Is Calvinism a Heresy?

[Sean 2]

The brief work someone posted on Romans 9 is commendable; work was done. However, there is more to be said here: could Paul not simply have used Jacob and Esau as illustrations, arguing from the general to the specific?

I think Paul is making a simple point. After finishing a great chapter in Romans 8, Paul feels the need to explain how it is that Jews can be of the "Chosen" race, yet not all be chosen. He does so by showing that the first man in each case would logically be the heir, yet amazingly never is. It always went to the second. Same with Jacob and Esau. This is meant to explain that although the old covenant is legit, the promise goes to Jesus (making the second covenant). Although Jesus is second (natural Israel came first) He is considered to have the "birthright" as it were. And the true Israel is in Him, not in the chonologically first born Israel nation. This is what Paul is showing (this is also stated in Galatians 4). He is not talking about individual salvation (justification by faith) as he seems to be in Romans 4.

Second, there seems to be a little confusion on what exactly regeneration is. I definitely hold to the monergism view, that faith follows regeneration. Now, notice, I am NOT saying that faith follows salvation. Regeneration is PART of what happens when someone becomes a Christian. The salvation experience contains regeneration, but it is certainly not all of it.

I agree. Since "regeneration" is only used twice in the new testament, it can have many meanings poured into it. I think it much simpler to follow the flow of the entire new testament so it doesn't get so complicated. Like born again, being born of water and the Spirit. Ex: Ephesians 1:13 says that the seal of guarentee, the Holy Spirit, is given after belief, not before. So while monergism is possible, it would have this limitation. That someone could be regenerated to believe (since Calvinist would claim if your "dead" you cant respond unless regenerated first) but not be sealed until they have believed. So what if they don't believe? The person is regenerated to believe but rejects the Gospel.

But if you say (As I have been personally told by those who are Reformed) once regeneration occurs, you WILL believe because it's God's will, and man can't overcome God's will.

In other words, it seems that if one says regeneration happends and salvation always follows, then that seems to put the cart before the horse. Since Eph 1:13 says belief comes before being sealed.

My point is this, we can show charts and get as complicated as we want, but one thing I like is quoting scripture. The only clear-cut proof of the order in salvation I can find is like Eph 1:13 and 2 Corinthians 7:10;
Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death.

I can't find were salvation is birthed before belief. And belief comes by hearing the word of Christ, the very author of the Gospel not only by telling it but being the one who died and rose again.

Just something to consider.

So then, while regeneration is part of salvation, even part of becoming a Christian, it is not all of salvation, nor even all of that part. The point in saying that Regeneration is monergistic, that is, completely without man's cooperation, is not saying that man doesn't respond to what God does in him in the rest of salvation. It is still all of grace of course, as Ephesians 2:8-9 indicates clearly. However, this faith is part of that gift of grace. How do we know this? Hebrews 12:2 tells us (HCSB):

Hebrews 12:2 keeping our eyes on Jesus, the source and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that lay before Him endured a cross and despised the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of God's throne.

Jesus is the source of our faith; it doesn't come from us, it comes from Him; this lines up nicely with the Ephesians 2:8-9 passage. Yes, we place our faith in Him, but it is because He gave it to us to place in Him. I deal with this more extensively at my blog, which I referenced above. You are all welcome to come out.

My intent here is not to get into wars; I simply want to say what the Scripture is really saying, no more, no less. I welcome questions, and I will happily respond, and may it always be....

For the Glory of God Alone.

Sincerely in Christ,
David B. Hewitt
http://wholecounsel.blogspot.com

Hebrews 12:2 actually says author and perfector of Faith. "our" is not in the Greek.
Besides, what is faith? It's believing. Why do people believe? I've already shown, it's by hearing the Gospel, being told it's true, the Holy Spirit convicting of sin, leading to belief or rejection.

Who authored the New Testament?

Hebrews 1:1 In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.

We are to obey what Jesus commanded. So who is the true author of the Gospel, the Good News? Jesus is, He is the author, so naturally He is the author of faith, because He is the author of the Gospel. Without the message of Jesus death and resurrection, how would we know what to have faith in? (Remembering that Paul states that people were saved by hearing the Gospel he preached, but only those who did not believe in vein)[/quote]

[David Hewitt]

So, if you want to contribute to the Calvinist argument, I'd really be interested in seeing your take on the fifteen or so arguments that have been put forward against it thus far, all of which have been based on thorough explanations of Scripture.

I'm certainly not a perfect exegete, but I'll be happy to discuss and exegete Scripture. As you said, giving proof texts (which everyone in here has been doing, not just him) doesn't really get us anywhere. As you have noticed, often (and both sides have done this) the passages just get overlooked and people go on with what they have said, and everyone ends up saying something along the lines of "you didn't deal with X" or "you ignored what I said when" and nothing gets resolved.

We should also remember the whole point of any of this. Is it not for the glory of our Great God and Savior? If we are here just for the sake of debate, then may God forgive us. That cannot be the end of what we're doing. Rather, it should be, as we understand the teaching of the Scriptures, that we are inspired to worship Him as He ought to be.

So then, we embark.

There are a lot of passages that have been mentioned; dealing with the 15 or so of them is more than I think I'll be able to do, at least quickly. If you'd be willing to grab a set of them and repost them, or give an example where you think more explanation is needed or where something wasn't answered, then that would be great. I've skimmed through everything, but I confess it was late last night when I did it.

Oh, and thank you for the kind welcome.

SDG,
Dave Hewitt

[David Hewitt]

Hiya, Sean. Good to make your acquaintance in this virtual world.

I think Paul is making a simple point. After finishing a great chapter in Romans 8, Paul feels the need to explain how it is that Jews can be of the "Chosen" race, yet not all be chosen. He does so by showing that the first man in each case would logically be the heir, yet amazingly never is. It always went to the second. Same with Jacob and Esau. This is meant to explain that although the old covenant is legit, the promise goes to Jesus (making the second covenant). Although Jesus is second (natural Israel came first) He is considered to have the "birthright" as it were. And the true Israel is in Him, not in the chonologically first born Israel nation. This is what Paul is showing (this is also stated in Galatians 4). He is not talking about individual salvation (justification by faith) as he seems to be in Romans 4.

I would agree that this is part of Paul's point, especially in verses 1--6 of Romans nine. God's word really didn't fail, Paul says in verse six, because not everyone who is "descended from Israel [is] Israel." Indeed, a reference is made to a nation, but individuals are also in mind. It would appear that Paul is talking about both nations and individuals (the reference to Pharoah is about an individual to be sure), talking about how a nation was chosen, but also how people are chosen individually. I'll also agree that Paul isn't really talking about Justification here, though he does mention faith in verse 32. He's talking about salvation, but not the Justification part -- he's talking mostly about Election.
I again refer to Piper's sermon archives on the matter. The man has done more research into Romans 9 than I think anyone else living today. OH, I want that book! (see previous post)
By the way, nice comparison with the matter of the first and second born.

I agree. Since "regeneration" is only used twice in the new testament, it can have many meanings poured into it. I think it much simpler to follow the flow of the entire new testament so it doesn't get so complicated. Like born again, being born of water and the Spirit. Ex: Ephesians 1:13 says that the seal of guarentee, the Holy Spirit, is given after belief, not before. So while monergism is possible, it would have this limitation. That someone could be regenerated to believe (since Calvinist would claim if your "dead" you cant respond unless regenerated first) but not be sealed until they have believed. So what if they don't believe? The person is regenerated to believe but rejects the Gospel.

Yes, the word "regeneration" itself is a rare find, but the concept is there (after all, Trinity is never seen). I would heartily agree that we should go with the flow of the entire New Testament -- I am so glad you said it! You are also right to say that about Ephesians 1:13. Thanks be to God, He seals us with His Holy Spirit when we believe! What you are indicating about someone "not believing" after they are regenerated is a contradiction. I have wondered the same thing before, but when we are regenerated, we immediately place faith in Christ, because it is so very obvious that He is the Way, that we want Him, and that there is no other hope but in Him. Regeneration gives us a new heart, a spiritual rebirth so that we desire different things. <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... version=77" target="NEW">John 3:19-20</a> indicates that while we were in sin, we hated the light and didn't want to come to it because our deeds would be exposed. We didn't desire what God wanted; but now we do! Even if we don't realize it, when regenerated, we begin to desire God more than anything, and His beauty is irresistable. Much like if you are at the Grand Canyon (and can see) and witness a sunset, you will indeed respond, in the same way, when God regenerates us, we indeed will respond. He changes our wills so that we want to.

I hope that helps. I realize I didn't provide much Scripture with it, but I would be happy to do so later -- I need to get to work soon.

I'll respond more fully later on.

SDG,
David Hewitt

[Sean 2]

I would agree that this is part of Paul's point, especially in verses 1--6 of Romans nine. God's word really didn't fail, Paul says in verse six, because not everyone who is "descended from Israel [is] Israel." Indeed, a reference is made to a nation, but individuals are also in mind. It would appear that Paul is talking about both nations and individuals (the reference to Pharoah is about an individual to be sure), talking about how a nation was chosen, but also how people are chosen individually.

I would disagree with individual election "to salvation" being spoken of here, but I can see why others see it. One reason is that election doesn't have to mean election to salvation, as we learn from Paul in this passage that the elect nation Israel is elect, but not elect to salvation, however, they were elect to bring the Messiah (among other things). Imagine an elect people being unsaved. While you can read individual election into the passage, the context speaks two vessels (Rom 9:21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use? ) This one lump is obviously Israel divided into two, with Gentiles grafted in. I think individual election is beyond the scope of this passage.

About Pharoah. Do you really think this passage is talking about his being predestined to hevean or hell? I think it does refer to the nation (with Pharoah of couse being it's head).

Here's why:
Rom 9:17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."

I see this as what it says. Pharaoh was raised up to show God's power. And this was done by...sending him to hell? No, it was everything God did to the nation of Egypt. He built it up when Joseph was there, and tore it down with plagues when Pharaoh refused to let God's "first born" go. This is what people remember. The plagues, the deliverance of Israel through the sea, Pharaoh's armies drowned. This is what God raised up. The nation of Egypt, and God tore it down. Same thing God did to Israel, built it up and tore it down. Pharaoh's eternal fate is not in view, nor would it matter. Paul is illustrating how God works with peoples, not individuals per say, that I believe is covered in Romans 4. You can read it in there, but it seems to go against the flow of thought. I just think Paul has a "bigger picture" in mind than individuals in that quote.

______________________________

The point I was trying to make is that in Eph 1:13 is that the guarentee of the Holy Spirit comes after believing. This works for me because I believe the unbeliever can accept the Gospel. Yes the Holy Spirit is working, but I believe that man makes the final decision. I'm sure we disagree here.

[August]

The point I was trying to make is that in Eph 1:13 is that the guarentee of the Holy Spirit comes after believing. This works for me because I believe the unbeliever can accept the Gospel. Yes the Holy Spirit is working, but I believe that man makes the final decision. I'm sure we disagree here.

Hi Sean,

You are right that we disagree . I just want to understand exactly what you mean with "man makes the final decision". Do you mean that God's will is subject to the will of man? That God passively sits by and waits for man to make the final decision? I know you say the Holy Spirit plays a role, but what is the extent of that role? Why would Jesus have to have died for our sins if there is enough good in man to accept the Gospel? Does that not mean that His sacrifice was either unceccessary or incomplete?

Romans 3(ESV) clearly states:
Rom 3:9 What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin,
Rom 3:10 as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one;
Rom 3:11 no one understands; no one seeks for God.
Rom 3:12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one."

It is a universal statement, i.e. "no-one", further clarified, "not one". How can you say that the unbeliever has the ability to accept the Gospel when this says that no-one seeks God?

[Jac3510]

David,

As I said, nice having you aboard. I'll not be engaging with your particular arguments for the same reason I didn't deal with the specifics PL brought up later in the thread. My original arguments against Calvinism, as presented in lengthy form, still stands. No less than thirty-five passages are used to support it. A thorough exegesis is offered for many of them.

In addition, you will note that I avoid proof-texting in the post. The methodology of the argument is simple: If Scripture A says this and B says that, then we must come to conclusion C. C is then compared with other Scripture for confirmation.

Now, I'll not repost the argument, as it is nine pages in Microsoft Word. Subsequent posts on my part through this thread have further developed and strengthened much of it, as well as added to it. In the end, PL has simply not answered the initial argument. I have taken most every Scripture that I have seen him reference and either dealt with it directly or in principle (mostly the former). Since he relies on proof-texting, that's all that's been required of me. So, I STILL assert that my basic contentions have gone, so far, untouched. If you want to deal with the, feel free.

Sean:

I do want to comment on one thing you said.

My point is this, we can show charts and get as complicated as we want, but one thing I like is quoting scripture. The only clear-cut proof of the order in salvation I can find is like Eph 1:13 and 2 Corinthians 7:10; Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death.

While you and I apparently agree that Calvinism is incorrect, I disagree with you here. But, both David and PL disagree with me, as well, so don't think of this as adding to their argument. I don't think that passage has anything to do with eschatological salvation. It refers to Christian repentance for deliverance from God's temporal judgement. See my arguments in this thread and also this thread. Neither are very long. Related to this is a thread I began on Lordship vs. Free Grace salvation. It is a bit longer, but it will help you see where I am coming from.

Now, given this, I find other passages that do what you were trying to do with the ones you quoted. In fact, I dealt with in my initial argument:

Titus 3:5 says, “He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit.” (NASB) God saves us by regeneration, but we are told in Eph. 2:8-10 that we are saved by grace, and that grace comes through faith. Therefore, it must be that regeneration comes through faith. Even if you assume that the “gift” in Eph 2 is both grace and faith, it still must follow that regeneration is through faith. Now, you can say that God gives us the faith, and through that faith, God applies the grace of regeneration, but you STILL cannot say that God regenerates us so that we might believe.

Now,I know I'm starting to sound like a broken record, but a lot of people have put a lot of time into this discussion. So while I am always glad to see new branches and lines of thought, we can't simply put old arguments aside that are still valid. Lowely and I have put a good deal of energy into this, and both CP and YLT posed good questions recently. I don't want to see all of this get tossed aside.

God bless

[David Hewitt]

I was hoping you would provide me with what exactly you wanted to have addressed; that is all. Seeing there are links in your post back to those very things is helpful; God willing, I'll have a few things written in the near future.

Thanks again for the welcome.

[David Hewitt]

OK, I think I've decided what to do. Since, if I work on responding to each of your points in this post one at a time, then I'll likely not get through all of them because there will be a half dozen responses to the first one that I'd need to deal with before getting to the second!

In any case, that is what I'll do. I'll compile them into a document, post it on my blog and also here. I'll also likely have a look around at other areas of this site.

Thank you for the opportunity to engage in a debate.

I will, however, finish responding to Sean, since that would only be polite.

SDG,
Dave Hewitt

[David Hewitt]

OK, last post to Sean before I start dealing with the other issues in this thread in detail. I ask that you all please be patient, because it will take a while.

First, Sean, thanks for your response. I maintain my view that individual election is what Paul is talking about here, though he also mentions national election. Why is this?

Rom 9:18 So then, He shows mercy to whom He wills, and He hardens whom He wills.
Rom 9:19 You will say to me, therefore, "Why then does He still find fault? For who can resist His will?"
Rom 9:20 But who are you--anyone who talks back to God? Will what is formed say to the one who formed it, "Why did you make me like this?"
Rom 9:21 Or has the potter no right over His clay, to make from the same lump one piece of pottery for honor and another for dishonor?
Rom 9:22 And what if God, desiring to display His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience objects of wrath ready for destruction?
Rom 9:23 And what if He did this to make known the riches of His glory on objects of mercy that He prepared beforehand for glory--
Rom 9:24 on us whom He also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?

It would appear that Paul is pointing to individuals, especially in verse 24. He called "us" -- that is, individuals, out FROM the "Jews" and the "Gentiles." So then, though the issue is brought to bear with references about nations to some extent, the fact that individuals are described is very difficult to ignore, and I would submit that if we do so we commit exegetical suicide.

I'll be reading up on Romans nine in the near future, I suspect, and I hope to be able to post more on it; stay tuned! It will probably be part of my big post.

Ok, now I'll move on to what you said about Hebrews.

Hebrews 12:2 actually says author and perfector of Faith. "our" is not in the Greek.
Besides, what is faith? It's believing. Why do people believe? I've already shown, it's by hearing the Gospel, being told it's true, the Holy Spirit convicting of sin, leading to belief or rejection.

Who authored the New Testament?

Hebrews 1:1 In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.

We are to obey what Jesus commanded. So who is the true author of the Gospel, the Good News? Jesus is, He is the author, so naturally He is the author of faith, because He is the author of the Gospel. Without the message of Jesus death and resurrection, how would we know what to have faith in? (Remembering that Paul states that people were saved by hearing the Gospel he preached, but only those who did not believe in vain)

Ok. It would seem more correct to say that, since Jesus is the source of faith, and the source of the Gospel, to be consistent we should say that they both come from Him. ESV translates it as "founder" of our faith. Thayer's definition #2 seems to convey the best thought for the definition of the word:
"2) one that takes the lead in any thing and thus affords an example, a predecessor in a matter, pioneer"
So then, Jesus is the "pioneer" of our faith. It wasn't there; He brought it. Not only that, but when you talk about Jesus being the author of the Gospel (which I will certainly agree with), the word in question (author) isn't used in that other text in Hebrews. I am failing to see the comparison with that text you cited; perhaps you can help me.

Second, you are right -- He is also the "perfecter" of faith. This word is equally important, and it flows right along with the idea that our faith comes from Jesus. The term can be a little misleading in our english translations. The KJV actually does it better by using the term "finisher." Strong defines the term as "a completer, that is, consummater: - finisher." So then, what this passage in Hebrews, this one small part of this one verse is saying, is that our faith:

1.) comes from Christ and has its origins in Him and not in us
2.) is carried on to completion by Christ, finishing it out

This is consistent with verse one, saying that we should run with endurance in the race set before us. We are then, in verse two, exhorted to focus on Jesus, from Whom comes faith and Who completes it.

Verses such as this lend some to the doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints. I take great comfort knowing that my Jesus has done everything needed to keep me in Him, and that my faith is maintained by Him completely. Glory be to God!

Dave

[puritan lad]

Wow. The reinforcements are out

This will obviously take some time. I'll get started as soon as I can.

Just to start by pointing out that I believe that belief is not a work. It is also not a voliuntary action, ie. one cannot choose to believe without a heart transplant first.

My point with belief is that belief is not a voluntary action, ie. the ability to believe is itself a gift from God. To argue otherwise would make it a work. It would mean that our faith was contrived from our own resources, and that we had some inherent goodness that the non-believer does not have. In that case, we should receive a share of the glory for our own salvation.

Psalm 65:4
"Blessed is the man You choose, And cause to approach You, That he may dwell in Your courts..."

Jac. Let's try your Book of Life argument again.

Revelation 20:12
"And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books."

What part of "judged according to their works" do you not understand? They are judged for their sins, Jac. Even most of your Arminian army here would agree to that. I also made it clear, from scripture, that sin is what gets our names blotted out.

More later. as I have a lot to digest here.

God bless,

PL

[Sean 2]

one cannot choose to believe without a heart transplant first.

Why not? (You can explain, but show scripture as well please)

My point with belief is that belief is not a voluntary action, ie. the ability to believe is itself a gift from God. To argue otherwise would make it a work. It would mean that our faith was contrived from our own resources, and that we had some inherent goodness that the non-believer does not have. In that case, we should receive a share of the glory for our own salvation.

This is not correct, as I have already shown. Paul says the man who does not work but believes, his faith is accounted as righteouseness. (Romans 4)

Faith can never be called a work. Only Calvinist call it a work, Paul never does. I quoted more than Romans 4 to prove this. Instead of dealing with the text, you are ignoring it and making the dogmatic assertion that "to make it otherwise would make it a work" Sorry but read Paul, He says "Rom 3:28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law." If faith was a work, Paul could not say this.

This is were the foundation crumbles for Calvinism. I ask those who are reading this to be honest about this one single aspect of Calvinism. If "I" believe, is it a work? What does Paul say? (read the quotes I gave in previous posts.)

[Sean 2]

Ok, I'll clarify. You can call the ability to believe a gift from God. This is ok with me. You can also call the rain, my job and my next breath a gift from God too. This does not help either of us because it's too general of a statement.

The question is, why do you (reformed) not believe a man can respond to the Gospel, to access God's free Grace by faith (Romans 5:2). When faith just means "believing".

Please don't try to turn faith into something nebulous like it's a substance, like the word of faith people do. Faith is believeing, trusting, not a "thing".

[Sean 2]

Hi Sean,

You are right that we disagree :). I just want to understand exactly what you mean with "man makes the final decision". Do you mean that God's will is subject to the will of man? That God passively sits by and waits for man to make the final decision?

Nope. This is a silly argument. I could say, since God judges the wicked, then is God subject to the wicked? I mean, they sin, disobey and store up wrath for the day of Judgement, so since God MUST respond to the WORKS of man by sending the flood and final GWT judgement, then God is subject to man because man's action caused God's REACTION.

Do you now see the problem with your argument? My example I just gave is just as logical as yours, but both are invalid because they presuppose that if God does anything in response to man, then God is subject to man. Let me ask you, if you let a child decide between ice cream or cookies, is the child your soveriegn leader? No.

The simple answer is that God is seeking, drawing and convicting man so that man will repent. So yes, God is seeking a response from man.

That God passively sits by and waits for man to make the final decision?

Passively sits by? You know that I don't believe that because you stated it yourself: "I know you say the Holy Spirit plays a role, but what is the extent of that role?"

I can't put the Holy Spirit in a box, but in general the Holy Spirit's role is: To convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment. (John 16:8)

Why would Jesus have to have died for our sins if there is enough good in man to accept the Gospel?

What in the world are you talking about? If Jesus wouldn't have died for our sins, what would the Gospel be? This isn't about atoning for our own sins, it about believing the Gospel, accepting the merits of Chirst. He purchased our redemtion, but we have access into this Grace by faith as Romans 5:2 clearly states. Since Paul says faith is not a work, there is not a problem.

Does that not mean that His sacrifice was either unceccessary or incomplete?

You really want to go there being reformed?

How about this:

Rom 5:15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.

Question how "many" died thorugh Adam's trespass? Is that "many" or "all"? :) The same recieve the free gift.

Rom 5:17 If, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.
Rom 5:18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.

So now let me ask you, If Adam affected ALL MEN and (if you being refromed reject that) Jesus did not, then is Adam soverigen over Jesus, being Adam apparently had more power to affect ALL MEN, but Jesus could not (as you would say).

I already know your response: "Are you a universalist"?
No, the reason all are not saved is that the justification only comes to those who believe, that's why it's called Justification by faith.
And as a matter of fact, Jesus will make all alive again, at the day of Judgement.

Romans 3(ESV) clearly states:
Rom 3:9 What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin,
Rom 3:10 as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one;
Rom 3:11 no one understands; no one seeks for God.
Rom 3:12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one."

It is a universal statement, i.e. "no-one", further clarified, "not one". How can you say that the unbeliever has the ability to accept the Gospel when this says that no-one seeks God?

Really, it's a universalist statement like this one:
1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
1Ti 2:6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.

Or how about the Romans 5 quote:
Rom 5:18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.

So does all mean all? :) Funny how Calvinist don't like the "all" or "none" passages unless they benefit themselves.

But to answer your question (again, since I already posted this) Cornelius was "a devout man who feared God with all his household, gave alms generously to the people, and prayed continually to God."

And what did God do?

God set him up with Peter so he could hear the Gospel and be saved!

Act 11:13 And he told us how he had seen the angel stand in his house and say, 'Send to Joppa and bring Simon who is called Peter;
Act 11:14 he will declare to you a message by which you will be saved.

Imagine that! The Bible gives an example of an unsaved man, dead in trespass and sin, totally inable to seek God being devout, fearing God, giving alms and praying. Then God responds! Sending the Gospel to him!

I'd love to hear this one explained. You can't say he was already regenerated, because that would mean you can be regenerated and at the same time NOT be saved.

________________________

In case anyone is wondering what Paul means in the quote above:
Rom 3:9 What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin,
Rom 3:10 as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one;
Rom 3:11 no one understands; no one seeks for God.
Rom 3:12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one."

Paul just explained in Romans 1 and 2 that God has revealed himself in various ways to all people. The Jews had the most revelation by far, having a covenant with God. The Jews thought better of themselves for having the Law and looked down on the Gentiles. Paul's point is to answer this question: What then? Are we Jews any better off?
His answer is to quote the Jews own "Bible" and Prophets who clearly state: as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one."
Paul goes on to say:

Rom 3:19 Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God.
Rom 3:20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.

This is the point, the Gentiles are already without hope, the Jews though they had it made because of the Covenant with God. Paul says otherwise showing that Jew is no better than a Gentile, buy the law itself!

Rom 3:21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it--
Rom 3:22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe.

Notice it says in verse 21 God's righteouseness is now manifested apart from Law and it's though faith. As he goes on to explain in Romans 4.

[Sean 2]

OK, last post to Sean before I start dealing with the other issues in this thread in detail. I ask that you all please be patient, because it will take a while.

First, Sean, thanks for your response. I maintain my view that individual election is what Paul is talking about here, though he also mentions national election. Why is this?

Rom 9:18 So then, He shows mercy to whom He wills, and He hardens whom He wills.
Rom 9:19 You will say to me, therefore, "Why then does He still find fault? For who can resist His will?"
Rom 9:20 But who are you--anyone who talks back to God? Will what is formed say to the one who formed it, "Why did you make me like this?"
Rom 9:21 Or has the potter no right over His clay, to make from the same lump one piece of pottery for honor and another for dishonor?
Rom 9:22 And what if God, desiring to display His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience objects of wrath ready for destruction?
Rom 9:23 And what if He did this to make known the riches of His glory on objects of mercy that He prepared beforehand for glory--
Rom 9:24 on us whom He also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?

It would appear that Paul is pointing to individuals, especially in verse 24. He called "us" -- that is, individuals, out FROM the "Jews" and the "Gentiles." So then, though the issue is brought to bear with references about nations to some extent, the fact that individuals are described is very difficult to ignore, and I would submit that if we do so we commit exegetical suicide.

Sure individuals are in view overall, nations consist of people. My point is that the context is over the fate of Israel and why it will meet this fate, as well as the saved, who are individuals but are also corporately in Christ.

We are not by ourselves saved apart from Christ, we are saved in Chirst, corporately. This is the distincition Paul is making, between two groups. Jacob and Esau, now Chirst and the (then existant) Old covenant. Two groups, those in Christ and those who are not. Individuals make up both groups, but the fate of both groups is what is in the context.

[puritan lad]

Sean2,

I'll deal with your other posts later, as I have alot to catch up on, and I will attempt to respond to all of the previous posts. This will obvioulsy take a while, especially with my recent work schedule.

one cannot choose to believe without a heart transplant first.

Why not? (You can explain, but show scripture as well please)

That's too easy Sean. How about a list.

John 1:12-13
John 3:3
John 6:44
John 6:65
Romans 3:11
Romans 9:16
1 Corinthians 2:14

That should be a good start. There's plenty more where this came from.

[This is not correct, as I have already shown. Paul says the man who does not work but believes, his faith is accounted as righteouseness. (Romans 4)

Faith can never be called a work. Only Calvinist call it a work, Paul never does. I quoted more than Romans 4 to prove this. Instead of dealing with the text, you are ignoring it and making the dogmatic assertion that "to make it otherwise would make it a work" Sorry but read Paul, He says "Rom 3:28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law." If faith was a work, Paul could not say this.

You still don't get it Sean. I agree that faith and belief are not works. It is the Arminian view that makes it a work. If, as you say, belief is a voluntary action, then it is a work. The fact is that it is not a work, it is something that humans, due to their depravity, are incapable of unless they are born of the Spirit first.

Sean, what is it that separates you from the unbeliever? Was there something inherent in you that allowed you to believe while unbelievers just didn't have that special "something" that you had? You may think that you chose Him, but you didn't. He chose you. It is by His grace alone that you were saved, not by anything within yourself.