Sunday School Notes: The Six Points of Calvinism, Part 3
In the third and final part of our three-week series on the “The Six Points of Calvinism,” we looked at “I” (Irresistible Grace) and “P” (Perseverance of the Saints). We also looked briefly at some passages commonly raised in objection to the Reformed position. Unfortunately, we ran out of time in class to get to all the passages I wanted to look at, so I will touch on them here. If you want to go into these more deeply, or raise other passages, please feel free to comment.
Irresistible Grace
If the sinfulness of man extends to his will such that he doesn’t desire the things of God, then God has to intervene to save him. This involves regeneration, when the desires of the heart are turned from a hatred of God to a love of God, from a repulsion to the gospel to an attraction to the gospel. So, when a person whom God has chosen and whose heart God has changed hears the gospel message, he will be drawn to it. This drawing may be immediate, or it may happen over the course of time–but it will happen. I think the picture presented in the Gospels of Jesus calling the disciples fits with what the doctrine of Irresistible Grace communicates. Jesus called to Peter and Andrew, “Follow me!” and they dropped their nets and followed him. Further, in John 6, when many of those who followed Jesus turned away after his “bread of life” teaching, leaving only his disciples, Jesus asks them if they also plan to leave. Their reply is the reply of the regenerated heart: “Where else where would we go? You have the words of eternal life.”
In John 11, Jesus tells Martha, “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me will live even if he dies, and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die.” He then demonstrates this truth by raising Lazarus. This presentation of Jesus’ miracles–the miracle coupled with relevant teaching–is typical of John (e.g., John 6: the Feeding of the 5000 followed by teaching on Jesus as “the Bread of Life”). So we are meant to understand the raising of Lazarus as a vivid picture of the truth Jesus taught. And in that picture we see Jesus command Lazarus, who was dead and incapable of responding (as we are dead in sin), to come forth. Lazarus’ response was to obey. Again, in Ezekiel 37, in the picture of the dry bones, they respond to the command of God. Finally, in John 6:37, Jesus says, “All that the Father gives me will come to me, and the one who comes to me I will certainly not cast out.” There is no “might or might not come”–those who have been given to the Son by the Father will come to him. And since God has changed our hearts to love Him and His commands, we are not being dragged unwillingly to Christ. We love the Lord and take pleasure in obedience.
Perseverance of the Saints
Some prefer to call this “preservation of the saints” since “perseverance” sounds too much like we have to do the work. On the other hand, “preservation” makes us sound like a jar of preserves, sitting on a shelf, not doing anything. So perhaps there is important truth in both terms. Because we cannot do anything to save ourselves, God is the one who brings us to faith. And since it is God who gives us faith, it is God who keeps us in the faith. There is nothing we can do to undo our salvation. In this sense, God preserves us. However, since we are new creatures in Christ, the desire of our hearts is now to please God and demonstrate our justification in the things we say and do. So our faith is not static, but is very active. In this sense we persevere. It is in our persevering to the end that we show ourselves to be elect.
The golden chain of redemption in Romans 8:29-30 shows the link from election to glorification. Those who are called are justified, sanctified, and glorified. You can’t be called and not be glorified. It simply won’t happen. Then further in Romans 8, Paul talks about how there is no longer any condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. In John 10:27-28, Jesus says that his sheep hear his voice, and he knows who they are, and that no-one will ever snatch them out of his hand.
It is important to note that Perseverance of the Saints is not the same as “Once-Saved-Always-Saved.” OSAS, as I have frequently heard it expressed, teaches that if a person makes a profession of faith, even as a young child, they will always be saved regardless of the life they lead. The way we lead our lives matters a great deal, because how we act is a reflection of our hearts. The person who has been born again will hate his sin and desire the things of God. Someone who is living a life of debauchery, willfully, gleefully, and unrepentantly indulging in sin, is unlikely to have a heart for the things of God. This doesn’t mean that Christians don’t sin, and it doesn’t mean that Christians can’t die in their sin but still be saved. It does mean, however, that generally speaking, those who are saved will lead lives that reflect their new life in Christ. There is nothing we can do to save ourselves, or to un-save ourselves. Our perseverance does not depend on our own effort. A profession of faith doesn’t save, and a good indicator of whether we are saved (good, but not perfect) is for us to examine our hearts, to make our “calling and election sure” (2 Peter 1:10).
Popular Passages Used Against the Five Points
John 3:16: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” This appears to be saying that God loved everyone (“the world”) that whoever believes in Jesus will be saved. In other words, salvation is offered to everyone. However, I don’t believe this passage argues either for or against Calvinism. The term “whoever” is not in the Greek. The Greek simply says ho pisteuôn: “the believing ones.” In other words, the passage is saying, “those who believes will be saved,” something that both Calvinists and Arminians believe. As for “the world,” this is a term that must be understood in context since it doesn’t always mean “every single individual on the planet.” For example, in John 12:19, the Pharisees lament that “the world” has gone after Jesus. They are not suggesting that people from deepest, darkest Africa have made the trip to Jerusalem to follow Jesus. Rather, they are saying that many people from all walks of life are following him.
1 Timothy 2:3-4: “This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” This appears to be saying that God wants everyone to be saved. If this is true, God wouldn’t restrict salvation to a select group of people. However, we have already seen the Bible teach that God’s will is always accomplished (Psalm 135:5-6; Daniel 4:35), so if God wants everyone to be saved, they will be. But this is universalism, and we know for a fact that not everyone will be saved. Also, in context, Paul is exhorting Timothy and his church to pray for “kings and all who are in authority” (verse 2). These were the kinds of people that were oppressing the church–the kind of people they would be less likely to pray for. Paul’s exhortation was for them not to restrict their prayer to only those they considered worthy, but to pray for all kinds of people, because God desires to save all kinds of people–whether Greeks, Jews, rich, poor, rulers, or slaves. This passage is not a call for Timothy to pray for every single inhabitant of Ephesus, or, indeed, the world.
2 Peter 3:9: “The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.” Again, this is often read as if it teaches that God wants everyone everywhere to be saved. And again we point out that if God’s will is always accomplished, then this passage teaches a universalism we know is not true. In context, 2 Peter is addressed to Christians (1:1), and in this passage is discussing the end times and the return of Christ. Some in the church were becoming anxious because Christ had yet to return, and Christians were dying without having seen this promised event. Paul assures them that there is a purpose for Christ’s delay, and that is to make sure everyone in the church (note, God is “patient toward you“) repents and comes to Christ. In other words, Christ will not return until everyone God has chosen for salvation has repented and turned to Christ. There will be no-one left behind.
These are just a few passages. Feel free to comment to add to the discussion, or to ask questions, or even to offer other passages for discussion. Next week, we will return to our Romans study.
hello pastor, I just stumbled on your radio broadcast a few minutes ago and enjoyed the teaching so much I had to google. stumbled on this when trying to make sure your church fit my beliefs. I won’t call myself a Calvinist because I distrust any ‘isms’ and I won’t change that position. however, I believe it’s impossible for any unsaved person to roll out of bed and say ‘ok, now I get the whole virgin birth, god’s son thing. it’s totally logical!’ obviously, only a crazy person or a person who god gives the grace to believe can believe the gospel. which is why it’s always weird sharing the gospel for me. anyway, not trying to poke holes in your teaching but i’ll share my input and leave you alone. re: Jesus called to Peter and Andrew, “Follow me!” and they dropped their nets and followed him. Further, in John 6, when many of those who followed Jesus turned away after his “bread of life” teaching, leaving only his disciples, Jesus asks them if they also plan to leave. Their reply is the reply of the regenerated heart: “Where else where would we go? You have the words of eternal life.” as I read it, we are not told that god intervened to ‘nudge’ them to follow. as I learned recently, following rabbis around the country was pretty common. maybe they were tired of fishing. anyway, they sure didn’t have a clue about anything until the day of Pentecost, agreed? even in john 6, it seems to me they were hanging on, hoping he was going to finally be the messiah warrior they wanted and it was a little late to back out now. if he was all they hoped, they stood to be big men in the king’s court. I totally agree that salvation can happen in a flash or slowly but I think the apostles are distinct from that comparison. it was just a different deal with them. which is why I disagree with those who think we should ‘do foreign missions’ because of Jesus’ edict to evangelize ‘to the ends of the earth’. those were specific directions at a specific time for a very distinct group of men: the apostles. no need to reply. cheerio
Hi, Sean!
First of all, you have me mistaken with the pastor you heard on the radio. We may share Reformed convictions, but we are not the same person. One of the reasons why I use my middle initial on this blog is to help differentiate me from other Colin Smiths. Not fool-proof, but hopefully helpful.
Although you said I need not reply, I will for your benefit and the benefit of others who may read this. The Reformed conviction is that man’s fallen nature is unable to reach out to God. In Romans 8:8, Paul reminds us that those who are in the flesh cannot please God. Since confessing faith in Christ is, indeed, pleasing to God, you cannot be in the flesh and confess faith in Christ. The Spirit must be at work in your heart to elicit that confession. John 6 illustrates this.
Look at some of the things Jesus says in John 6:
6:44: “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.” Notice that “no one” is not restricted to a particular audience. It is all-encompassing. He is talking about the ability of any person to come to him. And those who are drawn by the Father are infallibly raised by the Son.
6:63: “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life” Romans 8:8 concurs with Jesus’s words here. The flesh cannot give life, only the Spirit. Jesus has already communicated spirit and life to his audience. But…
6:64: “But there are some of you who do not believe.” How can this be if Jesus’s words are spirit and life? John adds his commentary: “For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.” How did Jesus know this? By looking down the corridors of time? What if Judas had a change of heart? For Jesus’s knowledge to be infallible on this point, there would have to be a Sovereign Hand involved turning the hearts of those whom Jesus knew would believe. Jesus himself confirms this point:
6:65: “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
Many of those who were following after Jesus left at this point. When he turns to the Twelve and asks if they want to leave too, Peter appeals to the very words Jesus used in 6:63:
6:68: “To whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.” Peter goes on to confess that they have come to know that he is the Holy One of God. Is Peter saying that they have come to a rational free-will decision based on the evidence presented? He may think that’s the case, and if he did, Jesus immediately disabuses him of that idea:
6:70: “Did I not choose you, the Twelve? And yet one of you is a devil.” First, Jesus asks the rhetorical question. Yes, the Twelve have come to know who Jesus is. But Jesus chose them first. So while their faith is real, they only have it because it was granted to them to believe. Jesus then affirms what John said in 6:64. Sure, Judas acted according to the desire of his heart. But Jesus knew *from the beginning* that Judas was his betrayer. Again, for Jesus to be infallibly correct on this point, nothing could have prevented Judas from his act of betrayal. He could not change his mind. But consider also the fact that for Judas to successfully betray Jesus, God would have to sovereignly control more than that one action. Think of all the things that could have happened to Judas from the time he was born to the moment he betrayed Jesus. He could have died from any number of sicknesses. He could have died in child birth. He could have been murdered. Someone could have stopped him on the way to the chief priests. In other words, God’s sovereign control of one event is in fact sovereign control over thousands, even millions of other events, including the thoughts and intentions of many, many hearts, all to make sure that one thing happens, lest God be made a liar.
As for whether Jesus intended his words only for the disciples, consider John 17:20 and following. In this high priestly prayer, Jesus prays for the whole church, that they might be one. Not just the disciples. Consider also all the missionary activity in Acts conducted by others who were not of the Twelve (Barnabas, Apollos, Priscilla and Aquila, John Mark, etc.). Clearly it was the Lord’s intention that the work begun by the Apostles would be continued by successive generations of believers.
I could say a lot more about all of this, but that should suffice for now. I hope that’s helpful to someone. 🙂
Hi!
Will you allow me to post evidence contrary to your points on Calvinism/Tulip? I don’t want to waste my time typing only to be “censored”, because seems its increasingly very popular these days to just “censor” those who disagree, when you don’t have a good rebuttal to their points. thx
God Bless!
Hello, C! Hopefully you can see from the above that I don’t censor those who disagree as long as they disagree respectfully. Please feel free to respond. If you haven’t already, I encourage you to first read the entire three-part blog series and my response to the previous commenter to be sure I haven’t already said something that responds to your points.
Thanks for reading!
Hi Colin,
Thanks good to hear! First I wanted to point out what I think is an intellectually dishonest statement in describing the Reformed position when you said:
“The Reformed conviction is that man’s fallen nature is unable to reach out to God.”
This is NOT actually all that the Reformed doctrine holds to, and from my perspective that statement reminds me of the serpent in the Garden of Eden trying to make out God to be bad by not letting them eat from “any” tree. I am not saying you were calculating in making that inaccurate statement on purpose to try and make Reformed/Calvinism look more palatable and imply the Non-Calvinism view somehow thinks that man is able to “initiate” a reaching out to God.
Maybe you just read such phrasing somewhere and used the same phrasing yourself, I’m not going to judge your own motives, nevertheless as I said, your statement is very “inaccurate”.
The Reformed doctrinal position is that man is “unable to even RESPOND” to GOD reaching out.
And why is that? Because the Reformed position says we are conceived/born so dead that we can not react to any stimulus from God, just like a DEAD animal can not respond to anything. (of course they mean you’re free to do everything within the instincts/programming of fallen nature.)
Would you agree with my clarification of the Reformed position above?
Next I would disagree with your statement that said:
“”However, we have already seen the Bible teach that God’s will is always accomplished.”
I do not believe the Bible teaches anywhere that God’s WILL is always done. That’s why Jesus asked us to PRAY that God’s will WOULD (eventually) be done on Earth as it is in heaven…
The verses you provided do not prove what you claim. Anyone can say they do “whatever they please to do”, and that’s what it says in Psalms/Daniel you quoted, but God doing whatever He pleases is a LOT different than saying that EVERYTHING that happens PLEASES GOD or that everything that happens so happened because God wanted/willed it. Of course God does whatever he pleases, who can force him to do something he doesn’t want to do? If God wanted to create man in His Image and give him true/real libertine Free-Will to even REFUSE God’s will, who Reformed or not can forbid God that freedom to choose to do so? Take a look at Luke 7:30:
“30But the Pharisees and experts in the law REJECTED God’s PURPOSE for themselves…”
Sorry have to run take care of 1-year old, wife busy with the 4-year old!
(my caps are for emphasis, i’m not yelling 🙂 )
God Bless!
c.
Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts, C. Let me share some back to you.
First, accusing me of intellectual dishonesty is not a good way to start a respectful response, especially when the accusation is clearly unfounded. You’re quoting my response to Sean with regard to man’s fallen nature. I presented to him the Reformed conviction with regard to man’s fallen nature. This was clearly not meant to be a blanket statement regarding the entirety of Reformed theology–it was about one aspect of Reformed theology. I daresay you have many convictions, some more important than others. Is it true to say: “C’s conviction is that Reformed theology is wrong”? Does that statement cover every conviction you have? No, it is a statement about a specific conviction regarding a specific topic.
With regard to the Reformed teaching on Total Depravity, did you read my discussion of this in the first part of the series to which Sean is responding? I did encourage you to read it before responding. Here’s the URL: https://www.colindsmith.com/blog/2011/10/31/sunday-school-notes-the-six-points-of-calvinism-part-1/
As for the Lord doing “whatever he pleases,” here’s the Hebrew of that phrase: כֹּ֤ל אֲשֶׁר־חָפֵ֥ץ יְהוָ֗ה עָ֫שָׂ֥ה. Literally it says, “All that which pleases Yahweh, He does.” The Psalm goes on to list the works that God has done in heaven and earth, from bringing forth the wind to striking down the firstborn of Egypt. God is in sovereign control of all things, and only His will is accomplished. Do you believe you can defy God’s will? You said yourself, “who can force him to do something he doesn’t want to do?” I agree. If God wants to strike down the firstborn of Egypt, He can. If He wants to save a rebellious sinner, He can. If He wants to leave a rebellious sinner in his sin, He can.
At this point, you’re touching on what is, perhaps, at the heart of Reformed theology: that God alone receives glory for all things, because it’s ALL about God. Not us. It’s God who gives us His Word that we might know Him and what He has done, and that we might know ourselves and our wretched state before Him. We deserve nothing from God except judgment and condemnation. This is why our salvation depends totally upon God. We are dead in our trespasses and sins. We offer NOTHING to God. He does all the work to save us. This teaching is what got the Reformers in trouble with Rome because it strikes at the heart of Rome’s authority. Selling indulgences becomes meaningless when you know that salvation is 100% a work of God, and not something you can buy.
With regard to Luke 7:30, consider this: did the Pharisees rejection of God’s plan thwart God’s plan? Did God fulfill His plan and intentions for the Pharisees regardless of their faith (or lack thereof)? Remember what you said earlier: “who can force him to do something he doesn’t want to do?” I presume from that you would affirm that the Pharisees’ rejection of God’s purposes meant nothing to God. He would still do whatever He pleases.
Proverbs 19:21: “Many are the plans in the mind of a man, but it is the purpose of the LORD that will stand.”
The Pharisees’ rejection of God’s plan says more about the heart condition of those Pharisees than it does about their will vs. God’s. The Lord does that often: says or does things that elicits a response from people that exposes the true intentions of their hearts. Scripture is replete with examples of this. And I know this to be true in my own life too, sadly.
You present an interesting paradox: Could God, whose will cannot be refused, create men who could refuse His will? It’s a bit like the old chestnut “can God make a rock He cannot lift?” The simple answer to both of these is no, because He wouldn’t. To do such would be against His nature. And we know this because Scripture declares time and again that God is almighty, able to do whatever he pleases. And Scripture likewise declares God’s sovereignty over all things, whether Pharaoh (Exodus 4:21) or Pilate (Acts 4:27-28).
Ah, small children… I remember those days. 😀
I’m sure I haven’t answered every objection. All I can do is ask you to read and think carefully not only about the things I’ve said, but to think through your own position. How much of what you believe is truly anchored in Scripture? The strength of the Reformed position is that it is founded on the first “sola” of the Reformation: Sola Scriptura. Scripture alone. I don’t take the Reformed position because of Calvin, Luther, Augustine, or R.C. Sproul. In fact, as a Reformed Baptist, Calvin and Luther would both have considered me a heretic! These were all fallible men with whom I have many areas of agreement, and areas of disagreement, and whose work I appreciate and have learned from. But I believe in God’s exhaustive sovereignty, His divine election, and His persevering grace because Scripture declares it from Genesis to Revelation.
Blessings,
Colin
Hi Colin,
So I want to break reply into short sections, so this is PART 1
This section I want to iron out the discussion of the statement I objected to:
“The Reformed conviction is that man’s fallen nature is unable to reach out to God.”
I’m sorry if you still misunderstood me after I tried to make it clear I thought you likely rephrased that from somewhere else and that likely you yourself did not make that inaccurate statement on purpose for the nefarious effect that it could have on people.
I said that the statement was “intellectually dishonest” and I still stand by that, it is “inaccurate” and can very well deceive people about true nature of Calvinism doctrine.
I can say that a statement is “intellectually dishonest” even if I do not know the author, the intellectual dishonesty can be attributed to the statement “itself” and not to the author.
And I did try to point out that I did not think you had thought all that out and created that inaccurate statement for the intended effect to make Calvinism more “palatable” and at the same time to try and cast a sort of straw man argument upon the Non-Calvinist view.
Perhaps you got that phrasing reading other Calvinist writers, I don’t know how you got it.
I simply said the “statement” is intellectually dishonest because it indeed has the effect of deceiving people into thinking the Non-Calvinist view thinks man is so righteous he can “INITIATE” a reaching out to God, ie knock knock God, sorry to bother you but “save me”.
At the same time, it “hides” from people the true premise of Calvinist doctrine which in reality teaches that man is SO bad, even dead, that he can not even RESPOND to God.
I will quote myself from my initial again:
”
I am not saying you were calculating in making that inaccurate statement on purpose to try and make Reformed/Calvinism look more palatable and imply the Non-Calvinism view somehow thinks that man is able to “initiate” a reaching out to God.
….
Maybe you just read such phrasing somewhere and used the same phrasing yourself, I’m not going to judge your own motives, nevertheless as I said, your statement is very “inaccurate”.
”
Anyway now that I’ve clarified that again, lets discuss the actual statement itself.
Do you now agree with me that the statement is “inaccurate”?
Do you agree that in reality the REFORMED doctrinal position is that:
Man is “unable to even RESPOND” to GOD reaching out.
Am I not correct about that?
In CALVINISM/Tulip, man is first REGENERATED (SAVED/Born-Again) so that he can then RESPOND, because before that he was DEAD.
Its a popular saying among Calvinists to say that they were Born-Again so that they could believe, perhaps RC Sproul made it popular when he said it.
So can we agree this is what Reformed doctrine teaches?
That man is “dead” and unable to even RESPOND to God’s reaching out?
And that Non-Calvinism teaches that man can RESPOND to God’s reaching out?
PART 2 (PART II)
At this point I should ask if you are a COMPATIBILIST or do you appeal to mystery and claim that man does have ‘libertine’ free-will and at same time there’s divine determinism.
The debate of Total-Depravity/Total-Inability versus Free-Will was very popular even with the early Greek Church fathers. Total-Depravity doctrine in fact originates from Gnosticism and the Apostle JOHN wrote “specifically” against the Gnosticism of his days.
Its an important debate, since if Divine Determinism is true and there is not true libertine free-will then “everything” has been pre-determined, every thought/action in the Universe.
You agree with the Reformed doctrine on Sovereignty of God/Divine-Determinism and the clarification by the Westminster Confession etc, ie that ALL has been “predetermined”?
Do you also agree with John Calvin that the implication of this is that also the FALL of Adam happened for no other reason than that God WILLED/Determined Adam to FALL?
Do you agree that by Reformed Sovereignty doctrine, since ONLY GOD can have true libertine free-will, that this means man can NEVER have libertine “free-will” and so man has no free-will AFTER the FALL, but man had no free-will BEFORE the FALL either?
Do you agree then that everything we have typed thus far has been PREDETERMINED?
Do you agree that ALL our thoughts and actions have been “predetermined” by God from before the foundations of the world as Reformed doctrine posits?
Do you agree with the Reformed position that even ALL SIN/EVIL has been predetermined by God, and that by some inexplicable “mystery” God is not the Author of all SIN/EVIL even though the only reason any SIN/EVIL happened was because he was pleased to have it so and so he willed/determined/foreordained that it will/should happen?
The questions are not rhetorical, please do confirm/answer them, thanks!
God bless!
c.
PART III (PART 3)
Your further explanation on Psalm 135:6 doesn’t answer the point I made. Even with your translation of: ““All that which pleases Yahweh, He does.””
This does not equate to Divine Determinism at all, it simply states that God Himself does that which pleases him, it does NOT negate the possibility that he created MAN in HIS IMAGE so that MAN can also within the limits of his physical body, think and do what he/man pleases to think and do, EVEN if its AGAINST what GOD WILLED for man to do, and that’s what LUKE 7:30 proves is “true”.
Saying that God does what he pleases does not mean that God FORCES everyone else to do what HE pleases. Otherwise he runs quite a puppet show, with one hand he makes people “seemingly disobey” Him and with the other hand he smacks them and says bad bad puppet. And it doesn’t matter if man is forced or if he’s “programmed” by God to do only what he wants him to think and do etc.
In fact Calvinism does posit a duality of WILLS in God, an outward will that he tells us and a secret will, that seems must be contrary to the public one, otherwise the “public” one would have come true.
Of course those who believe contrary to Reformed doctrine, that God created man in His Image with true/libertine free-will do not deny that God can take life just as he gives life. God can interfere in the affairs of men, they simply deny “DIVINE DETERMINISM” that God Pre-Determined ALL things in the Universe. From the point of view of Non-Calvinism, there only need to be ONE SINGLE thing that God did NOT “predetermine” and Divine Determinism is “refuted”.
When you quoted:
Proverbs 19:21: “Many are the plans in the mind of a man, but it is the purpose of the LORD that will stand.”
You thought the verse supports Reformed doctrine, Divine-Determinism, but to the contrary, it affirms the true/real libertine free-will of man, for ONLY if man has true freedom of the mind, free-will can there be a “real” friction/struggle of wills.
If Reformed view was correct, there would be no such thing as real “DISOBEDIENCE” to God, there would be no real struggle between wills.
Think about it, if all was predetermined and man did not have real free-will then such verses are moot, they don’t really have a point. God can force his way in anything and he does in many things, but if man had no freedom of the mind, no free-will, then in all apparent struggles it would be just God’s right hand arguing with his left hand. It would just be God playing out some sock-puppet show.
Again see:
LUKE 7:30 “30But the Pharisees and experts in the law rejected God’s purpose for themselves…”
What does that imply? Its that the Pharisees like everyone else had free-will which all men have, having been created in the Image of God, and that those Pharisees rejected God’s purpose/WILL for their own lives. Obviously God wanted to save them, just as God said he wants to save everyone yet not all are saved, because some can REJECT God’s WILL, that they repent and be saved.
Let me ask you these questions which will help clarify the difference in views:
1. Do you believe Christ died on the cross for literally all/everyone? (ie Do you believe in Unlimited Atonement?)
2. Do you believe God’s desire, God’s WILL, is that all/everyone be saved?
3. Do you believe that everyone will be saved in the end?
Again please do answer above questions, its not just rhetorical, thanks!
So from my, Non-Calvinism Non-Reformed view, where I believe God created man in His Image with true/real libertine free-will, and so Divine Determinism is false, I would disagree that God could save “everyone” in that context without breaking the free-will he gave and imposing Divine Determinism. In the Reformed view, God COULD easily save everyone, in fact he could have made everyone to live a perfect moral life within the Reformed “compatibilist” ie “fake-free-will” view.
So do you agree with this? Here it is stated by prominent Calvinist Paul Helm:
“If we suppose some form of compatibilism, then God could have created men and women who freely (in a sense compatible with determinism) did only what was morally right.”
Of course the above statement only confirms that Reformed definition of “compatibilist” free-will is NOT free-will in reality but a pseudo/fake-free-will.
Can you tell me “why” it would be as you said “against His nature” for God to:
“create men who could refuse His will?”
I would posit the opposite, that God would rather NOT create man at all, if man was NOT created in the Image of God, including the attribute of freedom of the mind, the real libertine free-will which although it can result in DISOBEDIENCE and SIN, it is also the ONLY way there could be “TRUE LOVE” in the Universe.
Why would God want to create absolutely predetermined beings, like robots?
Who wants to date a robot that they programmed versus a “FREE-Will” person?
The Reformed position is absolute determinism. It makes everything a moot point.
4. Question 4:
Let me ask you this, tell me, if an artist/sculptor were to sculpt different pieces such as gold glasses to drink from but also toilets, that’s his prerogative right?
5. Question 5:
Now if that artist started raving and yelling at the toilets he made blaming them for not being something else and destroys them in anger, throwing them in the fire, would you not say that artist is INSANE, a mad man?
Now the point of course is that even IF Reformed “Divine Determinism” were true and God did like John Calvin said and created some men for Hell and created others for Heaven, that he created some vessels specifically for dishonor etc.
Well if that were the case, I surely would not find God complaining all over the Scriptures about all man’s disobedience, he would not be venting in anger at those whom he predetermined to be the way they were from before the foundations of the world! Why would God be ANGRY at what HE DETERMINED?
6: Question 6:
So then what is your explanation for the myriad of places all over the Bible where God genuinely expresses “remorse” and even ANGER in the context of Reformed Divine Determinism where HE PREDETERMINED all of everyone’s decisions etc.
If he predetermined all, why the anger, why any anger, isn’t it “fake outrage” then?
7: Question 7:
What is your answer for the many many passages where God complains of man being NOT willing to do what GOD Desires/Wills and WANTS to do?
“37O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those sent to her, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were UNWILLING!” Matthew 23:37/Luke 13:34
ISAIAH 5:3-4 “3“And now, O dwellers of Jerusalem and men of Judah, I exhort you to judge between Me and My vineyard. 4What MORE could I have done for My vineyard than I already did for it? WHY, when I EXPECTED sweet grapes, did it bring forth sour fruit?”
Jeremiah 2:5 ” 5This is what the LORD says: “What fault did your fathers find in Me that they strayed so far from Me, and followed worthless idols, and became worthless themselves?”
Jeremiah 2:21 “21I had planted you like a choice vine from the very best seed. How could you turn yourself before Me into a rotten, wild vine?”
Jeremiah 7:26 “26Yet they would not listen to Me or incline their ear, but they stiffened their necks and did more evil than their fathers.”
Jeremiah 32:30-31 “30For the children of Israel and of Judah have done nothing but evil in My sight from their youth; indeed, they have done nothing but PROVOKE Me to anger by the work of their hands, declares the LORD. 31For this city has aroused My WRATH and FURY from the day it was built until now. Therefore I will remove it from My presence”
Why all this FURY and how can there be any real “PROVOKING”, if God was pulling ALL the strings all along, even from BEFORE he even created them…?
HOSEA 7:13 “13WOE to them, for they have strayed from Me! Destruction to them, for they have rebelled against Me! Though I WOULD redeem them, they speak lies against Me.”
PROVERBS 1:23-25 “23IF you had repented at my rebuke, then surely I WOULD have poured out my spirit on you; I WOULD have made my words known to you. 24Because YOU REFUSED my CALL, and no one took my outstretched hand, 25because you neglected all my counsel, and wanted none of my correction,…”
ISAIAH 50:2 “2WHY was no one there when I arrived? WHY did no one answer when I called? Is My hand too short to redeem you? Or do I lack the strength to deliver you? Behold, My rebuke dries up the sea; I turn the rivers into a desert; the fish rot for lack of water and die of thirst.”
My point is that most of the Bible is incomprehensible from the Reformed view that God predetermined all and that we do not have “true” real “libertine” free-will to be able to REJECT God, and RESIST the Holy Spirit. All those questions by God, all the WHY WHY would be worse than rhetorical, he’d be talking to himself.
But all those passages make PERFECT sense in the context of Non-Calvinism and true/real “libertine” Free-Will which is the ONLY way there can be any true RESPONSIBILITY for man, otherwise God is Author of ALL Sin/Evil in Universe.
And our reality would be just a “figment” of God’s imagination, nothing more : )
God bless!
c.
Hi Colin,
Well I just read through quickly (I may have missed a sentence or two) your article on Romans 7 at https://www.colindsmith.com/blog/2012/03/06/sunday-school-notes-romans-713-25/
I read it since I was curious as to your view on the Pre-Conversion versus Post-Conversion.
And my hope that you would soon see through the smoke and mirrors of Calvinism suddenly jumped up, for I was glad to see you were willing to allow yourself to change your mind after further study. I’ve debated Romans 7 before and most people, ironically even Non-Calvinists like to claim it was Paul “post-conversion”, as a Christian. But that would make him a hypocrite, preaching one thing and doing the opposite, after having just blasted his audience in Romans 6!
Romans 7 I’m quite convinced is Paul speaking of himself Pre-Conversion, as a zealous Pharisee, one who was NOT a hypocrite but an honest zealous Pharisee. In one place he tells us he’s from a “lineage” of good zealous Pharisees, his father etc and that he was shown GRACE because of his “ignorance”, he just didn’t know better, he was in his zealousness honestly trying to please God and was so clueless he didn’t know he was doing the opposite. But he was NOT the same as the other Pharisee that Jesus called out as hypocrites, as some Calvinists do claim.
They claim that God just all the sudden overpowered Paul and/or manipulated his will from a desire to hate God to the opposite, yet Paul himself denies such a notion, God re-directed his zeal in the right direction and then God “enabled” him by the Spirit to finally “do good” as he had wanted to do but failed. Of course Pre-Conversion Paul in Romans 7 is a problem for the Reformed position, but in reality the Post-Conversion version is also a big problem. I see Romans 7 as one big proof against Reformed doctrine, since either way it “refutes” CALVINISM.
And by CALVINISM I mean Reformed “Sovereignty/Divine Determinism” and the implications of Irresistible Grace. For how could Paul Post-Conversion by “Irresistible Grace” and full of the HOLY SPIRIT say:
“14We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a SLAVE to SIN. 15I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do, I do not do. But what I hate, I do…18I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my flesh; for I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19For I do not do the good I want to do. Instead, I keep on doing the evil I do not want to do…”
How could it be possible that Paul was wanting/willing to do good but somehow even with the Holy Spirit he was UNABLE to do good but instead only evil?? Where is that Irresistible Grace when you really need it?? Or is the flesh sometimes just “too powerful” for the the Holy Spirit?
Because here Paul clearly said that it wasn’t him who was “not willing”, he desired to do good!
Why would the Holy Spirit not allow someone to do good when they willed/desired to do good?
As you can see, Romans 7 is a big problem for Reformed doctrine and Calvinism regardless whether if its Paul Pre-Conversion or Post-Conversion. Pre-Conversion it shows that man is not “so dead” as Reformed doctrine claims and Post-Conversion it makes Christian life to be that of constant DEFEAT not victory, and some Calvinists such as RC Sproul taught this “defeatism”.
Its no wonder that Romans 7 was perplexing for “Saint” Augustine as he meandered into that “effectual/irresistible Grace” doctrine that John Calvin organized into a more complete system.
To Augustine, initially he though Romans 7 was obviously Paul Pre-Conversion, but then later after apparently others tried to dissuade him, he accepted the Post-Conversion view but not denying his Pre-Conversion view, basically saying that it pertains to both Pre/Post conversion.
The KEY to seeing Romans 7 is Paul Pre-Conversion is that there’s no SPIRIT there in him, the SPIRIT is introduced in ROMANS 8 as a CONTRAST to the previous section in ROMANS 7!
Now the TRUTH is that ALTHOUGH Romans 7 is Paul speaking of himself Pre-Conversion, it is ALSO pertinent to anyone living by the flesh, trying to do good by his own power, WITHOUT the enabling power of the Holy Spirit. So Romans 7 could represent some Christians, such as the man in 1 Corinthians 5, who apparently was TRUE BELIEVER and yet was said to be in worse sinful lifestyle than even PAGANS! Wow if that’s not a blow to Calvinism’s “P” in Tulip, what is?
Note that contrary to TULIP/Calvinism doctrine, 1 Corinthians 5 passage implies that this man could LOSE his salvation if he were allowed to continue on his downward “trajectory”, they were commanded to: ” 5hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the Day of the Lord.” Paul said of others that they passed away due to “sins”.
Of course in Reformed Doctrine, it can NOT be even TECHNICALLY possible for an Elect to in any way lose salvation, their fate was sealed supposedly from before our universe was created.
Yet there we have a believer living WORSE than PAGANS, and it seems that sometimes Christians in a very downward spiral going away from God and into sin must be killed to prevent their trajectory to result in them somehow denying Christ and hence losing their “salvation”.
What does this speak in terms of Total Depravity? If Christians can be WORSE than PAGANS?
How dead are people then? See ROMANS 2:14-17 All the sudden that Total-Depravity isn’t so “Total”! Does God ask of man the impossible? Did he taunt Cain knowing he could not respond?
Did he taunt those whom he told to “Choose Life!”? Does God deceive by linguistic “sophistry”?
Does God mock and taunt people asking of them the “impossible”? Asking of them a faith that he “withholds” from them, then punishing them for not being regenerated though he Determined All?
Anyway I get distracted/side-tracked: ) so I’ll end with ROMANS 7:9 since this was on Romans 7
“9Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died.”
What does this mean? It means that Paul and us alike are NOT born/conceived with Sin/Evil inside of us. What does the verse say in Psalms 139:13-14? ” 29Only this have I found: I have discovered that God made men upright, but they have sought out many schemes.”” Ecc. 7:9
Paul as well as CHILDREN before the AGE OF ACCOUNTABILITY, they are “INNOCENT”. God calls the babies of PAGANS that were sacrificed, called their blood the blood of “INNOCENTS”.
JOHN CALVIN rightly taught, in correct implication to Calvinism, that babies who die must have been REPROBATE and so all babies who die would go to Hell, if we are born/conceived “dead”.
We are NOT born/conceived DEAD with evil/sin inside of us. We DIE just as ADAM and EVE died, when they LOST their INNOCENCE at the same time they ATE of the forbidden fruit and came to the KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD and EVIL. So AFTER Paul reached the Age of Accountability when he had a true understanding of GOOD and EVIL and was no longer an “innocent child” and he SINNED, that’s when he “DIED”. Anyone with young children knows that just like Adam and Eve, they go around “naked” not thinking ANYTHING wrong with nakedness.
But there comes a time when one grows and reaches Age of Accountability and comes to a real grasp of the “Knowledge of GOOD and EVIL” and once there, when one sins he/she then DIES.
That’s what happened with ADAM and EVE and that’s the same thing that repeats with all of us.
So then, JOHN CALVIN was obviously wrong. Babies who die do NOT go to HELL, if any was pure its them. Guy in 1 Corinthians 5 goes to heaven but a baby dying in womb can go to Hell?
Apologies for any errors, its late so don’t have time to proof-read, I’m happy to clarify anything : )
2 Timothy 2:15 “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”
God Bless!
c.
Thanks for reading the study notes on Romans 7. I hope you take the time to read the notes on chapters 6, 8, 9… and actually the whole book. Romans is a wonderful presentation of the gospel, declaring man’s slavery to sin, his inability to save himself, and God’s powerful redeeming work to predestine, call, justify, and glorify.
I wouldn’t get your hopes up too highly that I’m about to reverse course on Reformed theology. I’ve been studying and teaching from a Reformed perspective for over 20 years now. Before that, I held a view close to yours, and didn’t have a very favorable view of Calvinists. However, Scripture compelled me. And that’s an important point you should understand. Yes, I read Calvin, Sproul, and others from the Reformed view because that was not the position I was used to. While I found their arguments persuasive, I would not believe as I do unless I found agreement with Scripture. As with Romans 7, no matter who may hold to what position, I want to take the view that is most consistent with Scripture.
I will confess to being amused by the idea that Romans 7 somehow undermines the Reformed perspective. Perhaps you really don’t understand what it is we believe. And it doesn’t matter whether you take “Christian Paul” or “Pharisee Saul” position, you can hold to God’s sovereign grace in election and take either one of those views. I hold the “Pharisee Saul” position not because it is most consistent with Reformed theology, but because it’s most consistent with Paul’s teaching in Romans thus far. I don’t have to go looking for the Reformed perspective in Scripture. It’s there, in some places more explicitly than others—and Paul happens to be one of the more explicit proponents of God’s sovereignty.
For the moment, let me take the “Christian Paul” position, the one I disagree with. This position holds that Paul is talking about his struggle with sin. As a Christian, he knows what he ought to do but remaining sin fights against him. This is a common experience with all Christians. What gives us confidence, however, in the midst of our struggles with sin is the fact that it is a *struggle.* We don’t rejoice in our sin, or indulge it, or dismiss it as no big deal. We recognize our sin to be an offense to God and we long to be done with it. That’s not the reaction of someone who is dead in sin, but someone who is alive in Christ, whom the Spirit has regenerated. And we don’t struggle alone. The Spirit who regenerates also enables us to fight and have victory. But that victory is only possible through Christ who delivers us. When Paul says in 7:18 that nothing good dwells in him, he’s recognizing that he has no ability of himself to battle sin. Indeed, without the Spirit regenerating and enabling, he would fall to sin every time.
As for the “Pharisee Saul” position, you say that, basically, Paul was a good person who just needed some help from God to do good. I think Paul would disagree with you, given 7:18. Paul knew the good he ought to do because he was a Pharisee, versed in God’s Law. He knew the Scriptures but lacked the power to live a life pleasing to God because he didn’t have Christ. He needed conversion. Remember, his “zeal” was directed to persecuting Christians, including having the blood of Stephen on his hands. God didn’t simply “re-direct” his zeal. God changed him from a hater of His people to someone who was willing to die for the gospel and the body of Christ. I think I mentioned it in the study notes, but I see parallels with Luther’s conversion story. He tells of how, as an Augustinian monk, he would spend hours in the confessional declaring his sins to a priest, but never feeling truly forgiven. He never seemed to be able to get past his sin. He didn’t need help, or a redirection of his zeal, he needed Jesus. He needed conversion so that he would be able to truly repent and know the forgiveness that comes only through Christ.
A word about Irresistible Grace. That term simply refers to the fact that when God determines to save someone, He will draw that person to Himself. This is what Jesus teaches in John 6 (see the discussion above with Sean). No-one can come to Christ unless God the Father draws that person. And the person God draws, He will raise. It doesn’t say that Christians don’t struggle with sin, or sometimes Christians chafe against God’s will, or even fall into sin for a time. What it means is that God’s election is sure, and no-one can snatch His people from His hand (John 10:29). Though the believer might sin, if that believer is truly one of Christ’s sheep, he will repent and return.
In Romans 5:5, Paul says that the love of God has been poured into our hearts by the Spirit whom God has given us. So Paul has made reference to the Spirit prior to Romans 8. Rather than a contrast to Romans 7, Romans 8 is a continuation of the thought (remember, there were no chapter and verse divisions in Paul’s original letter). Christ is the one who enables us to have victory over sin, such that the sin we might commit as a result of our struggle with the flesh no longer condemns us. In Christ, there is no longer condemnation for sin. Jesus has paid that price for us. I’m sure this is all in the notes.
Let’s move on to 1 Corinthians 5. Why do you assume the man in 1 Corinthians 5 is a believer? He might be, but the man’s spiritual condition is not Paul’s chief concern here. Of course the man is committing gross sin, such is obvious. Paul’s complaint is that the church wasn’t dealing with the situation appropriately. The elders at Corinth were not willing to exercise church discipline. By casting him out, they would be sending a clear message to the man that he needs to deal with his sin. This may result in it being revealed that he was not truly a believer, or it may result in his repentance. When Paul speaks of handing him over to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, he’s speaking of leaving this man to be tested by Satan, perhaps even handing him over to his sin (Paul uses similar language in 2 Cor 12:7 speaking of the “thorn in the flesh” given to him as a “messenger of Satan” used to humble him) that he might suffer the destruction of his sin—perhaps even death—that he might sin no longer and be with the Lord (again, assuming he is saved).
Total Depravity does not mean that everything a person does is sinful. Rather, it means that every aspect of a man, his thoughts, his thought processes, his actions, his intentions—everything is tainted by sin. Why do evolutionists deny the obvious evidence of God’s creation, for example? Because sin perverts their thinking. They can still do things that are good according to society (feeding the poor, giving to charity, etc.). In fact, they can even keep God’s Law! There are many unbelieving men and women who have never committed adultery or murdered anyone. That doesn’t mean they are saved. The fact they recognize these as good behaviors betray the fact that they are made in God’s image. They don’t acknowledge God and worship Him as a result because their minds are depraved. They are blind and in need of the regenerating work of God’s Spirit. That’s what Romans 2 is getting at, essentially (read the study notes for more).
So, let me ask you, when Jesus preached, “Repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand” (Matthew 4:17), was he taunting people? He knew many of the people to whom he spoke would not repent. And why did they not repent? Was it because they were stupid, or didn’t understand? Why did they harden their hearts but others didn’t? What made the difference? Was it something they did or something God did? Remember Ephesians 2:8-9.
Psalm 139:13-14: Being fearfully and wonderfully made is not a denial of the fact that we are born into sin. See Romans 5:12-14. Read the whole psalm. It’s part of the psalmist’s declaration of God’s knowledge of us. He knows us thoroughly and intimately, because He made us, and God did it well.
Ecclesiastes 7:29: The Hebrew word יָשָׁר can mean upright, or simply straight, smooth, or right. God made man in His image with a conscience and an inherent sense of right and wrong. But man seeks out schemes. Why? The Preacher already noted why in verse 20. How do you reconcile verse 20 with your view of verse 29?
This is a long response, and I probably haven’t covered everything, but one last thing. Can you provide Scripture references supporting an “Age of Accountability.” What age is that? And from what verse do you derive that? I think the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith expresses a more biblical view:
“Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit who works when, and where, and how He pleases; so are all elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word” (John 3:3-8, LBCF 10.3).
“Persons incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word” might apply to children who are not yet able to comprehend the gospel, or those who are otherwise mentally incapacitated.
Let me ask you this: if it’s true that anyone who is incapable of understanding the gospel, either through age or mental disability, is automatically saved, would it not be better to kill them before they either attain this “age of accountability,” or achieve the ability to understand the gospel? Would this not make abortion actually a good thing, since it enables all those unborn babies to go straight to the Lord before they have the chance to be born and reach that “age of accountability”?
I don’t expect to change your mind about anything, but I hope this response at least gives you something to think about, and perhaps corrects some misunderstandings you seem to have about the Reformed view. There are plenty of other articles on my blog you might like to read. See the “Theology” selection under “Theology, etc.”
Blessings to you!
Colin
Hi Colin,
Since its taking you a while to re-write your reply that got eaten, thought maybe you could answer a few easy quick questions in the meantime if you don’t mind such as:
Do you remember when you became a Christian?
When were you saved?
How about your wife and grown children?
Myself I don’t remember exact date but I recall at a Christian camp as a teenager.
God Bless!
c.
See above for my reply. I deleted the placeholder text and pasted my response in its place.
I don’t think I’ve ever written on this blog about how the Lord saved me. The short answers to your questions are yes, nearly 40 years ago, and my wife and most of my children are believers (and nearly all grown). But this might make for a good blog post, so I’ll save the details for that. 😀 Thanks for the idea!
I’m not sure how long the comment threads can be, but if you are *genuinely* interested in dialoging over Reformed theology, perhaps it would be better to email? Again, only write me if you are genuinely interested in my answers.
Blessings!
Colin
PS: I see you have another long response to my first response. Again, I don’t know how long the thread can be. I’ll see if I can post an adequate response (assuming you are interested in my response). As with many who hold your position, I get the impression your objections are actually rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of Reformed theology. If that’s the case, I might just write a blog post that responds to your comment.
Hi Colin,
I had typed reply via the reply button under your long post but your blog moved my SECTION 1A way to the bottom for some reason, can you move it under your long post where it was meant to go? thanks
SECTION P1
Great to hear your wife and most of your children are believers.
Are all believing ones also Reformed and hold to TULIP/Calvinism etc?
As for the unbelieving children, do they know or understand your Reformed doctrine, at least the TULIP part of it? Have they ever talked to you about it? Like why preach to us if all was decided in eternity past etc?
SECTION P2
I was going to ask you, don’t you think its very ‘peculiar’ to say the least, that everyone becomes a “believer” through what Reformed doctrine says is “WORKS SALVATION” because they thought they ACCEPTED Christ of their own libertine Free-Will?
You were NOT “Reformed” when you “believed” 40-years ago were you?
I have NEVER met anyone Reformed/Tulip/etc who did not BECOME Reformed “AFTER” they professed faith, and they weren’t so when they accepted Christ and became born-again and in-dwelt with the Holy Spirit.
Did you ever wonder about that? Why MUST everyone be saved by a supposed “FALSE” doctrine? Believing they made a choice to believe?
SECTION P3
Did you ever wonder why the Holy Spirit, if Irresistible Grace were true, why it didn’t act sooner? Why must so many go through most of their life as atheists or even hating God, hating Christ only to come to faith at end?
If it were all decided before the foundations of the world, why wouldn’t All the Elect be saved very young? Why would God “predetermine/Decree” a long life of Sin/Evil on the ELECT he had Chosen for Himself, to be Holy?
SECTION P4
Think of this scenario:
If REFORMED DOCTRINE/Calvinism were actually true, then if someone PREACHED to a CROWD of people among which there were any NON-ELECT, and preached that GOD LOVED them and sent his SON Jesus Christ to DIE on the CROSS for THEM, to save them, that message would be a LIE to the NON-ELECT! (In context of Reformed Doctrine)
If at the same time the DEVIL was telling that Non-Elect person, that the preacher is LYING, God does NOT love you, God did NOT send his son to Die “FOR YOU” to save you! God doesn’t want you, God never wanted you! In this Reformed/Calvinist context, the DEVIL WOULD be telling the TRUTH and the preacher would be the one LYING to that “NON-ELECT”!
Did you ever think about that?
I remember one day when I was so excited on realizing a verse that nicely refuted all forms/varieties of Calvinism, and then someone called me out of the blue that I had only met about once before I think and told me they got my number from a church member and asked me if I could give them a ride to a bible study. I remember picking them up and unable to resist I asked them (not knowing any of their doctrinal believes!): Can you think of just ONE Bible passage that refutes all forms of Calvinism? He thought a couple of seconds only and responded with 1 JOHN 5:10, and v11, ie:
“10Whoever believes in the Son of God has this testimony within him; whoever does NOT believe God has made Him out to be a LIAR, BECAUSE he has NOT believed in the testimony that God has given about His Son. 11And this is that testimony: God HAS GIVEN us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.”
The SAME exact passage I was so excited about that day!
The point is clear, Calvinism makes GOD out to be the actual “LIAR”, if in fact Christ did NOT die on the cross for the “world”, for ALL/Everyone. In 1 John 5:10-11 its clearly saying that the DEVIL’s whispering into that NON-ELECT person’s ear in that scenario I described above, is a LIE, because God INDEED did provide SALVATION to even them if they’d “ACCEPT”.
So God here is DENYING “UNCONDITOINAL ELECTION” and Limited Atonement, unbelievers denying God provided to SAVE them, make God out to be a “LIAR”. Its a powerful passage against the Reformed doctrine.
SECTION P5
As a Non-Reformed/Non-Calvinist I can say that the Gospel I believed as a teenager by which I was “saved”, is the SAME Gospel I believe “today”.
Yet the Reformed call that state of salvation, believing one by his own free-will can respond to God and can ACCEPT Christ, a Works Salvation.
They claim that Non-Calvinists think they’re saved by their choice also and so they “ADD” to the Grace of God, but there’s a “simple answer”:
Calvinists were looking at it from ADDITION or SUBTRACTION but God gave us the knowledge of more advanced math for very good “reason” 🙂
This advanced math is MULTIPLICATION:
YES * Grace-of-God = Grace-of-God = SAVED!
NO * Grace-of-God = 0 = NOT-SAVED!
YES = 1
NO = 0
I read you are an IT professional? You understand then binary 1/0
You know that 1 multiplied by anything is equal to ONLY what it is multiplied by, NOTHING MORE, NOTHING LESS.
You also know that 0/ZERO multiplied by anything is equal to ZERO.
Therefore NO multiplied by even an Infinite Grace of God is then ZERO.
So Non-Calvinists are NOT saving themselves in any way by having the ability to RESPOND to God by their God-given real “libertine” Free-Will to either ACCEPT(YES(1)) or REJECT(NO(0)) the Grace of God, which is not “Irresistible” then if one can truly reject it when God willed they accept.
Hence, libertine Free-Will adds NOTHING to the “Grace of God” in Salvation. In fact, if one thinks a bit further, NO ONE COULD be saved, REGARDLESS of FAITH or NO FAITH, if Christ had not DIED for them.
SECTION P6
As for Email, I have too many such email threads already, I began to dislike email because it gets hard on the eyes when they get too long.
Email does not lend well to “organization”. Perhaps a real “FORUM” software would be best? Like vBulletin or whatever is in vogue now?
It so happens that I’m an IT guy myself as well, perhaps I’ll spin up a domain name and install some open source forum or maybe a WIKI would work well or better even. Or should we open this as a thread on some existing online website forum/boards and ask others refrain from interjecting until we’re all done?
Anyway I still have to finish working on my reply to you on Romans 7 etc.
God bless!
c.
SECTION 1A
Glad you were able to reply, I’d like to first start with when you said:
“I will confess to being amused by the idea that Romans 7 somehow undermines the Reformed perspective. Perhaps you really don’t understand what it is we believe.”
Now I’m not sure if you noticed my other two replies to you on August 26th, one had headings of “PART 1 + PART 2” and the other had a lot of questions for you in “PART 3”.
I think that if you answer those questions I asked you in those PARTS 1, 2, 3 headings, it will be clearer to see what you believe and “if/how” you differ from Reformed theologians.
Because I’ve indeed found that there are different levels of “consistency” in doctrine among the Reformed/Calvinists etc. There are some like Norman Geisler who call themselves Calvinists, albeit 4-Pointers, but most Calvinists or Reformed theologians would hardly have one good word for Geisler. In fact Norman Geisler’s book has 1-stars from Calvinists as well as Arminians, from Reformed and non-Reformed, because he is completely inconsistent and self-contradicts himself so much, no camp really wants him.
Although there seems to be a lot of “self-contradiction” in Calvinism, some Reformed theologians do stay a whole lot more “CONSISTENT” with their core doctrinal claims.
When you reply to my questions in that PART 1, 2, 3 I’ll know better as I said in terms of what you really believe. In the meantime, I’ll work on answering your post above in full.
SECTION 1B
TO COME…Section 1B, 1C, etc.
Hi Colin,
Sorry I’ve been busy and away, back home now but had been away for 4-5 days. I guess you’ve been busy too since didn’t see any reply to my other comments. I’ll try to find the time to continue that reply to Romans 7 soon as I’m able. Thanks!