Step on those tracks
Perhaps it’s because I’ve recently abandoned the teaching of Calvinistic predestination that I am so troubled when I hear about the death of someone like Michael Jackson. There are a great many soul-sick people in the world, and we know that no temptation comes upon anyone except what is common to man, but still there is something particularly gut-wrenching about seeing a human being come gradually unglued on the national stage. The temptations of man are common, but a man with uncommon wealth and privilege can indulge his temptations far more extensively than the driver of a garbage truck.
Having peered into the sorry state of my own soul, I won’t presume to gauge the state of another’s. I am newly struck, however, by the reality that when a person contorts his soul into a monstrosity, this is not part of some cosmic plan, it is a great tragedy. And though none of us are appointed—thank God—as judges of Michael Jackson’s soul, any reasonable person can see that—inner life aside—his observable life was a tragedy. I’ve already heard a few people proffer indifference at Jackson’s death, but I think the right attitude, reflecting a right understanding of creation and our Creator, is that a life that never came untwisted is to be mourned at its passing.
When I hear that someone whose life was a public train wreck has died (Anna Nicole Smith comes to mind), I wonder what might have helped her or him grasp hold of a lifeline. Could no one have offered this man a drink of cool water? Perhaps many did, only to be scorned. It gives me pause, however, when I consider the train wreck lives whose tracks I tiptoe across for fear of getting run over, of getting dragged alongside. Then I consider the cliff toward which I’ve pointed my own life more than once, only to have people who love me stand on the tracks, refusing to let me go.
Those of us who are saved are saved by grace, and those of us who claim to love God are called to love our neighbor. So I think it’s worth asking: Who needs me to step in front of his runaway train? I suspect if we look around, we’ll find plenty of runaway trains, driven by scared, angry, desperately lonely people. Step on the tracks. Not with a lecture or a handy verse, but with the wild love of a God who adores the likes of you and me. Step on the tracks.














Click to Print
Include Comments










back to top361 Comments to “Step on those tracks”
“…I’ve recently abandoned the teaching of Calvinistic predestination…”
There’s a shocker.
Why not say instead “the Bible’s doctrine of predestination”?
Do you think that God is really surprised by the way Michael Jackson’s life turned out? Do you think He’s up there wringing His hands and saying, “If only someone had stepped on the tracks in front of Michael Jackson’s runaway train…”?
No, He’s not. He knew the end of Michael Jackson before the beginning of time, and the Bible says that God is completely sovereign over life and death. God creates vessels for honor as well as dishonor, and no clay can question what the Potter does with it, let alone what He does with another lump of clay.
All that being said, however, you are absolutely right to ask the questions you ask and to urge people to step on the tracks, because we don’t know the purposes to which God has fashioned other lumps of clay, and we don’t know whether we might be a tool in God’s hand to shape that clay to God’s perfect glory.
Christianity is a paradox religion. You don’t abandon one Biblical truth because it seems to contradict another. The Christian life is one in which we walk around trying to hold beliefs seemingly at variance with one another in perfect balance. It’s about walking on a tightrope or the edge of a razor blade.
It seems to me that your willingness to discard what the Bible says about God’s sovereignty in salvation is either your need to believe in some system that has an appearance of man-made scientific validity; or else you are offended by the character of God as revealed in the Bible. “MY God would never create a vessel of dishonor!” And whom else are people referring to when they say “MY God” but themselves as slightly greyer and wiser?
Report comment to moderator
1-
Tony didn’t say that he abandoned the Bible’s teachings because he didn’t abandon the Bible’s teachings. He abandoned man’s obsession/idolatry with certain ideas to the exclusion of other parts of reality. Yeah for Tony!!
Report comment to moderator
Popping some popcorn.
Report comment to moderator
“Nevertheless, the faithful have a sufficient alleviation of their sorrows in the special providence of God, and the all-sufficiency of His provision, whatsoever may happen. For there is nothing which is more dispiriting to us than while we vex and annoy ourselves with this sort of question – Why is it not otherwise with us?” (John Calvin, Selected Works of John Calvin,4:246)
“There is nothing more calculated to increase our faith, than the knowledge of the providence of God; because without it, we would be harassed with doubts and fears, being uncertain whether or not the world was governed by chance . . . For what can be more awfully tormenting than to be constantly racked with doubt and anxiety? And we will never be able to arrive at a calm state of mind until we are taught to repose with implicit confidence in the providence of God.” (John Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, 1:xxxviii-xxxix)
“For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.” (1 Corinthians 1:22-24)
Grace and blessings while walking down the track,
Samuel
Report comment to moderator
The primary question concerning predestination is not if it is a Calvinistic doctrine, but rather a biblical one. As it is a biblical doctrine, one would abandon it to their own peril. I find great comfort in the truth of this doctrine and the providence of God.
Report comment to moderator
David L.,
I just logged in to respond to this post, but before I did, I read your response and found that you’d said exactly what I wanted to say, only much more eloquently.
Report comment to moderator
Tony,
I would like to see a post by you explaining your reasons for abondoning the doctrine of predestination. Presumably you don’t see it in Scripture.
What other doctrines have you had to let go of as a result of ditching predestination?
Report comment to moderator
David L said it pretty much for me as well.
It is God alone who has the ability to intervene and save any of us. He uses the preaching of the gospel and his people as a means, but ultimately it is only God who is powerful enough to snatch us from our 3-fold enemy: the world, the flesh and satan.
None of us knows the end result of Jackson’s soul. Only God does. But watching Jackson’s more obvious problems play out in public was, indeed, tragic and sad. He leaves behind many who sincerely loved him and it for them that we now pray.
Report comment to moderator
Michael Jackson was a child of God and God welcomes all of His children home. How God will deal with (i.e., punish) MJ for His sins, is up to him. But ultimately it will be in His home.
Report comment to moderator
How do so-called “agnostics” justify making theological assertions? I always find it so bizarre.
Report comment to moderator
Ree,
I’m not an “agnostic” period. I’m also a deist, a theist and a universalist.
Report comment to moderator
Okay, Jon, but I still find it strange. It’s one thing to say that one finds certain theological ideas appealing, and one hopes them to be true, but quite another to make assertions about reality. I don’t understand the epistemological underpinnings by which you think you can make metaphysical assertions.
Report comment to moderator
Tony, what do you do with Ephesians 1?
Report comment to moderator
Ree,
It’s coming from somewhere else, not the Bible, but still from the outside, not inside of me or anything subjective on my part. Not the Bible, but rather something I “see.” Perhaps though, these things are compatible with the Bible. I think a lot of folks begin reading the Bible with certain “inputs” anyway.
Report comment to moderator
Tony, i really thought you had something good to say, but it got lost with your first line about predestination. The other posts have addressed this issue regarding God being sovereign. In the case of Michael Jackson it was very evident that something was tormenting this poor man and we need to be open to jump on the track of someone’s life to give a helping hand, a kind word, show compassion, bring the Word of Life to a poor soul and do what we are commanded to do – share the Good News.
Report comment to moderator
Well, Jon Rowe, I don’t think it is what you wrote, but you’re not a Christian, not to mention that you are hung up on the punishment thing. Now if MJ believed that Jesus is the Way, etc., and did the best he could, he’s not being punished. He’s absent from the body, present with the Lord.
Wherever he is, it’s because of the choices he made in life.
Report comment to moderator
I’m the agnostic around here, but I am frequently mistaken for an athesist.
Report comment to moderator
REE (10): How do so-called “agnostics” justify making theological assertions? I always find it so bizarre.
Frank: It was Thomas Sowell, I think, who put it this way:
“There is nothing so sobering as watching the theologically unwashed presume to lecture a 2000-year old church.”
Report comment to moderator
JON ROWE (14): I think a lot of folks begin reading the Bible with certain “inputs” anyway.
Frank: Absolutely. And one of those “inputs” — I’ll use the word “presuppositions” instead — is that the Word of God is a nice book full of many wise sayings, but when it says things I personally find distasteful, I’ll ignore them or assert the contrary.
And not on the basis of personal preference, of course, but rather some nebulous thing from somewhere else, from the outside. Something they “see.”
Of course, another possible presupposition is believing what the Bible says about itself, and humbly submitting oneself to it’s authority in one’s life. (Paradoxically, I think that is a presupposition that grows stronger the more one reads the Bible in faith.)
Report comment to moderator
Tony W.,
Along with NOPM at (7), I too would like you to elaborate sometime on your abandonment of “the teaching of Calvinistic predestination” [my ital].
Have you abandoned the concept of predestination altogether as being unbiblical?
Or have you concluded that, while the Bible does teach predestination, Calvin got it wrong somehow?
Report comment to moderator
Well if it’s about eternal damnation, I don’t need to lecture the 2000 of church history as I could turn to various early church fathers.
“Various theologians, including Clement of Alexandria and Origen in the 3rd century, St. Gregory of Nyssa in the 4th century, and St. Isaac the Syrian in the 7th century, expressed universalist positions in early Christianity.[citation needed] Though Gregory of Nyssa was a known universalist, he was never condemned. He was additionally declared “the father of fathers” by the seventh ecumenical council.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_reconciliation“
Report comment to moderator
4-
We have this assurance of God’s work, it occurs in the righteous, which are mentioned in the Psalms. We would rather argue about whether God is in control than be the righteous ones through which HE alleviates suffering.
Report comment to moderator
#10
It’s easy to run off the tracks. Then the garbage and mixed metaphors get spilled all over the place.
Report comment to moderator
the debate is incorrectly defined
Report comment to moderator
I’m personally opposed to arguing, but I don’t want to impose my beliefs on others. If some don’t want to argue, then they should just not do it.
(My tribute to AC)
So far though, I’d say this is mostly a pro-argument thread.
What I haven’t comprehended, though, is what Calivinism has to do with urging believers to take notice of friends in trouble and to reach out in appropriate ways in case they can be pulled back from the brink of disaster.
While I practice this myself (with dubious results), I’m not certain how presumptious a position this places the “good neighbor”.
I just met a woman this morning (at a laundromat a relative of mine owns in Oregon) who once babysat for Elvis’s kids (when they were in Vegas once). She claimed all he wanted was to talk to someone who would listen.
I’m thinking that it was MJ’s associates that needed intervention as much or more than he did.
Report comment to moderator
One thing I have witnessed, and its not Godly, is the effect of the stubborn and persistent attempts to make Predestination and Election so important that un-Believers listen, or read in this case and ask themselves “I’m not a very good person, I’ve sinned so much, I’m sure I’m not one of the elect” – this happens all too often – It serves no purpose but to hurt those who are hungry for the Gospel, but in their mind they know how much they have sinned, and its hard for them to grasp GOD’s love, they don’t feel very ‘elected’ –
Christ did not base HIS message and preaching on those who were predestined – HE preached Salvation to the lost, Jesus told people to repent of their sins –
This is a good place to give my views on this subject in more depth; The churches I have attended (Calvinist) have put an ELITIST stand alongside their beliefs in predestination, chosen and election. I have found the attitude to be un-Christian, and sadly lacking in knowledge – rather chirping their superiority to those whom they believe are not worthy. Often making the statement “if they don’t believe they weren’t chosen” -
GOD is in charge, not those who distribute these attitudes which hurt the cause of Christ. Jesus told us the first shall be last, and the last first. Jesus made it plain we were to be humble, preaching and teaching HIS Word – we were to spread the Gospel. Instead we have a select group of denominations which love nothing more than to preach predestination with glee, I doubt it is pleasing to Christ.
Here is another point to ponder:
1. Jesus Christ made mention of ‘chosen’ five times in Scripture – three of those occasions were in reference to HIS disciples.
2. Jesus Christ made mention of ‘elect’ seven times in Scripture
3. Jesus Christ never mentioned ‘predestination’ –
4. Jesus Christ made mention of ‘repentance’ ten times
5. Jesus Christ made mention of ‘repent’ nine times
6. Jesus made mention of saved 20 times
7. Jesus made statements about LOVE, and LOVETH fifty (50) times in the New Testament.
I could go on, but I believe most people will get the idea.
I don’t know who is going to believe and who isn’t, but GOD knows. I don’t know how GOD created the world, or why some people are sinful and proud of it, or why others are shamed by their sins and ask GOD to forgive them. I do know this, GOD knew before the world who would believe, who would follow HIM and who wouldn’t. You and I don’t know these things. We do know from Scripture that Christ died for everyone, but we don’t know who will accept his forgiveness and repent- But we can’t forget, GOD sent HIS Son to die for the sins of “the whole world” – but at the same time, HE knew who would and wouldn’t believe and stay the course.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe,
You’re right, I shouldn’t have called you an agnostic. I couldn’t have been more wrong. Judging by your epistemology, you’re obviously a Gnostic.
Report comment to moderator
I suppose I could elaborate on the proud Arminians I’ve come across, but that wouldn’t prove anything. Does the Bible teach these doctrines is all that matters. If it does then why does it? The reasons are to show the absolute sovereignty of God, the pure futility of man to do anything to save himself. Thus it humbles us and at the same time gives us great assurance.
Obviously the Bible speaks of more than just predestination and election. The reason there is concern if these are rejected is that they touch on a whole lot more than might seem evident on the surface.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria
I agree with much of your last post, but there are couple of areas where we would disagree.
I do know why some people “are shamed by their sins and ask God to forgive them.” It is because of the efficacious work of the Holy Spirit. It is more than “God simply knows who will and will not believe.” God makes us believers.
I also disagree that Christ died for everyone. The point that I would stress is that Christ’s death did not accomplish potential salvation, but it actually saves.
Report comment to moderator
NOPM
I believe everyone is ashamed of their sins.
As you know, I do not believe in Eternal Security – One of my parents did and the other believed the way I do. I attended a church after I left home which was Calvinistic, it was there that I began to study as the positions where preached. I found that what the Bible said was in direct conflict with what they preached.
We’ve been through this discussion before, however this passage is very important, and I must say forgotten by those who argue that Christ did not die for everyone.
“Draw all men” –
all Strong’s Greek
pas —– pas
all, any, every, the whole:–all (manner of, means), alway(-s), any (one), X daily, + ever, every (one, way), as many as, + no(-thing), X thoroughly, whatsoever, whole, whosoever.
HE DRAWS ALL men to HIMSELF – it is man who won’t accept, who won’t repent.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
You may already know this, but Calvinists don’t believe in “eternal security” in the sense that, everyone who’s said a prayer to “accept Christ,” will necessarily be saved. What we believe is that those who have been appointed to salvation will persevere in the faith to the end. That’s why we talk about the perseverance of the saints.
Report comment to moderator
Ree,
I think you are right. And that’s probably a label I should wear with a badge of honor.
Report comment to moderator
Ree,
I know what Calvinists believe regarding Eternal Security (OSAS) we’ve had the discussion in the past – The Bible is clear that a person can believe and “fall away” – Jesus said they could – Ephesians 5 and Galatians 5 are also proof.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t believe every one is ashamed of their sins. They may be ashamed of this sin or that sin in particular, but certainly not all of their sins. And — their shame is often not a real shame. It is the shame of being caught publicly perhaps, but not shame before their Creator.
Can John 12:32 be understood in light of John 6?
John 6:37-40 “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”
John 6:44 “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.”
Report comment to moderator
NOPM
I can only speak from my experience and this is: those who come to Christ are shameful of their sin.
The gospel finds none willing to be saved in the humbling, holy manner, made known therein; but God draws with his word and the Holy Ghost; and man’s duty is to hear and learn; that is to say, to receive the grace offered, and consent to the promise.
Matthew Henry
Report comment to moderator
Thanks Tony, – I would engage in the great debate regarding predestination verses free will but instead I think I will head out to the tracks… for one reason or another.
Report comment to moderator
maj. vic
Are you with the Salvation Army?
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
You’re right that a person can believe and fall away, but that’s not contrary to Calvinism. And now you’re favorably quoting Matthew Henry! I’m beginning to think that it isn’t Calvinism you object to, but your misunderstanding of what Calvinism teaches.
Report comment to moderator
Maybe so. After all, the ancient Gnostics were not exactly known for their humility.
Report comment to moderator
FYI: My friend Gregg Frazer says he endorses the idea that the Bible teaches TULI but no P.
Report comment to moderator
Here is a video from a notable evangelical on YouTube who argues against both Arminianism AND Calvinism. He also claims Calvin wasn’t saved but was in a state of “spiritual darkness” when he wrote “Institutes.”
http://tinyurl.com/n2nqqz
Report comment to moderator
Ree – 39
YOU WRITE:….”You’re right that a person can believe and fall away, but that’s not contrary to Calvinism. And now you’re favorably quoting Matthew Henry! I’m beginning to think that it isn’t Calvinism you object to, but your misunderstanding of what Calvinism teaches.”
I have quoted Matthew Henry for years, but will add – I don’t always agree with Matthew Henry on every issue. You can ‘think’ whatever you wish Ree, I understand Calvinism, I don’t agree with Eternal Security – anyone can fall away from the gift which they once received.
Have a wonderful Sunday
Report comment to moderator
Here is M. Henry on Romans 13:
The grace of the gospel teaches us submission and quiet, where pride and the carnal mind only see causes for murmuring and discontent. Whatever the persons in authority over us themselves may be, yet the just power they have, must be submitted to and obeyed. In the general course of human affairs, rulers are not a terror to honest, quiet, and good subjects, but to evil-doers. Such is the power of sin and corruption, that many will be kept back from crimes only by the fear of punishment. Thou hast the benefit of the government, therefore do what thou canst to preserve it, and nothing to disturb it.
Sounds to me like Henry would have concluded that American Revolution was SINFULLY rebellious.
There is no question, Victoria, that according to your Walter Martin informed spiritual discernment, if you were intellectually HONEST about the matter, you would concede that the American Founding was led by members of a non-Christian cult (like the Mormons, or Jehovah’s Witnesses). I’m speaking of men like Washington, J. Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, and the divines who influenced them like Locke, Mayhew, Chauncy, Cooper, Priestley, and Price. ALL non-believers in Trinity, Incarnation, Atonement and Eternal Damnation. And ALL who cleverly explained away Romans 13 in one way or the other.
Report comment to moderator
#42
Victoria,
I think the point may be that it is somewhat irregular to try and favorably use Matthew Henry to argue against Calvinism when Matthew Henry himself would be considered a proponent of Calvinism. Matthew Henry might argue that you are taking him out-of-context or misrepresenting his views.
Mike
Report comment to moderator
Matthew Henry on John 12:32
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/henry/mhc5.John.xiii.html
[Don't ask me why they catalogued it under xiii in the link.]
The basic thrust of all in Henry is simply all kinds of people: Jews and Gentiles.
(2.) That by the death of Christ souls should be converted, and this would be the casting out of Satan (v. 32): If I be lifted up from the earth, I will draw all men unto me. Here observe two things:—
[1.] The great design of our Lord Jesus, which was to draw all men to him, not the Jews only, who had been long in a profession a people near to God, but the Gentiles also, who had been afar off; for he was to be the desire of all nations (Hag. ii. 7), and to him must the gathering of the people be. That which his enemies dreaded was that the world would go after him; and he would draw them to him, notwithstanding their opposition. Observe here how Christ himself is all in all in the conversion of a soul. First, It is Christ that draws: I will draw. It is sometimes ascribed to the Father (ch. vi. 44), but here to the Son, who is the arm of the Lord. He does not drive by force, but draws with the cords of a man (Hos. xi. 4; Jer. xxxi. 3), draws as the loadstone; the soul is made willing, but it is in a day of power. Secondly, It is to Christ that we are drawn: “I will draw them to me as the centre of their unity.” The soul that was at a distance from Christ is brought into an acquaintance with him, he that was shy and distrustful of him is brought to love him and trust in him,—drawn up to his terms, into his arms. Christ was now going to heaven, and he would draw men’s hearts to him thither.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t agree – I have friends who are as they like to call themselves ‘Calvinists’ however we do agree on some doctrine and disagree on some others, and it is also true of Matthew Henry –
You don’t know what Matthew Henry might say. As you know Mike, people agree on some doctrine and disagree on other points. When you make your statement — “Matthew Henry might argue that you are taking him out-of-context or misrepresenting his views.” — you make yourself the judge of Henry’s thoughts which he never said, in other words you are trying to insert your ideas rather then accepting the fact – people don’t always agree completely on every doctrine.
Report comment to moderator
The three passages of Scripture below truly point to GOD’s love for all the world, everyone – those who would believe and those who would not. Jesus said that when HE would be lifted up, HE would draw all men unto himself. This however is a choice man makes — GOD offers Salvation through HIS Son, HIS Son preaches repentance, HE dies on the cross so that “whosoever believeth” would have everlasting life. HE draws all men to HIMSELF, but it is ‘man’ who either accepts and Believes in the LORD Jesus Christ or rejects such a great Salvation.
Even though Christ draws all men to himself, they can and do reject HIM. Some believe, and then fall away – others Believe and NEVER fall away.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
All I’m saying is that I think you would be hard-pressed to find Matthew Henry in agreement with your views on this particular matter. This isn’t to say that there are not areas where you and Matthew Henry would agree.
Report comment to moderator
I’m not entirely against the idea that God loves everyone in the world in some sense. (However, this doesn’t mean I would use the passages you are using as support.)
I am curious. How do you deal with the African (Old Testament or New Testament) who knows nothing of Christ? How is such a one drawn to Christ?
Also are you saying that everyone’s sins are imputed to Christ and that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to all people, but that the reckoning is reversed in some cases?
Report comment to moderator
I am curious. How do you deal with the African (Old Testament or New Testament) who knows nothing of Christ? How is such a one drawn to Christ?
Also are you saying that everyone’s sins are imputed to Christ and that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to all people, but that the reckoning is reversed in some cases?
I for one would like to see Christians play this notion out and accept that Christ’s UNIVERSAL (as opposed to limited) atonement means that all men are indeed saved, in the end.
That will make you into better people.
Report comment to moderator
Nopm
Whether Matthew Henry would agree with me or not would not change my mind. Matthew Henry, Calvin or any other person is NOT the last word on Biblical doctrine. It is the Bible which speaks as the inerrant inspired Word of God.
As I have stated before I am a Born Again Believer in Jesus Christ, I am a Christian, I identify myself with Christ, NOT Calvin, Luther or any other person. I cite some commentary, but always know what the Bible says.
When speaking to those who identify themselves as Calvinists, I find too often they know what Calvin has written, where he stood on doctrine, but that’s all they can cite, they haven’t studied the Word of GOD for themselves –
I wonder, when Calvinists get to heaven, are they going to STILL insist on being Calvinists OR are they at last going to look to Christ and realize that Calvin was just a man – and one who was very satisfied with his mistreatment of Servetus.
Report comment to moderator
Mike, I don’t know the answers but it doesn’t matter because GOD does, and HE has it all figured out. Our responsibility is to spread the Gospel not to second guess what the LORD is doing with Africa in the past.
Mike you’re twisting this around a bit – It’s simple, man hears the Gospel, man can either accept or reject Salvation, it’s obvious from Jesus statement that man can “fall away” and from Paul in Ephesians 5 and Galatians 5. It’s just not that complicated. Man cannot attain anything unless he becomes Born Again
Report comment to moderator
#51
I’ll state my point plainly, but hopefully not with harshness.
Don’t use an author to bolster an argument that the author would not share with you. (You quoted Matthew Henry (#35). You were the one appealing to a mere man to support an argument.)
I try not to quote Finney when defending a reformed understanding of the faith. (Actually I don’t quote Finney for much of anything, but I do have his systematic theology. My wife found a cheap copy at a garage sale and gave it to me in jest.)
Report comment to moderator
Jon,
How will it make me better to believe something the Scripture don’t teach? The better person argument doesn’t fly if the teaching goes against God’s Word.
Not to say I couldn’t always use more grace so as to temper my speech and root out my sin. (I do hold to universal grace in the sense of common grace!)
Report comment to moderator
NOPM – 53
I used Matthew Henry because I believe it was good to do so, and I will continue if I consider it germaine.
Report comment to moderator
NOPM: I also disagree that Christ died for everyone. The point that I would stress is that Christ’s death did not accomplish potential salvation, but it actually saves.
So you believe that God creates the vast majority of people fully intending not to save them from eternal torment?
I’m not entirely against the idea that God loves everyone in the world in some sense.
Hey, let’s not go crazy now. :rolleyes:
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
Most of the Calvinists I’ve known (myself included) studied the word of God for themselves for years–even decades–prior to adopting a Reformed theology. Many of them strove against Calvinist doctrines until gradually becoming reconciled to the idea that Calvin was the one who’s exegesis is consistent with Scripture.
Also, I know that you would agree with Matthew Henry on many things, but when you quote his commentary as an argument against Calvinism, when he was an avowed Calvinist, do you not see a problem with that?
Non-Christians are sometimes known to quote Paul or even Jesus, Himself, against Christianity, and when they do, I’m sure you see right through it. Either they’re misunderstanding the source of their quote or their misunderstanding Christianity, because the two can’t logically be incompatible. The same is true for you. When you quote Matthew Henry against Calvinism, either you’re misunderstanding Matthew Henry, or you’re misunderstanding Calvinism.
Report comment to moderator
Jon,
If Gregg Frazier denies that God will bring to fruition the salvation of all those who have been appointed to salvation (the perseverance of the saints), then he’s no Calvinist.
Report comment to moderator
Ree – 57
YOU WRITE: “Also, I know that you would agree with Matthew Henry on many things, but when you quote his commentary as an argument against Calvinism, when he was an avowed Calvinist, do you not see a problem with that?”
NO, because in many ways it appears he changed his mind.
YOU WRITE: “Non-Christians are sometimes known to quote Paul or even Jesus, Himself, against Christianity, and when they do, I’m sure you see right through it. Either they’re misunderstanding the source of their quote or their misunderstanding Christianity, because the two can’t logically be incompatible. The same is true for you. When you quote Matthew Henry against Calvinism, either you’re misunderstanding Matthew Henry, or you’re misunderstanding Calvinism.”
The comparison isn’t valid – I choose to use that which I believe is correct, sometimes it is Matthew Henry, other times it isn’t. If this bothers you I’m sorry.
Report comment to moderator
When have an Advocate with the Father; one who has undertaken, and is fully able, to plead in behalf of every one who applies for pardon and salvation in his name, depending on his pleading for them. He is “Jesus,” the Saviour, and “Christ,” the Messiah, the Anointed. He alone is “the Righteous One,” who received his nature pure from sin, and as our Surety perfectly obeyed the law of God, and so fulfilled all righteousness. All men, in every land, and through successive generations, are invited to come to God through this all-sufficient atonement, and by this new and living way. The gospel, when rightly understood and received, sets the heart against all sin, and stops the allowed practice of it; at the same time it gives blessed relief to the wounded consciences of those who have sinned.
Matthew Henry
• •ABOVE is a perfect EXAMPLE of Matthew Henry • • “All men, in every land, and through successive generations, are invited to come to God through this all-sufficient atonement” • •
Report comment to moderator
58:
Gregg doesn’t self define as a “Calvinist.” And that’s probably because he believes the Bible teaches TULI, but not P.
Report comment to moderator
Sticking my head (is it my neck?) in:
Amen, Victoria. I especially liked your response at 26.
It does strike me that we can only confess what we know. In that sense, doctrines such as Providence and Election are known looking backward, driving by the rearview mirror as it were. We see God’s hand in our life, how even our rebellion was turned to our benefit. That’s why these doctrines can be such comfort — they’re finally the stuff of praise and wonder.
The second truth we can see is how God reaches down to change the most unlikely lives. That’s the marvel. That’s the point where the doctrine of salvation by grace takes hold. God keeps working in ways I can barely fathom; Election then becomes a sign of God’s freedom, a freedom that means I can change. I want always to celebrate the God who changes lives, and Who can change lives.
And that it seems points us back to the true focus: Jesus Christ. As Paul says, “The saying is true and worthy of full acceptance that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners…”
Report comment to moderator
Tony – Good post! Perhaps you read about Rabbi Schmuley Boteach who DID try to reach out to Michael Jackson. You can read his account at
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1245924935526&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull.
Here’s one paragraph from the article:
As we grew closer, I tried to impress on Michael that his salvation would come not from further concerts or album sales but from reconnecting with loved ones, finding a spiritual anchor, replacing his desire for attention with a hunger for righteous action, and surrounding himself with serious and wise friends.
Report comment to moderator
#60
Nothing in that quote strikes at Calvinism. I would guess 90% of all Calvinists believe that the atonement is all-sufficient (as I do) for every man, woman, and child. Just because the death of Christ is of infinite value does not mean that Christ actually died for everyone. [Some of the remaining 10% might be considered hyper-calvinists. Others of the remaining 10% would simply say that it is meaningless to assert the all-sufficiency of Christ's atoning sacrifice because the atonement is particular in scope.] So, for a quick summation, the value of Christ’s death is infinite. The intent and extent of Christ’s atonement is particular (for the elect). Nevertheless the free offer or well meant offer in the gospel is for everyone. Everyone is invited and even commanded to come to Christ. But, man will not come unless the Holy Spirit regenerates the heart which enables a man to repent and believe.
Matthew Henry on 1 John 2:2
4. By the extent of his plea, the latitude of his propitiation. It is not confined to one nation; and not particularly to the ancient Israel of God: He is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only (not only for the sins of us Jews, us that are Abraham’s seed according to the flesh), but also for those of the whole world (v. 2); not only for the past, or us present believers, but for the sins of all who shall hereafter believe on him or come to God through him. The extent and intent of the Mediator’s death reach to all tribes, nations, and countries. As he is the only, so he is the universal atonement and propitiation for all that are saved and brought home to God, and to his favour and forgiveness.
Report comment to moderator
#56 SteveG
So you believe God creates the vast majority of people with the foreknowledge that they will not believe and then sends them to hell?
(or are you also a universalist — I can’t keep everyone’s views straight)
Report comment to moderator
#65: I’ll answer your question after you answer mine.
Report comment to moderator
Where does Jesus Christ or GOD say in Scripture that He (Jesus Christ) did not die for everyone? I would be very careful NOT TO contradict what Christ or GOD said in Scripture regarding the ‘whole world’ – I believe anyone who does this is on dangerous ground.
Why are you desirous to make Salvation to a select few and not the whole world? there is no Scripture that says it is a select little group of people – does this satisfy you Mike? I find your continued argument regarding Christ NOT dying for the sins of the world….. a grave belief. How does this benefit you or the cause of Christ?
Report comment to moderator
#66
Below is a short summary of 4 views of the ordering of the soteriological elements of God’s eternal decree (before he even created anything God had a plan). I would fall into one of the first two categories, but haven’t considered the matter enough to pick one — I’m not even sure it is worthwhile to pick one (of the first two) as a “my” view. I think there are other views such as sublapsarianism and then of course you have the universalists.
Supralapsarianism
1. Elect some, reprobate rest
2. Create
3. Permit Fall
4. Provide salvation for elect
5. Call elect to salvation
Infralapsarianism
1. Create
2. Permit Fall
3. Elect some, pass over the rest
4. Provide salvation for elect
5. Call elect to salvation
Amyraldism
1. Create
2. Permit Fall
3. Provide salvation sufficient for all
4. Elect some, pass over rest
5. Call elect to salvation
Arminianism
1. Create
2. Permit Fall
3. Provide salvation for all
4. Call all to salvation
5. Elect those who believe
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
Most of our discussion has not been so much to argue for or against limited atonement, but rather to suggest that you shouldn’t use Matthew Henry to support your views of the atonement because he (I’m fairly certain) wouldn’t say what you are saying.
Read John 10
John 10:11 “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.”
John 10:25-30 “Jesus answered, ‘I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father’s name speak for me, but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.’”
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
If what I believe can be found in the Scriptures then it must be profitable to know it or else God wouldn’t have included it.
I bring it up every now and then because Tony and others (like yourself) argue against what I believe the Bible teaches. I don’t necessarily feel that I have to jump in and defend or even promote Reformed teaching, but I do do it on occasion because there is value in answering objections.
The value in these teachings is primarily that they glorify God by showing us who we are (miserable sinners) and that it is all of grace that we have salvation.
Report comment to moderator
It’s a pitiably small “grace” if it leaves the vast majority without even a chance of salvation, Mike. It’s near blasphemy, in my view, to suggest that God would create us in his image fully intending to damn the vast majority.
Report comment to moderator
NO I disagree strongly – in fact it is your comments regarding the WHOLE WORLD (see post #67) which have provoked/activated this discussion. You are now back-peddling on Christ dying for the whole world, and that is because • • • you can’t prove it was ever stated by Christ or GOD Almighty that Christ DID NOT DIE FOR THE WHOLE WORLD – – - – you cannot answer, that is obvious that is because it is not Biblical, you cannot find it in the Bible.
Report comment to moderator
OK Mike, AGAIN, where does it say Jesus did not die for the whole world, where does it say it is only for the elect? If you have the Scripture than post it.
Did Jesus make a statement that there were people who couldn’t be saved because they were not elect? Where is this Scripture
Report comment to moderator
#59
Victoria,
Quote whomever you want, but Matthew Henry didn’t change his mind and he didn’t say anything in that quote that I wouldn’t agree with–and I’m a Calvinist too. Obviously, Victoria, you don’t understand Calvinism. But keep thinking you know what you’re talking about if it works for you.
Report comment to moderator
NOPM,
SteveG is a universalist.
Report comment to moderator
Jon,
If Mr. Frazer doesn’t call himself a Calvinist, then that’s fine because he’s obviously not one. But I could have sworn that you’d identified him as a Calvinist in the past, seemingly to add some authority to his opinion to all the Calvinists on this board. Perhaps my memory is faulty, though.
Report comment to moderator
Mike: You’ve posted five comments here since I asked my simple yes-or-no question, and you haven’t answered it.
Again: Do you believe that God creates the vast majority of people fully intending not to save them from eternal torment?
Report comment to moderator
Now Ree, let’s not muddy the waters.
You can answer the same question I asked Mike if you like, since you too are a Calvinist.
Report comment to moderator
John 10 does explain it. The doctrine of the Trinity also helps explain it. Ephesians 1 tells how we were chosen by the Father before the foundations of the world. John 10 tells how Christ laid down His life for the sheep. Ephesians 2:8-9 explains how we are saved by grace through faith, and that NOT of yourselves, it is the gift of God. Even our faith is a gift from God. We could not choose Christ since we were DEAD in our sins. John 6:44 says, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.
Report comment to moderator
This conversation is of special interest to me, since our pastor just taught on the Perseverance of the Saints today.
In short, the idea of the warnings against apostasy is that there are some who are not elect (chosen by God unto salvation) but who nevertheless are identified as members of the covenant:
• Esau was a circumcised descendant of Abraham whom God hated — and this was before Esau had done anything either good or bad (indeed, it was before he was even born):
• Judas was an apostle of Christ whom Jesus even served at His Supper — he was objectively, identifiably a member of the new covenant. And yet, he was the son of perdition, ordained from before his birth to be the one who betrayed Christ:
Report comment to moderator
Steve: (forgive me for jumping in mid-stream, I’m mostly reading on this one, others such as NOPM and Ree are more capable debaters on these issues and reflect generally my views) — but when you say “vast majority,” I’m not sure how you could conclude anything about numbers. I have no idea who or how many people God saves.
In some sense, I presume everyone I meet, especially those who show any interest in the gospel, are (for all I know) of the elect. Now I don’t know who will come to faith, but God does and I surely don’t. So why would any of us rule anyone out? God’s grace is, well, so gracious it is incredibly unpredictable.
I certainly never, ever think, Oh, well, they’re “not chosen.” How in the world would I ever be prideful enough to know that?? That’s ludicrous — and far afield from the attitudes held by any of the Christians I know within what is called the “reformed” theology. which is why it is so frustrating to hear those kinds of charges made by some who have commented (wrongly and unbliblically, in my view) on these issues.
As for universalism, Scripture does say that God creates some vessels for dishonor (Rom. 9:21). And Jesus clearly refers to His sheep (and to the pharisees, for example, as those who are not His sheep). What do you do with those verses (and many more in a similar vein)?
I think part of our problem sometimes is something RC Sproul once pinpointed: We are so accustomed to God’s mercy, that when we see or consider His justice — well, it just seems unjust to us. Our view is skewed. I’d strongly suggest to anyone interested one of Sproul’s books, the Holiness of God. It is excellent in fleshing out the insufficient view so many Christians have of His holiness and sovereignty.
Report comment to moderator
STEVEG (77): Do you believe that God creates the vast majority of people fully intending not to save them from eternal torment?
Frank: I would not surmise as to whether, at the end of this age, the number is a vast majority or a small minority. But it cannot be denied that the potter — i.e., God — does make some vessels — i.e., people — for dishonor and destruction:
What is your understanding of this passage, Steve, if not that God makes some people for salvation and some for damnation?
Report comment to moderator
(Interesting that Donna J addressed the matter of the unknown number of people — whether great or small — being created for destruction at the same time that I was writing my last post!)
Report comment to moderator
Donna: As a matter of history, you know that most people in most of the world in most periods of time have not had even the opportunity to be Christians. The gospel had not even reached all of the world until maybe the past 200 years.
If being among the elect is evidenced by professing faith (not all those who profess it actually have it, but all those who have it do profess it), then clearly the vast majority of all people who ever lived have been excluded.
Now if you argue that many may be among the elect who have not explicitly responded to the gospel message, maybe it’s not the majority who are damned, but I’ve never heard of Calvinistic theology allowing that as a possibility.
I’ve defended universal reconciliation here a few times and really don’t want to go back over it again just now, especially since I’m still trying to get Mike and Ree to answer a very simple question.
All I would say is that instead of citing Romans 9:21, read all of chapters 9-11. The payoff is in 11:28-32.
Report comment to moderator
( … not to mention that she also addressed the matter of the potter and his vessels!)
Report comment to moderator
STEVEG (84): As a matter of history, you know that most people in most of the world in most periods of time have not had even the opportunity to be Christians. The gospel had not even reached all of the world until maybe the past 200 years.
If being among the elect is evidenced by professing faith (not all those who profess it actually have it, but all those who have it do profess it), then clearly the vast majority of all people who ever lived have been excluded.
Frank: That would be true only if the history came to an end in the very near future. The idea that the end is near seems to be a common conceit of humans in every age.
But suppose Christ doesn’t return and bring this age to a close for another 10 or 15 thousand years? (Can’t you just see some seminary student in the year of our Lord 12,128 studying for an exam, looking back and saying to himself, “Now who was it that came first again, Augustine or Luther?”)
Who knows how Christ will cause His great commission to be fulfilled in the next few millennia? Perhaps those “many” unfortunates of the last two thousand years who, admittedly, haven’t heard the Gospel will end up in retrospect being a miniscule number compared to the vast numbers from every tongue and nation who will believe the Gospel in the next ten thousand years!
Report comment to moderator
Steve: I didn’t mean to imply that one can be saved without responding to the gospel. I’m only saying that this can happen at any time during a person’s life, I see no reason why some nonbelievers I know now may not someday respond — in God’s time.
Paul tells us that no man has an excuse, the knowledge of the true God is visible to all men. God saves by grace — and that included the Old Testament saints, before the fulfillment of Christ.
I have no idea of the “ratio” when it comes to who is or isn’t saved. That is God’s business. We are called to share the gospel, to call others to repent, to call on the name of the Lord and to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. Some will respond, others will not. Some may respond years later, long after our paths have crossed.
Report comment to moderator
Kay, if you have something that is proof of what you say, PLEASE post the exact Scripture and your reason for your views. You need to be more explicit as to which passages you believe describe your beliefs, whatever they might be.
Report comment to moderator
It seems to me the context of Rom 11:28-32 is discussing the issue of whether Gentiles as well as Jews are included in God’s mercy and salvation. Both have sinned, both are included in God’s saving grace. There is no difference between them.
Report comment to moderator
AGAIN —– where does it say Jesus did not die for the whole world, where does it say it is only for the elect? If you have the Scripture than post it.
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
While I suppose the doctrine of election can be misused by sinful men to promote an elitism of sorts, in my experience, it has only served to remind me that salvation is of Christ from start to finish.
People who are “dead in trespasses and sin” do not seek after God or believe in Christ. Only those who are first made alive by the Holy Spirit do so.
And of course (as Donna J has already noted), it is not our job to figger out who’s elect and who’s not … our job is just to share Christ with all people, and leave the results to Him.
The issue isn’t, “I’m not a very good person, I’ve sinned so much, I’m sure I’m not one of the elect.” The issue is, “Christ Jesus died to save sinners, and I’m not a very good person, I’ve sinned so much … ” (And the person who is tender-hearted and wants Christ to save him has already been drawn by God and made alive by the Spirit, and therefore he can respond to the Gospel.)
Incidentally, I’m the person that Ree describes in the first paragraph of (57). Although I’ve been a believer since 1981, I’ve only been Reformed since about 1998. Before that, I only heard how “Calvinism” (whatever that was!) was bad, wrong and dangerous.
Report comment to moderator
You make it sound as if there are people who want their sins cleansed and souls saved but think they’ll be turned away by God because, well, “I’m probably not ‘elect’.”
I’d say that anybody who’s soul is troubled with guilt for their sins and seeks for their sins to be cleansed is being drawn by God unto salvation!
“Election” is not God dragging hard-hearted rebels into heaven against their wills while ignoring tender-hearted repenters. Rather, it is Him changing the hearts of hard-hearted rebels to make them tender-hearted repenters.
(And those who are hard-hearted rebels until the day they die are not elect unto salvation, but rather are “vessels created unto destruction.”)
Report comment to moderator
Well said Frank (93 & 94). We are a hard-hearted lot, rebellious until God in his mercy changes our hearts of stone into a heart of flesh. It’s a rescue mission, pure and simple.
Report comment to moderator
Frank – 94
If you want to address me, than use my name and what I’ve posted, no need to hide.
Jesus died so that anyone could come to him for Salvation and that includes the whole world. The constant discussion of election hasn’t done anything for spreading the Gospel, it is nothing but <superior elitism, which has no value. What will all the elitist say when they get to heaven? (if they do)
I ask again:
I have asked this question over and over again, yet no answer – where is the Scripture? – Still NO ANSWER FROM ANYONE.
This from NOPM
Report comment to moderator
How is it a rescue mission if you believe they are predestined to begin with?
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
I’ve already mentioned John 10. I’ve included the passages below again. Why does Christ say He laid down His life for the sheep if He laid it down for everyone? Is everyone Christ’s sheep? It certainly doesn’t look that way in John 10. You are certainly free to tell me why you don’t like my understanding of John 10. You asked for a passage and I gave you one. [You won't hear much more from me for awhile b/c I've got to go to work.]
Read John 10
John 10:11 “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.”
John 10:25-30 “Jesus answered, ‘I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father’s name speak for me, but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.’”
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
“Hide”?
I’m sorry that I didn’t open (94) with your name (you know my style — I usually do just that).
But how does that constitute “hiding” in your mind?
This is a public blog, and I didn’t exactly post (94) in invisible ink or double-secret code.
What’s your beef?
Report comment to moderator
Victoria (96): Jesus died so that anyone could come to him for Salvation and that includes the whole world.
Frank: (Better?)
Tony Woodlief: I am newly struck, however, by the reality that when a person contorts his soul into a monstrosity, this is not part of some cosmic plan, [but rather] it is a great tragedy [my ital - FiS].
Frank: Suppose that, when a person contorts his soul into a monstrosity, this is both part of God’s plan, and it is a great tragedy?
Taken along with the section from Romans 9 I posted at (82), Romans 1:21 & ff seems to point this out. The fact that God ordained Pharaoh, Esau and Judas to be vessels of dishonor prepared for destruction makes it no less tragic that He gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts. (Not necessarily to pursue sexual perversity, but other sinful desires of their hearts.)
Report comment to moderator
Victoria (97): How is it a rescue mission if you believe they are predestined to begin with?
Frank: Two reasons:
1. As Donna and others have said, none of us knows who the elect are, and so (in obedience to Christ) we preach to all.
2. “How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!” ~ Romans 10:14-15
Contrary to the false claim of Arminians, the doctrine of election does not negate the need to preach.
To the whole world.
Report comment to moderator
A few people have addressed SteveG’s criticism that the God they believe in will condemn a “majority” of those created in His image. I don’t think it’s worth debating the condemnation issue on that point with SteveG since he’s a universalist and (correct me if I’m wrong, SteveG) believes it would be unjust for anyone to be consigned to hell forever. If, in each particular case, justice is served by sending a person to hell, then there’s nothing unjust if everyone is sent there.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria, I did not wish to post the entire chapter, but I guess I will. It specifically states that Christ laid down His life for His sheep. His sheep know HIs voice; He calls His own sheep by name and leads them out; the sheep follow him because they know his voice. V. 12 speaks of the hired hand who does not OWN the sheep as the shepherd does. v. 13 He knows His own and they know Him; He has other sheep, not of this fold (Gentiles); v. 17 again it shows he Father and the Son working together for the redemption of God’s people’ v. 26ff You do not believe because you are not of My sheep. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them and they follow Me and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand; and again the Father and Son are shown to work together in v. 29 My Father, who has given them to ME is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.
John 10
Parable of the Good Shepherd
1″Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter by the door into the fold of the sheep, but climbs up some other way, he is (A)a thief and a robber.
2″But he who enters by the door is (B)a shepherd of the sheep.
3″To him the doorkeeper opens, and the sheep hear (C)his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and (D)leads them out.
4″When he puts forth all his own, he goes ahead of them, and the sheep follow him because they know (E)his voice.
5″A stranger they simply will not follow, but will flee from him, because they do not know (F)the voice of strangers.”
6This (G)figure of speech Jesus spoke to them, but they did not understand what those things were which He had been saying to them.
7So Jesus said to them again, “Truly, truly, I say to you, I am (H)the door of the sheep.
8″All who came before Me are (I)thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them.
9″(J)I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture.
10″The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they (K)may have life, and have it abundantly.
11″(L)I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd (M)lays down His life for the sheep.
12″He who is a hired hand, and not a (N)shepherd, who is not the owner of the sheep, sees the wolf coming, and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them.
13″He flees because he is a hired hand and is not concerned about the sheep.
14″(O)I am the good shepherd, and (P)I know My own and My own know Me,
15even as (Q)the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and (R)I lay down My life for the sheep.
16″I have (S)other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become (T)one flock with (U)one shepherd.
17″For this reason the Father loves Me, because I (V)lay down My life so that I may take it again.
18″(W)No one has taken it away from Me, but I (X)lay it down on My own initiative I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again (Y)This commandment I received from My Father.”
19(Z)A division occurred again among the Jews because of these words.
20Many of them were saying, “He (AA)has a demon and (AB)is insane. Why do you listen to Him?”
21Others were saying, “These are not the sayings of one (AC)demon-possessed (AD)A demon cannot open the eyes of the blind, can he?”
Jesus Asserts His Deity
22At that time the Feast of the Dedication took place at Jerusalem;
23it was winter, and Jesus was walking in the temple in the portico of (AE)Solomon.
24(AF)The Jews then gathered around Him, and were saying to Him, “How long will You keep us in suspense? If You are the Christ, tell us (AG)plainly.”
25Jesus answered them, “(AH)I told you, and you do not believe; (AI)the works that I do in My Father’s name, these testify of Me.
26″But you do not believe because (AJ)you are not of My sheep.
27″My sheep (AK)hear My voice, and (AL)I know them, and they follow Me;
28and I give (AM)eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and (AN)no one will snatch them out of My hand.
29″[a]My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.
30″(AO)I and the Father are one.”
31The Jews (AP)picked up stones again to stone Him.
32Jesus answered them, “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?”
33The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for (AQ)blasphemy; and because You, being a man, (AR)make Yourself out to be God.”
34Jesus answered them, “Has it not been written in (AS)your (AT)Law, ‘(AU)I SAID, YOU ARE GODS’?
35″If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken),
36do you say of Him, whom the Father (AV)sanctified and (AW)sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘(AX)I am the Son of God’?
37″(AY)If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me;
38but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe (AZ)the works, so that you may know and understand that (BA)the Father is in Me, and I in the Father.”
39Therefore (BB)they were seeking again to seize Him, and (BC)He eluded their grasp.
40And He went away (BD)again beyond the Jordan to the place where John was first baptizing, and He was staying there.
41Many came to Him and were saying, “While John performed no (BE)sign, yet (BF)everything John said about this man was true.”
42(BG)Many believed in Him there.
Report comment to moderator
But I could have sworn that you’d identified [Gregg Frazer] as a Calvinist in the past, seemingly to add some authority to his opinion to all the Calvinists on this board. Perhaps my memory is faulty, though.
I might have. And that’s because he and John MacArthur say a whole lot of things that sound very Calvinistic (indeed if you believe in TULI then you are going to sound like a Cavlinist most of the time). He recently clarified his views for us on my blog.
Report comment to moderator
What some like to defend is the idea that God made His plan and He accomplished the redemption of His people. He didn’t just make it possible, He actually finished the job through Christ. It sometimes seems that what Christ did at the cross is made into some kind impersonal crusade to make our Gracious, Holy, Just, Righteous, Loving God into something He is NOT to satisfy the desires of sinful men in order to make them feel better.
Report comment to moderator
I find it truly incredible that some of you can reconcile the idea of an all loving god with a deity who would create a feeling being for the express purpose of damning them to eternal torment.
Report comment to moderator
Frank at #86: Who knows how Christ will cause His great commission to be fulfilled in the next few millennia? Perhaps those “many” unfortunates of the last two thousand years who, admittedly, haven’t heard the Gospel will end up in retrospect being a miniscule number compared to the vast numbers from every tongue and nation who will believe the Gospel in the next ten thousand years!
If it’s even one who is damned for not responding to a message he never had a chance to hear, it’s too many.
They are not “unfortunates.” In the Calvinistic scheme they are doomed to never-ending torture and torment. I am amazed at how Calvinists usually just shrug that off, as if it’s not a gaping hole in any claims that God is merciful or just.
Report comment to moderator
GWF81,
You are confusing “reconcile” with “believe simultaneously.” Any “reconciliation” of these beliefs can only occur if God is not One or He is schizophrenic. That is, think of all the messages you have heard about God the Wrathful One and Jesus the Loving One. If the believer in this mess announces that God and Christ are One, you’ve got a schizophrenic god on your hands. If the believer in this mess doesn’t mess around with the God of One Essence, then you have a ditheist on your hands. In either event, good intentions aside (and the majority of my good acquiantances, as well as my parents, fall into this category), you’ve got folks outside the theological bounds of historic Christianity. It’s unfortunate, but that’s the fallout from the Western Schism from which we all now suffer. . .
Report comment to moderator
Donna at #89: It seems to me the context of Rom 11:28-32 is discussing the issue of whether Gentiles as well as Jews are included in God’s mercy and salvation. Both have sinned, both are included in God’s saving grace. There is no difference between them.
That’s part of it, but it’s not all of it.
Paul is a complex thinker. Anytime you quote a few verses from him, there’s a good chance you’re missing his point. That’s why I said you should read 9-11 in their entirety. The verses I mentioned are where his argument reaches its conclusion, but you really need to track the entire train of thought to fully grasp what he’s saying.
Report comment to moderator
Wow! What a firestorm started here! All because someone had a heart of mercy and compassion for someone who’s life here on earth had just ended! Sadly, I think that most of the commentary that followed this is a realistic view of the state of American Christianity. We seem to be more consumed with the technicalities of the doctrines instead of the people for whom Christ died. I think I’ve seen a few verses speaking to the danger of this — oh, right, when Christ spoke to the Pharisees. This is a dangerous road to travel on especially since Christ called them a “brood of vipers.” In reading some of these posts, it definitely reminded me of the Pharisees. I didn’t notice much of the encouraging and unity that Jesus prayed for us to have as children of the King. His desire was for us to have love and compassion for all those that He has created not to squabble over this doctrine or that doctrine! I’m sure that the Christians in China, Iraq, Iran, and other such countries would be repulsed to see us arguing over such things when they are sacrificing their freedoms, families, and even sometimes their lives just to call themselves Christians. I am so tired of these doctrinal arguments and debates! Let’s get back to doing what we have been commanded to do — Love God and love others! If you think I’m wrong, look up Mark 12:28-31. Shame on the American Christian church for taking our eyes off of Christ and putting them on ourselves and our doctrines! Let’s turn our eyes upon Jesus, look full into His beautiful face, and ask Him to shine through us so that the world may see Him and not us! Let’s not let the secular media be proved right in their opinion of us!
Report comment to moderator
I have asked the same question over and over again. NO one can answer it, however some of you ask your questions and expect an answer. Try answering the one I asked which is:
AGAIN —– where does it say Jesus did not die for the whole world, where does it say it is only for the elect? If you have the Scripture than post it.
When have an Advocate with the Father; one who has undertaken, and is fully able, to plead in behalf of every one who applies for pardon and salvation in his name, depending on his pleading for them. He is “Jesus,” the Saviour, and “Christ,” the Messiah, the Anointed. He alone is “the Righteous One,” who received his nature pure from sin, and as our Surety perfectly obeyed the law of God, and so fulfilled all righteousness. All men, in every land, and through successive generations, are invited to come to God through this all-sufficient atonement, and by this new and living way. The gospel, when rightly understood and received, sets the heart against all sin, and stops the allowed practice of it; at the same time it gives blessed relief to the wounded consciences of those who have sinned.
Matthew Henry
• •ABOVE is a perfect EXAMPLE of Matthew Henry • • “All men, in every land, and through successive generations, are invited to come to God through this all-sufficient atonement” • •
Report comment to moderator
SUZANNEBEHR – 111
I have often posted the following:
One thing I have witnessed, and its not Godly, is the effect of the stubborn and persistent attempts to make Predestination and Election so important that un-Believers listen, or read in this case and ask themselves “I’m not a very good person, I’ve sinned so much, I’m sure I’m not one of the elect” – this happens all too often – It serves no purpose but to hurt those who are hungry for the Gospel, but in their mind they know how much they have sinned, and its hard for them to grasp GOD’s love, they don’t feel very ‘elected’ –
Christ did not base HIS message and preaching on those who were predestined – HE preached Salvation to the lost, Jesus told people to repent of their sins –
This is a good place to give my views on this subject in more depth; The churches I have attended (Calvinist) have put an ELITIST stand alongside their beliefs in predestination, chosen and election. I have found the attitude to be un-Christian, and sadly lacking in knowledge – rather chirping their superiority to those whom they believe are not worthy. Often making the statement “if they don’t believe they weren’t chosen” -
GOD is in charge, not those who distribute these attitudes which hurt the cause of Christ. Jesus told us the first shall be last, and the last first. Jesus made it plain we were to be humble, preaching and teaching HIS Word – we were to spread the Gospel. Instead we have a select group of denominations which love nothing more than to preach predestination with glee, I doubt it is pleasing to Christ.
Here is another point to ponder:
1. Jesus Christ made mention of ‘chosen’ five times in Scripture – three of those occasions were in reference to HIS disciples.
2. Jesus Christ made mention of ‘elect’ seven times in Scripture
3. Jesus Christ never mentioned ‘predestination’ –
4. Jesus Christ made mention of ‘repentance’ ten times
5. Jesus Christ made mention of ‘repent’ nine times
6. Jesus made mention of saved 20 times
7. Jesus made statements about LOVE, and LOVETH fifty (50) times in the New Testament.
I could go on, but I believe most people will get the idea.
I don’t know who is going to believe and who isn’t, but GOD knows. I don’t know how GOD created the world, or why some people are sinful and proud of it, or why others are shamed by their sins and ask GOD to forgive them. I do know this, GOD knew before the world who would believe, who would follow HIM and who wouldn’t. You and I don’t know these things. We do know from Scripture that Christ died for everyone, but we don’t know who will accept his forgiveness and repent- But we can’t forget, GOD sent HIS Son to die for the sins of “the whole world” – but at the same time, HE knew who would and wouldn’t believe and stay the course.
Report comment to moderator
Suzanne,
I don’t think it needs to be either/or–either discuss doctrine or care about people. Your post is good, but I think the dichotomy is unnecessary.
As to those who think that Calvinism is “elitism,” it seems to me that the opposite is true. My family is nearly all non-Calvinists, and they are the ones (not the Calvinists) who believe that salvation comes to those who are smart enough, humble enough, moral enough to be willing to accept the Gospel. In other words, they believe that salvation comes partly by human works and goodness, though they’d deny the doctrine of Roman Catholics who take it a step further. Two of my brothers have said as much; we Calvinists haven’t questioned the others on this point. But it really should be clear that if the distinction is between God making the decision and a human being making the decision, Calvinism isn’t the doctrine that puts the “merit” on man.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks Cheryl, my thoughts pretty much exactly.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG (108): If it’s even one who is damned for not responding to a message he never had a chance to hear, it’s too many.
Frank: I can definitely relate to that sentiment. I was converted to Christ in a Baptist church, and thus I “was Baptist” in my early Christian walk. When I would posit that kind of situation — e.g., natives in the depest, darkest jungles of South America dying without ever hearing the Gospel — to my pastors or other teachers, one of the standard replies was that “God knows their hearts, and will judge them based on how they responded to whatever moral light they had.”
But years later, I heard (from a Reformed teacher, of course — I think it was Sproul) that the lost are not damned for not responding to a message they never heard.
Rather, they are damned for their rebellion against God — i.e., the state of sin in which all men are born:
Incidentally, when you consider that all mankind descended primarily from Adam and Eve and secondarily through Noah, it isn’t too hard to realize that, as mankind dispersed and populated the face of the earth, and as they rejected along the way the God of Adam and the God of Noah in favor of idolatry, their sin had a devastating effect upon the souls of their descendants for generations to come.
But God in His grace made a way for men to be saved — trusting in the life, death, burial, ressurection and ascension of Christ — and He ordained that that very Gospel should be preached throughout the whole earth, so that people would hear and believe.
Report comment to moderator
SUZANNEBEHR (111): Let’s get back to doing what we have been commanded to do — Love God and love others!
Frank: Christ commands us in the Scriptures to that, but not merely that. Loving God and loving others must be defined and bounded by truth. Q: Is it “loving” to refuse to teach others the truth because, well, that’s “doctrine”? (And corollary to that is the well-know bromide that “doctrine divides” … )
I cited at (100) Christ’s final command on this earth:
While it would certainly be unloving to do nothing but argue over doctrine, it is also unloving to ignore doctrine altogether.
Report comment to moderator
Frank: But years later, I heard (from a Reformed teacher, of course — I think it was Sproul) that the lost are not damned for not responding to a message they never heard.
Rather, they are damned for their rebellion against God — i.e., the state of sin in which all men are born:
Oh come on. Surely you see that that’s the exact same thing.
Let’s say you’re drowning and I’m on the land with a life preserver. I don’t throw it to you.
Did you drown because I never gave you a chance to grab the life preserver, or did you drown because you can’t breathe water?
Either way, I had the ability to save you and chose not to. You may be to blame for getting into the deep water to begin with, but if I had the power to save you and did not do so, the ultimate fault lies with me.
Report comment to moderator
Amen Frank.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D,
Well said. It isn’t God choosing the elect that breeds elitism — the Bible makes it clear from Genesis through Revelation that He chooses us based on His purposes, not our merit.
Rather it is the idea that men are free to choose God — apart from His first making us alive — that leads to elitism.
Report comment to moderator
Steve,
One small detail re. your analogy at (118).
Your analogy involves two equals — mere mortals before God.
Whereas God’s gracious choice and election involves ALmighty God and mere men.
Christians should resolve to never have “problem passages” in Scripture, passages that “don’t conform” to their belief of how the world ought to be.
Scripture isn’t ours to shape as we see fit. It is there to shape us.
Report comment to moderator
Frank (#120),
Your post seems to be at odds with the idea of an all loving god (or even a partially loving god) as well as free will. The god that you describe is a tyrant that invented humans to be his playthings. What kind of sadistic entity would create a feeling being solely for damnation and torment?
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
I suppose there is no point in continuing since you won’t interact with my responses.
Report comment to moderator
Nevertheless I would still like to see Tony do a piece on predestination.
Report comment to moderator
You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? ~ Romans 9
As I said to Donna, Paul’s thought does not begin and end in chapter 9. As I advised her, read chapters 9-11 in toto. The conclusion is quite a bit different than you might think based on your proof-texting.
Paul is not saying that God has created “vessels of wrath destined for destruction.” He says What if God had done that.
The context of the whole discussion has to do with bringing Gentiles into the fold, and why many Jews do not believe. If you stop reading at 9:21, it sounds like Paul is saying, “He’s God and he creates people with no intent of saving them from hell, and what are you gonna do about it?”
Fortunately, this monstrous distortion of God that Calvinsts seem inexplicably eager to embrace is really not what Paul is saying at all.
Paul argues that the Jews rejected the new covenant of grace because they were too inured to following the law, they could not bring themselves to abandon it, and thus salvation came to the Gentiles also.
But, Frank and Donna, this hardening, this making the unbelieving Jews into vessels of wrath, was a temporary condition that God imposed in order to open salvation to the Gentiles too.
11:11-12: I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? May it never be! But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make them jealous. Now if their transgression is riches for the world and their failure is riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their fulfillment be!
Get that? The “vessels of wrath prepared for destruction” in verse 9, upon which you hang your argument that you believe shows God does indeed create human beings intending to see them suffer for eternity, in fact means nothing of the sort.
God hardened them into transgressions for a time and for a specific purpose (Rom. 11:25), but when that purpose is accomplished, “All Israel will be saved.” (Rom. 11:26.)
In fact, Paul concludes, Gentiles gained God’s mercy from the Jews’ disobedience, and once that was done, once God brought mercy to the disobedient Gentiles, he restores it to the Jews as well (Rom. 11:31.)
And what’s the point of all this?
For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all. (Rom. 11:32)
People are fond of quoting Paul saying all have sinned, no one is righteous, etc., to justify a belief that God is itching to send everyone to hell but grudgingly saving a few. As Romans 11:32 shows, Paul would probably be horrified to see his words twisted like that. his actual meaning is that because all are sinners, God shows mercy to all.
Report comment to moderator
Pass the popcorn SteveG
Report comment to moderator
“The god that you describe is a tyrant that invented humans to be his playthings. What kind of sadistic entity would create a feeling being solely for damnation and torment?”
Dunno, but you seem to like the “fact” that men/women are born gay…so maybe you like not having a choice….
Report comment to moderator
“I have asked the same question over and over again. NO one can answer it, however some of you ask your questions and expect an answer.”
Because its like answering a brick wall Victoria, check your prideful assertions at the door. For instance:
“One thing I have witnessed, and its not Godly, is the effect of the stubborn and persistent attempts to make Predestination and Election so important…”
Your comments here are quite prideful.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn (#127),
What an asinine comparison! Whether I like it or not, the evidence suggests that sexual orientation, like gender and eye color, is not chosen, but determined by somewhat random biological events (such as which sperm joins which egg). What is being discussed in this thread is the idea that a supposedly all knowing, all powerful, and all loving god would willfully create certain people solely for eternal suffering. I really don’t know how you can draw a parallel between these two concepts to make a lame quip.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn at #126: Yeah I know, I have a hard time staying out of these things.
Maybe I should follow Random, RPN and DJ out the door to break my unhealthy addiction.
Theologoholic.
Report comment to moderator
“I really don’t know how you can draw a parallel between these two concepts to make a lame quip.”
So as long as its not God doing the chosing its okay? Why should that matter? Shouldnt you hate life just as much if thats all there is, and it made you a certain way randomly or not?
Say SteveG is right though, what is your excuse then?
See the issue is not whether or not God is loving to you. You dont want to have anything to do with him in the first place.
He could drop you in the Garden of Eden and I dont think youd be satisfied.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG,
Haha, I could use one as well.
I would say your drowning example isnt quite accurate.
Drowning, isnt necessarily sin.
You would be better using an example like say Mr. Smith murders his neighbor. Found guilty, do we have any obligation to have mercy on Mr. Smith? We have the power as judge to sentence him, but would you argue that its mandatory to have mercy?
I dont think so. And God certainly didnt excuse any of us. He still sentences us all. But we claim Christ as the one who took on our sin, who took on our sentence, so we will not have too.
Another point, simply in regards to your discussion on Romans 9-11 and Paul’s intentions, you should read Isaiah 66 starting in verse 15. There is proclamation that the Lord will call the nations, all mankind(NIV)/flesh(ESV), but the chapter ends with these same redeemed looking over the bodies of those who rebelled against God and were obviously not redeemed, their “worm” never dies. It seems to be speaking of Gentile inclusion and Jew reconciliation, but the inclusion is apparently not all mankind across all time.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn: “So as long as its not God doing the chosing its okay?”
You apparently have no comprehension of what I posted. The point is that anybody who creates individuals specifically for eternal torture is a malevolent tyrant.
Thorn: “Why should that matter? Shouldnt you hate life just as much if thats all there is, and it made you a certain way randomly or not?”
Why would I hate life? This makes no sense and has nothing to do with what I posted.
Thorn: “Say SteveG is right though, what is your excuse then?”
My excuse for what?
Thorn: “See the issue is not whether or not God is loving to you. You dont want to have anything to do with him in the first place.
He could drop you in the Garden of Eden and I dont think youd be satisfied.”
You don’t know what I think or why I think it. I am perfectly satisfied with my life and the universe I am in.
Report comment to moderator
GWF81
God is not the author of sin, yet He decreed it.
I’m quite certain a whole lot of people won’t like this answer, but it is the one given in God’s Word.
BTW what do you and SteveG make of the temporal suffering (torture) of Job? And of Christ? Was it deserved or undeserved? If undeserved was it just?
Report comment to moderator
Steve G says, “Paul is not saying that God has created ‘vessels of wrath destined for destruction.’ He says What if God had done that.”
Not so. Paul cites Pharaoh and Esau as examples of God’s sovereign use of persons for His own purposes that was not a consequence of those persons’ will or behavior.
After all is said and done, Paul’s question is still directed squarely at you: “Who are you, O man, who answers back to God?” Not an enviable position to be in.
Report comment to moderator
Steve also says, “God hardened them into transgressions for a time and for a specific purpose (Rom. 11:25), but when that purpose is accomplished, “All Israel will be saved.” (Rom. 11:26.)”
But whenever the word “Israel” is used in Romans following 9:6, it is not used to refer to physical Israel but to spiritual Israel.
The Holy Spirit says through Paul, “For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but: ‘THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED.’ That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.”
At any rate, the universalist position cannot stand up to even the most basic biblical scrutiny. From the Gospels on, including all the letters of Paul, the New Testament clearly preaches two roads and two roads only: salvation and damnation.
Report comment to moderator
David L.: And in the current context in Romans, he goes on to say that God made the unbelieving Jews into such vessels so that the Gentiles could be adopted into the New Covenant, but only with the larger plan of eventually saving all of Israel.
Their status as “vessels of wrath” is temporary, not eternal.
It’s right there in plain Greek. But I’ve pointed it out four times now, so I will shake the sand off my shoes for anyone who still prefers to believe that God actually does create living humans in his image for the sole purpose of damning them.
I will not be part of that, however. I think God is far more merciful.
Report comment to moderator
“The point is that anybody who creates individuals specifically for eternal torture is a malevolent tyrant.”
Attempting to reduce God to a malevolent tyrant for being soveriegn over his creation shows a lack of comprehension.
God created us to worship and enjoy him. In the least, refusing to do so, does not make him the tyrant.
As far as God specifically creating people for destruction, he also specifically ordained his Son to take on that same destruction. So your still without an excuse.
If we travel to the other end of the spectrum, where God is absent, then your arguement would apply to life in general. Now what kind of world has begun where people die? Where your handed cancer? Where your lot in life is mostly..still…not controlled by you. I imagine you appreciate Government intervention and regulation and dependence? Why is that not tyranical?
But really what would make God “loving” enough for you?
Report comment to moderator
At any rate, the universalist position cannot stand up to even the most basic biblical scrutiny.
At this point in the discussion I am not arguing for the Universalist position; I am arguing against the Calvinist one. Mike has yet to answer the very simple question that I posed all the way back in #56. I’m not interested, for the moment, in defending or explaining my own position; I want him to defend his.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn: As far as God specifically creating people for destruction, he also specifically ordained his Son to take on that same destruction. So your still without an excuse.
Unless you’re saying that Jesus is eternally damned, as I know you’re not, this statement is absurd.
Report comment to moderator
#139
The answer is a qualified one. (I could argue your question is inappropriate which is precisely what Paul does in some of his answers in Romans.) You want to make God out to be the bad guy, but Paul won’t have any of it.
So, God decreed sin and yet he is not the author of it. Man is responsible for his own sin. In creating man God knew who would be going to hell. Ultimately everything is for His glory.
Certainly not an easy truth.
Report comment to moderator
I have asked you the same question many times, you have not answered, so I don’t think you are willing to interact – This has happened before – you answer MY QUESTIONS with a question of your own, it doesn’t WORK THAT WAY.
I have told you repeatedly that I don’t believe it is profitable to dwell on Predestination – however, you insist on doing everything in your power to engage such a discussion –
Telling others about Christ and HIS Salvation is what we are commanded to do, not bicker regarding chosen/election/predestination – it doesn’t bring ANYONE to Christ. Warning Believers that go back into sin is very important, however those of you who call yourselves Calvinists don’t believe people can fall away…. you consider those who fall away as NEVER being Believers in the first place – Jesus was very direct about those who fall away and Paul WARNED those who go back into sin in Ephesians and Galatians 5, however, that is ignored as well.
Report comment to moderator
No, because Christ is also God holy and righteous, death could not hold him. But his sacrifice was eternal. He paid it completely, and was subjected to it, no less than anyone else. If you think what he experienced was less than anyone else in hell, then your mistaken. But I think youd agree, he paid the price in full.
I’m not saying Christ is eternally damned. I’m saying the equivilent of that eternal wrath was poured out on him. He, especially if you think he saved every single individual across time, experienced far worse than any individual when it comes to pain, torture, torment, etc.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn WROTE:………”Your comments here are quite prideful.”
It’s prideful with an elitist attitude to continue to boast of being chosen/predestined/elected – Christ died for the whole world – I have brought forth many passages, but not one person can show a passage of Scripture where Christ did not die for the whole world, not one place does Jesus say HE was dying for a select few -
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
Oh and your question in 56 is loaded, because where does it say the vast majority are going to hell? Considering the descendents of Abraham will outnumber the sands, it sounds more like the opposite. Maybe even some Calvinists assume this, but I dont see it anywhere in Calvin’s writings. I dont assume the vast majority are going to hell.
But that leads me to ask the question of how can there be Hell, if Christ saved everyone? If Christ’s payment is in full, for everyone, hell should not exist, and there are some universalists that seem to hold this position, you so far have not.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn (#138),
I am not speaking of illness during life or annihilation at death. I am speaking of eternal and unrelenting torture inflicted upon a person who was created specifically to be a recipient of said torture.
Thorn: “If we travel to the other end of the spectrum, where God is absent, then your arguement would apply to life in general. Now what kind of world has begun where people die? Where your handed cancer? Where your lot in life is mostly..still…not controlled by you.”
If someone knowingly engaged in actions that directly caused someone else to develop cancer, I would consider them to be evil. If a person decided to conceive and give birth with the sole intention of inflicting cancer upon the child, I would consider them to be even more evil. That people develop cancer naturally or accidentally is unfortunate and saddening, but not evil. It’s really not difficult to understand.
Thorn: “I imagine you appreciate Government intervention and regulation and dependence? Why is that not tyranical?”
You should probably stop imagining things.
Thorn: “But really what would make God “loving” enough for you?”
My beef is not with God, but rather with the people who would claim that an all knowing, all loving, and all powerful being can engage in such evil and malevolent actions.
Report comment to moderator
“It’s prideful with an elitist attitude to continue to boast of being chosen/predestined/elected’…”
Can you please show any Calvinist on this board boasting in such?
I’ve never seen one Calvinist hold it over someone’s head like they are better than you or anyone else simply because their chosen.
“not one place does Jesus say HE was dying for a select few – ”
Do you use this excuse when discussing abortion? No you dont.
That’s a good thing, so why apply it here for leverage?
You want a passage on chosen/unchosen, there are plenty. Isaiah 66 is an interseting passage you should look up. Ephesians Ch 1 is explicit and it rolls right into ch 2, which was mentioned earlier and you did not address.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria (144): It’s prideful with an elitist attitude to continue to boast of being chosen/predestined/elected [my ital - FiS]
Frank: Yes, boasting would certainly be prideful and elitist.
But I don’t see anybody here boasting. If you do, please point it out, and I’ll stand corrected.
Victoria, the Bible makes it very clear that God’s soverign election eliminates any possibility of boasting:
“For you are a holy people to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for Himself, a special treasure above all the peoples on the face of the earth. The LORD did not set His love on you nor choose you because you were more in number than any other people, for you were the least of all peoples; but because the LORD loves you, and because He would keep the oath which He swore to your fathers, the LORD has brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you from the house of bondage, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt. ~ Deuteronomy 7:6-8
For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, that no flesh should glory in His presence. ~ 1 Corinthians 1:26-29
Nope, no possibility of elitism there.
The Bible clearly teaches 1) that God chooses His people, and 2) that they have nothing to boast about because of it.
Of course, that doesn’t mean that sinful men won’t boast about being elect.
But simply believing what the Bible teaches about God’s soverignty in salvation is not boasting.
Again Victoria, if you’ve read anybody here boasting because they believe election, please point it out to us. Otherwise, it would appear that you are merely falsely projecting/accusing us of doing so.
Report comment to moderator
Steve G wrote in #56:
“So you believe that God creates the vast majority of people fully intending not to save them from eternal torment?”
Jesus Himself said, in the Sermon on the Mount, “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.”
You can argue that this is Christ merely stating a fact–although it’s a fact you apparently disagree with, as I assume you believe that no one finds destruction and that everyone finds life–but it’s hard to imagine how God Himself ordains people to salvation but does not ordain them to damnation. But relevant to your question, Jesus Himself acknowledges that fact, the reality, that the vast majority of people who live find destruction instead of eternal life. The question is how much of God’s will is involved in which people find what eternal destiny.
And one verse that I find very interesting in this connection is Acts 13:38: “When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.”
This, together with what Christ has to say in the Gospel of John about the inability of people to be saved without the initiating will and activity of God, makes it very hard to conclude that God is not sovereign over both salvation and damnation.
As some here have succintly written, men do not deserve salvation but rather damnation. It is due to God’s grace that any are saved at all. The default position of all men is to be lost. I think the story of Noah’s ark and the flood is a very good picture of salvation here and now: the sin of man calls out for God’s judgment, yet He prepares a way for those who believe to escape His wrath. We are not all otherwise good people whom God casts out of the boat because He’s arbitrarily malicious.
Report comment to moderator
Why is it “prideful and elitist” to say “God chose me for His own sovereign reasons and out of no merit of my own, and He has power to keep me saved” and it is not prideful and elitist to say, “I chose to be saved [because I was smart enough / good enough, humble enough, or whatever], and I can stay saved by my own efforts”? (Nobody on this thread said either sentence in those exact words, but those are the two basic ways to respond to salvation.)
One puts all the merit on God; the other saves some of it for man. Why is it the “all of God” side that is being accused of being prideful and arrogant? I’m missing something here.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn – 149
Abortion leverage hasn’t a thing to do with the fact that Jesus never said HE was dying for a select few – yet those who call themselves Calvinists remind everyone that they are predestinated, and they love to talk about it, if they didn’t we wouldn’t be having this discussion – what does this ACCOMPLISH? – especially on an OPEN BLOG which can be viewed around the world by those who are NOT BELIEVERS – I don’t believe the subject is kind or loving to those who might visit this blog looking for comfort, and answers.
Report comment to moderator
“Abortion leverage hasn’t a thing to do with the fact that Jesus never said HE was dying for a select few..”
My point is that Christ never explicity states it, that abortion is wrong. Your using the same arguement to disregard predestination.
“yet those who call themselves Calvinists remind everyone that they are predestinated, and they love to talk about it, if they didn’t we wouldn’t be having this discussion – what does this ACCOMPLISH?”
What’s wrong with talking about it? Apparently you love to trash it and apparently others liket o express their views as well. Your no less guilty here of parading a subject.
What it accomplishes is usually a civil discussion on biblical matters. Sometimes people are even swayed to a different view point.
” I don’t believe the subject is kind or loving to those who might visit this blog looking for comfort, and answers. ”
Would you rather us bake cookies and provide lemonade? That God would chose to save someone out of nothing in and of themselves is pretty comforting to me. Sorry if you think its only comforting when you have something to do with it. Calvinists discuss it alot, because they enjoy knowing that God has their assurance in his hands, and not in their own.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria # 112 you wrote: AGAIN —– where does it say Jesus did not die for the whole world, where does it say it is only for the elect? If you have the Scripture than post it.
#104 shows the entire chapter 10 of John. I also elaborated on how Christ died for His sheep as indicated in the text. It may not use the word “world” but it discusses His sheep.
Mark 6:34 says, “When Jesus landed and saw a large crowd, he had compassion on them, because they were like sheep without a shepherd. So he began teaching them many things.”
When I speak to non-Christians, I view them with compassion, like sheep without a shepherd. I share the gospel with them. It is up to the Holy Spirit to draw them to Himself.
Report comment to moderator
“Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.”
I know this is an evangelical proof text. But oh how terrible it is if you understanding of it is true. Doesn’t the Bible say that man is God’s favorite creation? If that is true, then Satan loses the battle but wins the war. (If the vast majority of humanity end up with him instead of Him.)
Report comment to moderator
“My beef is not with God, but rather with the people who would claim that an all knowing, all loving, and all powerful being can engage in such evil and malevolent actions”
Your beef is with God. He put a tree in the Garden. He, in the least allowed it to happen, ordained or not.
Are you universalist, not believing in hell then? And what do you base that on Scripturally?
Report comment to moderator
Thorn (#158),
I actually chuckled out loud a bit when I read your post. I thought you knew that I don’t believe in God, the tree, or Hell.
My interest in this thread is based solely on the idea that an all loving god can arbitrarily assign some of his children to an eternity of suffering… or that he can actually create them with the express purpose of damning them to be tormented forever. It’s fascinating to me that people can hold to such ideas.
Report comment to moderator
GWF81 (159): … I don’t believe in God, the tree, or Hell.
My interest in this thread is based solely on the idea that an all loving god can …
Frank: The irony! “I don’t actually believe in God … but He is all-loving”!
I apologize for whomever gave you that idea. This may be hard for you to grasp, but the Bible teaches us that God (the One you don’t believe in) actually hates some people:
• The boastful shall not stand in Your sight; You hate all workers of iniquity. ~ Psalm 5:5
• The LORD tests the righteous, but the wicked and the one who loves violence His soul hates. ~ Psalm 11:5
• And you shall not walk in the statutes of the nation which I am casting out before you; for they commit all these things, and therefore I abhor them. ~ Leviticus 20:23
• These six things the LORD hates,
Yes, seven are an abomination to Him:
A proud look,
A lying tongue,
Hands that shed innocent blood,
A heart that devises wicked plans,
Feet that are swift in running to evil,
A false witness who speaks lies,
And one who sows discord among brethren.
~ Proverbs 6:16-19
• Give them, O LORD — what will You give?
Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts!
“All their wickedness is in Gilgal, for there I hated them.
Because of the evil of their deeds I will drive them from My house; I will love them no more.
All their princes are rebellious. Ephraim is stricken, their root is dried up; they shall bear no fruit.
Yes, were they to bear children, I would kill the darlings of their womb.”
My God will cast them away, because they did not obey Him; and they shall be wanderers among the nations.
~ Hosea 9:14-17
God is undeniably a God of great, tremendous — even infinite — love. Just look at the cross!
But God is not “love” only. Indeed, apart from His other characteristics, such as His wrath and justice, His love would have no meaning at all.
Report comment to moderator
(It occurs to me also that many of my fellow believers will find the idea of God hating anyone or anything hard to grasp, as well.)
Report comment to moderator
Hell will be a terrible place. Satan hasn’t won anything, nor has anyone who has followed him. One either follows Jesus Christ or they are following Satan. By not following Jesus Christ, one automatically has followed Satan.
There will be no winners who find themselves with Satan in the lake of fire.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
Way to specially plead your case. But I take it that you believe man is not miserable in Hell because he is subject to Satan, but rather, man AND Satan are miserable in Hell because both are subject to God.
That means, it is GOD who is present in HELL and is personally delivering the PUNISHMENT. Hell is NOT, the ABSENCE of God, but rather the PRESENCE of God, in Hell to punish non-believers. So that’s it. In Hell, it’s God shooting His flames of FIRE towards non-believers and Satan et al. GOD HIMSELF is an eternal torturer. You agree?
Report comment to moderator
Jon,
Don’t twist my words – nothing I posted is difficult to understand.
Man can follow Christ as Savior, or he can do nothing, by doing nothing he automatically will end up in hell.
GOD is in Heaven, we who believe in HIS Son as Savior will inherit Eternal life and we will spend this Eternity with Christ.
The lake of fire is separation from GOD – GOD does not dwell in Hell, Satan and those who have not followed Christ dwell in Hell by their choice.
Jon, take the time to study about Hell – You will find out who will go there and why they find themselves in such a place.
Report comment to moderator
Frank (#160),
It’s ironic that I recognize a characteristic that is frequently attributed to a fictional character? I don’t think you understand what irony is.
At any rate, change “all loving” to “mostly loving” or even “somewhat loving” and the point still stands. The notion of God propagated by many of the posts in this thread is right in line with square circles and dry fluid.
Report comment to moderator
I’m thinking W.G.T. Shedd is somewhat well-known for his treatment on hell.
Report comment to moderator
I do not understand why it is so difficult for some to reconcile the fact that Jesus died for the sins of all people with the fact that not all will be saved. Both are clearly taught in the Bible.Read 1st Timothy 2:3-6, “God our Savior, who desires ALL people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth……who gave Himself as a ransom for ALL”. John writes, “He (Jesus)is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the WHOLE world”. (1st John 2:2)Peter writes that the Lord, “is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all reach repentance”. (2nd Peter 3:9)The prophet Ezekiel writes, “Why will you die O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone declares the Lord; so turn and live”. (Ezekiel 18:31b-32)Also in Ezekiel, “As I live declares the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live”. (33:11)Not to mention, “God so loved the WORLD…”. None of these verses indicate a God who predestines some people to hell before they are born.
All of this is God’s doing of course. We were dead in our trespasses and dead people can’t do anything to make themselves alive. It is God who works faith in our hearts thru the Word and the power of the Holy Spirit. We can, and most do, reject Gods’ message of grace, but that does not mean that He wills it as the Scriptures above clearly indicate.
Report comment to moderator
That means, it is GOD who is present in HELL and is personally delivering the PUNISHMENT. Hell is NOT, the ABSENCE of God, but rather the PRESENCE of God, in Hell to punish non-believers. So that’s it. In Hell, it’s God shooting His flames of FIRE towards non-believers and Satan et al. GOD HIMSELF is an eternal torturer. You agree?
My views on hell are mostly tentative, although I’m not a universalist. I am open to the idea that the descriptions of fire in hell are figurative. In this case hell could be a void in which the soul suffers separation from God. Not the absence of God, for He is everywhere present, but separation, in which the soul will not sense His presence. Nor would the soul sense his companions in hell, for companionship is a comfort, and there are no comforts in hell.
Or, it could be that God will be present and His presence will be felt, but the lost soul has loved darkness rather than light, and the very presence of the One who is Light will be a torture.
Author Randy Alcorn has written a few novels that included some highly moving descriptions of his characters’ fictitious experiences in heaven or hell. He has imagined hell in both of the scenarios that I described above. Here he describes a sudden wave of God’s presence in the usual void of hell:
“Here it was unbearable. God’s love felt like wrath, His joy like torture. The consuming fire of God that was purity and goodness and comfort to those who loved the light was searing punishment to those who loved darkness.”
Beyond reading and “accurately handling” (II Timothy 2:15 NASB) the word of truth, we can only speculate.
Report comment to moderator
DJH: Good post.
I would add, that those verses that are often used to support limited atonement, such as John 10:11 or Ephesians 5:25, which state that Christ gave his life for the sheep or the church, are no problem at all for those of us who believe in unlimited atonement. If Christ died for all, He certainly died for many; and if He died for many, that does not mean He did not die for all; and the verses that DJH quoted show that He did, in fact, die for the whole world.
Report comment to moderator
I agree that it is difficult to accept that there is no meaning or purpose to our existence. Nevertheless, it seems just as likely as the hair splitting of the last 169 comments.
As far as the difficulty of accepting this, I find it just as difficult to believe ideas such as Heaven and Hell and eternal life. It is easier to imagine Hell; we all have experienced to some degree torment and suffering that seemed interminable.
It is more difficult to imagine Heaven. Is it like a never-ending heroin high? Can you conceive of a never-ending consciousness (without or without corporeal body) that never becomes tedious and wearisome? We are not creatures designed for such.
One reason many people rebel so fiercely against the idea of evolution is thar out short-term minds built for maybe a hundred years at best, can’t conceive of what happens over millions of years. No more than we can conceive of a species taking millions of years to evolve can we conceive of being a conscious being for millions or billions of years.
Christianity is a fairly good attempt to imagine the inconceivable, but we can’t; hence the tedium of this discussion. Victoria will probably “win” because she will outlast everyone else.
Report comment to moderator
Hell is not figurative, it is a REAL place.
Report comment to moderator
So Jon, let’s move beyond the word pictures describing hell, and go to a more important picture. Here it is:
3 He was despised and rejected by men;
a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief;
and as one from whom men hide their faces
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
4 Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted.
5 But he was wounded for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned—every one—to his own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted,
yet he opened not his mouth;
like a lamb that is led to the slaughter,
and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent,
so he opened not his mouth.
8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away;
and as for his generation, who considered
that he was cut off out of the land of the living,
stricken for the transgression of my people?
9 And they made his grave with the wicked
and with a rich man in his death,
although he had done no violence,
and there was no deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him;
he has put him to grief;
when his soul makes an offering for guilt,
he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days;
the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.
11 Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied;
by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant,
make many to be accounted righteous,
and he shall bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many,
and he shall divide the spoil with the strong,
because he poured out his soul to death
and was numbered with the transgressors;
yet he bore the sin of many,
and makes intercession for the transgressors.
He was God in the flesh. He was sinless. God did not HAVE TO give His Son for us. In our sinful nature, we are lost without hope. Even the good deeds that we do, in our attempt to be good, “moral” people, are like filthy rags. God in His perfection, holiness, and justice would have been perfectly justified to sweep us all away with no hope of a Saviour. With the breath of His mouth He could have destroyed us. Yet in His infinite love, He came down to this sinful earth to redeem us. He paid the price that was necessary to earn our salvation. He has offered this salvation to us, and through the grace of the Holy Spirit, we are free to accept or reject it by faith. How can we, as mere humans, reject His loving sacrifice and expect to evade His justice?
Report comment to moderator
In post #68, Mike provided four possible soteriological plans. All four of them involve the same Steps 1 and 2: Create, Permit fall.
This is correct, but there is a necessary conclusion from it: We are sinful because God has permitted us to be. And in fact, God created us capable of disobedience and created the conditions that made disobedience inevitable.
I do believe, as most of you know, that the story is a myth; but I do not mean it is a myth in the sense of something not true and therefore dismissible. I mean it as a myth that uses symbol and image to convey a very profound truth.
The tree of the knowledge of good and evil is a symbol. But whether literal or figurative, the conclusion is the same: God permitted sin to come into the creation. (If it were literal, one could ask, quite justifiably, why such a tree needed to exist in the first place, and why God had to plant in so that humans could reach it … unless he fully intended them to fall.)
In the Calvinistic scheme, this means that God permitted people to become guilty, knowing full well that some of them would be damned and that he would provide them no means of escape.
But watch: We are guilty in the first place only because God allowed the conditions that made us so. So God then becomes the author of damnation. We are not damned, in that scenario, because we chose to rebel against God. None of us made that choice after Adam. We are damned because God set us up to fail, and then God, supposedly loving (actually, supposedly Love, as John describes him) and supposedly gracious, refuses to rescue any but the elect.
(And whether that’s the vast majority, as I said a few times, or a minority, or even just one, it is still God’s doing.)
The assertion that “none of us deserve salvation” hinges on the assumption that we’re all freely choosing sin. But if our nature is inherently corrupted by original sin, it’s really not a free choice at all. It’s like saying a man with severe food poisoning is freely choosing to vomit, and punishing him for it.
The Arminian view does less damage to God’s essential goodness. Prevenient grace pulls at everyone, and those who heed it and place faith in Christ are saved. If we are damned, it is because we chose to reject the offered lifeline.
DJH in #168 ably lays out the scriptural support for this view. Salvation is open to all. The “elect” are those who choose to accept it.
Most of the Scripture offered to support strong Calvinism doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. In #98, for example, Mike offered this:
John 10:25-30 “Jesus answered, ‘I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father’s name speak for me, but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.’”
Mike interprets this to mean that not all of us are his sheep, and therefore, God has elected those who are. But it just as easily can be read as, all of us have the chance to be his sheep and not all of us take it. In the Arminian view, the references to those who were predestined are those whom God foreknew would respond, not those whom God handpicked to save.
We should note that this debate is peculiar to Western Protestantism, and not even all of that. The Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are not involved, and Luther himself developed ideas that don’t fully support either side.
Report comment to moderator
Oh, a further note on Mike’s quote of John: Jesus is here talking to the unbelieving Jews, and this passage sounds like they’re damned because they do not believe.
But Paul, in Romans 11, subverts that idea: He says, “a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of Gentiles has come in,” and “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.” Finally, he says, “All Israel will be saved.”
So even this passage from John, in which Jesus speaks harshly to the unbelieving Jews, is not the end of the story. Paul explains that God has, for his purposes, hardened them to the Gospel but not, ultimately, to damn them; because all Israel will be saved.
Report comment to moderator
http://www.fivesolas.com/crenshaw.htm
Report comment to moderator
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/limitedatonement.html
Report comment to moderator
Has anybody mentioned this one yet?
Acts 13:48 (English Standard Version)
48And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.
Report comment to moderator
Logeye,
Yup, David L. yesterday, at (151).
(Although I suspect that our stauncher Arminian brothers and sisters are convinced that that last part was added much later by Calvin himself … that rascal!)
Report comment to moderator
Victoria (if you’re still around),
At (96) yesterday, you claimed that I was “hiding” from you somehow:
What did you mean by that?
What makes you think I was “hiding”?
Why would I “hide”?
And besides … how could I have been “hiding” from you on a public weblog?
Had you been smokin’ some o’ them left-handed cigarettes?!
… or was it just an honest misunderstanding on your part?
Report comment to moderator
For the Baptists (and Presbyterians) — from the first article above:
Charles Spurgeon:
“We are often told that we limit the atonement of Christ, because we say that Christ has not made a satisfaction for all men, or all would be saved. Now, our reply to this is, that, on the other hand, our opponents limit it: we do not. The Arminians say, Christ died for all men. Ask them what they mean by it. Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of all men? They say, “No, certainly not.” We ask them the next question–Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of any man in particular? They answer “No.” They are obliged to admit this, if they are consistent. They say, “No. Christ has died that any man may be saved if”–and then follow certain conditions of salvation. Now, who is it that limits the death of Christ? Why, you. You say that Christ did not die so as infallibly to secure the salvation of anybody. We beg your pardon, when you say we limit Christ’s death; we say, “No, my dear sir, it is you that do it.” We say Christ so died that he infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ’s death not only may be saved, but are saved, must be saved and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved. You are welcome to your atonement; you may keep it. We will NEVER renounce ours for the sake of it.
Report comment to moderator
Calvinists:
Imagine the people you personally know that you believe are not among the elect.
Now choose the one of those you love the most.
Now imagine that person in hell. In torment, burning with flames that do not end, but do not kill, so that there is no end to the pain.
Imagine that lasting an hour.
A day.
A year.
Ten years.
Ten thousand years.
Ten million years, and still no end to it.
And tell me how you can possibly love a God who created that person, and billions more, fully intending that to be their destiny. Not creating them at all would be far kinder, but your version of God creates while fully intending to torture eternally. They exist for no purpose but to suffer endless agony.
I said in a post above that it’s near-blasphemous to conceive of such a God. I think i will remove the “near.”
Report comment to moderator
“I actually chuckled out loud a bit when I read your post. I thought you knew that I don’t believe in God, the tree, or Hell.”
My apologies, I had thought so, but that last time I addressed something that I thought of you from other previous posts, you criticized it rather than the point.
“It’s fascinating to me that people can hold to such ideas.”
It’s fascinating to me that people like you would criticize a God for actually demanding dependency of his creation.
Further, your admittance only strengthens my point that the criticism is based out of your denial of a god in the first place, and not whatever his character may be.
Further leading to my point that life even without God, claims no less influence over your life. You have NO control over the hand you have been dealt, especially if there is no God. In other words, life will hand you nothing of lasting in the end, and often will bring just as much misery throughout.
I’m not talking about what others do to you. I’m talking as small as the genetics you are derived from.
All in all to say, your views of life are simply an excuse to remain independent of God, period.
Report comment to moderator
#177: This still does not help or answer Calvinism’s problems.
Christ came not to save each individual in the world, but to set apart for Himself a special people: “Jesus Christ…gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works” (Tit. 2:14). This passage restricts salvation “to his people, his church, those who are redeemed from iniquity, who are purged, who are a choice and peculiar people, and are zealous of good works. For these Christ gave himself and no other.”
Of course, only those in the Body of Christ are saved. But this passage no where supports the last sentence. No where does the passage say that Christ gave Himself only for the individuals who are a part of His church. In fact, Scripture says the exact opposite:
I John 2:2 – “He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.”
Hebrews 2:9 – “But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone.”
It is a mistake to assume that when Paul says, “that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people,” he has individuals in mind. Election is corporate, not individual. Christ is purifying for Himself the church, his Body. We are members of that Body because we have believed on Him (not because of any works we have done), and He has given those who believe the gift of salvation. When we believe, we become members of Christ elect body.
The inspired apostles never speak of a salvation made possible to all men, but of the actual salvation of some men: the elect. Christ sets apart a people and removes their punishment. As John says: “The blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin” (1 Jn. 1:7); “In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him.… He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins” (1 Jn. 4:9-10).
Except, see the verses I quoted above. Also see Acts 17:30, where Paul says that God commands all men everwhere to repent.
See this link on provisional atonement. The author responds to part of the argument from NOPM’s link.
I will affirm that atonement is provisional “in Christ”. In other words, Christ’s death made provision for all sin, yet only those who come to be in union with Christ partake of that provision.
See also this link: Enjoying the good news of Christ’s birth from an Arminian perspective
Calvinists often argue that God’s love has failed if Christ’s atonement was made for all and yet not all are saved. I find it strange that Calvinists, who are so quick to criticize Arminians for holding to a man centered religion, argue that unless man responds to God’s love in saving faith, then His love for them has somehow failed. How is it that they feel comfortable equating the success or failure of God’s love with man’s response to that love? Is the nature or validity of God’s love dependant on man’s response? Doesn’t that seem a little man centered?
I personally believe that God loves and gives according to the goodness of His nature and that His love for mankind would in no way be diminished if every single person on the planet rejected that love. The cross is so much more beautiful to me when I consider that Christ willingly laid down His life even for those who would forever reject Him. I cannot think of a more powerful demonstration of perfect love. That most of mankind rejects that love and provision cannot diminish its significance in the slightest.
Report comment to moderator
Steve G,
I addressed a comment to you yesterday but don’t see that you ever read it. I’d be interested in your reaction, though.
In reply to your latest comment: first, there’s a popular misconception that, here and now, we can reliably know who is elect and who is not. I don’t think a person’s final spiritual status can be known with any finality, at least while that person is still alive. This goes for both the elect and the non-elect. Those who are saved persevere to the end, growing in their likeness to Christ, being sanctified, never giving up the fight. They show the fruit of election to the very end. Those who are not elect never come to saving faith, but how can we, as temporal creatures, say that a person will never come to faith? This goes to the heart of what Tony wrote in the main post here. When all is said and done, however, God has always known–and, in fact, has ordained, according to the Bible–the ultimate state of every person’s soul.
So those, like my two sisters, who rebel against Christ and daily turn their backs on Him, who with every thought assert their own wills against His, may be ultimately lost, but I pray not and I continue to urge them to repent. Who knows what God will do? But He’s not temporal, and we are.
How can we love a God who creates people like my sisters and then doesn’t save them but rather leaves them in their sin? Because God is just as well as loving. Because there is a paradox involved in the question of free will vs. predestination. They both work together in perfect harmony, and both are simultaneously true, which means that my sisters are actively refusing to repent of their sins and are shaking their fists and are refusing to bend their knees to Christ. They aren’t just morally neutral. Souls who remain in their sin can’t be near to God. It would be unjust of Him to establish a universe of right and wrong and then to fail to punish wrong. For one thing, I couldn’t love a God who winked at evil any more than I could a judge in a court of law who always excused convicted criminals. How can you? But more importantly, such a God doesn’t exist and can’t be proved to exist from the Bible.
The trouble is, we are living in a time when the concept of the fear of God is entirely distasteful to everyone, but we forget that there are spiritual benefits to the fear of condemnation and judgment. God is perfectly holy and without sin, but we’ve recreated Him as some kind of comical, pathetic Santa Claus character. God thunders from Mount Sinai and tells His people that anyone who touches the mountain will be destroyed. He causes even the man who reaches out to steady the tottering Ark to die because that man broke His law. If He does these things, how much more reason do I have to fear because of my unrepentance and my evil?
God is perfectly just and perfectly loving–another paradox. The vast majority of people who are predestined not to be saved have no excuse. They have heard the truth of Christ and have chosen to worship themselves instead. They have spit on Jesus; they are not morally neutral. That is how God’s predestination works itself out. Don’t ask about all those people who never had a chance to hear the Gospel–they’re not morally neutral, either. But it seems to me that the proper response to that question is not to revise the character of God but to be more earnest in our missionary activity. If it really bothers you that there are people who are being lost because they haven’t heard the word preached (Romans 10), then you ought to do more to get that word out there, rather than criticizing God for Who He is and what how He rules the world He created, or revising the attributes of God so that they fit into your pre-conceived framework.
Report comment to moderator
“The Arminian view does less damage to God’s essential goodness. Prevenient grace pulls at everyone, and those who heed it and place faith in Christ are saved. If we are damned, it is because we chose to reject the offered lifeline.”
The Arminian view does more damage, than either universalism or calvinism view points. It places assurances in the hands of men, relying on what they believe in the moment of death.
Report comment to moderator
Steve G,
You also said, “They exist for no purpose but to suffer endless agony.”
That’s not true. They do serve a purpose, which we have been discussing this whole thread: their rebellion and just condemnation 1) glorifies God and vindicates His character as a God of justice, wrath and power (Romans 9), and 2) they “make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy,” i.e., those who are saved.
Report comment to moderator
David L, excellent posts, thank you for the clarity.
Again, it is our perspective that is so skewed, which is why we often have such a hard time comprehending God’s character and ways.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn,
Except, David L. just said the following:
first, there’s a popular misconception that, here and now, we can reliably know who is elect and who is not. I don’t think a person’s final spiritual status can be known with any finality, at least while that person is still alive. This goes for both the elect and the non-elect. Those who are saved persevere to the end, growing in their likeness to Christ, being sanctified, never giving up the fight. They show the fruit of election to the very end.
So Calvinism’s doctrine of perseverance puts final assurance at the moment of death as well, at least the traditional way it has been taught.
However, there are others who teach the “free grace” idea, or “unconditional eternal security.” That is, once you are saved, you can sin as much as you like, and you are still a Christian because God’s grace covers your sins. This is the only doctrine that, if true, would allow for knowledge of one’s spiritual status with any finality. Is this where you’re coming from?
While I’m Arminian, I agree with David L. that we do not have final (i.e., future) assurance of salvation. I do, however, strongly believe that we can have present assurance, because of God’s promise of salvation to those who believe. “Him that cometh to Me I will in no wise cast out.”
Report comment to moderator
Matt Y.,
To clarify what I wrote above: I was talking about our knowledge of other people’s souls, not our own. The Bible teaches us in several places that, by various means, we can have assurance of our own salvation.
Report comment to moderator
I see, thanks. My bad.
Report comment to moderator
“In the Calvinistic scheme, this means that God permitted people to become guilty, knowing full well that some of them would be damned and that he would provide them no means of escape.
But watch: We are guilty in the first place only because God allowed the conditions that made us so. So God then becomes the author of damnation. We are not damned, in that scenario, because we chose to rebel against God. None of us made that choice after Adam. We are damned because God set us up to fail, and then God, supposedly loving (actually, supposedly Love, as John describes him) and supposedly gracious, refuses to rescue any but the elect.”
Despite allowing, it does not make him the author.
For instance, say two generals are at war on the battle field. General A knows his enemy so well that General B can never conquer him. In fact, no matter waht General B does, it always falls right into General A’s hands. General B’s attempts, movements, are clearly his own and not authored…however General A can always allow such moves…why? Because General A allows him to move into a position so that General B will be defeated.
Considering God is holy, and sin the exact opposite and cant conquer him. It’s a similiar relationship in the least. No matter what sin/evil does it will always be conformed to God’s purpose and plan without God ever being its author.
Report comment to moderator
David L.
Sorry I missed the earlier one. It’s a complicated subject and a fast-moving thread.
first, there’s a popular misconception that, here and now, we can reliably know who is elect and who is not. I don’t think a person’s final spiritual status can be known with any finality, at least while that person is still alive. This goes for both the elect and the non-elect.
With all due respect, I think this is a cop-out. You understand, on some level, the objectionable nature of the belief that God creates some humans to be doomed without hope or chance. Rather than confront that, you fall back to “well we don’t know who is elect.”
Well no, but you’re still quite happy to accept the idea that some number of humans are not elect, and therefore, created for torment. I don’t really care whether someone claims to be able to tell who’s in and who’s out, or claims to not know. The very fact that God leaves any to drown when he could save is repugnant.
Remember, in this scheme, God set man up to fail by making him fallible and putting both a tempting fruit and a tempter serpent nearby. Then, once man failed, God happily leaves some to eternal torment while saving others.
Then we are supposed to behold this terrible God who allows his people to sin, punishes them for taking the bait he put before them, and offers many of them no chance of escape, and call him loving and gracious. I really cannot express how repugnant that is to me.
How can we love a God who creates people like my sisters and then doesn’t save them but rather leaves them in their sin? Because God is just as well as loving.
No He isn’t, not in your view. Creating people who can sin knowing they will sin, in fact making it all but impossible for them not to sin, and having a way to save them but refusing to extend it to all is fundamentally unjust.
As I said earlier, not creating them at all would be better than creating them for damnation. They can’t sin if they don’t exist.
Because there is a paradox involved in the question of free will vs. predestination. They both work together in perfect harmony, and both are simultaneously true, which means that my sisters are actively refusing to repent of their sins and are shaking their fists and are refusing to bend their knees to Christ. They aren’t just morally neutral. Souls who remain in their sin can’t be near to God. It would be unjust of Him to establish a universe of right and wrong and then to fail to punish wrong.
It is unmerciful of him to establish a path to salvation and then refuse to give everyone at least the chance to repent. And the Bible emphasizes God’s love and mercy above all else.
I’ll have to get to the rest later, but I will.
Report comment to moderator
I just got back to this discussion after a couple of days, and I don’t have anything to say to the actual debate over predestination that hasn’t been said better by others. I did want to make two comments though. The first is to
Victoria,
You say that Calvinists love to dwell on the topic of predestination and that it turns people away from Christ. But in my experience, I haven’t seen Calvinists present the gospel to unbelievers with an emphasis on predestination. Rather, the topic is often discussed in discussions between Arminians and Calvinists and both the Arminians and the Calvinists are equally likely to bring up the dispute. But when presenting the gospel, Calvinists emphasize God’s mercy and the need for the unbeliever to repent of his rebellion against God.
GFW81
You say that a person who deliberately conceived a child in order to inflict cancer on the child would be evil and you compare this to your idea of God creating vessels for destruction. Unfortunately for you, not only does it make no sense for you to accuse God of being evil, but you can’t coherently accuse anyone of evil.
In your materialist worldview, man is a just product of physical
processes. His physical body, as well as his mind and the choices he makes, are all just matter acting on matter, bringing about predictable consequences. By denying God, you can’t speak coherently of good or evil. And yet you still do. It’s fascinating to me that people hold such ideas.
Report comment to moderator
David L. You also said, “They exist for no purpose but to suffer endless agony.”
That’s not true. They do serve a purpose, which we have been discussing this whole thread: their rebellion and just condemnation 1) glorifies God and vindicates His character as a God of justice, wrath and power (Romans 9), and 2) they “make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy,” i.e., those who are saved.
If your idea of God needs conscious human souls to suffer eternal agony for his glory and “vindication,” he is a monster worse than any human tyrant that ever lived and I would want no part of him. I would certainly not ever be able to love such a God; at best I might surrender to him out of fear.
Your view is an abject perversion of the grace of Christ.
Report comment to moderator
I think the Calvinist is actually the one with the assurance problem. The following link explains it as well as anyone.
http://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2008/10/29/perseverance-of-the-saints-part-13-salvation-assurance/
The problem for the Calvinist is the rather obvious reality that many who put faith in Christ do not endure in that faith until the end. Many who ultimately fall away have impressive track records of loving, trusting, and serving Christ, and very often have produced godly fruit for many years.
The Calvinist is forced to insist that such “apostates” were never true believers in the first place. They are forced to conclude that the faith, love, and service of such seemingly godly individuals were nothing but a ruse from beginning to end. They are forced to question the integrity of those who abandon the faith and yet claim that they once trusted Christ with all of their hearts and loved God dearly. They are forced to call them liars and vile hypocrites who may have “thought” they trusted Christ and “thought” they loved Him but were simply deluded and never experienced true faith or genuine love for God. All of their godly fruit was nothing more than the works of the flesh that only seemed to bear testimony of a genuine relationship with Christ.
We must wonder then how these true believers who stand in judgment of these apostates and boldly proclaim that their faith and love was not genuine can be certain that their present faith and love is real. They have no problem conceding that the apostate may have truly “thought” their faith and love was genuine despite the fact that it wasn’t. How then can they be sure that they are not likewise deceived by their present faith and love for Christ? Perhaps it only “seems” real to them. How can they be sure that their faith and love for Christ will not someday fail, thereby proving that their faith was never “real” and they were never “really” saved to begin with, but merely a deluded hypocrite all along?
Report comment to moderator
Oh yeah, Steve G,
You want to get God “off the hook” by creating a universalist world. God, in your view, would have to be evil to damn anyone eternally. But you’ve said yourself that you believe in hell, but that it isn’t eternal. You believe that people who aren’t saved (either because they refused the gospel or they didn’t hear it) will suffer torment for some unknown period of time before being saved. Based on your standards, your God is much nicer than the God of historic Christianity because he only makes people suffer (in some cases–for knowledge they didn’t have, according to you) for a limited time, instead of eternally. But if silly human analogies were sufficient for judging God the way you seem to think they are, then your God may be considered less cruel, but still cruel nonetheless.
Report comment to moderator
Steve G.,
I appreciate your responses, but the problem is, what I’ve been describing is not “my” idea of God. It is the character of God revealed in the Bible and the majority opinion for the past 2,000 years. You reveal yourself all too well when you say, “he is a monster worse than any human tyrant that ever lived and I would want no part of him.”
That’s not the way I see Him. It seems to me the difference between our attitudes or perceptions comes down to faith. We have the same data but completely different reactions to it. You refuse to trust beyond your ability to understand. The Bible doesn’t say that God is a tyrant, yet that’s your conclusion. My view is the majority throughout history and supported by specific passages from Scripture and a coherent interpretation of the Bible. Your view is a minority one because it struggles to read certain preferred ideas into the Bible rather than letting the Bible shape your ideas.
Honestly, I don’t claim to be smart enough for God. I don’t claim to understand what God has not revealed to us, and I don’t have any interest in strait-jacketing God into a certain framework that makes me feel comfortable with Him. God’s purpose is not to make us feel comfortable. I acknowledge there is mystery, but I trust in God’s goodness, love, justice, mercy, wrath and all the rest.
You say that “my” view is a perversion of the grace of Christ, but “my” view is completely orthodox and (as my pastor says) boringly normal throughout history. But your view represents a twisting of the meaning of certain parts of Scripture and a willful ignorance of others. You already decided what God should be like before you ever even came to the Bible.
Report comment to moderator
I appreciate your responses, but the problem is, what I’ve been describing is not “my” idea of God. It is the character of God revealed in the Bible and the majority opinion for the past 2,000 years.
No it isn’t. Neither the Roman Catholics nor the Eastern Orthodox have Calvinistic theologies. This hard double-predestination theology has been around only a few centuries and has never been the majority opinion. Obviously many good and capable theologians have not found it to be a Biblically necessary doctrine.
Report comment to moderator
Ree: This is a thread about Calvinism. You can attack my views later. I know you want to.
Report comment to moderator
Steveg – 195
David L’s post is important, it points out GOD’s way, not man’s idea of what they have dreamed GOD to be.
When you stated: …. “If your idea of God needs conscious human souls to suffer eternal agony for his glory and “vindication,” he is a monster worse than any human tyrant that ever lived and I would want no part of him. I would certainly not ever be able to love such a God; at best I might surrender to him out of fear.”
Maybe you can’t, maybe that’s the whole problem Steve, if you can’t make GOD into what you believe HE should be you can’t love HIM. Think about it, what you’ve done is tried to make GOD into a designer GOD according to your ideas, you haven’t the power to re-create GOD, or change anything which HE has made known in HIS Word.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria: You do realize that David was defending predestination, right? That’s his explanation for why the God of love and mercy would create billions of people and not give them even a chance of being saved, because they are not in the elect.
Report comment to moderator
I will say, if hell exists and is even a fraction as hellish as most of you believe, you really ought to think very carefully about how good a God can be if he deliberately withholds the means of salvation from any.
I am kind of appalled at how blithely you wave off that kind of agony and torment as unimportant. I think perhaps you’re so caught up in defending the theory that you’re not really considering the depths of the reality.
With that, I think I will bow out of this one.
Report comment to moderator
Steveg
I have never said that I don’t believe in predestination – nor have I ever posted that I believe the way so called Calvinists believe. What I have posted is:
“I don’t know who is going to believe and who isn’t, but GOD knows. I don’t know how GOD created the world, or why some people are sinful and proud of it, or why others are shamed by their sins and ask GOD to forgive them. I do know this, GOD knew before the world who would believe, who would follow HIM and who wouldn’t. You and I don’t know these things. We do know from Scripture that Christ died for everyone, but we don’t know who will accept his forgiveness and repent- But we can’t forget, GOD sent HIS Son to die for the sins of “the whole world” – but at the same time, HE knew who would and wouldn’t believe and stay the course.”
Report comment to moderator
But I think what Victoria is saying is that we need to be molded by Scripture, by how God presents himself there as opposed to trying to impose our ideas onto what we think God “should” be like.
Victoria and I may have disagreements on some of the issues being debated here, but on that principle we’re agreed — we must always labor and wrestle to bring our understanding in line with Scripture.
For me, that often times meant I’d read something I “didn’t like” (or understand) but I’d concede that it was because I wasn’t understanding something rightly. The problem was with me, not the text. Sometimes I’d have to pass over those passages, come back to them later. Over the years, many of those earlier passages that caused me consternation made perfect sense as I understood more about God’s Word.
The principle is that Scripture is the plumb line by which all of our ideas of God must be measured.
Report comment to moderator
Steve,
I don’t want to attack your beliefs just for the sake of attacking them. It’s perfectly legitimate to turn an attack around on the attacker to show his inconsistencies. Attacks coming from you, from Victoria, and from GWF81 are all vulnerable to counterattacks on different grounds, but none of you can just attack one position, and expect a free pass on your own position.
Report comment to moderator
Forgive me if I missed it, but it seems that there are essentially only two viewpoints being expressed here. As was pointed out earlier, Luther developed ideas that did not fully support either side. (Steve G #174) The truth of the matter is that there is a third view of this that is, I believe, more sound according to the Scriptures.
As I stated earlier it is clear that the Bible teaches that Jesus death atoned for the sins of all people. (see # 168)The Bible also clearly teaches that man is totally corrupt and cannot contribute anything to their conversion/salvation. Finally we have the Biblical doctrine of election. How do we reconcile these seemingly contradictory viewpoints? Here is a quote from T. Harnack on Luther, “He never tried to harmonize these teachings. Luther was convinced that Scripture taught all of them and was willing to bear, for the time being, the theological tension they created, rather than to make concessions which would violate any one of them”.Something to think about.
Report comment to moderator
Donna: But I think what Victoria is saying is that we need to be molded by Scripture, by how God presents himself there as opposed to trying to impose our ideas onto what we think God “should” be like.
I agree with that. However, the Scripture very clearly presents God as unimaginably merciful, gracious and loving. His justice is real, but his mercy is unending.
I think Calvinistic doctrines seek to put unscriptural limits on how merciful God can be.
Report comment to moderator
Steve, whatever your path has been in the past few months I have no idea – I do remember your coming back to the blog after only a short 10 days or so and proclaiming you believed AGAIN –
GOD hasn’t changed one dot, nor will HE – NOW you are challenging those of us as Christians as to HOW “good a God can be if” – there is no IF to it Steveg, GOD is GOD Almighty -
Report comment to moderator
Steveg 208
YOU POST:…. “I think Calvinistic doctrines seek to put unscriptural limits on how merciful God can be.”
Why not forget what Calvinists believe for just a time and look at what the Bible says – you’re skipping over all the Scripture which warns those who don’t believe or who have gone back into sin as to what their FATE will be – There is nothing unscriptural about hell, or the reasons people end up there -
Report comment to moderator
Hmmm . . .
God is a free Being.
Man is created in the image of God– a free Being.
How then is it that “The Bible teaches that man is totally corrupt and cannot contribute anything to their [sic]conversion/salvation?”
Does anyone believe anymore in the synergy between God and man in the salvation of man or has that all abandoned as passe and antiquated? Does no one believe anymore that God enables us to choose freely salvation or damnation and that we judge ourselves by the choice we make, rather than some choice that a god makes for us? Lord have mercy!
Report comment to moderator
Ree (#194),
You should really stick to speaking about your own beliefs, because you do an awful job of representing my beliefs. If you cannot figure out right from wrong (or good from evil) without divine instruction from God, by all means, for everyone’s sake, please stay religious. However, you are really out of line when you accuse me of having no moral basis, simply because you cannot figure it out, even when it has been explained to you repeatedly.
Thorn (#183),
I don’t think I can explain it any clearer, but I will try. A harsh impersonal universe with no “will” of its own deserves as much anger as a tidal wave or hurricane. It may be unfortunate, but it isn’t actively malevolent. The god you are positing is willfully bringing people into existence specifically to inflict eternal suffering upon them. That type of being absolutely deserves unrelenting criticism and is certainly not worthy of anyone’s worship or love.
Like Ree, you should stick to representing your own views instead of what you perceive my views to be. You suggest that I am miserable and hopeless because of my beliefs about the universe. Even if that were true (and it isn’t), what reason would I have to believe in your tyrannical concept of God? I don’t even have much reason to believe in the universalist version of God, but at least that notion is attractive. Your argument amounts to, “You don’t have much money, so pretend that there is a 2-ton diamond buried in your backyard that you can always dig up if you fall on hard times (but if the diamond doesn’t like you, it will actually take what little you do have and leave you naked in a vacant lot before disappearing).”
Report comment to moderator
“So Calvinism’s doctrine of perseverance puts final assurance at the moment of death as well, at least the traditional way it has been taught.”
I’m sorry, did you ever know a saint that didnt persevere? If he didnt persevere he wouldnt be a saint…
Perservance is what we are called too, because its a reflection of our salvation.
“However, there are others who teach the “free grace” idea, or “unconditional eternal security.” That is, once you are saved, you can sin as much as you like, and you are still a Christian because God’s grace covers your sins.”
No thats not even close to what I’m saying. Christ says to go and sin no more, that if you love him, you’ll obey him. Paul answers the same question. Because our salvation in Christ is assured…because we are free from the bondage of sin, we have no excuse to live in sin and to continue on as if this life doesnt matter.
“I do, however, strongly believe that we can have present assurance, because of God’s promise of salvation to those who believe. “Him that cometh to Me I will in no wise cast out”
Maybe you can define that a little better the diff between present and final.
Note, I’m not saying we dont have our doubts, that we dont go through periods of struggle or trials. But thats all the more reason I can rest in Christ as my assurance. It’s not about my wavering or my stumbles. All of it is paid for by Him. And that is no excuse to live like it doesnt matter.
leading on to your post in 196. It’s from an Arminian’s perspective of why the Calvinist cant have assurance. Silly nonsense. The difference between us is simply that a Calvinist relies solely on God for salvation, that I have the “freedom” to chose God because he has given me that gift of grace and faith in the first place. For the Arminian, he places more emphasis on himself and his current status of belief and actions.
What else is really different? Saying a Calvinist holds that a once “christian” do gooder is now an atheist, stating they never knew Christ, is no different than stating that the now atheist has just rejected Christ later.
The end result is still the same. He is still now an atheist going to hell.
For Calvinists who go that far to judge a backslidden man’s heart, it probably is a bit too far. Only Christ knows each man’s heart. But each man knows his own as well. But an Arminian that goes as far as to say that you can reject Christ’s righteousness, after being declared righteous by Christ…is a bit farther off the mark.
really which is better assurance, strip away the titles, is it better assurance if GOd has full account of your salvation…or is it better assurance if you a mere man, and sinner at that, has anywhere near enough control to reject that salvation at any doubt/wavering of his mind?
Report comment to moderator
Victoria at #209: Steve, whatever your path has been in the past few months I have no idea – I do remember your coming back to the blog after only a short 10 days or so and proclaiming you believed AGAIN -
I’m not sure what you’re referring to here. I did take a brief hiatus to deal with some personal things not long ago, but that had nothing to do with my beliefs. I was helping a close friend through a time of need and didn’t have much time for posting.
GOD hasn’t changed one dot, nor will HE – NOW you are challenging those of us as Christians as to HOW “good a God can be if” – there is no IF to it Steveg, GOD is GOD Almighty -
Yeah, please look at what I was responding to. I was arguing against the idea that salvation is not available to all — agreeing with you.
Report comment to moderator
“Your view is an abject perversion of the grace of Christ.”
Your view seems to stem from a concept that God owes us something..or is obligated to us.
Where is that scripturally supported?? We are obligated to GOd, not vice versa.
God chose to create and love us, however he was not obligated to do either, even regardless of sin.
Where God’s soveriegnty overlaps with our personal responsibility exactly, only he knows. But if you reduce God to being obligated by us, He is no longer God.
Report comment to moderator
Steveg – 214
YOU WROTE: “Yeah, please look at what I was responding to. I was arguing against the idea that salvation is not available to all — agreeing with you.”
Yes I know that you agree with me. What troubles me Steve is that you don’t believe many other parts of the NT. I am your friend, even though you might not know it, OR I post things which lead you to believe otherwise. GOD isn’t unfair, HE is just in all HIS ways, it is man who wants another kind of justice, which isn’t Biblical.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn:
Your view seems to stem from a concept that God owes us something..or is obligated to us.
No it’s not. It’s based on Scripture and the historic theology of most of the church outside of the Calvin-influenced denominations. The New Testament is full of statements that Christ died for all, that God loves and seeks reconciliation with all. The doctrine of limited atonement denies all of that.
David L. said it has been the majority view for 2,000 years, but in fact it has been a minority view and only for a few hundred years.
You have a funny definition of love if it means creating men, allowing them to become evil and then sentencing many of them to eternal torment with no chance of escape, while hand-picking others to save.
This unpleasant view of God imagines him as little more than a sadist (because he creates billions of souls knowing full well that they will be tormented forever, when he could either make salvation more available or not create the damned at all) and there is no scripture that requires it (else it really would be the historic majority view).
This is not a matter of thinking God “owes us something” … it is a matter of trying to square this horrendous version of God with 1 John 4:8 and realizing there is no way to do so.
You keep falling back on the “God can do whatever he wants” argument, and utterly failing to see how grotesque that image of God is when compared to the God we see incarnate in Christ. Or how it makes God seem like a capricious, vengeful slave master more than a loving, caring abba-father.
Whatever. You believe whatever you like, but I think you’re doing God a grave disservice by insisting on this doctrine.
Report comment to moderator
leading on to your post in 196. It’s from an Arminian’s perspective of why the Calvinist cant have assurance. Silly nonsense. The difference between us is simply that a Calvinist relies solely on God for salvation, that I have the “freedom” to chose God because he has given me that gift of grace and faith in the first place. For the Arminian, he places more emphasis on himself and his current status of belief and actions.
Do you have any way to refute this besides calling it “silly nonsense?” You still haven’t answered the objection.
(A) Indisputably, many people who put their faith in Christ fail to persevere to the end in their faith, even though they may have good “track records” of serving Christ and exhibiting the fruits of the Spirit for many years.
(B) According to your view, they were not truly Christians; their fruits and their service were counterfeit. They thought they trusted and loved Christ, but in reality they didn’t.
(C) You are not omniscient; you do not know the future. Therefore you do not know with 100% certainty that, in 5, 10, 15 years or so, you will not fall away like they did.
(D) If you would fall away, that would prove that you currently are deluded and your fruits and service are counterfeit.
(E) Since you do not know that you will not fall away, you do not know that your spiritual life is not counterfeit and you cannot be certain that you are one of the elect.
Report comment to moderator
The difference between us is simply that a Calvinist relies solely on God for salvation, that I have the “freedom” to chose God because he has given me that gift of grace and faith in the first place. For the Arminian, he places more emphasis on himself and his current status of belief and actions.
The scare quotes around “freedom” are revealing of your determinism.
Our continuing salvation is not dependent on works, or on our ability to maintain a certain level of obedience by avoiding more “serious” sins. (This would be a form of works salvation). Rather it is dependent on our continued perseverance in faith and allegiance to Christ. This faith/allegiance is not a “dead work” by which one earns salvation. See Galatians 2:16, where faith is contrasted with the merit-based works of the law.
I’m sorry, did you ever know a saint that didnt persevere? If he didnt persevere he wouldnt be a saint…
This is rather silly. As long as he perseveres in his faith, he is a saint. If he ceases to persevere, he ceases to be a saint.
Report comment to moderator
Steve G says, “It’s based on Scripture.”
No, it’s not. It’s based on reading isolated verses as if they represent categorically what the Bible says. You ignore entire reams of Scripture in order to reach your conclusions.
You also say, “it has been a minority view and only for a few hundred years.” While I’m willing to grant that the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions don’t emphasize the doctrine of reprobation and even in some cases the doctrine of predestination itself, the view that I’m arguing for did not emerge brand-new from the Reformation. I’m pretty sure Augustine believed it in some form and that therefore it had adherents back to the early church. But I think what the church has historically believed or not believed must be ultimately submitted to what the Bible says. And the Bible says that those who were appointed to salvation believed, that God predestined the Church for salvation, and that, regardless of Pharoah or Esau’s works, God worked his will in them by hardening their hearts. There is a great deal of Biblical support for the view I’m espousing here. For yours, not so much.
For example, you cannot respond to this Biblical evidence by merely citing 1 John 4:8 and without really digging into what it means to say that “God is love.” Love at times involves punishment, even banishment. How many parents, fearful of the direction their child’s life is taking, have kicked their kids out of the house because of love and desperation?
You may not find the idea of predestination and reprobation palatable, but what you believe is also not compatible with what most orthodox Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox believe. In other words, if you think my argument isn’t Scriptural, how much less so is yours. At least I’m trying to incorporate the whole of what the Bible says about God and not ignoring the parts I don’t like.
Report comment to moderator
For the Arminian, he places more emphasis on himself and his current status of belief and actions.
Actually, here is the common ground between the Calvinist and Arminian views on assurance, from the link in #196:
Arminians and Calvinists have much common ground with regards to the doctrine of salvation assurance. Both traditions believe that assurance can be gained through fruit bearing and the inner witness of the Spirit. Both traditions believe that assurance is based on a confidence in the merits of Christ’s blood and union with Him. Both traditions believe that one should examine himself and his lifestyle to be sure that his faith is presently focused on Christ and the merit of His blood.
Report comment to moderator
“The New Testament is full of statements that Christ died for all, that God loves and seeks reconciliation with all. The doctrine of limited atonement denies all of that.”
What God does, is not an indication of what he is obligated too do.
Do you see the difference in my point?
Nothing, not even our creation in his image, puts us on equal footing with God, as in another god. God is never obligated to us.
Because your obligating God to save you, and then critizing him, when he does not.
Now if you can show me scripturally where it discusses God being obligated to man, then itd be worth looking at.
The NT and OT are full of dicussion of what God said he was going to do, what he will do, and what he has done. But never does it say that he is obligated to have done any of it.
“This is not a matter of thinking God “owes us something” … it is a matter of trying to square this horrendous version of God with 1 John 4:8 and realizing there is no way to do so.”
For us it will never be square..the overlap of sovereignty vs personal responsibility we will never grasp fully. But I dont find it horrendous that God has the right to use his wrath and justice upon his creation, especially a sinful one. The OT displays that constantly. He is God and this is not about us, but about him, his purpose, his plan, his glory. He has chosen to at least allow some of us (maybe all as you say) to share in that, but he is not obligated to. God is love, but nothing about that characteristic is dependent upon our outcome.
“Whatever. You believe whatever you like, but I think you’re doing God a grave disservice by insisting on this doctrine.”
No reason to be flipant, we typically have good discussions Steve. We both view God as loving.
Report comment to moderator
“Do you have any way to refute this besides calling it “silly nonsense?” You still haven’t answered the objection.”
Sorry i didnt phrase that well. The problem for the Calvinist in summary is your point that the Calvinist states he never was, despite his “works”, without truly knowing his heart?
The problem for the Arminian is that your trying to deflect your own loopholes over to the Calvinist. If a man falls away, you say he rejected and turned away after once having it.
Either way, the man’s earlier works which you state are good and an indication of his righteousness in Christ, account for NOTHING.
Do you see my point?
Either way, the man is apparently on his way to hell.
Assurance has a practical, wavering affect to us why? Because of our sin, we either have trouble trusting in God’s promises, or we still like to be independent and rebellious. It’s a pratical roller coaster if we rely on our fruits as the only example of God working in us.
But God’s assurance to us is unwavering. If Christ has set us free from sin, then we are free indeed. If Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us, if he is our propitiation, then there is no way to remove what he has done for us.
“Our continuing salvation is not dependent on works, or on our ability to maintain a certain level of obedience by avoiding more “serious” sins. (This would be a form of works salvation). Rather it is dependent on our continued perseverance…”
Make up your mind, is it based on you or is not based on you?
What exempilfies perserverance?
“As long as he perseveres in his faith, he is a saint. If he ceases to persevere, he ceases to be a saint. ”
I thought salvation was dependent upon Christ alone ..so how is a faith/allegiance combo now requiring salvation to be dependent upon more than Christ? Does God quit working in us, simply because we are disgruntled for a day?
Example. Say Mr. Smith decides he doesnt want to be apart of church anymore, he’s rejecting Christ after 20 years of belief, for whatever reason, maybe hes just mad that day and upset.
Say he dies the next day.
It’s either one of two things, he never was set free by Christ, or he still is set free by Christ.
There is no middle ground. Your right, we dont know his heart. But man is constantly in this state of rebellion, because while on this earth we are still sinners. Our temporal state of mind, at the moment of death, does not change God’s assurance to us.
Perserverance is simply the notion that every christian will finish the race, no matter how ugly they happen to run it. Because what makes you a christian, is being set free by Christ and Christ alone.
Report comment to moderator
The LORD is giving men everywhere a further opportunity to repent and turn to HIMSELF. This is the reason you and I need to get the Word of GOD out. It’s the ONLY THING that can CHANGE HEARTS and LIVES.
Is is by the Word of GOD that people are Born Again. As Peter said in his first epistle, “Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the Word of GOD. which liveth and abideth for ever” 1 Peter 1:23
“Not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance” It is not GOD’s will that you should perish.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
I believe that you have a shared difficulty with reformed people.
I know you believe that God foreknows who will perish. Now I don’t know how far you push foreknowledge, but in some sense you have to admit that God is involved in this matter. He went ahead and created those He foreknew would perish. So there is, at minimum, the bare permission of God to create the men who would not believe and then send them to hell for their unbelief.
The Calvinist does say that within the secret will of God He either passed over or predestinated those who who are not elect to go to hell (there is some difference between passing over and double-predestination). But most Calvinists (excepting hyper-Calvinists) will say that God does not desire that any perish in His decretive will. So God wills it in one sense, but not in another sense. I don’t think any Calvinist would say that God jumps for joy that men are going to hell. Yet, He carries out His justice towards men because we are responsible beings. His eternal decree does not conflict with our responsibility. Is this hard to reconcile in our minds? Sure it is, but I don’t think you or any Arminians escape this mystery entirely. Your view may soften the conflict, but in so doing I think you also soften grace, sin, and the sovereignty of God.
My 2 cents.
Report comment to moderator
211
Jonny,
Man is free, but he can’t fly like a bird when he flaps his arms. Cows are free to move around in their fenced-in pastures. Fallen man is free to follow the desires of his heart. And I’m sure you can guess what I would posit as the desires of fallen man’s heart?
Also, is God able to sin? Is God able to go against His character? For instance could God commit suicide?
Report comment to moderator
Jonny,
BTW, I also hold to the view of the impeccability of Christ, but perhaps you do not?
Report comment to moderator
NOPM – 225
I do know what Calvinists believe, however I do not believe everything they put forth – it’s not a matter of your 2 cents.
Sad that you identify yourself so often as a “Calvinist” instead of a ‘Believer’ – ‘Born Again Christian’ – ‘Christian’ – so much importance is given Calvin, what about the LORD Jesus Christ?
Maybe you should study the Scriptures and set Calvin aside for awhile, who knows you might find doctrine to be a bit different then you believe now – just my nickel.
Report comment to moderator
The problem for the Arminian is that your trying to deflect your own loopholes over to the Calvinist.
Ha ha this is true in a sense, in any debate I love taking the supposed problem areas of my position and pinning them back on the other side.
See I said “supposed.” I don’t think Arminianism has a problem with assurance.
I don’t have time to reply further right now but I’ll try to come back later.
Report comment to moderator
226 NOPM,
Ahem. See The Fallacies of Calvinist Apologetics – Fallacy #4: “Free Will is the Power to Do Anything!!”
Obviously, this Calvinist dilemma of ‘determinism or limitless free will’ is spurious, since one can have libertarian freedom within limits. Not that this stops them from using this fallacy to try and attack libertarian free will anyway. Some Calvinistadors go as far as to take this ‘free will lets you do anything’ absurdity to an even more ridiculous extent, asking questions like, “If you have free will, why don’t you ‘choose’ to flap your arms and fly?” (an obvious non-sequitur, since our making choices doesn’t necessarily affect any externals; or in plain English: it’s libertarian free will, not libertarian free super-powers). Such silliness is hardly worth comment except for the fact that I’ve actually confronted an educated Calvinist debater who tendered this sort of sophistry as a serious argument!
I love that one line: It’s libertarian free will, not libertarian super-powers. LOL!
Report comment to moderator
229
You mean Arminians never doubt their salvation? Christ never said to an Arminian — “O ye of little faith.” {[ guess he only said that to Calvinists!]
Report comment to moderator
230
But, yes I think the whole prevenient/synergistic grace argument essentially boils down to something (dare I say it) ridiculous.
So God puts you in some neutral place and then you get to pick by some sort of unbiased choice?
Give me a brief statement of free will as you define it. Or point me to it if you already have.
Report comment to moderator
“Your view seems to stem from a concept that God owes us something….”
Of course, if GOD created man, He/She/It/Whatever owes us something. A parent who bears a child OWES that child until it is capable of providing for itself. By your logic, God could create man, who NO need to sustain himself (no food, air, whatever) and then when man dies, God is blameless. This defines objective reality. If God exist, He does not exist according to your premises.
Report comment to moderator
Ah.
Sorry for the errors. That should have read:
Of course, if GOD created man, He/She/It/Whatever owes us something. A parent who bears a child OWES that child until it is capable of providing for itself. [Otherwise that parent is criminally neglectful.] By your logic, God could create man, with NO means to sustain himself (no food, air, whatever) and then when man dies of starvation or whatnot, God is blameless. This defies objective reality. If God exists, He does not exist according to your premises.
Report comment to moderator
Either way, the man’s earlier works which you state are good and an indication of his righteousness in Christ, account for NOTHING.
Do you see my point?
Either way, the man is apparently on his way to hell.
Well, either I don’t see your point, or I don’t think it’s a good one. Since the man has left the faith, obviously his earlier works do not indicate that he is currently saved, and he is apparently on his way to hell. However, when he did have faith, the fruits produced by his faith were one indication that his faith was genuine.
This may be a good place to mention the various ways by which we can gain assurance. The following is from Robert Hamilton. It’s not a direct quote but my paraphrase.
The deductive method is reasoned like this:
(1) Scripture reveals that God grants salvation to those who put their faith in Jesus. Another way to say this would be that we have given our allegiance to Jesus.
(2) I have put my faith in Jesus.
(3) Therefore, I have received salvation from God.
The inductive approach is to observe evidence of the Spirit’s presence in one’s life. Here are some varieties of this evidence:
Romans 8:16 – The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.
I John 4:15 – Whosoever confesseth that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.
I John 1: 6-7 – If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. (i.e. the Spirit produces character fruit in our lives – see also Galatians 5:22-23.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn,
The way I was defining “perseverance” is “endurance” or continuing in the faith. If we are continuing our walk with the Lord, we are persevering.
Report comment to moderator
Matt Y – 236
Are these the passages you are referring to? – I haven’t read each one of your posts carefully –
Those who “endure” – this is another example where OSAS falls flat – “endure unto the end” – Christ is making this statement which means we have to continue to persevere to the end to be saved.
The passage in James “endureth” – Revelation that we are to be “faithful unto death” and Christ will give us a crown of life – It is imperative that we BE FAITHFUL to Christ –
Report comment to moderator
“Our continuing salvation is not dependent on works, or on our ability to maintain a certain level of obedience by avoiding more “serious” sins. (This would be a form of works salvation). Rather it is dependent on our continued perseverance…”
Make up your mind, is it based on you or is not based on you?
What exempilfies perserverance?
“As long as he perseveres in his faith, he is a saint. If he ceases to persevere, he ceases to be a saint. ”
I thought salvation was dependent upon Christ alone ..so how is a faith/allegiance combo now requiring salvation to be dependent upon more than Christ?
Thorn,
We’re running into the synergism vs. monergism thing here.
Perhaps these links would be helpful:
Synergism as a model for God’s glory
Perseverance of the saints part 1
I’m posting the second link mostly because of the comments section. Here is one of those comments, in response to someone else’s comment.
Synergism can only be used in a very qualified sense for santification. We work as God works within us in sanctification (not we do our part and God does his). Regeneration and the faith and repentance that result are monergistic to the core.
Report comment to moderator
NOPM
The definition of Synergism:
Synergism
definition:
Christian theological doctrine: in Christian theology, the doctrine that the human will and the Holy Spirit work together to bring about spiritual regeneration or salvation
Report comment to moderator
NOPM,
We are subordinate fellow workers with God.
As far as regeneration, faith and repentance, you have it exactly backwards. Faith and repentance precede regeneration (logically, not temporally, as they are simultaneous).
The process of salvation (which includes regeneration, justification, and sanctification among other things) is completely monergistic. Only God can save us. However, faith is synergistic; God enables the lost sinner to believe, and faith is his genuine response to God’s drawing and enablement. It is important to remember that faith is not actually a part of salvation; rather, it is the means by which we accept God’s free gift of salvation. (Scripture shows that justification, regeneration, and salvation are received by faith). Yet it is still entirely God’s salvation, for He performs it all. This is why boasting is excluded. If you accept a free gift, are you going to boast about how you earned it? Of course not.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria
Synergism may be defined that way, but we may also define it the way I have. It does not have to be applied only to regeneration or salvation. It can be applied to sanctification to the exclusion of the rest.
We work as God works in us in terms of sanctification would be a use of synergism that I would find acceptable.
Report comment to moderator
Matt
Your ordo salutis seems backwards to me.
Regeneration precedes faith and repentance. There will be no faith if God doesn’t make the unwilling totally willing. And there will always be faith when God regenerates.
Report comment to moderator
NO, the Bible doesn’t tell us that.
One must repent of their sins first and then comes Salvation.
Report comment to moderator
You can make up your OWN DEFINITIONS for words now? LOL – in that case you make anything mean whatever you want -
Report comment to moderator
I sympathize with SteveG’s struggles concerning justice and mercy, for almost all of us have had similar thoughts. I do not however, agree with his resolution of the conflict. For him, it seems, he MUST HAVE A RESOLUTION. And that resolution must be satisfying to his intellect. He strains and struggles and finally reaches his resolution by modifying Scripture to suit HIS preconceived notion of a just and merciful God. He forgets that we are fallen and that ANY conflict between our notion of justice and God’s is a result of our flawed thinking—we must defer to Him and set our ideas aside when our thoughts are in conflict with His.
In contrast to Steve, the well put and concise arguments of David L are offered from this perspective:
This makes a world of difference because David L must rely on faith in order to come to terms with those parts of Scripture he cannot understand or resolve within the scope of his own intellect. Heb 11:6 tells us that it is impossible to please God without faith. Faith in the God of the Bible (ALL of the Bible, Steve) is indispensable because we must accept some things that are beyond our ability to understand or resolve. In this world, the Christian must not insist upon a resolution to every thing he cannot understand. In faith, he will go to his grave with many unanswered questions and seemingly contradictory notions about the nature of God and the way He does things.
Job discovered this in the midst of his struggles. For 37 chapters he cried out to God for relief, or at least an explanation about what he considered his unjust suffering. Finally God replies:
Then for four chapters God battles Job’s pride with a multitude of questions he cannot answer. Finally, with his pride subdued, and in a state of humble faith, Job meekly answers God:
God never did answer Job’s questions. But God mercifully returned his earthly health and blessings to him. Job went to his grave in humble faith, trusting God that the answers to his questions would be forthcoming at a later time. This is what we must all do. Everyone must have his “Job moment” or he will never see God. I hope that SteveG will too; and that he will eventually find a faith based contentment in the full, not partial, Scriptural portrait of our Sovereign God.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria
Who said I made it up? I would think you would be aware that people sometimes define theological terms differently. Take justification — does everyone use that term in the same way? What about faith?
Report comment to moderator
Michael Martin,
Good comments. Thanks!
Report comment to moderator
Victoria your confusion over what regeneration is shows that you use a faulty definition. (Hey look at that. We need to define our theological terms because we understand them differently. Go figure.)
And if you can’t recognize that some terms change in meaning over time then you have additional troubles.
Report comment to moderator
Michael Martin, you said it well (247).
Report comment to moderator
NOPM
You must have missed my post #244-
NO, the Bible doesn’t tell us that.
One must repent of their sins first and then comes Salvation.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry for all the bold – I didn’t take if off after “NO”
Report comment to moderator
Michael
Thanks, that was a great post -
Report comment to moderator
Regeneration Precedes Faith
By R. C. Sproul
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/sproul01.html
Report comment to moderator
“See I said “supposed.” I don’t think Arminianism has a problem with assurance.”
Of course not, because you like knowing and having something to do with it.
The calvinist doesnt have a problem with his assurance either, because he likes knowing God has everything to do with it.
“Since the man has left the faith, obviously his earlier works do not indicate that he is currently saved, and he is apparently on his way to hell. However, when he did have faith, the fruits produced by his faith were one indication that his faith was genuine.”
So its okay for you to judge his heart, but not a Calvinist?
Case in point, look at the book of Mark, one of the themes that is encountered is that when Jesus goes to preach somewhere who is the first to confess who he is? The demons..always. They speak up about who Christ is. They confess it. That doesnt render any salvation to them. They even obey every word he says.
Because Pharoah lets Moses and the Israelites go, does that mean he had faith in God for a couple days? Does God not often use people throughout the Bible, yet they are not saved? Was King Cyrus?
God often uses pagan men for his purpose and will. Some of those deeds would be considered “good” by most. That doesnt render them salvation or assurance of it necessarily.
“This may be a good place to mention the various ways by which we can gain assurance”
We can also deduce from persective that God has saved me by his grace (eph 2), by granting me faith in him, and therefore I will persevere until the end. With support and assurance from the same verses you mention.
Remember that John is also the one who wrote Jesus’ words that if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. John CH 8vs36
“If we are continuing our walk with the Lord, we are persevering.”
Aye. My point is only the saints will, because only the saints truly have Christ’s righteouness and the Holy Spirit working within them. Perservence is only the experession of that salvation..it does not determine ones salvation.
“As far as regeneration, faith and repentance, you have it exactly backwards. Faith and repentance precede regeneration (logically, not temporally, as they are simultaneous).”
You cant say he’s backwards and then call it simultaneous…
Regardless of the order it avoids the main issue with Arminianism.
If regardless of the order you have been Justified and Regenerated, by Christ, the point is is that it has been accomplished.
What your telling me is that a person by himself, can then return to his former state. He can reject, remove Christ and his regeneration, simply by denying a faith that he must have in conjunction with God in the first place for it to work…
God made a covenant with Abraham, despite Abraham’s descendents being unfaithful, God never parted with his end of the bargain. He will not part with us in the same way. If we are of Abraham, or in Christ in the same sense, God is for us, even when we are not for him.
“Yet it is still entirely God’s salvation, for He performs it all.”
If this is the case, as I agree with you here, then there is no going back once saved.
This is why a Calvinist leans on the side that a man never had God’s salvation. The other side is that God will redeem him despite his moment of being backslidden.
There is no removing of salvation by you. If it’s all God to start with, its all God to end with.
Report comment to moderator
Mike, you can’t address the post you made and I answered – instead you point me to Sproul – I pointed you to the Word of GOD Post #251 -
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
Ephesians 2:1-5
which you havent addressed either, despite its numerous mentions. Despite Sproul mentioning it as well.
Further the passage you quote makes no mention of their initial condition. Verse 1 in 2nd Cor 7 makes it clear he is discussing santification. He’s writing to the same people in his first letter who he was admonishing for their sins, and he is acknowleding their steadfast legit repentance throughout the 2nd letter.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria
I’ve pointed you to plenty of Scripture as well. Remember John 10 in post 69?
Report comment to moderator
Sinc you like Calvin so much here is what he says,
“To salvation Paul seems to make repentance the ground of salvation. Were it so, it would follow, that we are justified by works. I answer, that we must observe what Paul here treats of, for he is not inquiring as to the ground of salvation, but simply commending repentance from the fruit which it produces, he says that it is like a way by which we arrive at salvation. Nor is it without good reason; for Christ calls us by way of free favor, but it is to repentance. (Matthew 9:13.) God by way of free favor pardons our sins, but only when we renounce them. Nay more, God accomplishes in us at one and the same time two things: being renewed by repentance, we are delivered from the bondage of our sins; and, being justified by faith, we are delivered also from the curse of our sins. They are, therefore, inseparable fruits of grace, and, in consequence of their invariable connection, repentance may with fitness and propriety be represented as an introduction to salvation, but in this way of speaking of it, it is represented as an effect rather than as a cause. These are not refinements for the purpose of evasion, but a true and simple solution, for, while Scripture teaches us that we never obtain forgiveness of sins without repentance, it represents at the same time, in a variety of passages, the mercy of God alone as the ground of our obtaining it.”
Report comment to moderator
NOPM -
Most of what you use to make your points are HYPER Calvinism, which I reject, they are not Scriptural.
What happened yesterday with Steveg was terrible, however I doubt you see the damage.
But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. 1 John 2:27
Report comment to moderator
What happened to SteveG?
You don’t understand the difference between Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism.
I guess Victoria is of Victoria (aka Victorianism)
Report comment to moderator
NOPM
I understand it very well – I also understand childish comments which are made when all else fails – as YOU POSTED – “I guess Victoria is of Victoria (aka Victorianism)” —– SILLY!
Check out post #38 on, you’ll get the idea –
http://online.worldmag.com/2009/06/30/whirled-views-630-2/#comments
Report comment to moderator
NOPM – SteveG announced his farewell on Whirled Views yesterday.
Report comment to moderator
Matt – I feel very badly about it as well -
Report comment to moderator
You still didnt address the scripture provided to you, nor the counter offered for your meaning of 2 Cor 7:10, Victoria.
Instead of addressing those comments, as you requested them in the first place, you start calling Mike a hyper-calvinist.
Frankly, I’m starting to think your just a bot. You know auto reply.
And I’m not sure either what you mean by SteveG. If you think anybody here harmed SteveG by holding civil discussions with him in regards to the extention of salvation to others (not personal), especially simply because he hasnt posted in awhile, your fooling yourself. Give Steve more credit than that, really.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks Matt, I just read that.
I’m going to go leave him a post now.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn,
Calling me a ‘bot’ is your retort? – not agreeing with Calvinism brings out some of the worst behavior. Name calling is childish.
I asked many questions, giving Scripture (days ago) which have gone unanswered, but instead answered my question with YOUR questions and that includes NOPM and another individual – So when you continue to ask questions you get no answers – posting isn’t one person asking questions, you do understand that?
Report comment to moderator
In which post have you noted a referrence to 2 Corinthians 7:10 – I didn’t see a post directed to me by you.
Report comment to moderator
I’m not sure that someone leaving is a bad thing. I’ve considered seriously reducing my number of posts as well and I don’t post half as much as most people do.
Doctrine is a part of the faith. You can’t let it go because it defines what a person actually believes.
Report comment to moderator
“In which post have you noted a referrence to 2 Corinthians 7:10 – I didn’t see a post directed to me by you.”
But your quoting me from a post that I apparently didnt directly put your name first, yet you ignore the one where i did, Post 257?
Post 257 provides Scripture, and provides a brief comment in regards to your provided Scripture. This is not only what you asked for, but more. I didnt ask you any questions here either. It is only a few posts up and directed specifically to you.
So yes you have been answered by plenty of people, even under your guidelines and you have not responded to any of them.
A “bot” simply picks out specific words and replies to them. It ignores anything else.
Since you have this pattern of claiming no one has responded to you, (when they have), and always responding to the same words like gay, predestination, etc while ignoring the rest of their posts.
If you consider this a “childish” description. I’m sorry, but frankly thats how your acting.
I’ll even address it here again, and will not be shocked when you dont reply to it.
In response to post #251:
Victoria, I point you to Ephesians 2:1-5. Further, 2nd Corinthians 7:10, taken into context with the rest of Corinthians and the first letter, Paul is writing to people who are already christians, that he has had to call to repentance in the first letter, and that he is acknowledging their steadfast repentence through his 2nd letter. vs 10 is discussing that, not the intial conversion of anyone.
Kinda like calling you a “bot”.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry I meant to delete that last line.
Report comment to moderator
NOPM
I believe anyone such as Steveg was looking for answers, but instead was besieged by one post after another regarding the fact that he believes, and so do I, that Jesus died for the whole world – and then of course there’s predestination which is one of your fav’s – Predestination causes problems, it leads no one to Christ.
Ask yourself – what did all that accomplish?
Report comment to moderator
Victoria, SteveG didn’t blame anyone for his departure. I wouldn’t blame anyone either.
Report comment to moderator
Well, I keep telling myself that this is my last comment, I’m going to quit this thread and move on, but then there’s always something else that I want to respond to.
“See I said “supposed.” I don’t think Arminianism has a problem with assurance.”
Of course not, because you like knowing and having something to do with it.
The calvinist doesnt have a problem with his assurance either, because he likes knowing God has everything to do with it.
Wait what? I didn’t expect this to be a controversial statement. I thought it was easily understood: Since I’m Arminian, there are going to be areas where Calvinists think that I have a logical or biblical problem, but I won’t see a problem. The same is true for the Calvinist and his theology.
“Since the man has left the faith, obviously his earlier works do not indicate that he is currently saved, and he is apparently on his way to hell. However, when he did have faith, the fruits produced by his faith were one indication that his faith was genuine.”
So its okay for you to judge his heart, but not a Calvinist?
I’m sorry, I’m not sure how to get my point across…I’m not saying I’m judging his heart. If I see someone who fell away, I’m not going to judge whether he was only pretending or whether he really had true faith but forsook it. We’re talking about personal assurance – ways for one to gain assurance of his own salvation. This was why I continued by listing the various ways that we can gain assurance. What you seem to be saying is that he could have used all of those ways to gain assurance, while he was yet faithful; but since he fell away, he wasn’t really saved after all. So in conclusion, those methods aren’t reliable (in spite of the fact that Scripture says they are) and we can’t have assurance (but Scripture says we can).
Case in point, look at the book of Mark, one of the themes that is encountered is that when Jesus goes to preach somewhere who is the first to confess who he is? The demons..always. They speak up about who Christ is. They confess it. That doesnt render any salvation to them. They even obey every word he says.
So demons are exactly the same as Christians? Yes they confess who He is. Do they produce fruit? Does the Spirit bear witness with their spirit that they are sons of God? Have they given their allegiance to Jesus? I can’t believe I’m having this conversation. Of course a demon can’t look at himself in light of Biblical assurances and say, “I’m saved.”
Because Pharoah lets Moses and the Israelites go, does that mean he had faith in God for a couple days? Does God not often use people throughout the Bible, yet they are not saved? Was King Cyrus?
God often uses pagan men for his purpose and will. Some of those deeds would be considered “good” by most. That doesnt render them salvation or assurance of it necessarily.
*Sigh*. Is this really what you thought I was saying? Look, pagan men don’t have saving faith (i.e. they haven’t given their allegiance to God).
We can also deduce from persective that God has saved me by his grace (eph 2), by granting me faith in him, and therefore I will persevere until the end.
God is the Enabler of faith, through prevenient grace. Without God’s drawing through prevenient grace, the sinner could not have faith. But as I argued earlier, faith is synergistic – it is our genuine response to God’s drawing and enabling. You will likely base your belief that faith is monergistic on Eph. 2:8; however, this verse is saying that salvation is God’s gift. Verses 8 and 9 are saying that salvation is God’s gift, by grace through faith, with faith contrasted with works.
Report comment to moderator
Actually I don’t typically start the conversations. Tony is the one that mentioned predestination in his very first sentence. He has consistently criticized Calvinistic teaching which I believe to be Scriptural. So, yes, I take the time to reply on a thread every now and then.
I could honestly say that many of you who believe Christ died for everyone without exception cause many of the discussions. Somehow you feel you are free to give your view because you have a “bigger tent view.” But, I don’t agree that you may state your views while I’m supposed to grin and bear it.
I could just as easily argue that SteveG or Victoria is contentious based on the number of posts both of you have written, but I’m not going to because I don’t have a problem with discussion.
I’ve only minimally interacted with SteveG on any given subject. (I couldn’t even remember what his views were on this thread.)
Report comment to moderator
“As far as regeneration, faith and repentance, you have it exactly backwards. Faith and repentance precede regeneration (logically, not temporally, as they are simultaneous).”
You cant say he’s backwards and then call it simultaneous…
It’s a logical order (or maybe there’s a better word for it) not a temporal order. The moment we place our faith in Christ, we are joined to Him, and receive the blessings of salvation such as regeneration, justification, etc.
See The Arminian and Calvinist Ordo Salutis.
What your telling me is that a person by himself, can then return to his former state. He can reject, remove Christ and his regeneration, simply by denying a faith that he must have in conjunction with God in the first place for it to work…
These blessings are in Christ. If we reject our allegiance with Christ, we are no longer in Him, and these blessings no longer apply to us. Any other reading of Scripture makes nonsense of the numerous warnings to remain faithful and avoid falling away. The Arminian can maintain a straightforward reading of these warnings. (For that matter, he can also maintain a straightforward reading of verses teaching unlimited atonement, salvation by faith, etc.).
If this is the case, as I agree with you here, then there is no going back once saved.
This is why a Calvinist leans on the side that a man never had God’s salvation. The other side is that God will redeem him despite his moment of being backslidden.
There is no removing of salvation by you. If it’s all God to start with, its all God to end with.
*Sigh* If someone builds a house and offers it to me, I can accept it as a free gift, or I can reject it. Doesn’t mean that I had any part in building the house. I can live in the house for awhile and choose to walk away later as well. Still doesn’t mean that I had a hand in building the house. And the house will be there for me if I choose to return.
Report comment to moderator
NOPM – Hey, I waited 150+ comments before jumping in!
Report comment to moderator
Matt – 273
YOU WRITE: “Victoria, SteveG didn’t blame anyone for his departure. I wouldn’t blame anyone either.’
Matt – Steve didn’t blame any one person, and I haven’t either. What is your point since I haven’t named any names?
I have agreed with many of your posts, however it seems (I could be wrong) you are intimating something, which I haven’t done.
Report comment to moderator
Matt
I think you are missing the point.
Why do you see the value in believing Christ while the next guy does not? I would think you would say that no one gets more prevenient grace than the next guy (but correct me if I’m wrong on that point). So why does one accept and the other refuse? Is it a random thing? Are you just lucky? Or do you have a little more sense?
Mike
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
You wrote, Steve G. “was besieged by one post after another regarding the fact that he believes, and so do I, that Jesus died for the whole world…”
Steve G is a universalist and you’re not. So you don’t believe the same thing. Unless I’m mistaken, you don’t really believe that everyone is going to heaven, do you? Steve does. But if not everyone is saved, then what does it mean to say that Christ died for the whole world? You were asking for Scriptures earlier that made reference to the fact that Christ’s didn’t die for everyone. Have you thought about Matt. 10:28 and Mark 10:45, where Jesus says, “the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many”? Not all, but many.
Then you wrote, “and then of course there’s predestination which is one of your fav’s – Predestination causes problems, it leads no one to Christ.”
But surely if it’s a concept explicitly taught by Scripture we should not be compelled to avoid it? (See Ephesians 1:5 and 1:11, for starters.)
Report comment to moderator
Victoria – I thought you were blaming the Calvinists on this thread in general for SteveG’s departure. Perhaps I was wrong. My apologies.
Report comment to moderator
David, I am not a Universalist, no one is going the Heaven unless they are Born Again – I know what Steve believes.
Christ did die for the whole world, as I have said in post after post, we don’t know who will or won’t accept Christ as Savior but GOD does – We must preach/teach and give out the Gospel, not sit back and take a rest from Evangelism.
Your passages don’t discount “whole world” – we can quibble about this till the LORD comes but it is obvious that Jesus died for the whole world – I know that doesn’t set well with the Calvinists and especially hyper-Calvinists, but Scripture still stands above Calvin who came along 500 years ago – Calvin didn’t set the church straight, he had his own sin to deal with which he never apologized for…. namely Servetus – which has yet to be dealt with –
I have posted many times my reason for NOT discussing predestination.
Report comment to moderator
My sense was that SteveG needed to pull back for a time, to become more rooted in what he believes, which is always a good reason for bowing out of a discussion or thread.
He struck me as confident enough not to be intimidated by any of these discussions (or certainly any of us here). Seems he simply needed more time to explore some of the theological issues on his own, in his own time and in his own context.
I remember when I was a new Christian, I needed time in Scripture & with only a few selected people as personal, “safe” Christian mentors. God graciously provided just the people I needed.
I really wasn’t ready to jump into the fray of all the theological discussions going on in the church at large (which really struck me as irrelevant, anyway, at that time in my life and Christian growth). I see now that it would have only served to diffuse my focus on Christ and the basics. I needed more of a foundation in my own life and understanding.
Later, of course, I saw such discussions as healthy and enlightening, and doctrinal issues as anything but irrelevant. But for each of us, there’s a time and place for everything.
Report comment to moderator
I would think you would say that no one gets more prevenient grace than the next guy (but correct me if I’m wrong on that point).
Correct.
Why do you see the value in believing Christ while the next guy does not? … So why does one accept and the other refuse? Is it a random thing? Are you just lucky? Or do you have a little more sense?
These questions (and similar ones) arise out of your deterministic/necessetarian views. They assume that our intentions and motives are necessitated/forced by some stimuli and thus we do not have autonomous control over them. If we cannot control our intentions, then we cannot control our choices. To argue that choices made of our own free will would have to be arrived at by chance or luck, is again to assume an external determining factor: it simply shifts the factor from divinity to chaos. So your questions only beg the question of deterministic necessitation.
Check out these links:
The reality of choice and the testimony of scripture
Calvinist Fallacy: Choices Apart From Intent?
Calvinist Fallacy: We Choose by Chance?
Calvinist Fallacy: Arminianism entails salvation by inherent ability
Report comment to moderator