Brenda B. Colijn on A Parable of Calvinism

Dr. Brenda B. Colijn is Professor of Biblical Interpretation and Theology at Ashland Theological Seminary in Ashland, Ohio. Dr. Colijn offered an interesting parable in her paper "A Parable of Calvinism"¹ wherein she challenges the Calvinistic understanding of the well-meant offer of the gospel to all human beings. Coming from an Anabaptistic theological framework, I think she makes a valid point in critiquing standard Calvinistic explanations given and accepted by Reformed believers.

Below is Colijn's "parable of a cruise ship." Consider:

The kingdom of God is like a cruise ship that goes on a long voyage. The captain of the ship overhears his passengers planning to go swimming off the side of the ship. He makes an announcement to all the passengers, warning them against such an action. If they jump off the ship, they will be unable to climb back in, because the hull is too steep and there are no ladders to give access. The ship is hundreds of miles from land, so they won't be able to swim to shore. The surrounding waters are infested with sharks. Nevertheless, despite the captain's warnings, all of the passengers jump overboard to go swimming. They are soon in deep trouble.

Seeing their distress, the captain broadcasts a message to all of them. He says that he can rescue them all; to be rescued, all they need to do is to grab the life preservers that he will throw to them. Then he takes out a few life preservers and instructs his crew to throw them to certain individual passengers he has picked out. For the other passengers, he does nothing. He continues to broadcast his message that they need only to grab the life preservers in order to be rescued. Some of the people with life preservers beg him to help the passengers who are drowning. The captain ignores them. With his message of rescue still sounding across the water, he watches the rest of the passengers die. When asked why he didn't rescue the others, he says that they all deserved to die, and they should be grateful that he chose to save any of them.

What would we think of a captain who did these things? This is a parable of Calvinism, and the cruise ship captain is the Calvinist God. All orthodox Christians believe that human beings are in danger of eternal death because of sin, and their only hope is to be rescued by God. God provides this rescue through the work of Christ (the atonement). No one can be rescued unless God takes the initiative, reaches out to them with the offer of rescue, and enables them to receive it.

But Calvinists and non-Calvinists differ in their understanding of God's intentions and actions regarding the rescue. (Ashland Theological Journal 36 (2004): 102).

¹Ashland Theological Journal 36 (2004): 99–102. Dr. Colijn's essay was the source from which I earlier cited a quote from John Wesley.

Comments

[Max]

"No one can be rescued unless God takes the initiative, reaches out to them with the offer of rescue, and enables them to receive it."

Dr. Colijn describes the "whosoever will" Gospel message Southern Baptists have taken to the world in my lifetime (I have attended SBC churches 65+ years). The "offer of rescue" is the Cross of Christ for ALL men. God's people called Southern Baptists have come alongside Him to assist in the enabling for "them to receive it" - that has been our Great Commission. What good is an offer if it is not received?!

SBC work in my lifetime has been an exercise of both the sovereignty of God and human responsibility. New Calvinism altars that message and mission, with its harvest-the-predestined-elect focus. While SBC leadership raises the BFM2000 banner and calls for unity in diversity regarding soteriology, I just don't see how Southern Baptists can go forward with two distinct messages while they "differ in their understanding of God's intentions and actions regarding the rescue."

[rhutchin]

Instead of this, "Then he takes out a few life preservers and instructs his crew to throw them to certain individual passengers he has picked out," the parable should read, "Then the captain takes out a multitude of life preservers and instructs his crew to throw them onto the water unit the water is covered in life preservers so that any may grab one and be saved. The Captain calls out to the passengers to grab a life preserver and be saved. His pleas are met by laughter and derision. There is no danger, the passengers say. The Captain is a fool. At this point, the Captain jumps into the water and saves those he chooses while those around continue to laugh and deride him"

[Ernest]

rhutchin- seems to me you ignore limited atonement preached by Calvinism. The Calvinist captain makes no provision to save the "non-elect". Not only that but he is glorified by letting them drown.

[Joshua David Kelso]

@rhutchin: exactly.

I don't see any attempt here to even try to interact with what we actually believe.

@Max: I have no idea what "harvest-the-predestined-elect" focus evangelism is. I preach the gospel as it is presented in Scripture to everyone I meet: Believe and be saved. And by God's grace, some are. All Calvinism has done is enabled me to consistently interpret scripture, it has in no way negatively affected how evangelistic I am.

[Don Johnson]

Joshua,

"I preach the gospel as it is presented in Scripture to everyone I meet: Believe and be saved." What is it you tell people to believe? Do you tell them Christ died for their sins? Or do you tell Christ died for some sinners and you might be one of them?

[Lydia]

"don't see any attempt here to even try to interact with what we actually believe."

Some of us have been trying for about 8 years to do just that. And some of us have really dug into Calvin and his "ism". . I have come to the conclusion it is impossible to interact with what many Calvinists believe because I don't think they even understand it or ever take it to its logical conclusions. So the entire enterprise is based on defending the indefensible in framed debates and circular logic.

I have literally quoted celebrity Calvinist back to Calvinists who adore that celeb and they will answer: That is not what we believe. You don't understand.

It never ceases to amaze me. Some of us have given up because the standard response is we don't understand it and even worse, we constantly present it wrong.

It is pure Gnosticism. One has to have special knowledge at special times to "get it". And only "special people" have that knowledge.

I would say that the illustration in the post is pretty good. The "saving" is random. The captain randomly picked out some passengers LONG before the crisis (before they were born) to save. IN Calvinism the Captain is being totally merciful because they all deserved to die and they were all "guilty".

I don't blame you a bit for not liking it when your representation of God is illustrated. You have been able to lose yourself in the black hole of convoluted explanations, pseudo theological intellectualism and redefined words to explain every question away.

You have a problem with not taking your own system to its logical conclusion: Your representation of God is of a tyrant and moral monster. Your representation of God looks nothing like Jesus Christ. Which is where we really should start.

[Lydia]

"@Max: I have no idea what "harvest-the-predestined-elect" focus evangelism is. I preach the gospel as it is presented in Scripture to everyone I meet: Believe and be saved. And by God's grace, some are. All Calvinism has done is enabled me to consistently interpret scripture, it has in no way negatively affected how evangelistic I am."

I hear this all the time. And YRR/Cals are "missions" oriented FOR Calvinism. But you are not honest in your evangelism. If you were, you would admit to the person you are speaking with that God might not have chosen them before they were born. You simply do not know if they are elect or not. So you don't give them the truth of how you think God works right way. You save that for later when you think they are believers. Then they are told they ARE elect and God made them believe.

So what do we tell the YRR pew sitters who bought into this hook line and sinker and are now atheists? Some could not live out the determinist god paradigm day after day. Now they despise it all. Were they elect?

At the very least when a free will person becomes an atheist we can agree with them it was THEIR choice. Not God's.

[Mark]

Joshua,

In Mark 2:17, Jesus spoke to the Pharisees "it is not the healthy who needs a physician but the sick"

It seems that some of the neo-Calvinist who embrace election theology go to far in their Judgments, Interpretations and Methodologies, especially toward those that would prefer not to be known as Reformed or Calvinist but simply as Christian.

In Mark 2:17, the Pharisees were in their minds the "spiritual elect" or "elites" but Christ didn't focus his ministry on the "elects" who were supposedly the spiritually healthy he focused his evangelizing on the non-elect who were in need of a physician.

I think to embrace Calvin's interpretation of Election Theology is extremely risky to say the least.

[peter lumpkins]

My apologies to all. I meant to get back and post these.

Peter

[Max]

"... Calvinists and non-Calvinists differ in their understanding ..."

Therein lies the SBC dilemma. Whether we want to admit it or not, there is a battle being waged for the minds of Southern Baptists. It's a war of intellect vs. truth. We are faced with the same question asked by Pilate "What is Truth?" Calvinist and non-Calvinist camps approach God's plan of salvation from two distinctly different pathways. Once you go down either, you view all Scripture through a theological grid embedded with presuppositions. Our spiritual understanding can go no further than the canopy cast over our minds. Unless the Word (Truth) is connected with the Spirit of Truth (the Holy Spirit), it will not be Revealed Truth which sets us free from the teachings and traditions of men. Calvin was a man. Since Calvinization of the SBC is well underway, it wouldn't hurt the Southern Baptist multitudes to pray for discernment.

[Scott Shaver]

....."no attempt to even try and interact". Could very well be the case for some of us, Rhutchin and Joshua.

I kinda smelled rotten fish from first introduction to Calvinism while in college and seminary, never have liked the footprint it left in history and especially don't like the perverted spirit of neo-calvinism exhibited among those who want to channel the MAN today.

I'm guilty. But not unchristian.

[Clay Gilbreath]

I plan to share Sunday an illustration attributed to Tozer about the non-Calvinist view of God's sovereignty... I thought it was pretty good... also a ship involved... here it is:
"An ocean liner leaves New York bound for Liverpool. Its destination has been determined by proper authorities. Nothing can change it. This is at least a faint picture of sovereignty. On board the liner are scores of passengers. These are not in chains, neither are their activities determined for them by decree. They are completely free to move about as they will. They eat, sleep, play, lounge about on the deck, read, talk, altogether as they please; but all the while the great liner is carrying them steadily onward toward a predetermined port. Both freedom and sovereignty are present here, and they do not contradict. So it is, I believe, with man's freedom and the sovereignty of God. The mighty liner of God's sovereign design keeps its steady course over the sea of history."

[Joshua David Kelso]

Don - I present them with exactly what Scripture says(I'm not trying to be snide, I literally walk them through the following verses with as little preamble as possible): All have sinned (Rms 3:23), sin = separation from God (Rms 6:23), Christ died for sinners (Rm 5:8), faith in Jesus's salvific work = salvation (Rms 10:9-10, Eph 2:8-9). Most reject politely or want time to think, a few reject angrily, a smaller few confess belief and pray to be saved. Sometimes I also through in 2 Cor 5:21 if they are struggling to understand how God can just forgive them without doing some kind of penance/good works, simply on faith alone.

Practically, unless you (not you specifically, you in general) are an open theist, there isn't really a difference between a Calvinist and a "Traditionalist" gospel presentation. One believes God chooses who will be saved, the other believes God knows infallibly who will be saved. Either way, there's nothing the individual witnessing can do to affect the final destiny of a person's soul - but that in no way diminishes our responsibility to preach the gospel.

Lydia -

"I don't blame you a bit for not liking it when your representation of God is illustrated."

:o) See rhutchin's post for an accurate example of what we believe, as opposed to the original "parable".

"One has to have special knowledge at special times to "get it". And only "special people" have that knowledge. The "saving" is random."

No one. Seeks. After. God. - Romans 3:11
God has to "teach" them before they are capable of believing - John 6:44-45

Sounds like scripture to me, not Gnosticism.

"Your representation of God looks nothing like Jesus Christ."

He sure SOUNDS like the God Jesus was describing...and claiming to be.

"But you are not honest in your evangelism. If you were, you would admit to the person you are speaking with that God might not have chosen them before they were born."

How is it dishonest to quote scripture? Let me ask you this, when YOU are witnessing, do you tell the person you are speaking to that God already knows what they will decide, and that nothing can change that? Or do you 'dishonestly' hide from them God's Omniscient foreknowledge?

Let me answer your charge of "dishonesty": There has never once been a person who has asked me about election who I haven't answered honestly. And no, I have never said to anyone who rejected my answer that they were "therefore unelect". Because there are plenty of people I know who scoffed at election and later trusted Christ as saviour.

"So what do we tell the YRR pew sitters who bought into this hook line and sinker and are now atheists? Some could not live out the determinist god paradigm day after day. Now they despise it all. Were they elect?"

That's a very good question. Let's ask the Bible:

First, we reach out to them as a fallen brother/sister: 2 Tim 2:22-24. After all, lots of things can cause a person to backslide - unconfessed sin, depression, etc. And we shouldn't be too quick to condemn others when Jesus told us to be loving and gentle(Gal 6).

Second, we remind ourselves that some will appear to be elect, but will fall away, and in the end be shown to have never been truly saved: 1 John 2:19, Matt 7:21, 13:24-30.

And once again, your biased is showing through. I don't teach a "deterministic God paradigm", I teach Scripture. And scripture has nothing encouraging or reassuring to say about "pew warmers", as you well know.

"At the very least when a free will person becomes an atheist we can agree with them it was THEIR choice. Not God's."

Once again I will try and get through to you what we ACTUALLY BELIEVE: all sinned in Adam (Rms 5:12), i.e., if it had been Peter and Lydia in the garden instead of Adam and Eve, the outcome would have been the same. Even innocent humans chose to reject God's authority, let alone sinful ones. There is no one who fits the original "parables" strawman hypothetical: A person overboard desperately seeking to be saved who God callously ignores. Even free of a sin nature, mankind STILL jumps overboard, and says proudly: "I am not drowning. I do not need God."

So yes, I can also agree with them that it was their choice. Because it was.

Pardon the length.

[Andrew Barker]

Joshua: You can believe what you like, but to say Romans 5:12 supports ALL sinning in Adam is simply incorrect. It doesn't say that, not even in Wayne Grudem's ESV!

[Don Johnson]

Joshua,

You said Christ die for sinners Rom. 5:8. Do you tell the person Christ died for them. If Christ died for sinners and the person is a sinner, then Christ died for them. Right?

[Lydia]

Joshua,

This is fruitless. I do not use the Calvinistic determinist tyrannical god filter when I read scripture as you do. So any interaction with proof texts would be a waste of time. Been there done that.

I know in Calvinist circles that constitutes a "win". So go for it. :o)

[Joshua David Kelso]

Andrew - As the Bible describes us as sinful from the moment of conception (Psalms 51:5), I'm not sure what your objection to my interpretation of Romans 5:12 is. I'm not saying that every person is guilty of the action of breaking the Edenic Food Law, but that Adam's sinful nature is passed on to us, in that we are conceived into a state of sinfulness - i.e. into a state worthy of eternal separation from God.

Don - No I don't. I tell them that if they believe, they will be saved, or sometimes I say Christ died so that those who believe may be saved.

If I say "I feed the homeless", and you see a homeless person it means I will feed them, right? Not necessarily, no. Just because "I feed the homeless" CAN mean "I feed ALL the homeless" doesn't mean it HAS to mean that. In this case, it means "I feed SOME of the homeless".

[Lydia]

"As the Bible describes us as sinful from the moment of conception (Psalms 51:5), "

Vipers in Diapers doctrine

"in that we are conceived into a state of sinfulness "

This would mean Jesus incubated in Mary's sin stuff.

And,

It would also mean all you need is some hyssop to become clean. :o)

Man talking to God in poetry: Psalms

Do we have a sin nature. Yes. Are we born sinning? No. Unless you think crying to be fed is a sin and not an instinct given by God.

[Lydia]

"If I say "I feed the homeless", and you see a homeless person it means I will feed them, right? Not necessarily, no. Just because "I feed the homeless" CAN mean "I feed ALL the homeless" doesn't mean it HAS to mean that. In this case, it means "I feed SOME of the homeless"."

The bait and switch god. He says, whosoever will come but He really does not mean it.

[Don Johnson]

Joshua,

You stated "most reject politely." That would mean they are not rejecting truth but believing it, because Christ did not die for them. Are they judged for believing the truth?

[Joshua David Kelso]

Lydia - I agree, name-calling and misrepresentation IS fruitless. And if my tone has unnecessarily facilitated or solicited that, I apologise for being too emotive.

That's what frustrated me so much about Dr. Colijn's parable - why create a misrepresentative parable to blow holes in, rather than something much more constructive, like refuting an actual calvinist's illustration? I would have found ANY non-calvinist poster here's attempts to refute Edwards spider analogy or White's castle analogy with scripture far more interesting and thought-provoking than Dr. Colijn's one-woman strawman dialogue. At least starting with an accurate illustration shows the person is actually trying to engage with the other side.

I think only interacting within your (general, not specific) own side is incredibly short-sighted, which is why I come to site's like this. If forces me to answer questions I otherwise might not be asked.

[Joshua David Kelso]

Don - How do you know Christ didn't die for them? How would they know? I once had a guy get very angry with me at the suggestion that election was true. He said if that was the case "he guessed Christ didn't die for him, so there was no point even trying". He got saved just under a year later. He laughs now at how arrogant and hard-headed he was then, before God changed his heart.

Lydia -

"This would mean Jesus incubated in Mary's sin stuff."

Jesus didn't have a human father, therefore he did not inherit the curse.

"Do we have a sin nature. Yes."

What kind of moral-monster tyrant would curse a free-willed creature with a nature that forced it to sin and become guilty before God, before it could even think for itself? Maybe you'd be interested in defending your own thought systems logical conclusions for a change?

[Max]

"It forces me to answer questions I otherwise might not be asked."

Much of the blog dialogue between Calvinists and non-Calvinists is an exercise of answering questions no one is asking.

[Don Johnson]

Joshua,

You're correct in saying "I feed homeless people" does not necessarily mean you feed all homeless people if you are talking to me. However, if you are talking to a homeless person and say you feed homeless people, you are definitely inferring you are going to feed him. To say otherwise is deceitful.

So to say a Calvinist and a Traditionalist presentation of the Gospel is the same, is not correct. A Calvinist' presentation is deceitful. It the same thing as Abraham saying Sarah was his sister. Though true, it wasn't the whole truth.

[Lydia]

"That's what frustrated me so much about Dr. Colijn's parable - why create a misrepresentative parable to blow holes in, rather than something much more constructive, like refuting an actual calvinist's illustration?"

I would say it is because Cals start with a wrong foundational premise. And when you start wrong, you usually end wrong. That or it is a 50 page parable explaining why the foundational premise is wrong.

"I would have found ANY non-calvinist poster here's attempts to refute Edwards spider analogy or White's castle analogy with scripture far more interesting and thought-provoking than Dr. Colijn's one-woman strawman dialogue. At least starting with an accurate illustration shows the person is actually trying to engage with the other side."

Maybe it is because we are simple? And that does sound like a big snore. But I am sure it would make a Calvinist who loves psuedo intellectualism very happy.

I saw no strawman in Colijns illustration.. And we are used to Calvinists saying: strawman, we represent Calvinism wrongly,etc, etc. That has been going on for years so we know where it is coming from.

For a long time I fell for it and tried to interact on their terms. Which basically comes down to: You do not understand it and are presenting it wrong. (You guys need new material)

AFter watching that debacle on blogs for years I realized that one side really does not want unity but conformity to their doctrine and they use offensive warfare tactics to put Non Cals on the defense. They have been indoctrinated to do this. It is what they know.

"I think only interacting within your (general, not specific) own side is incredibly short-sighted, which is why I come to site's like this. If forces me to answer questions I otherwise might not be asked."

What on earth makes you think some of us have not been intereacting with other sides for many years now? AFter 8 years or so, please give some credit that pershaps it has been pretty much a waste of time since conformity is the actual goal of Calvinistic thought processes. Not spiritual unity.

If you want to interact with other sides and not be in a bubble, then for crying out loud, warn young men off SBTS where indoctrination is the goal. The bubble/ghetto thinking coming out of the Neo Cal movement is astonishing. It is like a "stepford pastor" movement.

It has been amusing to watch though despite all the bodies under the NC/YRR bus. Now they are trying to distance themselves from Driscoll, save Acts 29 and pretend the child molesting protection deal with Mahaney never happened. Piper is tweeting: Deep speaks to Deep while claiming to be a 21st Century John calvin....and so on. The movement is going off the rails. Maybe some "simplicity" even the peasants could understand would have been best. But Calvinism is not simple. It is for "special people" with "special knowledge" to teach us.

[Eric Sloan]

God's Word sheds light on this issue:

14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion,[a] but on God, who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— (Romans 9:14-26)

[Andrew Barker]

Joshua: There is good reason for Dr. Colijn not using a Calvinist's parable because the nature of a parable does not allow it to be altered. Parables are often misused in this way and misunderstood because of it.

I would suggest the following:
1. Parables are not meant to contain ALL the truth even about a specific topic. They are normally to highlight one aspect of the truth.
2. The person writing the parable will set the parameters, so it's no good other people saying they should have done this that or the other or trying to add to the parable.
3. If you try and use the parable outside it's remit it will soon break down.

Bearing this in mind, if you look at Dr. Colijn's example you find the follow:

1. The aim is to question the Calvinist's claim of a well-meant offer of the gospel to all.
2. All the passengers have jumped overboard and are in the same position. They will all drown.
3. The captain selectively throws out life preservers to some of the passengers who are then rescued leaving the rest to drown.

The problem for the Calvinist and Reformed is that they have become comfortable in teaching this on paper, but when somebody paints a graphic picture or puts it into a parable, it becomes a more personal issue.

1. What the captain does is plainly immoral. You try convincing the average person in the street that what he does is fair and right minded and you will have a hard time of it.
2. It brings into question the character of the captain. He could have saved more, but he chose not to.
3. To say that the captain made the same offer to all the passengers is clearly incorrect.

There is something profoundly dishonest about the Calvinist's claim that God makes a well-meant offer of salvation to all, if at the same time he has elected only some to salvation.

[David (NAS) Rogers]

Eric,

It is a well-worn tactic of many Calvinists to think that the mere citation of a biblical reference or passage settles the case. I absolutely believe in the passage that you provided for us and do not come to any Calvinist conclusions. Should I provide an explanation? Or should I just provide the following passage?

Rom 11:25-32 NASB
25 For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery-- so that you will not be wise in your own estimation-- that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; 26 and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, "THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION, HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB."
27 "THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM, WHEN I TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS."
28 From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God's choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; 29 for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.
30 For just as you once were disobedient to God, but now have been shown mercy because of their disobedience, 31 so these also now have been disobedient, that because of the mercy shown to you they also may now be shown mercy.
32 For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all.

[Max]

Eric, God's Word sheds light on this issue in the whole of Scripture, rather than predetermined passages to support theological determinism. In the whole of Scripture, you will find that the divine plan includes both the sovereignty of God and the free will of man to accept or reject that plan.

[Eric Sloan]

Andrew said, "What the captain does is plainly immoral."

It's interesting how some labor under the assumption that God reaches out to everyone equally or that everyone has an equal opportunity to accept or reject the Gospel, and that if that is not the case, then God is somehow immoral. First of all, the parable doesn't work because everyone is on the same boat with the captain speaking directly to them. Let's look at it more realistically. Let's go back to AD 33 when the Crucifixion of Jesus most likely occurred. Some of the apostles preached the Gospel to the 12 tribes of Israel and Paul and others preached the gospel to the gentiles in Cyprus, Asia Minor and Greece, ect. With the limitations on technology and the gap of language and culture, traveling/preaching the gospel to people in far away places was nearly impossible. South Americans living in AD 33 had no chance of knowing about the gospel let alone accepting it. Is this immoral? Should we question God?

"But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? Romans 9:20-21

[Andrew Barker]

Eric, you may have read my post but obviously either not understood it or you have chosen to disregard it completely. There were no Indians on the boat in the parable!

[Andrew Barker]

PS for Indians read South Americans. Don't know where the Indians popped up from unless of course they were South American Indians?

[Lydia]

"South Americans living in AD 33 had no chance of knowing about the gospel let alone accepting it. Is this immoral? Should we question God?"

Neither did many Pagans in the OT.

So what about Romans 1?

[Andrew Barker]

Or indeed Romans 2: 15-16 I think we can safely assume God knows what he's doing!

[rhutchin]

Andrew barker writes, 'There is something profoundly dishonest about the Calvinist's claim that God makes a well-meant offer of salvation to all, if at the same time he has elected only some to salvation."

This is basically the argument put forth by the Universalists. If God makes a "well-meant offer" to each and every individual, then all would accept that offer and be saved. No rational person would refuse such an offer.

Nonetheless, Calvinists claim that all will not be saved and while the gospel is proclaimed to both Jew and Gentile, it is only those whom God draws to Christ who are saved - and God does not appear to drawing each and every individual to Christ.

[Andrew Barker]

rhutchin: " If God makes a "well-meant offer" to each and every individual, then all would accept that offer and be saved. No rational person would refuse such an offer."

Which planet are you living on. Since when has mankind been known for thinking and indeed only ever acting, rationally!

The offer is indeed made universally. The acceptance is entirely a matter of choice, rational or otherwise!

[rhutchin]

Andew Barker wrote, "Which planet are you living on. Since when has mankind been known for thinking and indeed only ever acting, rationally!

The offer is indeed made universally. The acceptance is entirely a matter of choice, rational or otherwise!"

If a person has free will (genuine or true as some like to say), then they will act rationally. If not, then we would conclude that something is wrong - they are unable to exercise free will. Of course, that is the idea behind Total Depravity.

A "well-meant offer" requires a free will - one that is rational - if it is truly "well-meant." That an offer is made does not make it "well-meant."

[Lydia]

"If a person has free will (genuine or true as some like to say), then they will act rationally. "

Are you defining Free Will as Genuine and true? That can fit in many cases with the concept of "rational".

So where does Free will as "genuine and true" come from? I am not following you.

It begs the question of those who do evil have no free will?

This also begs a new question of totally depraved "saved" Calvnists and their "rationality". (wink)

I do want to thank you for adding "genuine and true" as qualifiers for Free Will. So often when we discuss with Cals they don't give their definitions and it can become very frustrating.

[Andrew Barker]

rhutchin: I am going to exercise my free will and terminate this conversation! Which I think is probably the only rational option open to me!

[rhutchin]

"Are you defining Free Will as Genuine and true? That can fit in many cases with the concept of "rational"."

So where does Free will as "genuine and true" come from? I am not following you."

Ans. I have seen the terms "genuine" and "true" used to describe free will in articles by professed Arminians (Jack Cottrell comes to mind in the book "Perspectives on Election"). I think this is to distinguish it from "free will" as used by Calvinists which, presumably, would not be true or genuine free will. I am guessing, because I don't know why Arminians do this.

"It begs the question of those who do evil have no free will?"

Ans. I think both Arminians and Calvinists subscribe to Total Depravity in which a person's will is captive to sin (via a sin nature) so it would not be free. "True" or "genuine" free will would be that which enables a person to resist evil - it would be that exercised by believers. True??? I'm putting words in the mouths of Arminians and not sure they are the right words.

"This also begs a new question of totally depraved "saved" Calvnists and their "rationality". (wink)"

Ans. He He He (I though that was cute).

"I do want to thank you for adding "genuine and true" as qualifiers for Free Will. So often when we discuss with Cals they don't give their definitions and it can become very frustrating."

Ans. Boy, getting credit for something the Arminians started. Not sure what to do with that.

Have you never seen "true" or "genuine" or some other similar qualifiers used in describing free will? I seem to see it a lot.

Even Arminians come up short on definitions.

[rhutchin]

"I am going to exercise my free will and terminate this conversation! Which I think is probably the only rational option open to me!"

Response: Certainly, you exercise your will to do so. But, is your will free? How could you even prove that it was free?

...the only rational option... Now, that is an interesting statement. Option, yes. Rational, well, what makes it rational?? These words are loaded - you probably should have left out "free" and rational." You have merely exercise your will to choose the option to terminate discussion.