qualified.  Thus far I’m taken back a bit. Once again (and last time; promise! ; ^ )

“…it remained impossible for things to be any different than they were on that fateful day. Namely, Frank could not not walk away from the burning building alive, and it remained possible for neither Bill nor Joe to get out alive. Fixed from eternity, Frank was saved and fixed from eternity both Bill and Joe would burn in the flames”

Is this how you characterize your understanding of what’s at play in the little story we’ve discussed? If it needs correction, please be my guest…

Understand: though I mentioned you appeared “smurky” it was only a more playful term, if you please. I only wish many of my detractors would dub me “smurky” ; ^ ) I surely didn’t mean to imply anything toward our brotherliness or friendship. If such is what was communicated, you have my deepest regret, brother.  I ‘m horribly sorry.

I trust you’re anticipating a wonderful Christmas.

With that, I am…

Peter 

peter lumpkins

 

Stephen,

First, you write, “what I call "Arminian" you call "non-Calvinist" and “…Peter, the consequences of your Arminian doctrine…”  No, Stephen. To the contrary, I do my best to make a distinction between biblical Arminianism and biblical non-Calvinism.  Now, you are welcome with a thousand others to reject the distinction if you wish.

Second, yes, I did find fault with your description of Arminianism as “The Arminian view of election represents the Father as choosing those who have made themselves different from others by an independent act of their free wills” and told you why. Apparently, you listened, and made partial correction:  “Arminians assert, as part of their theology, that the will of man is "free" and "able" to choose, or not choose Christ (either naturally, or by universal prevenient grace). But not quite enough.  Biblical Arminians do not embrace a natural ability to believe, Stephen—so far as I know at least.

Third, you ask a series of questions:

  • “Do you deny that the historical Arminian position has been to affirm that the act of the sinner, in choosing Christ, is made "freely"?” I do not deny it.  Do you deny historical Calvinist position has been to affirm that the act of the sinner, in choosing Christ, is made "freely"? Almost all Calvinists I know affirm the “act” in “choosing Christ” is made “freely.” The difference between Calvinist and Arminian is not here but at another juncture I mentioned  
  • Does Arminianism not say that the "reason" why one is saved and one is not, is because of "free will"? No Arminianism nor non-Calvinism teaches people are saved by free will
  • Does traditional or classical Arminianism not affirm that "it is by a free (independent) act of the sinner that he is saved"? No
  • Further, does Arminianism not say that God chooses people to salvation who believe by free will act? Yes.  But so do Calvinists.
  • Do you not affirm that people distinguish themselves, or make themselves different, by their free act of believing in Christ? I vehemently deny people “make themselves different” by their “free act” of believing in Christ, Stephen.

Fourth, you assert, “Grevinchovius (…is nevertheless a reliable citation, unless we want to make Gill into a liar) was stating the true Arminian position, looked at logically.”  A) How is it making Gill into a liar even if one did not agree with Gill’s characterization of Grevinchovius?  Could Gill have been mistaken? I don’t know if Gill is correct or not. I haven’t looked.  I do know that even if I conclude Gill wrong about Grevinchovius, it does not follow I’d be making a liar out of Gill; B) whether or not Grevinchovius is accurately quoted, Stephen, it does not follow that Grevinchovius epitomizes the “true Arminian position.”  How under the blue sky you conclude that I cannot tell.

Fifth, you conclude again (wrongly) “The Arminian view does affirm that people become believers by their own free choice…”--Yes and so does Calvinism.  But no this does not distinguish them, faith does. you further assert, “If you affirm that God is the one who makes people different, by giving them faith and repentance, then you are espousing Calvinism, not Arminianism.”  Well call me a Calvinist!  Do you see now why I refuse to stand under any man’s system? ; ^ )

Sixth, you mention you “cited Grevinchovius to demonstrate it” that Arminianism teaches that people make themselves different.  No, what you did is cite an Arminian who may have taught such (I’m not fully conceding the point only acknowledging your citation because frankly I haven’t had time to test Gill's quote).   Do you really think citing a single Arminian exhausts what “true” Arminianism teaches?  Suppose I cite John Skepp to teach what “true” Calvinism teaches?

In addition, yes, I did deny I Cor. 4: 7 applicable to salvation at least in the sense you gave it.  What was it, Paul’s “paradigm” for conversion?  Please, Stephen,  You’re simply not going to get away with ripping texts from their contexts to prove a point whether or not your point my be taught in other passages of Scripture.  From my standpoint, that’s completely unacceptable.  Quote a Scripture which actually fits if you want to make a point here..

Seventh, “Two people hear the gospel…One believes the gospel and the other does not… Does the Arminian say it is because of God? No!”  Well I’d bet you a week’s worth of Starbucks the biblical Arminians on this site would be glad to question the two-letter word you conveniently placed on their lips, Stephen.

Eighth, “It is interesting how you affirm that the experience of conviction of sin is an irresistible act of God.”  I didn’t affirm any such thing. Nor would I employ the term “irresistible” to characterize the Spirit’s work.  There’s no need.  Nothing seems to correspond from the biblical materials to the idea of “irresistibility.”  Unless of course, one is referring to Gen 1-2 when God created matter.

Ninth, while you think it’s commendable to give God all the credit for my salvation, you nonetheless, conclude: “But, Peter, the consequences of your Arminian doctrine will not agree with your avowal.” I’m afraid asserting and demonstrating are two very different matters, Stephen.

Tenth, who you debated is irrelevant to this discussion, Stephen.  And, perhaps then, since the brand of Arminianism you’ve heard here and/or the non-Calvinism I attempt to express is unlike those you debate, perhaps this should be a caution to you in asserting  precisely what the “true Arminianism” happens to be.

Eleventh, you’re wrongly conflating “irresistible” with “initial” hardly the same, Stephen.

Twelfth, there is no reason to believe Paul had in mind the convicting work of the Spirit.  He just as well could have been contending concerning the New Birth.

Thirteenth, I cannot speak for Mr Reeves. If he thinks Arminianism in particular or non-Calvinism in general teaches sinful men make themselves different, then he is grossly mistaken. And, if he embraces such, he is grossly repulsive—at least theologically so. 

Fourteenth, “If this work of making believers is not always successful, on the part of God, why not?” You’re assuming that anything God does, He must do to fit some standard you place upon Him.  If it is incomplete (incomplete according to your understanding) then it is not perfect (again according to your definition of perfection).  The fact is, God works in various ways which imply incompletion.

Fifteenth, you claim you know “lots of scripture” that show that the work of "drawing" and "giving" faith is always successful with God, is irrestistable" [sic]”.  Well, I do not share your confidence, Stephen.

Sixteenth, no, I’m disagreeing with you concerning your assertion that 1 Cor 4:7 reveals Paul’s “paradigm” of conversion.  It seems to me Paul had nothing about conversion in his mind as he penned these words.  If you want to employ Scripture, then use them without ripping them from the context, Stephen.

Seventeenth, I too dealt with Nicolaus Grevinchovius above.  And, I don’t know if Gill characterized the Remonstrant correctly.  Nor would it necessarily follow Gill was committing a falsehood if he didn’t—at least an intentional one.  He very well could have just been mistaken.

With that, I am…

Peter

Stephen Garrett

Dear Peter:

You said:

“The Arminian view does affirm that people become believers by their own free choice…”--Yes and so does Calvinism. But no this does not distinguish them, faith does."

Calvinists do not believe that people become believers by their own free choice. It is true that they affirm that sinners come "willingly" and "freely" when they are drawn, but they do not mean what Arminians mean when they say such. Calvinists believe that God makes his people willing and they come freely, not being aware of any irresistible power operating upon them.

If faith makes the difference, what is it that makes the difference whether one has faith or not? Is it the choice of God or the choice of the sinner?

John the Baptist said "a man can receive nothing except it be given him from heaven," a very broad statement like I Cor. 4: 7. (John 3: 27)

Who Made You to Differ? by C.H. Spurgeon
From Spurgeon's sermon, "The Fruitless Vine"

"It is grace, free, sovereign grace, which has made you to differ!

Should any here, supposing themselves to be the children of God, imagine that there is some reason "in them" why they should have been chosen, let them know, that as yet they are in the dark, concerning the first principles of grace, and have not yet learned the gospel."

Blessings,

Stephen

William Marshall

Bro. Pete,

Sorry I keep forgetting to answer the question about the scenario. Yes, from God's perspective I would agree with what you have written. I believe in unconditional election 'before the foundation of the world' (Ephesians 1:3-6). I understand why this can be difficult to accept, I really do. But at the same time, it can also be a great reminder of just how amazing God's grace really is (not saying that you or others do not believe in His amazing grace, I know you do).

Also sorry about the water leak! Where is that spunky youth-minister son-in-law of yours when you need him?!!?? Hope you get it fixed soon.

wm

Don Johnson

Stephen,

"Calvinists believe God makes His people willing..."

Are you suggesting God "has" people before they are saved? If yes, is it simply Calvinist doctrine or is there Scripture to support your premise?

peter

Stephen,

While disputing what you supposed I affirmed Calvinists maintained, you sought to distinguish Calvinism from Arminianism in the following way: "It is true that they affirm that sinners come "willingly" and "freely" when they are drawn, but they do not mean what Arminians mean when they say such. Calvinists believe that God makes his people willing and they come freely, not being aware of any irresistible power operating upon them."

First, at the present juncture under consideration, from the way I understand classic Arminianianism, the two hold virtually indistinguishable positions--i.e., depraved humans cannot "willingly" nor "voluntarily" nor "freely" come to Christ because of spiritual deadness, spiritual lifelessness, spiritual blindness. In short, total depravity prohibits such conversion. For both "systems" a special work of grace is not only required but necessary. Afterward--that is, after the divine work takes place--the differences begin to shape. Calvinists claim more than Arminianism admits beginning here. Even so, the difference admits nothing so far as enablement is concerned, or what you referred to as coming "willingly" and/or "freely." In other words, Calvinists and Arminians both admit inability to believe. Depraved humans cannot believe. Hence, God creates ability to believe.

Second, you add the phrase, "not being aware of any irresistible power operating upon them." One can only suppose you mean God works via stealth. Care to explain where you find Scriptural notions about God "irresistibly" working via stealth?

Third, I do not frame the question the way as do you, Stephen: "Is it the choice of God or the choice of the sinner?" The Bible does not seem to use such an e/o proposition which should caution us from using one else we end up embracing a false dichotomy.

Fourth, the Baptist's statement says nothing so far as I can tell which is applicable to our discussion. Once again, you seem to quote a verse thinking it's applicability to be self-evident. Sorry, Stephen.

Finally, Spurgeon's quote is supposed to demonstrate what? That nothing innate in depraved humans can be cited as evidence they believed? Just against whom are you arguing, Stephen? No one on this thread so far as I can tell.

With that, I am...
Peter

Stephen Garrett

Dear Don:

I said "Calvinists believe God makes His people willing..."

You find fault with this, yet most advanced Bible students would know that I was alluding to Psalm 110: 3 - "Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power..."

You then asked me "Are you suggesting God "has" people before they are saved?"

Yes, the bible teaches this. People are chosen to be saved (II Thess. 2: 13), are elect before they are saved. They are like Isaac (Gal. 4: 28, 29) in this regard. Isaac was ordained, chosen, and appointed to become the "heir of promise," the "child of God," before he was "born of the Spirit." He was God's child by choice before he was God's choice by spiritual birth. Does not Matt. 1: 21 say - "he shall save his people from their sins"? Does this not say that God has a people before he actually saves them?

You then asked - "If yes, is it simply Calvinist doctrine or is there Scripture to support your premise?"

The scriptures above are sufficient to show that the Calvinist gets his doctrine, on this point, from scripture.

Blessings,

Stephen

A.M. Mallett

Even the more careful D.A. Carson mentions Paul’s answers in Rom 9 do not set well with “our flesh” as if the non-Calvinistic answer intrinsically involves fleshly rejection.

Well, in a sense, Carson is right but not in the sense he imagines. Calvinist use of Romans 9 gives me the hives.

Robert

William the theological determinist apparently upset that I have brought out the fact that theological determinists engage in proof texting in a way identical to the way the cultists proof text when “proving” their views wrote:

“I get the fact that you disagree with my understanding of Romans 9, but to compare it to a Cultists' approach is too strong.”

Note as a clear disclaimer, that I did not say that determinists are non-Christian cultists, nor did I claim they are unsaved persons (though conversely this is how I have been attacked by determinists, as a false teacher and unsaved person because I dare challenge and attack theological determinism).

My comparison as William correctly observes is in their interpretive approach.

In order to see the parallels, just compare how cultists often “interpret” the bible with how theological determinists “interpret” Romans 9. Start with the cultist. They begin with a preconceived belief, idea, doctrine or concept that they strongly wish to be true. So they start with a cherished and belief that is extremely important to them. They then seek to find bible verses which interpreted in line with their beliefs appear to provide support for their false and mistaken views (e.g. the Mormon who desires to show that God is physical citing passages where God has shields his own like a mother bird shielding its chicks with its wings). They are engaging in proof texting where one starts with the preconceived idea and then finds a bible verse which can be used (at least in their minds) to support their preconceived notion.

Theological determinists are no different in their use of Romans 9 to “prove” their preconceived notion of unconditional election of individuals to salvation and damnation.

A great example of proof texting has already been clearly presented by Stephen (another calvinist/determinist) in this thread when he cites 1 Cor. 4:7 attempting to prove his view. And why hasn’t the other William corrected him on this and acknowledged that the text is not discussing soteriology or how people come to faith at all. 1 Cor. 4:7 has nothing to do with the nature of justification or how salvation occurs or the involvement of the human will in choosing to trust in Christ for salvation (in fact the text is written to persons who are already believers and is stating they have all received differing spiritual gifts from God and therefore God is the explanation for their differing gifts) or any other issues relating to how people first become believers. It is not a soteriological discussion at all. But if the context and meaning of the text is IGNORED, which always occurs when proof texting is being practiced, and if one desires to proof text to prove the determinist doctrine of humans saving themselves by their choices in non-determinism, then the text can be ripped from its context and used as “proof” for the preconceived idea that Stephen wants to believe.

And this is PRECISELY what cultists engage in as a standard methodology.

Sadly cultists do not have a monopoly on proof texting, believers can engage in it as well. And it is equally wrong whether a non-Christian cultist engages in it or a professing Christian engages in it. Stephen is doing it with 1 Cor. 4:7 and William you are doing it with Romans 9.

The dead giveaway in both instances is that you guys are completely ignoring the contexts of the texts (which include their immediate contexts, their context within the particular books, Romans 9 in the Romans 9-11 section, 1 Cor. 4:7 in the context of Paul’s discussion with the Corinthians concerning gifts, the cultural context, in the case of Romans 9 the Jewish objector whom Paul deals with in both Romans 9 and Romans 3, in the case of the Corinthians the divisive members who were dividing the Corinthian church by their mis-use of gifts and challenge to Paul’s apostolic authority, etc. etc.)

And what is the reason for the two of you proof texting from Romans 9 and 1 Cor. 4:7?

Why nothing less than defending and supporting your ideology of calvinism/theological determinism.

So both of you are engaging in precisely the same kind of interpretive approach that the non-Christian cults engage in.

When I share my interpretation of texts in Romans, I do not have people accusing me of proof texting when I discuss Romans because I am constantly bringing up contexts (e.g. the objections of the objector in Romans 9 are not stated in isolation, these same objections and in the same order were already brought up by the apostle Paul in Romans 3). I don’t start with some preconceived idea, concept or doctrine that I want to prove and then go seeking for a biblical text which can be used to “prove” what I want to believe. I start with interpreting the text and derive conclusions based on the texts. This means that the biblical texts must always be interpreted according to their given contexts, it also means that I cannot (or better should not) cherry pick verses to prove what I want it to say. Instead what I believe ought to be based upon what the scripture properly interpreted presents. This also means that the bible may not even address or answer some questions we have (e.g. Romans 9 is not discussing unconditional election of individuals to salvation or damnation, though theological determinists wish it were and misinterpret it so that it appears to be discussing unconditional election of individuals to salvation and damnation).

Again contrast the exegetical approach which I wish all engaged in, with the eisegetical determinist proof texting where their proof texting and anachronistic reading of the texts ends up with the first century objector in Romans 9 **not being a Jewish objector to Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith rather than justification through keeping the Jewish law**: but conveniently and self servingly and conveniently the “objector” ends up being an Arminian objecting to unconditional election of individuals to salvation and damnation and theological determinism!

When the theological determinist frames things so that the objector of Romans 9 and Romans 3 is not a first century unbelieving Jew but becomes ANYONE WHO QUESTIONS THEOLOGICAL DETERMINISM: something very wrong has happened to the interpretation of Romans 9.

Thus the biblical text is transformed by proof texting of the kind which **is** practiced by cultists into a proof of theological determinism. The parallels with how cultists proof text from scripture in order to “prove” their mistaken views are definitely present. So no my charge is not too strong.

Robert

Don Johnson

Stephen,

Please forgive me for not being an "advanced Bible student."

First, Ps. 110:3 is a yet unfulfilled prophecy. Where in the verse does it say they were "made" willing? Shall be willing and made willing are two completely different things. Why must you infer "made" into the text?

Second, no, people are not elect before they are saved. 2 Thes. 2:13 is not refering to election. The word "chosen" is not the same Greek word for elect. What God chose, was how we would be saved. Which is "through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth." Please note there is no period after salvation.

Third, where in Gal 4:28, 29 does it state Isaac was "a child of God before he was born of the Spirit." Also, was Ishmael saved or lost?

Fourth, yes, God does have a people before He saves them. They are call Israelites. Who was John speaking of in John 1:11. They couldn't be His own according to your theory, because they received Him not.

Fifth, in Acts 5:14 and Acts 11:24 Luke writes that believers were "added to the Lord." Please explain how one could be added to the Lord if he was already His? Is not the only explanation, they were added because they were not His before they were saved?

peter

William,

Thanks for your answer. Know I am a bit surprised. Fewer Calvinists than you may realize would be so willing to accept the description. One reason is, viewing the "deterministic" underpinnings of strict Calvinism so vividly and bluntly surely accounts, in large part, for those who criticize Calvinism as fatalistic. Further it lends more credence to the objection against the compatibilist understanding of freedom as not freedom at all--at least in any sense we usually think of being free.

Indeed accepting this characterization also leaves one vulnerable to an impotent theodicy and bleeds out, at minimum, the psychological foundations for a hearty evangelism.

Thanks for the exchange. And yes, I took care of the water (no help from Berry though :^)


Robert,

Thanks for the participation and your commentary. We obviously have much more in common than we have differences! ;^)
And, though I am more reluctant than you to employ the term "determinist" to stronger Calvinists, as you can see by William's honesty, "determinism" is not a totally inappropriate term to employ...

Yall play nice now.

Grace
With that, I am...
Peter

Stephen Garrett

Dear Don:

Whether Psalm 110: 3 is "yet unfulfilled prophecy" may be disputed. There are aspects of this Psalm that are future, but there are also aspects that are present. But, whether future or present, why are the Lord's people "willing"? You ask - "where in the verse does it say they were "made" willing? Shall be willing and made willing are two completely different things. Why must you infer "made" into the text?"

First, I was not citing exactly the text, for I did not put quotation marks around the words, but was "alluding" to it, primarily, but also had in mind other verses. I think the context, both of the Psalm and of the whole Bible, that God is the one who makes his people willing. Why would you dispute this? Is it your view that people make themselves willing? Then, who can they credit and thank for being "willing," God or themselves? Who made them to "differ" as regards being "willing"? Second, "in the day of thy power" indicates that it is the exertion of omnipotence that makes his people willing. Prior to this "day" of God's "power," his people were not willing. Also, the word "shall" must not be overlooked. God's exertion of power will bring about the willingness of his people. Paul also taught the same when he wrote: "For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure." (Phil. 2: 13) God works in his people, with omnipotence, "to will."

You then say - "no, people are not elect before they are saved. 2 Thes. 2:13 is not refering to election. The word "chosen" is not the same Greek word for elect. What God chose, was how we would be saved. Which is "through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth." Please note there is no period after salvation."

First, though the Greek word for "chose" is different than in some other passages, yet the concept is still there. "Chose" and "elected" are two different words yet are synonyms. What English word would you put for the Greek word for "chosen"? What did God do for them "from the beginning" if he did not choose them? Second, it is not true that God is choosing a plan but people. Paul says "God has chosen YOU..." The prepositional phrase "through ("in" from "en") sanctification and belief of the truth," is a modifying phrase. What other word does it modify? Does it modify "chosen," or "you," or "salvation"? I believe it is clear that it modifies or speaks to the word "salvation." That is, Paul is saying God chose you to salvation "which exists in" ("en") sanctification and belief. If sanctification and faith are integral elements or parts of "salvation," then to be chosen to the whole of salvation is to be chosen to all the parts of it. Third, there are other verses that demonstrate that one is chosen to salvation before salvation. "Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory." (II Tim. 2: 10) People are elect before they are saved. People are ordained to eternal life before they believe. (Acts 13: 48)

You then ask - "where in Gal 4:28, 29 does it state Isaac was "a child of God before he was born of the Spirit.""

Because the story of Isaac's election, predestination, and supernatural birth, or birth of the Spirit, as given by Moses, informs us that Isaac was designated as the heir of promise a year before he was born. God told Abraham and Sarah that one born at a specific time, as a result of God's coming, would be supernaturally born, would be designated as the "heir of promise" and "child of God." Thus, a year before Isaac was born, God had already named him as the heir. God had already chosen and predestined for him to be what he became. What he became was the result of God's will and work alone. Isaac was simply the blessed recipient of it. And, God was the one to make him different from Ishmael.

You then ask - "was Ishmael saved or lost?" Well, what do the scriptures say? What do you say? Is there any scripture that indicates that he was saved? How is Ishmael spoken of by God? In terms of salvation and blessing? Was God's distinguishing between Isaac and Ishmael not indicative of the saved or lost paradigm? Isaac's choice and predestination by God had to do with him being a "child of promise" and "child of God" (Rom. 9: 8). Ishmael was rejected, not chosen or predestined, to be a "child of promise" or "child of God." Ishmael was called a "wild man" (Gen. 16: 12), violent and obstinate. That description does not seem to fit those who are elect and saved. Also, in Galatians 4, Paul uses Isaac as a type of all the elect and saved, and uses Ishmael as a type (example) of the rejected and lost. He says Ishmael "was born after the flesh," was not, as Isaac, "born after the Spirit." Now, in the light of all this, how could you reasonably believe he was saved? Was Ishmael a gospel believer?

You then say - "yes, God does have a people before He saves them. They are call Israelites."

Well, there is more than one "Israel," brother, as Paul said - "they are not all Israel, which are of Israel." (Rom. 9: 6) He speaks of the true spiritual Israel in his epistles, and conversely, of "Israel after the flesh." (I Cor. 10: 18) God has a spiritual "people" or "Israelites." Moses said to ancient Israel - "the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth." (Deut. 7: 6) God chose them to become his people. They were elect before they became his people.

You then add - "Who was John speaking of in John 1:11. They couldn't be His own according to your theory, because they received Him not."

Those who were his own, in John 1: 11, are the members of the Jewish nation. They are his own kin according to the flesh, but not his kin according to election or work of the Spirit in new birth. Jesus has those who are his kin physically, and those who are his kin spiritually. Those who are mere physical relatives of Jesus do not receive him, but those who are his spiritual relatives do receive him. Physical Israelites do not receive him, but spiritual Israelites do.

You then say - "in Acts 5:14 and Acts 11:24 Luke writes that believers were "added to the Lord." Please explain how one could be added to the Lord if he was already His? Is not the only explanation, they were added because they were not His before they were saved?"

I have really already explained this in answering your other questions and objections. When people, before they are born, are chosen to the destiny of becoming the children of God, they are elect, and children by choice, though not yet existing as actual children. It is like parental planning, where parents choose and plan to have a child before the child is actually born.

Stephen Garrett

Dear Peter:

You said - "For both "systems" a special work of grace is not only required but necessary. Afterward--that is, after the divine work takes place--the differences begin to shape."

The issue, Peter, is what is the reason why one person differs from another, remember? Can you tell us? I gave you my view, the Calvinistic and biblical one. God makes the difference! That is the point. You say you agree with this, and then find fault with my citing I Cor. 4: 7 which directly addresses differences. You wanted to confine the verse to certain gifts of the Spirit that God gives to the saved and show a reluctance to apply the verse to all men as respecting all the gifts they receive in life. But, on the other hand, you are willing to grant that God making the difference is applicable to salvation, but only that I Cor. 4: 7 is not a verse to use. I countered by saying Paul uses universalistic language by asking "what do you have that you did not receive." Paul did not limit "what you have" to "what you have in the way of spiritual gifts now that you have been saved." Arminianism does make the sinner himself the one who ultimately, and finally, makes himself different. Grevinchovius was being honest.

You said - "In other words, Calvinists and Arminians both admit inability to believe. Depraved humans cannot believe. Hence, God creates ability to believe."

Does God ask permission of the sinner in order to create this ability to believe in him? If no, then is God violating his free will? You have already admitted that God convicts the sinner without the sinner's choice, and that he does this irresistibly. You are a good Calvinist up to this point. Why can you not believe that God does not simply create ability to believe, but belief itself? When you say that God convicts the sinner efficaciously and without failure, are you not crediting God with the work of conviction? Why not credit God, in the same way, with your actual coming to Christ? You want to give him 100% credit in conviction but not in conversion?

Also, not all Arminians believe in total depravity. Yes, those who call themselves "classical" do so, but this represents only one division within Arminianism. Calvinists are agreed on original sin, total depravity, and effectual calling.

You said "Second, you add the phrase, "not being aware of any irresistible power operating upon them." One can only suppose you mean God works via stealth. Care to explain where you find Scriptural notions about God "irresistibly" working via stealth?"

Peter, how can you equate my saying that a sinner is not aware that God is operating on him in an irresistible and effectual manner with his working by stealth? They are not the same and you should know better. I may know that someone is working on me without knowing the nature of his work and power. I'll tell you this much, God works via surprise, as in the case of Saul (Paul). Also, the Lord worked effectually and irresistibly in the case of Saul. The Lord "subdued" the will of Saul on that day.

You then said - "Third, I do not frame the question the way as do you, Stephen: "Is it the choice of God or the choice of the sinner?" The Bible does not seem to use such an e/o proposition which should caution us from using one else we end up embracing a false dichotomy."

Peter, you are so wrong. The Bible does use "either/or propositions" in the way you condemn. "NOT BY works of righteousness which we have done, BUT BY..." (Titus 4: 5) "It is not of him who wills or him who runs but of God..." (Rom. 9: 16) "If by grace, then is it no more of works..." (Rom. 11: 6)

You said - "the Baptist's statement says nothing so far as I can tell which is applicable to our discussion." How can you not see how John 3: 27 and I Cor. 4: 7 are related? Both verses say that what a man has he has by gift from God.

You asked - "Spurgeon's quote is supposed to demonstrate what?" To demonstrate that God is the one who makes one different from another according to his sovereign will and that this is what Paul affirms in I Cor. 4: 7.

Blessings

Chris Gilliam

enjoying the read

peter lumpkins

 

Stephen,

Stephen: “The issue, Peter, is what is the reason why one person differs from another, remember? Can you tell us? I gave you my view, the Calvinistic and biblical one. God makes the difference! That is the point”: Stephen, I have over and over again in this thread stated what I believed to be the difference and for you to ask me “Can you tell us?” is categorically absurd. Nor am I going to agree with the way you’re framing the issue.  I made that clear in the last comment: the Bible does not use an e/o proposition pertaining to this issue. Of course God makes the difference!  On the other hand, there are dozens of verses which definitively state faith makes the difference (Rom 5:1; Eph 2, etc). I will not concede the false dichotomy you’re imposing on Scripture which, unfortunately, seems to be a product of your system.

Stephen: “You say you agree with this, and then find fault with my citing I Cor. 4: 7 which directly addresses differences. Yes, and I’ll continue to find fault with your ripping any verse from its context to attempt to prove a doctrinal point.  It’s that simple, Stephen.  My initial objection was to your dubbing that verse as Paul arguing for his “gracious system or paradigm of conversion…” Paul was definitively *not* referencing conversion in this verse and for you to employ it as if he were—not to mention making it into a “system” or paradigm” of being converted is nothing short of a misuse of Scripture, Stephen.  The contextual matters concern rivalries in the church apparently over spiritual gifts, not what “distinguishes” a lost person from a saved person.

In addition, you now apparently want to “apply the verse to all men as respecting all the gifts they receive in life” employing, as it were “universalistic language” when Paul is obviously speaking about the jealousies between believer and believer not between believer and lost person. All you’re managing to do, Stephen, is to bleed out any contextual meaning for the Apostle’s immediate recipients. You’re now speaking the language of common grace. Well, of course, all people receive all they get from God—heaven’s rain comes on just and unjust alike.  Don’t you see how completely vacuous you’re making the Apostle’s words by arguing Paul's “universalistic language” applied to “all” men for “all” the gifts they receive in life? Even so, what the Apostle does not say in these verses is that faith is given only to the elect or that they are sovereignly distinguished by a predetermined plan.  All of that happens to be baggage brought to the text, Stephen. Now, I suggest if you don’t like my rejection of your verse, so be it. 

Stephen: “Arminianism does make the sinner himself the one who ultimately, and finally, makes himself different. Grevinchovius was being honest”: Arminianism like Calvinism requires a divine touch from above to be made different, Stephen.  Unless you’re willing to demonstrate classic Arminiansim does not teach total depravity as I suggested, I’m done with this point with you. I’ve spent a lot of time correcting your errors about classic Arminiansim and I’m not going to keep doing it. You are free to do and believe as you wish. Additionally, to come back again and cite “Grevinchovius” as just “being honest” demonstrates a little about how you handle sources, Stephen.  Here’s a guy you’ve apparently never read—you’ve only cited a negative remark concerning him written by another author (an enemy no less!)—and yet you judge him as just “being honest.” What a double West Georgia hoot!  

Stephen: “You have already admitted that God convicts the sinner without the sinner's choice, and that he does this irresistibly. You are a good Calvinist up to this point. Why can you not believe that God does not simply create ability to believe, but belief itself?”: Let’s get this straight—I’ve not admitted anything to you.  I’m not on trial here. Nor are your questions hardly pressing, brother.  Rather, I am attempting to express how I understand the issues and what I happen to believe as well as defend evangelical Arminianism and other non-Calvinistic expressions from sloppy errors posed against them. Nor did I affirm God “convicts” apart from the “sinner’s choice” and certainly not that He does so "irresistibly."  Where on earth did you get that? 

Here’s what I stated: “you’re wrongly conflating “irresistible” with “initial” hardly the same, Stephen.” And you conclude I'm supposed to have “admitted” God “convicts” the sinner without the “sinner's choice” and that he does this “irresistibly”?? No, what you did do is completely ignore the point I made. And, I do not believe that God “creates” faith in the unbeliever for the simple reason there is no Scriptural foundation for such a belief (unless, of course, one wants to pull a rabbit out of the hat and make 1 Cor. 4:7 be applicable).

Stephen:  “When you say that God convicts the sinner efficaciously and without failure, are you not crediting God with the work of conviction? Why not credit God, in the same way, with your actual coming to Christ? You want to give him 100% credit in conviction but not in conversion?”  I do not employ the term “efficaciously,” Stephen, for it is too much associated with Calvinism.  Nor do I suggest God does not get credit for my conversion.  Don’t ever say that to me on this thread again, brother.  You may believe what you wish. You may think I am inconsistent all you wish.  You may even point out what you believe to be an inconsistency. But I take high offense to anyone coming here and implicating me for *not* FULLY crediting my Lord for my salvation. One tires of over-jealous Calvinists insinuating the heart-faith of non-Calvinists as less than genuine, biblical faith.

Stephen: Also, not all Arminians believe in total depravity. Yes, those who call themselves "classical" do so, but this represents only one division within Arminianism:  I’ve not stated all Arminians believe in total depravity. What I have consistently argued is “classical,” “biblical,” and “evangelical” Arminians do.  Nor does it assist to qualify it with “this represents only one division within Arminianism.” The very same argument could be leveled toward Calvinism—only one division within Calvinism believes in evangelism, or limited atonement, or, etc—albeit the majority or minority.  Hence, what’s your point?  It seems to me you’re bringing up points hardly worth pursuing, Stephen.

Allow me to set the record straight: while I have defended Classical, biblical Arminianism from misrepresentation on a number of issues (especially total depravity) from ill-informed critics like yourself--and will continue to do so--I am not convinced either Arminianism or Calvinism gets it (i.e. total depravity) right, which is one reason why I do not and will not claim a "system" for myself.

Stephen: Peter, how can you equate my saying that a sinner is not aware that God is operating on him in an irresistible and effectual manner with his working by stealth? They are not the same and you should know better”: Well I don’t know better, Stephen. Indeed I cannot for the life of me understand the contribution of many of your points to the thread much less counter-points. You are the one who seemed to imply stealth (i.e. undercover) not I.  Either explain yourself in the beginning or expect someone to miss what you’re attempting to suggest.

Stephen: Peter, you are so wrong. The Bible does use "either/or propositions" in the way you condemn: Well, no not in the way I stated it (for the record, I was not “condemning” I was “questioning”; nor was I “questioning” the Bible but the way you framed the issue). I did not suggest the Bible never uses either/or propositions. It obviously does—saved by faith not works. Granted. But it does not dichotomize in an e/o fashion choice of God or choice of sinner.  At least not that I can tell. Both are embraced in Scripture. We are elect. We choose.

Stephen: How can you not see how John 3: 27 and I Cor. 4: 7 are related? Both verses say that what a man has he has by gift from God” See the lengthy reply above, Stephen.

Stephen: Spurgeon's quote is supposed to demonstrate what?" To demonstrate that God is the one who makes one different from another according to his sovereign will and that this is what Paul affirms in I Cor. 4: 7: O.K. Stephen.  Have it your way.  Believe as you wish about 1 Cor 4:7 and Paul “affirming” that God’s “sovereign will” is what “makes one different from another.”

Good-bye Stephen.  I’m done.

With that, I am…

Peter  

Don Johnson

Stephen,

Phil. 2:13 is addressed to the saints at Philippi (Phil. 1:1). So yes, they are the God's people. All saved people are God's people. My point is there are no unsaved people who are God's, unless they are Jews. If you want to infer words into text go ahead, but you haven't shown that the unsaved are the Lord's. Simply saying the Bible says so, doesn't make it so. Where does it say the lost are God's people?

2 Tim. 2:10 is indeed speaking of an unsaved elect people. But who is this elect people group Paul is referencing? Note the first word of the verse "Therefore". When you determine why the therefore is there for, you'll have the answer to whom Paul is reffering. Also, suppose Paul did nothing about these particular unsaved elect people, what would become of them.

I assume, though you did not mention it, that you also want to infer God into Acts 13:48. Can you give me a cross reference stating God ordains people to eternal life before they believe? If not, I'll let the context determine who did the ordaining.

Yes, I do believe Ishmael was saved. If it can be shown that Ishmael was indeed saved, we both know it would destroy "unconditional election" and Calvinists take on Rom. 9. That will have to wait until tomorrow. I'm going to bed.

peter lumpkins

All,

I'm putting up a piece on 1 Cor 4:7 since Stephen appears to think the text unquestionably and explicitly teaches his strict Calvinistic assumptions. Quite frankly, I know of no greater example of succumbing to the temptation to let theology drive one's exegesis than employing 1 Cor. 4:7 to "prove" God efficaciously calls one person rather than another.

With that, I am...
Peter

Robert

Hello Peter,

“Thanks for the participation and your commentary. We obviously have much more in common than we have differences! ;^)”

And precisely where do we disagree? :-)

I believe that if we sat down and had a coke (I do not drink alcohol because I know too many people who struggle with it, and being in leadership I rather avoid it and so avoid lots of completely unnecessary problems and misunderstandings, so I forsake it, besides I LOVE sodas of all kinds! :-)) we would agree on quite a bit of theology. I hold to Baptist beliefs, I would be labeled “Arminian” though I do not believe that you can “lose your salvation”, etc.

So again Peter where do you think that we disagree???

“And, though I am more reluctant than you to employ the term "determinist" to stronger Calvinists, as you can see by William's honesty, "determinism" is not a totally inappropriate term to employ...”

I use the term “determinist” intentionally because I want Calvinism out in the open for all to see and understand.

Calvinists often play semantic word games such as speaking of how God causes or forces us to come to Christ and yet we are acting “freely” when we do so (thus the word “freely” loses its ordinary meaning and refers to: being FORCED TO FREELY BELIEVE, which is both incoherent and irrational and contradictory). Also when you speak of “determinism” you can then easily describe what calvinism really is (i.e. the idea that God decided beforehand how every detail of history, how every event that occurs would occur, like a novelist conceiving of his play, and then by directly, continuously and completely controlling everything, micromanaging if you will, He then ENSURES that this total plan, this possible is carried out in every detail so that this possible world becomes the actual world, and this whole scheme is perfectly described as EXHAUSTIVE DETERMINISM).

Most Christians once they see that calvinism ***is*** exhaustive determinism and what it entails (e.g. that God decided upon every single sin and then ensures that they occur just as planned, including the fall of Adam and Eve, so God becomes the author of all sin, so that a god behind exhaustive determinism becomes a moral monster who toys with most humans decided for them to be damned beforehand, deciding their every rebellious act of sin and then punishing them eternally for doing and being EXACTLY what God wanted them to be and do [i.e. the calvinist/determinist conception of “reprobation” which honest determinists admit to being the most hateful thing that you could possibly do to a person], that determinism means we never ever have a choice, let alone “free will”, it is all fixed with no exceptions, that God says one thing in the bible, the so called “prescriptive will of God” and yet decided beforehand something else, the so called “decretive will of God”, so God says for example that he hates divorce in the prescriptive will and yet in the decretive will He PREPLANNED AND DESIRED FOR EVERY DIVORCE THAT OCCURS TO OCCUR, so you cannot trust the bible as God is constantly decreeing the very things he says that he supposedly hates or is displeased by; exhaustive determinism obliterates the love of God for the world and leads determinists to have to reinterpret John 3:16, 1 Jn. 2:2 etc. etc. so that scripture is forced to fit their theological system rather than their views being based upon scripture, etc. etc. etc.) will reject it. As have the vast majority of Christians (including Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Independents, the entire early church prior to Augustine) throughout church history.

Exhaustive determinism is quite a mess and is like an acid that destroys everything in its path.

The character of God is maligned and as Roger Olson has correctly noted: it becomes difficult to distinguish God from the devil when it comes to character and interactions with humans.

It leads many of its proponents to become extremely arrogant and divisive people (as I am sure you are seeing first hand in the Southern Baptist circles where this theological disease is present).

So Yes “determinism” is an apt way to refer to this theological poison.

I wish every Southern Baptist knew what exhaustive determinism leads to and means. If they knew and understood it (minus the spin put on it by determinists, e.g. reprobation the most hateful thing that you could do to a person becomes God merely “passing over” the nonbelievers, which sounds quite innocuous if you don’t know what is really going on, when in reality He hated them from eternity, planned their earthly sins and ensured their earthly sins and then delights in eternally punishing them for being the very persons and doing the very actions he preplanned for them!) they would run from it and have nothing to do with it. Or show SBC Baptists how most modern determinists deny unlimited atonement that in their view God really does not love the World, really does not desire the salvation of all, that He just SAYS THAT in the bible, when in reality according to his preconceived total plan/according to his decretive will he wants to damn most of the human race, and see how that plays out!

Robert

The comments to this entry are closed.