Is Calvinism a Heresy?

[LowlyOne]

August, either you have totally misunderstood me or I have done a poor job unfolding what I see scriptures to be saying concering these subjects. Forgive me if it is the latter.

Fallen man, if left to his own, will not seek God. If man seeks God before regeneration, it's only because God was first drawing Him. Yet, God draws some, and expresses His love to his creation (people that are lost) in various, even some who do not yeild to His conviction, drawing, and grace. This isn't philosophy, or thoughts that have been conjured up by men, but there are biblical instances that say this. Here are some that I know:

Mark 10:17 Now as He was going out on the road, one came running, knelt before Him, and asked Him, "Good Teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?" 18 So Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. 19 You know the commandments: 'Do not commit adultery,' 'Do not murder,' 'Do not steal,' 'Do not bear false witness,' 'Do not defraud,' 'Honor your father and your mother.' " F46 20 And he answered and said to Him, "Teacher, all these things I have kept from my youth." 21 Then Jesus, looking at him,loved him, and said to him, "One thing you lack: Go your way, sell whatever you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, take up the cross, and follow Me." 22 But he was sad at this word, and went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.

Here, we see that Jesus loved Him. If Jesus truly loved this man, then he would have desired and wanted the best for Him, that being, eternal life. Do we not know that if we've seen Jesus, we've seen the Father? Do we not know, that this Person is the second person in the Trinity, the Only Begotten and dearly Beloved Son of God? Do we not know that He is the eternal, necessary, perfect, substantial and personal idea which God hath of Himself; and that it is so seems to me to be abundantly confirmed by the Word of God.

What I don't understand is if God has His secret will decreed to ordain some to hell by passing over them and not effectually calling them, why does He show emotional sorrow over their sin and rebellion? Moreover, why does God plead with people to repent if they are incapable of doing so by His sovereign decree?

Nothing can more agree with the account the Scripture gives us of the Son of God, His being in the form, of God and His express and perfect image and representation: (II Cor. 4:4) "Lest the light of the glorious Gospel of Christ Who is the image of God should shine unto them." (Phil. 2:6) "Who being in the form of God." (Col. 1:15) "Who is the image of the invisible God." (Heb. 1:3) "Who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person."

So, from this, we realize that Jesus' desire for this guy was sincere, and Jesus wanted the guy inherit life. So did God withhold the gift of repentance and faith? Did God withhold that which pertains to life and godliness?


Oh that they had such a heart in them, that they would fear Me, and keep all My commandments always, that it may be well with them and with their sons forever! (Deut. 5:29).

But My people did not listen to My voice; and Israel did not obey Me. So I gave them over to the stubbornness of their heart, to walk in their own devices. Oh that My people would listen to Me, that Israel would walk in My ways! I would quickly subdue their enemies, and turn My hand against their adversaries (Ps. 18:11-14). It's interesting to notice that He said His people did not listen to His voice. They weren't made alive yet. They were “dead in their trespasses”.


Say to them, “As I live!” declares the Lord God, “I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil ways! Why then will you die, O house of Israel?” (Ezek. 33:11)

Matt . 23:37 shows Jesus weeping over Jerusalem's children for not coming to Him

Rom. 9:23 says God endures with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction. One thing to notice here is that the vessels of mercy were prepared beforehand, but it doesn't say this is so with the vessels of wrath.

[puritan lad]

I'll reply more later, but LowlyOne,

If the vessels of honor were prepared for glory beforehand, as you acknowledge, then what were the other vessels prepared for, and when?

[LowlyOne]

Jeremiah 18: 6-8
"Like clay in the hand of the potter, so you are in my hand, O house of Israel. If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned." (NIV)

Are we to understand that God"s grace was somehow greater under the old covenant than the new?

Those individuals who "in accordance with their hardness and impenitent heart are treasuring up for themselves wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God". (Rom. 2:5)

This should answer you question P.L. They are prepared for wrath (eternal judgment). Jesus told those who believe "I go and prepare a place for you" and this preparation could be in accordande to their works and rewards. So, those who don't repent, God will prepare destruction for them. This is according to foreknowledge, yet if more believers wouldn't quench His Spirit, more people could be saved.

Now P.L. all through most of the posts, you've sidestepped many questions and concerns of directed toward this Calvinism of yours and just posted other Scriptures. You done so with Jac, didn't refute his post on Eph. 1, and then waited and came back and posted the same scripture to support your view when in fact, Jac gave better way to understand it. What's the deal???

[puritan lad]

Jeremiah 18: 6-8
"Like clay in the hand of the potter, so you are in my hand, O house of Israel. If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned." (NIV)

Are we to understand that God"s grace was somehow greater under the old covenant than the new?

Those individuals who "in accordance with their hardness and impenitent heart are treasuring up for themselves wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God". (Rom. 2:5)

No one here is denying the need to repent. That is not the issue. The issue here is the sovereignty of God in Election. The election is clearly "not of works" (including repentance). If God saves a soul, that soul will repent. If God hardens a heart, that soul will not.

This should answer you question P.L. They are prepared for wrath (eternal judgment). Jesus told those who believe "I go and prepare a place for you" and this preparation could be in accordande to their works and rewards. So, those who don't repent, God will prepare destruction for them. This is according to foreknowledge, yet if more believers wouldn't quench His Spirit, more people could be saved.

This is according to a foreknowledge of what, and person's works. You can't have it both ways. Either man is saved by repentance (works), or he repents because he is saved by grace alone.

Now P.L. all through most of the posts, you've sidestepped many questions and concerns of directed toward this Calvinism of yours and just posted other Scriptures. You done so with Jac, didn't refute his post on Eph. 1, and then waited and came back and posted the same scripture to support your view when in fact, Jac gave better way to understand it. What's the deal???

Are you referring to the nonsense that those who were "elected" are already "in Christ"? I didn't realize that I need to respond to such nonsense. Would anyone holding this view accuse God of unrighteousness (Romans 9:14)? Those who are "in Christ" were elected to be "in Christ". To suggest that the whole world is in Christ makes the entire doctrine of election totally meaningless. Not one of you has attempted to deal with Romans 9:10-23, ("Free-willers" just can't accept that God raised Pharoah for a purpose. It is you who are doing the sidestep my friend.

[Jac3510]

Are you referring to the nonsense that those who were "elected" are already "in Christ"? I didn't realize that I need to respond to such nonsense. Would anyone holding this view accuse God of unrighteousness (Romans 9:14)? Those who are "in Christ" were elected to be "in Christ". To suggest that the whole world is in Christ makes the entire doctrine of election totally meaningless. Not one of you has attempted to deal with Romans 9:10-23, ("Free-willers" just can't accept that God raised Pharoah for a purpose. It is you who are doing the sidestep my friend.

I beg your pardon. I have absolutely no where stated that everyone was elected in Christ. I have, in fact, thoroughly argued the opposite, that those who are in Christ are those who have been born again.

Now, you have yet to deal with any of my original argument. If you can't deal with it, I, and anyone reading this, would be forced to take that as a full concession on your part. Does that prove me right? Of course not, but it certainly proves that you have been unable to defend your position, and thus, the original question must be answered "Yes" on the basis of our discussion.

Once YOU deal with the arguements I first presented, I'll handle Romans 9, which is a very, very easy thing to do. Until then, we have standing arguments left unresolved.

[puritan lad]

I'm working on it. After all, you wrote a book :) I'm going to respond with one.

[Jac3510]

Thank you, sir

I happen to appreciate longer responses, because they indicate thoughtfulness . . .

[LowlyOne]

Come on man, repentance is NOT WORKS. I would yell it if I could, but I cant. Election is according to foreseen faith. FAITH IS NOT WORKS either.

1 Pet. 1:2 - To the elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace be multiplied.

No mention of choice here though is there? For someone to add foreseen faith to this passage wouldn't be wise. But do any other passages say such thing, or anything similar?

Rom. 8:29 - For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Yep. Foreknowledge preceeds predestination. But do we see any foreseen or foreknown faith here? Nope. Sure don't. So are there any more scriptures dealing with this subject?

2 Thess. 2:13 -
But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth,

So here it's clear. God from the beginning chose us for salvation. Yet keep reading. It says He did so through the work of the Spirit, AND belief in the truth. So there we have it. Belief in the truth is a condition to be chosen for salvation. Belief in the truth is a choice that sinners make, which means they must believe or have faith to be chosen for salvation.

But some would accuse me of saying that election and salvation is conditioned on works. Now salvation and election is conditional, but it is not according to works. Such people who say this only do so because they've been taught it's either the calvinist election or it's election according to works. So of course their view is going to look better. However, such people or ignorant when it comes to the nature of faith.

Rom. 4:3-5For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." 4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. 5 But to himwho does not work but believeson Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness,

So here we have it. Faith is not works, and works is not faith. These to are contrasted from each other.

Rom 1:16 - For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek.

So for everone who believes, the power of God to salvation collides and is released to that person. God has chosen to save those who believe, not save those so they could believe. Man is not regenerated before faith, faith comes before man is made alive.

Now as for
John 3:3 “Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot SEE the kingdom of God." (NASB


On the matter of Nicodemus not "seeing" the kingdom without being regenerated, it is necessary not to misunderstand the idiom of "seeing" as John uses it. You have interpreted the word "see" to mean "understand, comprehend, BELIEVE." This is not the likely sense in which the term is used in this context.

At the end of the same chapter, John says, "He that does not believe shall not SEE life" (John 3:36).

Jesus, later said, "if anyone keeps my word, he will never SEE death" (John 8:51). His adversaries understood the idiom and rephrased it "shall never TASTE death"(v.52).

It is clear that "SEE" is being used in these cases as synonymous with the idea of "experience." Thus the statement that, without rebirth, Nicodemus cannot "see" the kingdom, means exactly the same thing as the statement two verses later which uses the phrase "enter the kingdom." The expressions are interchangeable.

Calvinists and non-Calvinsts alike believe that one must be born again in order to experience the kingdom, but the non-Calvinist asks, "What must one do in order to be born again?" Nicodemus asked the same question, when he said, "How can these things be?"

The answer of Jesus was that which is everywhere affirmed in scripture: "Whosoever believes...shall have everlasting life [that is, “shall be regenerated,” apparently as a consequence of believing]."

Jesus did not say, "Whosoever has everlasting life shall believe." This idea is never found in scripture, and would be a helpful thing for one of the writers to have informed us about, since the concept is otherwise so counterintuitive. It is, perhaps, the absence of any such statement in scripture that kept the church from ever believing such things until Augustine, by mixing Greek philosophy, introduced the strange concept.

You are right in observing that Jesus expressed surprise that Nicodemus, the teacher of Israel did not grasp such things. This astonishment resembles Jesus' marveling at the lack of faith of the people of Nazareth (Mark 6:6). If people are naturally incapable of perception and faith, what is there to marvel at?

Jesus' astonishment indicates that He would have expected this man (though as yet unregenerated) to be capable of grasping this truth when it was told to him. In this, as in many other points, Jesus did not act as one who holds Calvinistic convictions about the universal dullness of the unregenerate. That a religious leader should be so obtuse is surprising (even to Jesus), but not unprecedented nor without modern parallels.

John 3:8 - "The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit."

Yes, the spiritual birth, like the wind, is mysterious to man, and there are things about it which only God understands—things that are not fully understood by any man—whether regenerated or not. This does not mean that the things that one must believe in order to enter the kingdom are things incomprehensible to man.

P.L. sited Romans 9:16—"It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy."

But what is it that is said not to depend on human desire or effort? In the context, it is talking about God's sovereignty in choosing which nation (Jacob's or Esau's? Moses' or Pharaoh's?) He would utilize to carry out His earthly purpose of bringing the Messiah into the world. This choice was made by God without consulting human preferences, which is what Paul affirms.

There is no discussion in Romans 9:10-18 about the subject of the eternal salvation of individuals (as the context and the scriptures quoted by Paul in the passage demonstrate well enough). Nothing is said about Jacob or Esau's personal salvation—only about which one would be the father of the promised seed in history. So the Calvinist reads so much into one text to come to their conclusion, and then defend it, but they should have more respect and reverence for God's Word, instead of searching for needles in haystacks to teach, support, and defend their man made traditional doctrine.

Lowlyone

Foreseen Faith.

[puritan lad]

I haven't forgotten you Jac. I've been working in the field all week. I hope to have something early next week.

PL

[Locker]

Come on man, repentance is NOT WORKS. I would yell it if I could, but I cant. Election is according to foreseen faith. FAITH IS NOT WORKS either.

1 Pet. 1:2 - To the elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace be multiplied.

No mention of choice here though is there? For someone to add foreseen faith to this passage wouldn't be wise. But do any other passages say such thing, or anything similar?

Rom. 8:29 - For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Yep. Foreknowledge preceeds predestination. But do we see any foreseen or foreknown faith here? Nope. Sure don't. So are there any more scriptures dealing with this subject?

2 Thess. 2:13 -
But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth,

So here it's clear. God from the beginning chose us for salvation. Yet keep reading. It says He did so through the work of the Spirit, AND belief in the truth. So there we have it. Belief in the truth is a condition to be chosen for salvation. Belief in the truth is a choice that sinners make, which means they must believe or have faith to be chosen for salvation.

But some would accuse me of saying that election and salvation is conditioned on works. Now salvation and election is conditional, but it is not according to works. Such people who say this only do so because they've been taught it's either the calvinist election or it's election according to works. So of course their view is going to look better. However, such people or ignorant when it comes to the nature of faith.

Rom. 4:3-5For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." 4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. 5 But to himwho does not work but believeson Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness,

So here we have it. Faith is not works, and works is not faith. These to are contrasted from each other.

Rom 1:16 - For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek.

So for everone who believes, the power of God to salvation collides and is released to that person. God has chosen to save those who believe, not save those so they could believe. Man is not regenerated before faith, faith comes before man is made alive.

Now as for
John 3:3 “Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot SEE the kingdom of God." (NASB


On the matter of Nicodemus not "seeing" the kingdom without being regenerated, it is necessary not to misunderstand the idiom of "seeing" as John uses it. You have interpreted the word "see" to mean "understand, comprehend, BELIEVE." This is not the likely sense in which the term is used in this context.

At the end of the same chapter, John says, "He that does not believe shall not SEE life" (John 3:36).

Jesus, later said, "if anyone keeps my word, he will never SEE death" (John 8:51). His adversaries understood the idiom and rephrased it "shall never TASTE death"(v.52).

It is clear that "SEE" is being used in these cases as synonymous with the idea of "experience." Thus the statement that, without rebirth, Nicodemus cannot "see" the kingdom, means exactly the same thing as the statement two verses later which uses the phrase "enter the kingdom." The expressions are interchangeable.

Calvinists and non-Calvinsts alike believe that one must be born again in order to experience the kingdom, but the non-Calvinist asks, "What must one do in order to be born again?" Nicodemus asked the same question, when he said, "How can these things be?"

The answer of Jesus was that which is everywhere affirmed in scripture: "Whosoever believes...shall have everlasting life [that is, “shall be regenerated,” apparently as a consequence of believing]."

Jesus did not say, "Whosoever has everlasting life shall believe." This idea is never found in scripture, and would be a helpful thing for one of the writers to have informed us about, since the concept is otherwise so counterintuitive. It is, perhaps, the absence of any such statement in scripture that kept the church from ever believing such things until Augustine, by mixing Greek philosophy, introduced the strange concept.

You are right in observing that Jesus expressed surprise that Nicodemus, the teacher of Israel did not grasp such things. This astonishment resembles Jesus’ marveling at the lack of faith of the people of Nazareth (Mark 6:6). If people are naturally incapable of perception and faith, what is there to marvel at?

Jesus' astonishment indicates that He would have expected this man (though as yet unregenerated) to be capable of grasping this truth when it was told to him. In this, as in many other points, Jesus did not act as one who holds Calvinistic convictions about the universal dullness of the unregenerate. That a religious leader should be so obtuse is surprising (even to Jesus), but not unprecedented nor without modern parallels.

John 3:8 - "The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit."

Yes, the spiritual birth, like the wind, is mysterious to man, and there are things about it which only God understands—things that are not fully understood by any man—whether regenerated or not. This does not mean that the things that one must believe in order to enter the kingdom are things incomprehensible to man.

P.L. sited Romans 9:16—"It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy."

But what is it that is said not to depend on human desire or effort? In the context, it is talking about God's sovereignty in choosing which nation (Jacob's or Esau's? Moses' or Pharaoh's?) He would utilize to carry out His earthly purpose of bringing the Messiah into the world. This choice was made by God without consulting human preferences, which is what Paul affirms.

There is no discussion in Romans 9:10-18 about the subject of the eternal salvation of individuals (as the context and the scriptures quoted by Paul in the passage demonstrate well enough). Nothing is said about Jacob or Esau’s personal salvation—only about which one would be the father of the promised seed in history. So the Calvinist reads so much into one text to come to their conclusion, and then defend it, but they should have more respect and reverence for God's Word, instead of searching for needles in haystacks to teach, support, and defend their man made traditional doctrine.

Lowlyone

Foreseen Faith.

You have great points Lowly One!

PL - how do you resond to his and Jac's comments??

[puritan lad]

OK Jac, here is a summary of your blunders.

I have already dealt with the universal phrases such as “all men” and “the world” in the original thread, but for your sake, I'll address some of the scriptures that you used.

Rom. 6:9-11, We know that Christ being raised from the dead will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.

Who is the “all”? Who is Paul writing to?

Romans 1:1, 7
"Paul, a bondservant of Jesus Christ, … To all who are in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints:"

2 Cor 5:14-15, For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died; and he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.

Same Question, who is Paul writing to?

2 Corinthians 1:1
“Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, To the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints who are in all Achaia:”

These verses were written to a limited audience. A better interpretation would be “all of you”. Christ dies for His people (Matthew 1:21), His Sheep (John 10:11) , His church (Acts 20:28), a chosen people (Titus 2:14). The Pharisees did not believe, because they were not His sheep (John 10:26).

The same can be said for the “whole world”. This phrase is almost never used to describe every single person on the planet.

1 John 2:22, He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

If, in your view, the “world” refers to every single individual on the planet, then what will you do with 2 Corinthians 5:19?

“that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.”

This verse would teach that Christ has reconciled every single individual to Himself and would not impute their trespasses to them. This would mean universal salvation.

Hebrews 9:12 tells us that “with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.” Again, if ALL means every single individual on the planet, then every single person has “eternal redemption”, ie. universal salvation.

Your belief in “universal atonement” is identical to that of the Arminians. You may object to that statement, but it is hard to read it any other way.

Notice that a person's sins are never mentioned in this passage. What is a man condemned for? Is it his sin? By God, I say no. A person is condemned for not being found in the Book of Life. This means that he is dead in his sins. You see, he is not condemned for his sins, but for his death—that is, for his lack of life. Atonement does not mean the granting of life. It means that the wrath against sin is removed. To say it means any more is to go beyond the text! But we are given life when we are born again, which happens when we believe in Christ. It is then that we overcome the world, and our names are not blotted from the Book of Life.

The Gospel I have presented is that all sin has been paid for, and that to live, one must only believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. If one does this, he is born into Christ, and God chooses Him for salvation.

The Gospel I have presented is that all sin has been paid for, and that to live, one must only believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. If one does this, he is born into Christ, and God chooses Him for salvation.

Like the Arminian, you place the burden of salvation on man. But there are two huge issues here.

1.) Belief. What does it mean to believe, and how does one come to believe? (The greek pistis is not exactly the same meaning as the English “believe”, but that's not really relevant here. When it comes to the answer of how one come to believe, you have two choices, and neither fits your theology. If, as you seem to hold, that all men within themselves have the ability to choose to believe, (since you quote John 3:16 as a proof text), then you end up with the age-old Arminian salvation by works. You wrote, "to live, one must only believe in the Lord Jesus Christ". If man is saved because he chooses to believe, then salvation is no longer by grace alone, but rather by something that man does of his own free will. You claim that “The Gospel I have presented is that all sin has been paid for”. That would necessarily have to include the sin of unbelief, which would result, once again, in universal salvation. (BTW: John 3:16 identifies those who will be saved. It does NOT lay any conditions for that salvation. Try as you might, you cannot throw any synergism into this passage. It does not say “whosoever CHOOSES to believe”. You are reading more into the text then what is not there.)

If, on the other hand, you believe (correctly) that the ability to believe is itself a gift from God, then you are still faced with the biblical truth that man has no part to play in his own salvation. Salvation is of the Lord. (Jonah 2:9). Belief is not a voluntary action, but is rather a condition of the heart, which God alone is in control of. (This is scriptural, and very easy to illustrate.) He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills, He hardens.

2.) The nature of Christ's work. Just like the Arminian, you claim that Christ paid for all sin, and has left it into our hands to decide whether or not to believe. However, Christ's work did not just include “payment for all sin”, as if that payment were just abstract and meaningless. Christ work involves actually salvation and redemption. The scriptures couldn't be any clearer on this fact.

...He shall save his people from their sins (Matthew 1:21).
...Christ came to seek and to save what was lost (Luke 19:10).
...Jesus came to save sinners (1 Timothy 1:15).
...We have actual redemption (Ephesians 1:7).
...Christ purchased the church with his own blood (Acts 20:28).
...He gave himself to us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify for himself a peculiar (chosen) people" (Titus 2:14).
...He entered once for all into the Holy Place, taking ... his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption" (Hebrews 9:12).

This is what Christ came to do. He came to save HIS people from their sins. Furthermore, it is clear that those who end up in Hell do so precisely because of their sins. (Ezekiel 18:20, John 8:24, Matthew 7:21-23 cf. 1 John 3:4, 1 Cor. 6:9-10, Galatians 5:19-21, Revelation 21:8). Therefore, we must conclude, based on these scriptures, that Christ did NOT pay for the sins of those in Hell, and that they are “none of His”. Again, if your view is correct, then there are millions of souls currently burning in Hell that were just as much bought with the blood of Christ as you and I. You've all but admitted that you accept this. Esau sought God with tears, but was unable to receive Him. Why? Because God hated Esau, and he did so before Esau was ever born, not of works. (I'm glad that you like the plain meaning of scripture.)

3.) Many are called, but few are CHOSEN (Matthew 22:14). You claim that

“What does that mean, “elected in Christ”? “In Christ” refers to location or position. If I said, “I was chosen in the house,” or “He was chosen in the field,” we would not think that I was chosen to be in the house or chosen to be in the field. The implication is that, while in the house, I was chosen, or while in the field, he was chosen. Thus, we see that God looks at those “in Christ” and He chooses them. Which ones does He choose? ALL of them!

This is vain philosophy and empty deceit. It make the word “elect” totally meaningless. You claim God chooses everybody to be “in Christ”. The Bible disagrees. FEW are chosen.

Your view is nothing more than an alternative form of Semi-Pelagianism. In your view, Pharoah and Saul of Tarsus were in the same boat, and were only separated by their own choice to believe. The Scriptures adamantly deny such. God raised Pharoah for the purpose of destroying Him, so that He could judge Egypt with great judgments and get the glory for delivering HIS people. (Romans 9:17-18). However, God chose Saul of Tarsus for a different purpose.

Acts 9:15
“But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My name before Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel.”

Was this choice predicated on Saul's belief? No. Saul did not believe when God said this. You claim that your doctrine is “unconditional election”, and I won't argue the euphemisms here. It is clear, however, that you believe in “conditional” salvation, that salvation is predicated on what man does. Spurgeon illustrates this with his Arminian Prayer, and even though you are not an Arminian, everything beyond the first sentence applies to you as your view of atonement and salvation are nearly identical.

"Lord, I thank thee I am not like those poor presumptuous Calvinists Lord, I was born with a glorious free-will; I was born with power by which I can turn to thee of myself; I have improved my grace. If everybody had done the same with their grace that I have, they might all have been saved. Lord, I know thou dost not make us willing if we are not willing ourselves. Thou givest grace to everybody; some do not improve it, but I do. There are many that will go to hell as much bought with the blood of Christ as I was; they had as much of the Holy Ghost given to them; they had as good a chance, and were as much blessed as I am. It was not thy grace that made us to differ; I know it did a great deal, still I turned the point; I made use of what was given me, and others did not-that is the difference between me and them."

Obviously, this is nonsense. Christ did not come to “offer” salvation. He came to save. They are not the same thing. He also does not fail in His objective.

Psalm 33:10-12
“The LORD brings the counsel of the nations to nothing;
He makes the plans of the peoples of no effect.
The counsel of the LORD stands forever,
The plans of His heart to all generations.
Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD,
The people He has chosen as His own inheritance.”

You write, "Calvinism slanders God, for it attributes to Him the awful sin of man's rejection, and it denies His truly free gift of grace to all who believe."

Paul has already answered that objection years ago.

Romans 9:19-23
"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? What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory,"

[Jac3510]

PL . . . I certainly expected more from a month-long wait? I'll respond when I get home from work tonight. In the meantime, I'll point out only one absolutely unexcusable flaw in your rebuttal:

You claim God chooses everybody to be “in Christ”.

Not only have I not claimed this, but I have strongly argued AGAINST this position. Notice your words "to be." That is exactly what I take exception to, and, in fact what I have strongly proven is NOT in Scripture. I thoroughly expect the courtesy of you actually reading my arguments rather than skimming them looking for flaws.

edit: nope, I'm at home now, and I'm not going to deal with this at the moment. I absolutely cannot believe the above quote. That is absolutely, without exageration, on the same level as insisting the George Bush's foreign policy is wrong because he believes we should negotiate with terrorists.

[puritan lad]

Perhaps I'm not getting you on this quote.

What does that mean, “elected in Christ”? “In Christ” refers to location or position. If I said, “I was chosen in the house,” or “He was chosen in the field,” we would not think that I was chosen to be in the house or chosen to be in the field. The implication is that, while in the house, I was chosen, or while in the field, he was chosen. Thus, we see that God looks at those “in Christ” and He chooses them. Which ones does He choose? ALL of them!

As I read this, I see one of two positions.

1.) He chooses all "in Christ". In that case, you have universal salvation.

or,

2.) He chooses all who choose to come to Christ. In that case, you have salvation by works. Maybe this is your position, since you add, "But, again, we see that those who believe in Christ are born again in Christ, and that God looks at all those in Christ and chooses them for salvation."

In any case, your view (either universal salvation or salvation by works) is unbiblical. If it is not one of the above, then please clarify the above quote.

How is one "born again"? Does one choose to be born again, or is this a soveriegn move of the Holy Spirit? Here is Jesus' answer...

John 3:7-8
"Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

It is like the wind, Jac. You cannot control it.

[LowlyOne]

How is one "born again"? Does one choose to be born again, or is this a soveriegn move of the Holy Spirit? Here is Jesus' answer...

John 3:7-8
"Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

It is like the wind, Jac. You cannot control it.

I've answered this, but you either ignored it or couldn't respond to it.

John 3:8 - "The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit."

Yes, the spiritual birth, like the wind, is mysterious to man, and there are things about it which only God understands—things that are not fully understood by any man—whether regenerated or not. This does not mean that the things that one must believe in order to enter the kingdom are things incomprehensible to man, nor does it mean that those things are things that the lost cannot recieve or understand.

Mark 10:17 Now as He was going out on the road, one came running, knelt before Him, and asked Him, "Good Teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?" 18 So Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. 19 You know the commandments: 'Do not commit adultery,' 'Do not murder,' 'Do not steal,' 'Do not bear false witness,' 'Do not defraud,' 'Honor your father and your mother.' " F46 20 And he answered and said to Him, "Teacher, all these things I have kept from my youth." 21 Then Jesus, looking at him,loved him, and said to him, "One thing you lack: Go your way, sell whatever you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, take up the cross, and follow Me." 22 But he was sad at this word, and went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.

Here, we see that Jesus loved Him. If Jesus truly loved this man, then he would have desired and wanted the best for Him, that being, eternal life, and thus, a different response from this man instead of his actual one. Do we not know that if we've seen Jesus, we've seen the Father?

Johnathan Edwards says this of Jesus

Do we not know, that this Person is the second person in the Trinity, the Only Begotten and dearly Beloved Son of God? Do we not know that He is the eternal, necessary, perfect, substantial and personal idea which God hath of Himself; and that it is so seems to me to be abundantly confirmed by the Word of God

.

Revelation 2:20-22
20 Nevertheless I have a few things against you, because you allow that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, to teach and seduce My servants to commit sexual immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols. 21 And I gave her time to repent of her sexual immorality, and she did not repent. 22 Indeed I will cast her into a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of their deeds.

Jesus is so holy and loving. Look how He expresses His love towards someone that's not the even elect and someone who winds up in hell. He gave even her time to repent. He says He will cast her into a sickbed, and those who basically share in her sins, "unless" they repent of their deeds.

Consider His words, "I gave her time (space, opportunity) to repent... and she did not.

Now if Reformed theology is correct, if repentance hinges on the decision of God alone, if man repents only as a consequence of a special immediate act of God, we are left to wonder why Christ gave Jezebel opportunity to repent without giving her repentance. If her failure to repent was the consequence of His own decision, in what sense did He give her opportunity to repent? If He did not choose for her to repent, why did He do something directed toward repentance? If He did something directed toward repentance, why did He not do everything needed? If the repentance of Jezebel and His servants hinged on His own decision rather than theirs, where is the sincerity in His warning of dire consequences to come "except they repent"? No logic, no reason, no sensible meaning can be found in the text if it be denied that there is latitude in the will of God and that man's agency and response ability to repent are authentic rather than artificial, imaginary and symbolic, as Calvinism insists.

One chooses to believe, and is born again. This is not works.
Rom. 4:3-5For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." 4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. 5 But to him who does not work but believeson Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness.

To him who does not work, but believes...
[/quote]

[Jac3510]

OK, PL . . . for your rebuttal:

1. You cannot use the standard Calvinist "all" argument as a blanket statement to respond to the various exegeses I provided. In them, I demonstrated why "all" must refer to "all men" and cannot refer to "all the elect."

For the record, I have no problem with "all" referring to a limited audience. That's the way the word works in both English and Greek. If I say I have "all," I mean I have everything. If I say I have "all apples," I mean I have every apple. If I say I have "all apples in the house," I mean just that, and I am making no claim on the apples at the grocery store. However, you will note that in each of these cases, the "all" is limited by the grammatical structure of the sentence. These limiters are not found in the passages I provided. Therefore, you are required to examine each verse as I presented it and deal with the various arguments I presented for each.

Let me take a moment to deal specifically with 2 Corinthians 5:19. In my original argument, I referenced 2 Corinthians 5:14-15, which a) you have not handled, and b) serve as the context for this verse. The good news is that I don't have to offer an exegesis again! To answer your specific question, the text means just what it says. What was God doing at the cross? He was reconciling the world to Himself. Notice that the action is not completed. It is something that God was doing. The job was not completed at the cross nor at the resurrection. If you read the very next verse, PL, your question is answered: "We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God." (NIV) How are we reconciled? Through belief. How is it possible? Because of the work of Christ at the cross, which God was doing at that time. Who is it for? The whole world, as the text clearly states.

Also, let's use a play from your book, shall we? We know this epistle was written to Christians (see 2 Corinthians 1:1). It would be odd for Paul to use the word "world" here to refer to Christians when he was talking to that particular group. If that was Paul's intent, it would have been far more natural to simply say "you" or "the elect." How would Paul say that Christ died for all? Well, read the whole last half of that chapter, and you'll see . . . exactly like he did!

For the record, I've already handled Hebrews 9:12 in this thread. I'm starting to wonder if you are reading me, PL . . .

2. It is either idiocy or ignorance on your part to equate my view of universal atonement with the Arminian's. Take your pick. The Arminian believes that the atonement saves. I believe the atonement makes man savable. Thus, the Arminian believes that the atonement is applied only to those who believe. On the other hand, I believe the atonement is applied to ALL. The Arminian believes in Unlimited Atonement. I believe in Universal Atonement. So, let's pick this apart with a little more detail . . .

If, as you seem to hold, that all men within themselves have the ability to choose to believe, (since you quote John 3:16 as a proof text), then you end up with the age-old Arminian salvation by works.

I'm glad you bring this argument up, PL. I'll handle it in a moment when I further my argument. Suffice it to say here that it is not me who is advocating salvation by works, but it is, in fact, you. What are doing, unfortunately, is importing your concept of faith into the system I propose. If I looked at faith the way you do, you would be exactly right. However, I reject the model you propose, and therefore, your argument is moot. I'll take this up in more detail later.

You claim that “The Gospel I have presented is that all sin has been paid for”. That would necessarily have to include the sin of unbelief, which would result, once again, in universal salvation.

Of course the sin of unbelief is paid for, PL. How many times have I said that sin is not the thing that condemns a man to Hell? Seriously, are you even reading me? You certainly have a habit of not responding to arguments, and you don't seem to be grasping the very foundation of the system I'm advocating.

(BTW: John 3:16 identifies those who will be saved. It does NOT lay any conditions for that salvation. Try as you might, you cannot throw any synergism into this passage. It does not say “whosoever CHOOSES to believe”. You are reading more into the text then what is not there.)

That's funny, PL. Really . . .

Don't forget that this verse is part of Jesus' conversation with Nicodemus. In verse nine, he had asked, "How can these things be?" Throughout this entire passage, Jesus is talking about how a man is saved, not who is saved! (see John 3:3, 5, 15). I've seen bad context arguments before, PL, but that about takes the cake . . .

If, on the other hand, you believe (correctly) that the ability to believe is itself a gift from God, then you are still faced with the biblical truth that man has no part to play in his own salvation. Salvation is of the Lord. (Jonah 2:9). Belief is not a voluntary action, but is rather a condition of the heart, which God alone is in control of. (This is scriptural, and very easy to illustrate.) He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills, He hardens.

This garbage I don't even need to deal with. Puritan, listen to me. It doesn't do you any good--it doesn't do this discussion or anyone reading this any good--for you to spout off what Calvinists believe. That's the very assumption we are dealing with. You can't prove Calvinism is true by assuming its true, PL. Now, throughout this entire thread, I have been dealing with, explaining, and showing the fallacies of comments like the above. You making baseless assertions that are just Calvinist talking points add nothing to the discussion.

Just like the Arminian, you claim that Christ paid for all sin, and has left it into our hands to decide whether or not to believe.

You see, it's quotes like this that are the reason we still are talking. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Listen: Arminians don't believe that all sin is paid for. They believe that sin is paid for once you accept the atonement. For them, atonement leads to salvation. Let me put this in the clearest terms possible:

Arminians: Atonement = Salvation
Jac: Atonement <> Salvation

Now, let's make sure this is really, really clear:

The atonement of sin does not result in salvation. The atonement of sin does not result in salvation. The atonement of sin does not result in salvation. The atonement of sin does not result in salvation. The atonement of sin does not result in salvation. The atonement of sin does not result in salvation.

I realize that this is hard for you to get so far as my system goes. In fact, if we go back to the first page of this thread:

. Hint: If one goes to Hell, it is because his sins were not atoned for.

You see Puritan . . . this is where you cannot seem to grasp what I am saying. I disagree with you on this, and I have provided ample Scripture to back my point. You have NONE. You have NOT dealt with my arguments in this area AT ALL.

Now, for the last time: my system of atonement is diametrically opposed to the Arminian system. If you cannot grasp that basic understanding, then we need to quit wasting our time. I'll simply be able to walk away with this with the joy of knowing that I've clearly demonstrated the heretical nature of Calvinism, because you have misunderstood and misapplied the doctrine of atonement.

Now, I DO agree with the Arminian in that we decide whether or not to believe. BUT THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ATONEMENT. You argue against this by saying that, "Christ's work did not just include “payment for all sin”, as if that payment were just abstract and meaningless. Christ work involves actually salvation and redemption. The scriptures couldn't be any clearer on this fact." Now, I have never said that Christ's work was ONLY to pay the price for sin. Seriously, PL . . . where have I said that?!? In fact, it should be quite clear that I do NOT believe that. Do you believe the only thing Christ's work includes is His death on the cross? That is terrible. His work includes His perfect life, His death, and His resurrection. So far as the Atonement goes, it is universally applied. Sin is no longer an obstacle between man and God. Man is now savable. Now, God can impute the righteousness of Christ to those who are "in Christ." That's part of His work, too . . . let's look at the verses you provided.

• ...He shall save his people from their sins (Matthew 1:21).

I've already dealt with that passage in this thread. Again, PL, are you reading me at all?

• ...Christ came to seek and to save what was lost (Luke 19:10).

Yes . . . and men are lost, like Zacheus in this passage, and Christ seeks them and finds them to save them. Too bad this has nothing to do with Atonement.

• ...Jesus came to save sinners (1 Timothy 1:15).

Do you suppose I thought He came to save the righteous? In fact, PL, do you suppose that the non-elect are not sinners? After all, if He came to save sinners, and the non-elect are sinners, then doesn't it follow that He came to save the non-elect?!? After all, Christ's work has to be perfectly accomplished, right? I suppose my non-elect friends will be happy to know that they aren't sinners in your book.

• ...We have actual redemption (Ephesians 1:7).

I didn't know there was such thing as non-actual redemption. How about offering an exegesis rather than an interpretation? In this passage, Paul is talking to Christians. Eph 1:4 says, "He chose us in Him", as I have previously noted. Who, then, has redemption? The elect. You do realize that redemption is not the same thing as atonement, right?

• ...Christ purchased the church with his own blood (Acts 20:28).

Yes, and the Church is most definitely made up of only the elect. The word "redeem" means "to buy back." Jesus paid the price for sin, and those who believe in Him become "the Church." This isn't hard stuff, PL.

• ...He gave himself to us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify for himself a peculiar (chosen) people" (Titus 2:14).

Yes . . . you can't exactly have a Church made up of people who have the wrath of God burning against their sin, now can you? So we've established that in order for there to be a Church, sin must be atoned for. I've not said anything different from that, PL.

• ...He entered once for all into the Holy Place, taking ... his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption" (Hebrews 9:12).

And again, I've already dealt with this passage. Are you reading me, PL?

This is what Christ came to do. He came to save HIS people from their sins. Furthermore, it is clear that those who end up in Hell do so precisely because of their sins. (Ezekiel 18:20, John 8:24, Matthew 7:21-23 cf. 1 John 3:4, 1 Cor. 6:9-10, Galatians 5:19-21, Revelation 21:8). Therefore, we must conclude, based on these scriptures, that Christ did NOT pay for the sins of those in Hell, and that they are “none of His”. Again, if your view is correct, then there are millions of souls currently burning in Hell that were just as much bought with the blood of Christ as you and I. You've all but admitted that you accept this. Esau sought God with tears, but was unable to receive Him. Why? Because God hated Esau, and he did so before Esau was ever born, not of works. (I'm glad that you like the plain meaning of scripture.)

*sigh* I guess it's true. You really truly are not reading my posts. You are skimming them, if that. I've already dealt with the "HIS people" comment. Now, let's del with the seven passages you cited:

Oh, and let me put this on a new line so that in your skimming, you'll notice it . . . please observe how I am actually dealing with the Scripture references you provide on a verse-by-verse basis. You see, PL, I am dealing with your arguments, one by one. Try it.

• Ezekiel 18:20, The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself. (NASB)

"Die" here does not refer to eternal damnation. It has to do with physical death. See the following verses. If the wicked man turns form his sins, he will live.

• John 8:24, Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins. (NASB)

Yes, if a person does not believe in Christ, then they will die "in their sins." This does not mean a person will go be condemned because of their sins. In fact, quite the opposite. Jesus is talking about the state one is in at the time of death. If the Jews were to believe in Christ, they would die "in Him." But, if they reject Him, they would die "in their sins."

• Matthew 7:21-23, Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.' (NASB)

Great passage, PL. What is Jesus saying? First, let's notice that this is a reference to eschatological judgement. These people are going to go to Hell. Next notice that the criteria for getting into heaven is not professing Jesus as Lord *gasp*. In fact, there will be MANY who will say 'Lord, Lord.' But notice this, too . . . these people honestly believed that their profession of Lordship would save them. They go so far as to prove their submission by citing the works they do in His name. Did these people believe they were saved? YES. This makes a great case against Perseverance of the Saints, which I'll get to later. Finally, note Jesus' response. He says, "I never knew you." He then tells them to depart. Now, here's the question: are they to depart because of the lawlessness they practice, or are they to depart because Jesus never knew them? Clearly, the latter is the case. Jesus is saying that even the "good" deeds they did were lawless deeds, because they rejected His simple plan of salvation. They were, then, NOT condemned for their sins. They were condemned because they were not in Christ! This passage can't be much clearer, PL.

• 1 John 3:4, Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness. (NASB)

Yup . . . this is good, because I've been wanting to deal with this text for awhile anyway. Let's just look at the rest of the passage, too, so that I can score some extra points while here:

• Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness. You know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin. No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him. Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous; the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil. No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. (1 John 3:5-9, NASB)

OK, with all of these together . . . this passage is teaching the very important truth that the practice of sin resides only in the Old Man. It is foreign to the New Man. Notice especially verses 6 and 9: "no one who abides in Him sins," and "he cannot sin, because he is born of God." Let's take this to mean exactly what it says: the New Man DOES NOT SIN. EVERY sin we commit is an expression of the Old Man, not the New. Now, because of that, these Christians could know who the false teachers were that were in their midst. It would be those who were teaching that there was no sin and no sin nature (cf. 1 John 1:6, 8, 10).

Does this passage, then, teach that a man goes to Hell because of his sin? Nope. It teaches, again, that the Old Man is man who sins.

• 1 Cor. 6:9-10, Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. (NASB)

This is another passage I have already dealt with. Gal. 5:19-21 is handled in the same thread . . . in fact, in the same post, the very next paragraph.

• Revelation 21:8, But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death. (NASB)

This passage is exactly the in nature as the previous two. But, we can also note that this verse is written in contrast with verse seven, which says, "He who overcomes will inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be My son" Who is the one who overcomes? It is the one who believes. Thus, that list is a sample of people who have not overcome.

So, we see, still, that it is not sin for which a man is condemned, but it is for his unbelief. Dying in a state of unbelief means to die in a state of death. As death means "separate from," the person dies in a state of broken fellowship with God for all of eternity. All who are in Adam are condemned, because the Adamic Race is condemned. All who are in Christ are saved, because the Christian Race is saved.

So, we have thoroughly refuted the idea that my understanding has any similarity whatsoever with Arminianism. Sorry.

Moving on, then . . .

3. In your original rebuttal, you claimed that my view was Semi-Peligan and that I believed that all were elected to be in Christ. I'm still not over that. I really am convinced that you are not reading these replies . . .

In your clarification, you stated:

As I read this, I see one of two positions.

1.) He chooses all "in Christ". In that case, you have universal salvation.

or,

2.) He chooses all who choose to come to Christ. In that case, you have salvation by works. Maybe this is your position, since you add, "But, again, we see that those who believe in Christ are born again in Christ, and that God looks at all those in Christ and chooses them for salvation."

Again, I have paragraph after paragraph arguing against the first position. The fact that you would even THINK I could hold to that proves to be absolutely that you have no concept of the position I am advocating. I don't get offended easily, PL. Now, I have throughout our discussions handled your arguments thoroughly and in context. I have not attributed to you positions you do not hold, and it cannot be argued that I do not well understand your doctrines. I expect the same in return.

Now, let's deal with the second interpretation of my argument, because this is a good way for me to provide a good cap to my argument that Calvinism is a heresy in general. Let's unpack your statement very carefully, and it should become obvious where the flaw in your thinking is:

"[God] chooses all who choose to come to Christ."

A) "God chooses," that is, God elects. Let us always remember that election is GOD'S choice, not ours. We can make any choices we like, we can do anything we like, but in the end, election comes only when God decides to pick someone.

B) "all," Thus, the election is unconditional. Of course, "all" here is limited to a particular group, but the emphasis is still the same. Absolutely EVERYONE in that group is chosen for salvation. God chooses you by virtue of being in this particular group. Nothing you think, say, or do merits that choice. Further, nothing you can do will change that choice. God decided before the foundation of the world to choose all of those who were in this group. Simple.

C) "who choose," Here's where you start getting murky. You've used a very sloppy word that has false connotations. People don't "choose" . . . they "trust." They take Christ at His word. They believe His promise. Now, discipleship . . . that's a matter of choice! But simple trust isn't a "choice" in the same sense of the word. Either you believe or you don't. You don't say, "Hey, I'm going to go believe this today." Actually, we see that you choose not to believe rather than choosing to believe. You hear the claim of Christ, and you have to choose whether or not He is telling the truth. Since Jesus is making an assertion, if you reject it, that's the primary choice. Accepting it is simply taking Christ at His word. The two actions are not on the same volitional level.

D) "to come to Christ." This phraseology is closely linked with (C). We don't "choose to come to Christ." We believe the promise He made, which is that He will provide us eternal life if we trust Him. If we believe that, He does. It's that simple.

Now, look, though, at what you've done. You've pictured faith as a work. This is not surprising, because for you, faith necessarily leads to repentance. For you, faith is a commitment of life. It is not "mere belief." If I believed as you do, you would have a great point, PL. But, unfortunately for you, I don't. You see, if in order to be saved, I had to commit my life to Christ (therefore choosing Him), then I WOULD be teaching a salvation by works. But, that's not what I teach at all. I believe that in order to be saved, I have to place my mere belief in the Person and Promise of Christ. Upon doing this, I am born again into the Family Tree of Christ. Now, TOTALLY SEPARATE FROM MY BELIEF, God looks at me as a member of Jesus' family tree and He chooses me for salvation. You see, He chooses based on position. And how did I get to my position? Because He bore me into the family tree. Regeneration was His work. I was grafted in (adopted). I was justified. All of those are works of God. It is in NO way "works" to say that I took Christ at His word. God did all the work! (c.f. Rom. 4:5).

Now, against this, you DO teach a salvation by works. In comes across in your belief in Final Perseverance of the Saints. Again, for you, faith is a commitment of life. For you, repentance is necessary for salvation. Now, this is OBVIOUSLY a works based salvation, so to avoid this, you say that the man is saved completely and totally by God, and because He is saved, the man comes to belief and repentance. The problem is that Scripture everywhere teaches that if a man believes then he is saved, not vice-versa. So, what Calvinism does is to take a works-based salvation, deny a man the ability to belief, have God arbitrarily decide who completes this process. In my view, man does absolutely nothing. He takes Christ at His word, and therefore, God does more than a few things. Belief is not a work, PL.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Now, with all that out of the way . . .

I would like to close this by pointing out, yet again, the terrible track record you have for answering arguments. In this thread, I have provided Scripture to argue against:

1) Total depravity (never answered)
2) Calvinist Election (responded with a straw man; didn't deal with provided Scripture)
3) Limited Atonement (Scripture never dealt with)
4) and now Perseverance of the Saints.

In addition to this, I have made several other arguments that you have completely ignored, including:

1) The use of polus and the problems it creates for Calvinism,'
2) The eisegesis of election into "all" texts,
3) Calvinism's heretical understanding of the simple gospel message based on the notion that repentance and perseverance are required for salvation,
4) The obviously false teaching that God chooses some to commit specific sins,
5) The judicial hardening of the rejecting heart,
6) "Easy believism" is actually harder to believe than your system,'
7) "Simple believism" verses "hard believism",
8) The view that repentance is necessary for salvation also requires that baptism is necessary for salvation,
9) God justifies the wicked, not the regenerate,
10) Request to outline the position I hold in relation to the five major tenant.

I got those out of a very brief skim through our thread. These are all issues that you either have failed to deal with or have not clearly dealt with (that is, I requested a clarification that you did not provide). PL, my final problem with all this is simple:

You aren't dealing with my arguments. Please note that the vast majority of what I have to say has come from exegesis of Scripture. I've used the not "proof-text" method for anything. I have looked at Scripture, exegeted it, and showed how it destroys the Calvinist doctrines. I respectfully request that you deal with the biblical arguments I have put forward throughout this thread. I have more than dealt with yours.

God bless