Evidence for God from Science

Lowly One,

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?

Yes, Jesus loved him, but obviously not with His redemptive love. Jesus came to “seek and save that which was lost” (Luke 19:10). Was Jesus a failure in your example above because He didn't get the Job done?

Maybe you can explain why God hated Esau (Romans 9:13), and please don't try the “corporate election” bit, which Jac himself admits is a copout. This verse applies to both Esau the individual and his heritage (Malachi 1:2-3).

Johnathan Edwards says this of Jesus
Quote:
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

Not sure what this has to do with Calvinism, other than the fact that Edwards himself was a staunch Calvinist. Maybe, since you like to quote Edwards to support “free-will” salvation, you would want to read His Thesis “Freedom Of Will”. A warning, however: Don't let the title fool you. He's defending Calvinism in this work.

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.

Giving time and even a commandment to repent is NOT the same as giving someone the ability to repent. Big Difference. See Pharoah example in this thread.

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.

This he does often. He commanded Pharoah to let His people go, then proceeded to harden his heart, so that he would not obey. Is that fair of God? Absolutely. God owes no one salvation, nor does he seek or need our wills to align with His.

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 believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness.

To him who does not work, but believes...

Sorry Lowly One, you just proved by Scripture what I said earlier. You cannot say on one hand that “One chooses to believe”, and with the same breath say that it "is not works". It is both or neither. If one chooses to believe, then it is a work. If it is not a work, then the ability to believe lies beyond our capabilities and is itself a gift from God.

The quandary for your theology is the nature of belief itself. You falsely assume that:

1.) Belief is a voluntary action (which makes it a work).
2.) Belief is the cause of the new birth (which teaches salvation by works).

Both are unscriptural, and your entire is really nothing more than semi-pelagian Arminianism in disguise. It is the same old “Christ died for everybody, but only those who choose (or work) to “believe” reap the benefits of His death” nonsense. Is belief a voluntary action? Let's find out. One the count of three, I want you to choose to believe in the tooth fairy. Ready?

1….2…..3: Did it work?

The ability to “believe” is itself a gift from God. It is a matter of the heart (Romans 10:10), which God alone is in control of (Proverbs 21:1, Ezekiel 36:26).

John 10:26
“But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you”

John 12:39-40
“Therefore they could not believe, because Isaiah said again: “He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, Lest they should see with their eyes, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them.””

Hm, that sounds like God didn't want the Pharisees to believe. Maybe it is because they were appointed to be disobedient (1 Peter 2:8).

Acts 13:48
“Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.”

Philippians 1:29
“For to you it has been granted on behalf of Christ, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake,”

As John Owen correctly said, “"Christ did not die for any upon condition, if they do believe; but He died for all God's elect, that they should believe. Believe is the result, not the cause of the new birth, for “Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God… (1 John 5:1). There is only one cause for the new birth, and that is God Himself.

John 1:12-13
“But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.”

Could this scripture be any clearer?

Calvinism is certainly no heresy. As Spurgeon said, “It is a nickname to call it Calvinism. Calvinism is the gospel and nothing else”. The gospel is “good news”, not “good advice”. It tells us what has been accomplished, not what might take place if we choose to believe.

“I do not come into this pulpit hoping that perhaps somebody will of his own free will return to Christ. My hope lies in another quarter. I hope that my Master will lay hold of some of them and say, "You are mine, and you shall be mine. I claim you for myself." My hope arises from the freeness of grace, and not from the freedom of the will.” - C.H SPURGEON

Jac,

I have a lot more, but, for the sake of room and time, I'll cut right to the chase. The entire theology of your posts in this thread rests upon the idea that ALL sin has been paid for, and that people who end up in Hell are not there due to their sins.

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.

Yes it does. Yes it does. Yes it does. Yes it does. Yes it does. Yes it does. Yes it does. Yes it does. Yes it does.

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:

Puritan Lad wrote:
. 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.

Yes I have, but I'll add this, quoted from the first page of this thread.

The next text is Rev. 20:11-15. As the ESV renders it:
Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. Earth and sky fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

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.

Wrong. They are condemned for “what they had done as recorded in the books”. (SIN). Pretty clear to me. This scripture doesn't even mention belief. How is one blotted out of the Book of Life? He SINS.

Exodus 32:33
And the LORD said to Moses, “Whoever has sinned against Me, I will blot him out of My book

This fact, that God blots out those who sin against Him, destroys your entire thesis. Once it is clear that those who go to Hell do so because of their sins, your entire belief concerning the atonement falls apart. Man goes to Hell because he sins, because he “practices lawlessness (Matthew 7:21-23) which is sin (1 John 3:4). They go to Hell because they practice “the works of the flesh which are evident (Galatians 5:19-21, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11). These sins have NOT been paid for.

John 8:24
Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.

See Jac, It is SIN that sends us to Hell, sin which we are slaves to until Christ Saves us according to the good pleasure of HIS will.

Now, to show the similarities between your theology and Arminianism, I'll construct the Three of the Five points here. Please feel free to correct anything about your belief that I misrepresent.

Total Depravity
Arminianism: Man of His own Ability may choose to be saved.
Jac: Man, through Christ's atonement, may choose to be saved.
Bible (Calvinism): Man must be born from above before he can choose, see, or believe anything. He is born of the will of God, who has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills, He hardens.

Unconditional Election
Arminianism: God chooses those who He will save based on a foreknowledge of their faith.
Jac: God chooses those whom He will save based on the fact that they are in Christ because of their inherent belief. (Although you call it “unconditional”, you view belief in order to be “in Christ” as a condition.)
Bible (Calvinism): God chooses His own heritage, those whom He will save according to the good pleasure of His will, not of works, but that the purpose of God according to election might stand.

Limited Atonement
Arminianism: Christ died for everyone on earth and leaves salvation (payment for sins) in the hands of man.
Jac: Christ paid for all sins of all people, and leaves salvation in the hands of man if the choose to believe.
Bible (Calvinism): Christ died to save HIS people, HIS Church, and HIS Sheep, a great multitude out of every nations. He quickens who He will. He creates vessels of honor prepared for glory, such as Paul, and vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, such as Pharoah.

I'll leave out the other two as we haven't addressed them much, but the above should suffice. If these are correct (let me know), then they are just warmed over Arminianism, synergism, etc. It is an attempt to redefine election to the point where it has no meaning, and allows man to choose to be saved.

That should settle it Jac. People who go to Hell do so because of sin. The burden of proof is upon you to show otherwise.

It's time to stop wasting time discussing this with you. I have answered what most of your scriptures given really mean, and how the calvinistic interpretation cannot be correct, and you don't respond to them, them wait till the smoke clears so to speak, and quote them again to support your view. So so be it, believe what you want. Nice talking with you Puritan Lad.


Lowly One

I was searching my name on the internet and saw that something I said had been quoted (by JAC) in a debate about Calvinism. I must admit that it has made my day to think someone was quoted me, yet I regret reading it because I am now hopelessly bound to follow this debate as long as it continues (because I cannot resist a good debate). I thought I would briefly weigh in on the issue of whether or not people's sins are the reason they are in hell.
I agree with JAC that everyone's sins are atoned for and that the only reason anyone is in hell is because they rejected God's grace. I want to start by acknowledging the verses quoted by PL about people dying in their sins. Those who do not accept God's grace will in fact still be “in their sins”. This however, does not mean that their sins are not atoned for. Atonement is simply a way of saying that a person's sins have been covered up. Since God is Holy He cannot have any relationship with unholy man unless the sins of the man are covered. This, however, is not the entire work that is involved in the salvation of a person. The Bible teaches that due to sin, mankind has been left in a state of spiritual deadness. This means that even though Christ's blood atoned for that person's sin, they still need to be spiritually revived. This is where the act of regeneration comes in. This is done by the Holy Spirit and brings a person to spiritual life and gives them the ability to forever commune with God. As long as a person remains spiritually dead, then they will be eternally separated from God, regardless of whether or not their sins have been atoned for. This is what I believe the purpose of Hell is, it is a place for those who never were brought to spiritual life.
This is contrary to the model proposed by PL. PL's model seems to suggest that a person goes to Hell to be punished for their sins. The problems with this model are many. First, nowhere in the Bible does it say that the punishment for sin is eternal damnation (though it does say that spiritual death is the puninishment Gen 2:17, Rom. 3:23). Second, the Bible teaches that Jesus did bear the burden of God's wrath for sin (I John 2:2). To bear this wrath Christ suffered and died on the cross. This is not the same thing as spending eternity in Hell. If the sin of some was punished by the death on the cross, how is God equally just by making the sin of other's be punished by eternity in Hell). Lastly, and this deals more with the other issues of the debate, if unatoned sins send people to hell, and the atonement happened in 33AD, then it can be reasoned that people born after that date were born either lost or saved, the verdict was already made. If that is the case then evangelism is moot, conversion is needless, and the only hope for mankind is that he wins some sort of divine “lottery” of salvation that happened almost 2000 years ago. I will be anxious to hear the response to this.
In Christ
The Country Preacher
Rev. 22:17

PL,

In you comments about God Hardening Pharaohs heart, He did not harden his heart immediately. Only after many requests to let his people go did God harden his heart.


In 2 Thes 2:9-12
9Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
10And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness

Paul writes that "because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved". 11And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

The reason that God gave the delusion (Hardened their hearts) was because they did not receive the love of truth (believe)


Youngs literal translation even seems to make this clearer:

10and in all deceitfulness of the unrighteousness in those perishing, because the love of the truth they did not receive for their being saved,
11and because of this shall God send to them a working of delusion, for their believing the lie,

So Pharoah's hardening of the heart was not prior to his disobedience, it was as of a result of persistently not believing the word of God.
This verse also indicates that not receiving the love of truth (belief) is what sends a person to hell.

Those that are not open to hearing the Word of God will eventually have their heart hardened in such a way that they will not even listen anymore. this is what happend to Pharoah.

I expect that there is no man that has a perfect understanding of these issues, or else he would be God. But there are too many versus that contradict the teachings of Calvin. Jac has mentioned many of them and given a specific Greek translation on some that make the verse very clear.

One specific Greek translation I have heard is from Romans 9:22

22What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

This phrase fitted to destruction is in the middle voice in the Greek, meaning that unsaved men (vessels of wrath) fit themselves for destruction. God does not elect some people to go to heaven and others to go to hell. Men decide that for themselves.

puritan lad wrote:

One chooses to believe, and is born again. This is not works.

To him who does not work, but believes...

Sorry Lowly One, you just proved by Scripture what I said earlier. You cannot say on one hand that “One chooses to believe”, and with the same breath say that it "is not works". It is both or neither. If one chooses to believe, then it is a work. If it is not a work, then the ability to believe lies beyond our capabilities and is itself a gift from God.

The quandary for your theology is the nature of belief itself. You falsely assume that:

1.) Belief is a voluntary action (which makes it a work).
2.) Belief is the cause of the new birth (which teaches salvation by works).

Both are unscriptural, and your entire is really nothing more than semi-pelagian Arminianism in disguise. It is the same old “Christ died for everybody, but only those who choose (or work) to “believe” reap the benefits of His death” nonsense. Is belief a voluntary action? Let's find out. One the count of three, I want you to choose to believe in the tooth fairy. Ready?

1….2…..3: Did it work?

The ability to “believe” is itself a gift from God. It is a matter of the heart (Romans 10:10), which God alone is in control of (Proverbs 21:1, Ezekiel 36:26).

Hello,
Actually I think you sidestepped the entire issue raised. Paul clearly states in Romans that belief is not a work. This is a tenant of Calvinism that fails the Biblical test. Let's read it again:

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 believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness.

The man who does not work but believes is the one who's faith is credited as righteousness. Paul is contrasting faith and works. Paul is clearly teaching that faith is not a work. Paul also clearly says that it's Abraham's faith that is credited.

Paul does not stop here, he goes on to explain this further:

18 In hope against hope he believed, so that he might become a father of many nations according to that which had been spoken, "SO SHALL YOUR DESCENDANTS BE." 19 Without becoming weak in faith he contemplated his own body, now as good as dead since he was about a hundred years old, and the deadness of Sarah's womb; 20 yet, with respect to the promise of God, he did not waver in unbelief but grew strong in faith, giving glory to God, 21 and being fully assured that what God had promised, He was able also to perform. 22 Therefore IT WAS ALSO CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.

Paul also states this again here:

Rom 3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.

How is it then that you can ignore what Paul says and dogmatically claim that faith is a work? Paul painstakingly shows that it is not.

Rom 5:1 Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have[a] peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2 through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand.

Faith is the access into God's Grace.

You mentioned that "believing" is a gift of God. You bet it is. Faith comes by hearing, and that by the word of God. How beautiful are the feet which bring good news.

You see, when the Gospel is preached, the ability to believe it comes thorugh the message of the Gospel, as well as the conviction of our sin by the Holy Spirit (John 16:8).

John 20:30 And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.

Reading the Gospel (or having it declared verbally to you) and believing it are the means of accessing God's grace. As also stated in Romans 5:2 and below:

1 Cor 15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.

My main point in this is to focus on Romans 4 and other passages that declare that faith is not a work. The Calvinist must believe faith is a work or his theology begins to fall apart. Paul clearly states "the man who does not work but believes". This is Paul speaking. How is Paul wrong?

puritan lad wrote:There have been many attempts to reconcile Calvinism and Arminianism (I find it difficult to see how a Christian can avoid both, at least in a few points), but to no avail. I've been called a "doctrinal hardcase" by many fellow believers because I make it clear that I see no need to reconcile the two. There is no reconciling the two. One is right, the other is wrong. Here are some simple arguments to start with concerning the 5 points.

1.) Either Man is Totally Depraved and incapable of coming to God, or man is capable of saving himself with his own ability and without the new birth, (with God cheering him on).

This is called a false dichotomy. You put up your opinion and an absurd one of your choosing, so the unschooled favor the least absurd one. Man does not come to God, God's message comes to man as "good news" aka the Gospel. This news is that you need to repent of your sins, that Jesus is Lord and believe on Christ and be baptized for remission of sins (Acts 2:38). Believing in the Gospel that came to you, without you asking for it is not "saving yourself".

2.) Either Man's election is unconditional, or else he is saved by works.

Another false dichotomy. Man is saved by the finished work of Christ on the Cross, Man has access to this Grace by faith (Romans 5:2)

3.) Either Limited Atonement is true, or there are millions of souls paid for by Christ who are currently burning in Hell, thus making Christ's work a failure. Hint: If one goes to Hell, it is because his sins were not atoned for.

Jesus atoned for all sin, however repentance is required (unless you believe in non-Lordship salvation). (Acts 2:38, Acts 20:21, Luke 24:47, Luke 5:32, etc. etc.) BTW, repentance requires belief. You wouldn't repent if you didn't believe you needed to.

4.) Either God's Grace is irresistible, He having mercy on whom He wills, or man's will can overcome God's.

Yet another false dichotomy. First, God's will can be resisted:

Luke 7:30
But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the will of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him.

Have you ever considered that it might be God's will to save by Grace through faith?

5.) Either those who are saved will persevere, or Christ's sheep do not have eternal life.

1 John 5:11 And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. 12 He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. 13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God.

and

1 John 5:20 And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us an understanding, that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.

We don't have eternal life apart from Christ. If a branch does not remain in Christ is is cut off and burned (John 15). If we seperate from Christ, we have no eternal life, because we never did (1 Tim 6:16). We partake of the body of Chirst and share in HIS immortality. If we seperate, eternal life is still eternal, we just are not partakers of it.

_________________________

One other point. Look at Cornelius in Acts 10. He was "a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, and gave many alms to the Jewish people and prayed to God continually." (Acts 10:2)

God gave him a vision of an angel, coordinating with Peter so the Gospel could be preched to him so he could be saved. So how is it that Cornelius could be called devout, God fearing, etc when a Calvinist would say you must be saved/regenerated by the Holy Spirit first, then you believe. He however was seeking God before he was saved. Interesting.

12"The Spirit told me to go with them without misgivings These six brethren also went with me and we entered the man's house. 13"And he reported to us how he had seen the angel standing in his house, and saying, 'Send to Joppa and have Simon, who is also called Peter, brought here; 14and he will speak words to you by which you will be saved, you and all your household.' 15"And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as He did upon us at the beginning. 19.."Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life."

God must grant repentance, He has. Gentiles have been granted repentance.

Thank you Sean,

I have been working on finding versus about whether believing would be considered a work. You have answered my question. Of course it is not a work.

Can any of you noncalvinists help me to reconcile this verse In Eph 2

7in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. 8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast.

I am having trouble with the phrase "and this not from yourselves".
Now I believe that it is refering to grace. But I can see how it can easily be interpretted as being that faith is not from yourselves.

Do any of you have a way to determine what the word "this" in this phrase is referring to?

Here are some interesting comments from scholars on the issue
Marvin Vincent of Vincent's word studies in the New testament says the phrase "and that (kjv) refers to salvation, not to faith
A.T. Robertson of Robertson's Word pictures "And that (kai touto). Neuter, not feminine tautē, and so refers not to pistis (feminine) or to charis (feminine also), but to the act of being saved by grace conditioned on faith on our part. Paul shows that salvation does not have its source (ex humōn, out of you) in men, but from God. Besides, it is God's gift (dōron) and not the result of our work."
Albert Barnes of Barnes notes on the Bible "And that not of yourselves - That is, salvation does not proceed from yourselves. The word rendered “that” - τοῦτο touto - is in the neuter gender, and the word “faith” - πίστις pistis - is in the feminine. The word “that,” therefore, does not refer particularly to faith, as being the gift of God, but to “the salvation by grace” of which he had been speaking.
I have noticed that some Calvinists such as John Macarthur state in their commentaries that both faith and salvation are a part of the gift of God, but nowhere have I ever read an explanation for that theory that dealt with the language.
Hope this helps, God bless
The Country preacher

Haha, I almost feel bad for PL . . . too much to reply to. But, then again, if he wants to try to hold to the position. The good news in all this is that anyone who is actually questioning this doctrine is getting a good taste of the objections to it . . . oh, and how much deeper it could go .

PL: if you could, I'd really like to see your responses to each of these. CountryPreacher's comments on the atonement were outstanding--much more concise and better phrased than mine. YLT did a good job with the passages concerning Pharaoh . . . it supports the concept of the judicial hardening of the heart, which, according to you, isn't found anywhere in the Bible. Sean's post explaining that faith is not a work is right ont he money. You see, everywhere you turn, the Bible is against Calvinism.

Briefly, you still have not proven that people are condemned for their sins. Rev. 20 does not say that the people are condemned for what was written in the books. It explicitly says that they are condemned for not being in the Book. In other words, guilt or innocence is not determined based on the deeds in the books, but on the name in the Book. In fact, we see two separate issues in that passage. It says everyone "was judged" by that which was written. And then, it says of those not in the book, that they were condemned. The judgement, then, is not the condemnation.

As for the idea of being blotted out, of course we are blotted out for our sins. That's what spiritual death is, as I explained in the Book of Life thread. But that doesn't say anything as to the atonement. If it did, then NO ONE is atoned for, PL, because EVERYONE has sinned. Therefore, EVERYONE must be blotted out! We certainly don't hold that the names are rewritten in the book. Atonement does not cause the name not to be removed, which is your basic assumption. I challenge you to show me where in Scripture it says that it does. What I can show you is that "overcoming" is what keeps us from being blotted out. And how to we overcome? By believing! So, yet again, we see that all are atoned for, but belief results in salvation. And, for the record, I've already handled most of the verses you're using as proof texts . . . in that sense, Lowely was exactly right in his charge against you as to why he has left the debate.

As for my own positions, you are still misunderstanding a very basic part of my belief. Allow me to demonstrate by comparing your quotes concerning my beliefs with what I actually hold:

• Total Depravity
  Jac: Man, through Christ's atonement, may choose to be saved.

I have a problem with this phraseology. As CP pointed out, the atonement simply covers sins. It makes man saveable, but it does not lead to salvation. It is the imputation of the righteousness of Christ that results in salvation (along with regeneration, adoption, etc.). This relates strongly to depravity, because man does not "choose to be saved." A person believes in the Person and Promise of Christ, and this belief is not a work, as has been aptly demonstrated. Through this belief, a variety of things happen, including regeneration, adoption, justification, etc.

The chief difference, then, in me and the Arminian is that the latter believes that he has the ability within himself to choose to be saved. I reject this thoroughly. Man is fallen. He requires the drawing of the Spirit as well as the presentation of the Gospel Truth. Against both of these positions, the Calvinist wrongly holds that man is completely unable to believe, and that regeneration must first come. Now, THAT is not found in Scripture.

As a side note, that is yet another argument you have never dealt with that came in the first post.

• Unconditional Election
  Jac: God chooses those whom He will save based on the fact that they are in Christ because of their inherent belief. (Although you call it “unconditional”, you view belief in order to be “in Christ” as a condition.)

This is very close to being on track, although I think the issue I belief you are having is still found here. The entire comment still holds the idea that God chooses some out of the world to be saved. Put another way, your explanation conveys the idea that God sees the whole of humanity and chooses some out of them. Now, in one sense this is true, but that misses the thrust of what I am arguing. God chooses everyone who is in Christ. So, it isn't technically accurate to say that God picks certain people who are lost to be saved. He looks at everyone who is in Christ, and He chooses all of them.

Now, you say this is conditional. I disagree, and I'll use your own reasoning to prove it. We both agree that the Calvinist idea of election is unconditional. But, I could say that it is conditional! Your election is conditioned on God's choice. That's the same as in my position. This is very subtle, but important. Regeneration is conditional. Election is not. Put in the simplest terms possible, we can say this: "God elects the regenerate."

• Limited Atonement
  Jac: Christ paid for all sins of all people, and leaves salvation in the hands of man if the choose to believe.

Ah, I love the purjorative tones you added to that. All you had to do was stop after the word "people" and you would have had it right. See CP's remarks for a good explanation of the position being advocated.

Common to all of these is your misunderstanding of the nature of choice. For you, it is all or nothing. Either God chooses or man chooses. I reject that notion, and you haven't recognized and applied that to our discussion yet. Man does not choose to be elected. God chooses. Man does not choose to be atoned for. God already did that. Man does not even choose to believe. But God doesn't choose for individuals to believe, either. He presents a man with the truth and draws him. Man chooses NOT to believe.

Simple believism, PL . . . that's what I advocate (ah, yet another argument I forgot to add to the list that you had not answered). You've got to understand a position properly if you expect to critique it.

Now, let's bear the mass of all this text down to this question:

"If simple believism, as has been advocated in this thread, is correct, then is Calvinism a heresy?" The obvious answer is "yes." Is, then, simple believism correct? I say yes on two grounds: first, Calvinism has been shown to be lacking and contrary to Scripture in every area mentioned so far. Second, all of those areas lend themselves toward our position far better.

As such, I conclude that Calvinism is a heresy.

CountryPreacher: Hey, I'm glad to see you. Before I get into the pastorate, I'm going to have to learn to put things in more understandable terms like you do . For the record, PL never answered the quoted part . . . haha. I never went back and checked (I will later), but did Floyd or Michael ever offer a reply to that?

Anyway, hope to see you stick around here. And thanks for the sig. I stole it, 'cause it works so very well, lol.

God bless

CP,

Thank you so much on the Info about Eph 2. I expected this was the case but I am just getting started learning how to use lexicons, and concordances so I can understand the deeper meanings of the Greek texts. It is truly exciting when greater a understanding of the scriptures is discovered.


and Jac,

thank you as well for your compliment.

YLTYLT wrote:CP,

Thank you so much on the Info about Eph 2. I expected this was the case but I am just getting started learning how to use lexicons, and concordances so I can understand the deeper meanings of the Greek texts. It is truly exciting when greater a understanding of the scriptures is discovered.


and Jac,

thank you as well for your compliment.

What has been stated about the Greek is correct. Even John MacArthur (a calvinist) agrees that salvation is in view, not faith (in Ephesians 2).

However, common sense can also tell you this. Take a look:

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

If Paul means that faith is not of yourselves, then it naturally would follow that verse 9 is an extension of the same thought. "Not of works".

Paul would have to be saying that faith is not of works lest any man should boast.

Now honestly ask yourself, and read Paul's epistles. Did Paul ever warn that some would try to attain salvation improperly by works or faith?

Paul never warned (as Calvinist believe) that someone might improperly attain salvation by faith! But he did warn that there are those who would improperly seek it by works.

Here is a great example:

Rom 9:30 What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith;
Rom 9:31 but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law.
Rom 9:32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone,
Rom 9:33 as it is written, "Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame."

To pursue (yes that's you doing something) by faith is correct, to pursure by works is not. So Paul cannot mean in Ephesians 2 that faith is "not of works" but salvation is "not of works". So backing up to "that not of yourselves it is a gift of God" is referring to salvation (as even other Calvinist agree) and I have already shown (Rom 5:2) That we have access into this Grace by faith.

Not to mention that Jesus said things like this:
Mat 14:31 Jesus immediately reached out his hand and took hold of him, saying to him, "O you of little faith, why did you doubt?"

How could Jesus ask this if He were a calvinist? If Jesus thought faith was a gift of God without anything to do with man then Jesus would have said "You have little faith because God has not given you more faith". In other words, Jesus comment as it stands would have to be in error if Calvinism were true.
[/u]

And about Romans 9, without spending hours to exegete Romans 9-11, put simply this is speaking about the Rejecting of national Israel based on the Old Covenant. This later resulted in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD by judgement of God. Paul is explaining why not all Jews are being saved, and worse yet that some Gentiles are being saved. Paul is explaining that God has the right to do this. The Old Covenant Israel is the vessel of wrath prepared for destruction, wereas the vessel of honor is the Church.

Anyway, if you believe that the quote "Rom 9:13 As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." referrs to the man Jacob and the man Esau there is a problem. Notice the verses above "Rom 9:11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad--in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call-- Rom 9:12 she was told, "The older will serve the younger."

First, the man Esau never served the man Jacob. So if Paul means individuals He is in error. Second, What were "they" elected to do? Was it as the Calvinist say one goes to heaven and the other goes to hell? No, it says "she was told the older will serve the younger". It does not say "she was told the older will go to hell" etc.

How was this sevice done? Esau refers to Edom, Jacob refers to Israel. Edom did serve Israel by offering sacrifices in Israel to God. Israel did not serve Edom. They certainly fought later and God eventually wiped Edom out. But that's a far cry from saying one (Esau) was lost and one (Jacob) was saved or all those in Edom were lost and all those in Israel are saved. Job was believed to be an Edomite, and I ceratinly don't think he was lost, just because his heritage is from Esau.

___________________________

Also, the common referrences to:
Rom 9:18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

Need to also read:
Rom 11:30 Just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience,
Rom 11:31 so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy.
Rom 11:32 For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.

God hardened Israel (in part) because they had already rejected God (Jer 18, John 5:46). God hardened those who had already rejected God so that they could not come to Jesus.

Referring to:
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."
Rom 9:18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
Rom 9:19 You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?"
Rom 9:20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?"

Does it say that Pharoh was raised up so God could harden him to Hell? Hardly, God raised him up to show His power so His name would be proclimed thoughout the earth. Pharaoh would not let God's first born go, So God made an example out of him and his nation. A nation that kept Israel in bondage, Just as the (then) current day Jerusalem was doing to the Christians (Gal 4:22+).

And about Romans 9:19-20
"why does he still find fault? Who resists his will"?
When the question "who resists his will" is asked, Paul answers "Who are you to talk back to God?

Talking back is resisting God's will. God does not want people to talk back to Him.

So Paul is saying: What!? Who has resisted His will!? You are resisting God's will right now by talking back to Him!

Those vessels prepared for destruction are those who, even being Jewish, are rejected by God for trying to replace the righeouseness of God with works (Romans 9:32). The entire OC and all it's trappings were about to be destroyed in that generation.

August gave me the head's up about this particular thread. Very interesting indeed, though often (but not always) the posts made here have not included meaningful exegesis, which would settle most of this argument. There is a host of resources out there that explain a lot of it; I would refer people to http://www.desiringgod.org (John Piper's ministry), http://www.monergism.com and http://www.aomin.org (James White's ministry) among others. My personal blog it at http://wholecounsel.blogspot.com if anyone is interested.

I have to say I feel for Puritan Lad. Were I in his position, I'd be overwhelmed too. I'm not here to participate heavily, but simply to exegete Scripture. It has been said that Calvinism is a heresy; well, that depends on what definition you are applying to the term "Calvinism." I prefer the term "Reformed" myself, but that is beside the point. I've seen people telling PL that what he is saying is not what he believes, which really will get no where. Alan Kurschner over at http://www.calvinistgadfly.com said

"Well, if you have been a Calvinist for any length of time, then you know that there are three things certain in life: death, taxes, and mischaracterization of Calvinism. I can see your head nodding with me."
Indeed, my head was nodding.

A few things:
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? Also, and this is a book that I have heard some about but do not yet own, John Piper deals with it nicely here.
He also has a series of wonderful exegetical sermon texts on Romans 9 that are free for the reading, located here. Just keep on scrolling down until you see it.

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'll borrow a little from Wayne Grudem

Wayne Grudem in his [i]Systematic Theology[/i] on page 670 wrote: "The Order of Salvation"
1.) Election (God's choice of people to be saved)
2.) The gospel call (proclaiming the message of the Gospel)
3.) Regeneration (being born again)
4.) Conversion (faith and repentance)
5.) Justification (right legal standing)
6.) Adoption (membership in God's family)
7.) Sanctification (right conduct of life)
8.) Perseverance (remaining a Christian)
9.) Death (going to be with the Lord)
10.) Glorification (receiving a resurrection body)

We should not here that items 2--6 and part of 7 are all involved in "becoming a Christian." Numbers 7 and 8 work themselves out in this life, number 9 occurs at the end of this life, and number 10 occurs when Christ returns.

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

Hey David,

I would agree that Calvinism is very often mischaracterized. So is Arminianism. So is Free Grace. Unfortunately, that's the nature of debate . . . it's the same thing PL has been doing to me all through this thread. Instead of dealing with an argument on its own terms, we have a tendency to read the person we disagree with a) from our perspective, thus committing fallacies of equivocation out the wahzoo, and b) simply to look for what we consider to be flaws.

With that said, there are also logical extensions of belief systems that need to be considered. For instance, suppose I am discussing Calvinism with someone who has no idea what it is . . . they just know that they believe that God has elected some to salvation and passed over others. I then point out to him that, in his belief system, regeneration precedes faith. Our friend recoils and tells me that is simply not true, that I have mischaracterized his position! Now, we both know, in the end, he simply hasn't thought his system all the way through yet.

The point is that we have to be very careful in our accusations of mischaracterization. If someone has done so toward Calvinism, it needs to be pointed out, because its not been yet.

As far as you being here to exegete Scripture, I'd love to see it. PL has done none of that . . . he's just been offering proof texts which I and others have immediately dealt with. My original arguments and exegeses have STILL gone unanswered. If you care to take a stab at the arguments presented, be my guest.

Finally, I don't think anyone here believes that regeneration is the total of salvation. I know I certainly don't. In fact, I've pointed out to PL that in the system I advocate, "God elects the regenerate." Neither of these two ideas, election or regeneration, are the entire package of salvation, yet both are very important. For my part, I find justification to be the "moment of salvation", if you will . . .

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.

God bless

p.s., welcome to the boards