Is Calvinism a Heresy?

[Jac3510]

This got longer than I meant for it to, oh well . . .

First, I hold to universal atonement. Here are a few verses to support my position (all quotations ESV):

• Matt. 20:26b-28, But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.

Now, this passage says that Christ gave His life as a ransom for "many." The Calvinist would contend this is a clear reference to Christ not dying for all. There are two strong problems with this statement, one of which flatly contradicts, and comes close to disproving, the Calvinist position, and the other simply negates the claim of support. The word behind "many" is polus. It is true that this word can mean many, but:

• hoi polloi in secular Gk. means the most, the majority. But in the LXX it often represents the Heb. rabbim, which tends to mean "all." Hence while the Gk. use drew a distinction between a majority as a contrasted with a minority, Heb. use is capable of inclusive meaning, denoting the many individuals forming a totality. (NIDNT)

This word, if it does not mean all, means "most" or "the majority." This is a direct contradiction of Calvinist thought, for it would mean that the elect are the majority! If, on the other hand, we take this as we should to mean "all", then the verse, again, presents no difficulties and once again supports the position I am advocating.

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

Let's pull out a few specific things. First, notice that it says that the death of Christ was to sin. It was not to “sins.” This is consistent with one we are told in 2 Cor. 5:21, that God made Christ sin itself, that His wrath might be poured out against it for us. Therefore, while it is true that Jesus paid the price for our sins, it is also true that Jesus paid the price for Sin.

Secondly, note the phrase “once for all.” What does “all” in this passage refer to? The word is an adjective usedas a substantive. For those of you who are not English majors (or don't read Greek), if an adjective is used as a substanstival, it is functioning as a noun. For example, “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly”, or “Out with the old, and in with the new.” Now, when dealing with a substantive, we have to ask ourselves what it is referring to. In our two examples, the Good, Bad, and Ugly might refer to people. In our second example, it just refers to “stuff”, and thus, “Out with the old stuff, in with the new stuff.” How do you know what a substantival adjective refers to? Context. What about in this passage? “Christ died for all.” Either “all” refers to “all people” or to “all sin.” Either rendering is acceptable. The former rendering supports both Unlimited Atonement and Universal Atonement, whereas the second rendering supports only Universal Atonement. Regardless, both renderings reject Limited Atonement. It may be argued that “all” refers to “all sin” as it relates to the elect, but it is extremely obvious that the idea is not found in this particular verse. You have to have the previous notion that only the sins of the elect are paid for in order to get that here!

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

Here, we find “all” being used again as a substantive. Here, it most definitely refers to “all people.” It may be argued that “all” refers to “all the elect”, but we can reject this on two grounds. First, the idea is not found in this passage, but it has to be imported as an understanding taught from elsewhere. Secondly, Paul then says, “he died for all (people) that those who might live might no longer live for themselves.” This second group clearly refers to the elect, for the only people who live are those who will be raised with Christ (Mark 8:35-37, John 11:25-26). So, we can paraphrase the passage this way: “Christ died for all so that the elect can live for Him.”

• 1 Tim. 2:5-6, For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.

Yet again, we have “all” which must either refer to “all people” or “all the elect.” The second rendering cannot be valid as Paul is contrasting the God and Mankind. Notice that Paul did not say, “there is one mediator between God and the elect.” He said there is one mediator between God and anthropous, or men (plural). “All”, then, calls back to anthropous, not “the elect” which is found no where in this passage,

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

Of course, no discussion about the atonement would be complete with a reference to 1 John 2:2. Needless to say, every Calvinist has had to deal with this verse, so there are a myriad of answers to the “problem” it proposes. I have no interest in proving the Calvinist wrong with this verse. I simply assert that the verse means what it says it means. Christ is the propitiation for the sins of Christians, and not only for Christians, but for the whole world. Now, what is especially interesting is that word “propitiation.” As we know, that is a “sacrifice of atonement.” God's wrath against sin was propitiated, and not only the sins of Christians, but the sins of the whole world. You see, I have this on my side: the plain rendering. If a person were to start with this verse, they would come to the conclusion that Christ not only died for all, but His death had the same effect for all.

Look at it this way. John is saved and Bob is not. How can we say that Christ's death was the propitiation for John's sins, and therefore God's wrath against John's sins has been appeased, but Christ's death was also the propitiation for Bob's sins, and yet God's wrath has not been appeased against Bob's sins?

Now, I don't expect this to change anyone's mind. Again, clarity, not consensus. However, I am arguing that this position is exegetically sound and it takes the plain meaning of the texts. Unless a passage can be presented that says, “Christ died only for the elect,” I do not believe the position should be imported into these passages that clearly imply the opposite.

One more thing regarding the atonement before we move on. I am, again, forced to reject Unlimited Atonement for the same reasons the Calvinists hold to it, and, in fact, these reasons support Universal Atonement. If I may quote Puritan Lad's Calvinism vs. Arminianism thread:

1.) If Christ made full payment for every person's sins, then no one could ever go to Hell. If so, then what kind of “payment” are we left with?

2.) If Christ work on the cross was intended to save every single person, then His work is a failure. His work did not accomplish what He intended.

3.) If Christ intended to save every single person, than He came to do His own will, not the will of the Father who elected those who would be saved.

As Greg Bahnsen writes, “Isaiah prophesied that Christ would "see of the travail of his soul and be satisfied"; yet if Christ went to the cross with the intention of saving every individual, he certainly has been defeated and cannot be satisfied. But our Lord is not defeated; all power has been given to him in heaven and earth. His sufferings do accomplish what he intends, for the salvation he provides is not abstract and universal, it is particular and personal.”

Now, I reject the first and third problems entirely, because I do not hold that Atonement leads to justification (see the end of this post). However, the second argument is almost flawless. Almost. I do not hold that Christ's work on the cross was to save everyone, but to make atonement for all sin. Now, Christ's work cannot be a failure, and if He did not accomplish exactly what He intended, then it was, in fact, a failure. Therefore, it is wrong for the Arminian to say that Christ's death was sufficient for all, because that neglects the basic truth that some whom Christ wanted to save were not saved. He failed in these cases.

However, if we say that Christ's plan was to atone for all sin, then Christ's death was not a failure. It did exactly as He intended! In short, the Calvinist is right against the Arminian that Christ's work cannot be a failure in any way at all. There can be no ineffectual sacrifice without there also being a failure!

Now, if the atonement is universal, then what of the elect? I hold to a form of unconditional that would be rejected by both the Calvinist and the Arminian. I have already laid out a good bit of my views in the thread on predestination. Therefore, I'll keep my remarks brief here.

I hold that election is of individuals. Corporate election is something of a copout. However, it is also obvious that “the elect” refers to a group. We know that God chose the elect in accordance with His foreknowledge, as is often pointed out, and as Puritan noted is proved by 1 Pet. 1:2. It is unfruitful to discuss, at this point, what “in accordance with His foreknowledge” means, because then we just start citing stock arguments. Besides, I reject both the Calvinist and Arminian ideas, anyway, so the arguments would profit little!

For me, the most important passage on election is Eph. 1:4, which says, “as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him.” This passage, along with Romans 11:5 and Romans 16:3, are the only passages that tell us HOW God elects. Every other passage that mentions election simply says that God does it, or it talks about the Elect. But this passage says that we are chosen “in Christ.”

Now, it is obvious that all those Elect refers only to the saved (2 Thess. 2:13). Therefore, all those who are “in Him” are “the Elect.” However, if this is true, we cannot say that a person was ever “elected to be in Christ,” because this would be the same as saying, that a person was “elected to be elect.” In fact, I challenge anyone to show me a single place in Scripture where we are said to be elected to be in Christ. Again, we find we are elected in Christ.

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

If I may explain by way of analogy, imagine you want to get a game of some sort together. You tell everyone, “anyone who wants to play, come to the field.” A group of people show up, and you then begin to choose who will be on your team. You choose everyone. This well pictures God's decree of election. God invites all “to the field” (Matt. 22:14 [again, notice many is from polus], Luke 24:46-47, John 1:7, John 1:12), but only those who believe actually “come to the field” (that is, are reborn into Christ).

You see, the central assumption here is that to be “in Christ”, one must be chosen to be in Christ. And yet, such is never taught in Scripture. What we are taught is that to be “in Christ”, one must be born again, as per John 3 (c.f. 2 Cor. 5:17, Rom. 6:3, Eph. 2:10). This is, in the end, what it means to be “born again.” The first man is born “in Adam,” but the second man is born “in Christ.”

I say this doctrine is unconditional election because our election is conditioned on absolutely nothing! God chooses everyone in Christ. This is significantly different from the Arminian understanding that implies that, if you have faith, then God chooses you to be in Christ. It makes Rom. 8:29-30 refer to faith that God foreknew rather than people. But, again, we see that those who believe in Christ are born again in Christ, and that God looks at all those in Christ and chooses them for salvation.

The Calvinist, of course, disagrees. As I said in my previous discussion of the matter, he confuses predestination with election, making them precisely the same thing. In fact, it is of interest that in Puritan's thread, he thoroughly mixes the doctrines. Predestination, though, is distinct from election. God predestines the elect for certain things, namely, to adoption, to an inheritance, and to glorification. For the Calvinist, there can be no such distinction, and thus, the doctrine is both wrong and heretical.

This naturally leads to the third point I want to bring up, which relates to the Calvinist understanding of Total Depravity. It is objected that mankind cannot choose to believe in God, and therefore, a man must be chosen to believe. We see, then, that the doctrines of election and predestination are not actually Scriptural so much as they are logical outflows of a certain understanding of Depravity. I reject this claim, as would, of course, every Arminian. However, I also reject the claim by Arminians that men can come to God on their own. It is true that no one can come to the Father except through Jesus (John 14:6), but it is also true that no one can come to Jesus unless he is drawn to Him (John 6:44). It is ludicrous to think that fallen man will seek God of his own accord, and in fact, the Bible expressly states otherwise in Romans 3:11, for “no one seeks God.” Is this then proof that God must choose who will believe in Him? This is hardly the case. It simply means that fallen man, left to himself, seeks only evil. This was beautifully demonstrated between the time of Adam and Noah. Man's propensity to fall away from God is shown clearly through Israel. But this is why God issues to call to all. All men are drawn, so much as they hear the Gospel (Rom. 10:1). In fact, to prove the Calvinist wrong in his assertion that no one seeks God in the absolute sense, we can bring up Cornelius' story in Acts 10:1-8. Here is an unregenerate man who “feared God.” He was seeking the truth! So if Cornelius was genuinely seeking God, what does this say about the passage at hand? It simply means that man, left to himself, does not seek God.

Now, it is charged that unregenerate man is dead in his sins based on Eph. 2:1. It is then asserted that, just as a dead man cannot respond, neither can the man dead in sins respond to Christ's calling. Therefore, regeneration must precede the response. Those whom God elects He regenerates, and they come then to belief (thus, irresistible grace).

This position is easily discounted. It is simply incorrect to say that a dead man cannot respond. First, the word dead does NOT mean “inability.” This is an assumption drawn from an argument by analogy. A physically dead man is unable to respond, so therefore, a spiritually dead man must be unable to respond. However, in Eph. 2:1, Paul is not making an argument by analogy. He is stating a categorical fact. In truth, the word “dead” means “separated from.” In physical death, we find the body separated from physical life. In spiritual death, we find a man separated from God. There is no inability implied here except that which the reader chooses read into it. We can, in fact, demonstrate that a dead man responds in many ways. To quote a friend of mine:

If one tries to speak or communicate with a corpse, they will not respond because they are incapable. If one asks the corpse if it would like to be resurrected, it would not be able to respond. The question then becomes, is this analogous to spiritual death? Is the spirit dead in the same way the body is? If it is then your belief about inability would certainly be correct, because the spirit would be powerless to respond to an invitation from God, and would in fact need to be resurrected first in order to respond. I would respond that from the facts we know about the dead human spirit, spiritual death is NOT analogous to physical death. Let's examine the facts.

1. While the physically dead body is inanimate and incapable of action, the dead spirit is capable of action. The spiritually dead commit sin, reject God, and go astray, etc…
2. While the physically dead body is unresponsive to stimuli, the spiritually dead body is not. We note that the spiritually dead will experience torment of hell and even experience joy in their sins for a season.

With these two observations we see that spiritual death does not result in inanimation or in unresponsiveness.

If the spiritually dead person is responsive, then there is no reason to assume that he is incapable of responding to the gospel. In fact, I submit that no where in Scripture do we find the doctrine that regeneration precedes faith, but in fact, just the opposite! Titus 3:5 says, “He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit.” (NASB) God saves us by regeneration, but we are told in Eph. 2:8-10 that we are saved by grace, and that grace comes through faith. Therefore, it must be that regeneration comes through faith. Even if you assume that the “gift” in Eph 2 is both grace and faith, it still must follow that regeneration is through faith. Now, you can say that God gives us the faith, and through that faith, God applies the grace of regeneration, but you STILL cannot say that God regenerates us so that we might believe. That is simply contrary to Scripture. And I reject that position, anyway, because it more probable—the plain meaning of the text—that the “gift” is grace, not both grace and faith. In the end, we are told that whoever receives Christ, they become sons of God (John 1:12). This is written in the gospel of John, which is directed to unbelievers (John 20:30-31). The plain meaning is that reception of Christ, through faith, results in the reception of the gift of grace, that is, regeneration, justification, adoption, etc.

I would like to conclude my remarks by asking the question, “What gets a person to heaven or condemns a person to hell?” Bearing in mind that I believe that all sin is atoned for, that the elect will be saved, that God elects those in Christ, and to be in Christ one must believe to be born again, it should follow that it is belief alone that results in salvation. This is in line with two major scriptures that simply cannot be reconciled with the Calvinism. First we have the classic John 3:16. God demonstrated His love for the world (all people, including the non-elect) by giving His Son, that whoever believes will live. A Calvinist must read this to say that God demonstrated His love for the elect by sending His Son for them that when He chooses them they may believe in Him and live. That is simply contrary to what the text says.

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.

You see, Calvinism teaches that God arbitrarily chooses some for salvation and others for damnation. It teaches that man has no choice in the matter except to choose what God has chosen for him. Calvinism denies that salvation is by faith alone, for it teaches that salvation comes by asking for, and receiving, forgiveness for sins. Perseverance must follow, and where there is no perseverance, there is no salvation. Calvinism slanders God, for it attributes to Him the awful sin of man's rejection, and it denies His truly free gift of grace to all who believe. The Calvinist must teach a salvation of repentance, or good works, because you have been chosen to be saved. Therefore, that salvation is evidenced by the good works for which you were created, as per Eph. 2:10. Thus, it is not belief alone that is the basis for salvation, but it is the belief in a personal election. In Calvinism, I know I am saved because my works prove it. I know I am saved because I love the brethren. As Spurgeon said, Calvinism, for the Calvinist anyway, is the Gospel. However, the Gospel it teaches is far from the Gospel I have presented in this post. The Gospel I have presented is that all sin has been paid for, and that to live, one must only believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. If one does this, he is born into Christ, and God chooses Him for salvation.

Is Calvinism a heresy? Yes. It is a doctrine that will send millions to hell, just as indulgences did in the Middle Ages.

I can demonstrate this final claim in this way: what happens to a person who trusts Christ alone to save hi, just because He said He would, totally apart from commitment to His Lordship, apart from repentance, and apart from the genuineness of faith? If the answer is that he is not saved, then you have denied the Gospel, and what you are proclaiming is a false gospel. We should consider our teachings carefully, as per Gal. 1:8-9 and James 3:1.

God bless

edit: I went back and edited the post to include the Calvinist reasoning behind Universal Atonement. I had forgotten about it

[LowlyOne]

Jac,
though we may disagree on some points, you have dealt consistently and accurately with the view of election and predestination. May I copy your post to maybe use later for my friends that are confused and seeking understanding on this?

Again, bravo. I was planning on reponding to Puritan's posts on calvinism when I had a chance, and still might, but time prevented that.

Much love to you Puritan Lad,
Lowly One

[Jac3510]

You can use any material you find from me as you wish, no credit needed. I guessed from reading your post on repentance that you would disagree with PL on several levels . . .

Thanks for the encouragement

God bless

[Locker]

Jac3510,

I am having trouble understanding your point - Do not modern Calvinist also teach that a person is saved by grace through faith and that repentance and good works are the evidence of being born again? These works do not save but are rather an outgrowth of true saving grace and faith.

Can you clarify this for me?

Thanks

[LowlyOne]

You are correct, Locker.

The Calvinist position is that God grants irresistable grace on sinners and gives them a new heart and a new spirit regenerating them and the sinners who God makes alive automatically want to repent and trust Christ for salvation. It can be compared to a city that a jet plane has a "lock and fix" target and fires a missle at it. The city blows up as a result of the bomb. Now the Plane would be the Calvinists view of God, the lock and fix would on those he chose to save, those He marked for heaven and the city would be the sinners. The missle is His irresistable grace and it is bestowed on the city. The city blows up as a result of the bomb hitting it. So God fires his bomb, the irresistable grace on the sinner, and the sinner explodes with repentance and faith as a result of the bomb or the irresistable grace. Those (according to Calvinists) who are marked and preselected to hell before time, He just passes them by and allows them to go to His predestined location He picked for them. Evidently, He must not truly love them or want what's best for them, (or at least love them enough to save them) or He would save them like the Calvinists say He could. But for some mysterious reason, He chooses not to (according to Calvinists) and somehow it's for His glory. What's wrong with this picture? Atheists know, for it's one of their outward reasons of rejecting Christianity. They might be void of spiritual revelation and reality, but at least they aren't void of common sense and haven't been indoctrinated by false doctrines and traditions of men.

However, according to the Scriptures a sinner has a change of mind as a result of receiving the gospel message, and then believes in Christ for salvation and as he does so he is then born again. This is called synergism, and it means that man is actively co-operating with the conviction of the Spirit and His drawing and chooses to believe and place faith in Christ as he is empowered to do so by the Spirit. Monergism teaches that is totally passive in His salvation and is like the city getting blown up. The city would never blew up if it wasn't bombed. Now I am not saying man will seek God without any drawing of the Spirit. If God chose to not draw or convict a sinner, then the sinner would never seek God. But, God is omni-benevolent, which means He is all loving, and Jesus said In John 12:32 " if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself." There are so many Scriptures revealing God's will for every creature (person) it's amazing.
So one seeks God, only to find that God was seeking them and drawing them first.

Hope this helps!
LowlyOne

[August]

This is called synergism, and it means that man is actively co-operating with the conviction of the Spirit and His drawing and chooses to believe and place faith in Christ as he is empowered to do so by the Spirit.

Why are some people saved and others not? What is it that those who are saved do that is different to those that are not? If two people both hear the gospel, one is is saved and the other one not, why is that?

[B. W.]

This is called synergism, and it means that man is actively co-operating with the conviction of the Spirit and His drawing and chooses to believe and place faith in Christ as he is empowered to do so by the Spirit.

Why are some people saved and others not? What is it that those who are saved do that is different to those that are not? If two people both hear the gospel, one is is saved and the other one not, why is that?

Maybe this is what Jac3510 was trying to get at? Is salvation/damnation based on pure selection? Or do humans truly have a choice in the matter?

IMHO - God calls everyone but not everyone will choose the call. In other words - God chooses us to choose Him but the question remains - will we choose God?

How can we choose if He does not first call? How can we choose if God was not just and allowing the choice? Could it be that God holistically foreknew the need for a just and perfect plan to save and restore; then, preordained a plan to save and restore order? Therefore, He calls out, selects, those He foreknew would hear and understand this plan?

At test you see, to sort-out those who would become justified and then glorified in a new heavens and earth where righteousness reigns so that none will rebel again? He weeds out those who freely choose to reject God's plan in order to restore order at a future date and time.

Thus God justly sets each being in time and place, in all the eras and epochs of history, according to God plans and decrees that govern towards specific end.

Without God calling out, selecting from the midst, making the plan, no-one could choose. If God did not call out to Adam and Eve in the Garden, plus revealing that only His sacrifice can restore, humanity would forever be lost.

God made the ability for humanity to make choices so He can justly redeem. To engage this ability, God calls out to all of Humanity while we run and hide amongst our world to see, to test, to prove, to try, those He forenew would return to Him and who will not.

Is this what Jac3510 is referring too?
-
-
-

[LowlyOne]

Why are some people saved and others not?

Because the condition of the hearts of those who were saved were open and receptive being good ground. The others were not. See the parable of the sower.

What is it that those who are saved do that is different to those that are not?

Nothing, because God's drawing was greater up to that point. One plants, one waters, but God gives the increase. Those who responded to the Holy Spirit's conviction had seed planted in them by maybe a neighbor, and later in life a co-worker watered that seed, and God gave the increase. The others who are not saved "yet" may have seed planted and heard the gospel, but that seed might not have been watered. Thus, God hasn't gave the increase in that sinner YET, and I do mean YET.

If two people both hear the gospel, one is is saved and the other one not, why is that?

This is a faulty question by the Calvinist/Reformed Christiand (though it is a good one) because the Calvinist assumes or intentionally makes the two look like they both were in a nuetral state. If this is so, and one gets saved, who can we say made the choice? God only. But, it is erroneous to assume that both sinners are at the same place mentally, and that the condition of their hearts are exactly the same. Here is why.

2 Corinthians 4:3 But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.

Now say two 20 year olds hear the gospel. They come from two different backgrounds. One comes from an atheist background, and has never went to church. The other comes from a background where God is acknoweldged, and that one has been to church each easter and Christmas, but this one like the other is unregenerate. You have two different heart and mind conditions. Satan blinds the minds of those who don't believe through deceptions, wrong beliefs, and misconceptions and preconcieved thoughts concerning Christ, the gospel, and the church scene. Now with the atheist, you could say his ear is more stopped up with deception and darkness from ideas that's came in his path up until this point, preventing him from hearing the truth, and more so than the other.

Now if I whisper something, one is going to have a more difficult time hearing it that the other. For example, one old guy with a hearing aid will not be able to hear my voice whereas another without it can hear it better. Such is the same with the two people, the atheist and the other. So what must be done, is the Holy Spirit must draw, convict, and break down the lies and deception where BOTH can see Christ with an unveiled face and depart from satan's kingdom and sin and enter into the Kingdom of God by faith in Christ. So, the reason on chooses to believe is because God first drew them, their ground and condition of their heart was good, ready and receptive, and God brought them out of darkness into the light.

Now their is so so much more that could be said and discusses more in depth, but this should be a sufficient answer to those questions.

Now, I ask the Calvinist a question. Out of the two who hears the gospel, on gets saved by God and the other didn't. Both hear the gospel invitation to come and drink of the water freely, and to come to the Father through Christ's cross and resurrection, both hear that God loves them and Jesus died for them to provide forgiveness, and His arms are outstretched to them and open, but only one get's saved by God. Was/is God sincere in the invitation?



What do we make of the Mandate to Preach the gospel of salvation to every creature? If you knew what biblically consists in the gospel of salvation found in the Holy Scriptures, you'd know that the invitation to drink of the water of life is in it, and the inivitation to "come" to the Father through Christ's sacrificial work. But, the gospel of salvation also has in this the commands to repent and believe and these are the steps or choices a sinner has to come. The Holy Spirit is faithful to initiate and draw them the whole way, but they must co-operate. He isn't going to repent or believe for them.

So, my question is again, is God really sincere in His invitation to those whom don't come, or if your calvinist, to those whom He foreordained to hell?

Remember, God loves the World, and want's all to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.

[LowlyOne]

Imagine this scenario: Parents from around the world send their children to a rustic camp set in the midst of Kendtucky's Bluegrass Region for the summer. All one hundred children become infected with a deadly virus during the first week of camp and have but one monty to live. Fortunately, a specialist who has seen a similar outbreak in New Mexico knows of a treatment: the Yucca cactus, when ground to a pulp, blended with vinegar and ingested over the period of three weeks, will completely counteract the virus and return the children to full health.

Unfortunately, every single child finds the smell of concoction so utterly repulsive that no amount of coaxing by even the best of counselors succeeds in getting anyone to eat any of it. TO make matters worse, the virus somehow drives the children mad, prompting them to lash out in foul language devilishly at those trying to help them and accuse their counselors of gross misconduct. Luckily, yet another specialist develops a serum that, when injected hypodermically, creates within the child an insatiable passion for eating the Yucca mash.

Now imagine the news of the virus reaches the alarmed parents. The camp director immediately sends a letter reassuring them that he LOVES all their children, that he is offering to ALL their children the life-saving Yucca mash in LIBERAL QUANTITIES, that he will supply this expensive preparation without charge and that all children will be brought to the cafeteria three times a day and "strongly urged to eat".

Three months later, the parents arrive in the Bluegrass to retrieve their children. But at the campsite, they are stunned to discover that seventy-five children have died from the virus. Interrogating the director, they discover that the life-saving food could not work its wonders unless the child was injected with the appetite stimulant. On further questioning they discover that the director had chosen to inject only twenty-five children with the serum, though he had an unlimited supply at his disposal. To say nothing about their anger and grief, the parents are utterly perplexed!

In Chorus they immediately challenge the claim made by the camp director in the letter they had received, asking, "How can you claim to have "loved" the seventy-five dead children if you could have saved them but didn't?" We can imaging just how unconvincing some of the director's answers might be: "But I offered the Yucca mash liberally, freely and passionately." Yes, but all this talk about the merits of mixture misses the issue of the serum! "But the children are to blame, since they ate exactly what they wanted and violently rejected my help!" Yes, but you fully controlled exactly what each child wanted! "But note how much attention I lavished on these children in the last weeks of their lives." And you call this love--to provide the most exciting camp activities to a child as she dies, while you withhold the very serum of life?

The directors claim to love all children rings hollow at best, deceptive at worst. If love will not employ all available means to rescue someone from ultimate loss, it is hard to hear the announcement of universal love as good news. Indeed, it is hard to hear it as love at all. In our judgment, it becomes meaningless to claim that God wishes to save all while also insisting that God refrains from making the salvation of all possible. What are we to make of a God whose walk does not match his talk?
----------above scenerio given by Jerry L. Walls and Joseph Dongell

Scripture to meditate on:
Isa 45:22 - "Look to Me, and be saved, All you ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other.

Hymn to sing in worship:
Jesus loves the little children, all the children of the world. Red and yellow black and white, they are precious in His sight, Jesus loves the little children of the world.

Ending note:
That Hymn adequately and biblically reflects the salvific and redemptive love that God has for not just some children in all the world, but all the children in all the world. If you don't believe that, you'd be hypocritical to sing it and ought not too.

Lowly One

[puritan lad]

I'm working on a reply to Jac, but for now, I'll respond to Lowly One.

First, God does not offer salvation to anyone. He Saves (Matthew 1:21). I hear alot about the modern "offer of salvation", but I cannot find it in the Bible. God neither seeks nor requires our approval, He gets it. He performs the necessary heart transplant (Ezekiel 36:26). "It is not of Him who wills, nor of Him who runs, but of God who shows mercy" (Romans 9:16). Those who are saved are "born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God (John 1:13). Pretty clear to me. "Salvation is of the Lord (Jonah 2:9), not of the Lord and man. Synergism is unscriptural. The clay has no power over the potter whatsoever.

And those whom Christ died for cannot go to Hell, for He has secured our eternal redemption (Hebrews 9:12), and "gives His sheep (not goats) eternal life, and they shall never perish". CHrist did NOT die for Pharoah's sins. Pharaoh led a "Purpose-Driven Life" (Romans 9:17-18). Sobering thought...

[LowlyOne]

Puritan Lad wrote

First, God does not offer salvation to anyone. He Saves (Matthew 1:21). I hear alot about the modern "offer of salvation", but I cannot find it in the Bible.

God does offer salvation to people. First, I will point you to Cain.
Genesis 4:6 So the Lord said to Cain, "Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? 7 If you do well, will you not be accepted?

God offered Cain a chance in the form of a hypothetical question to "be accepted" if Cain would "do well". Yet Cain did not. Was God pretending, having preselected Cain for hell, or was God serious in that Cain could have been accepted?

Now I point you to the days of Noah.
"My Spirit shall not always strive with man" declared God in the days of Noah (Gen 6:3). If the men of Noah's generation were foreordained to damnation, as Calvinism teaches, in what sense did the Spirit strive with them, since they were fulfilling their foreordained role in refusing the testimony of Noah? 2 Pet. 2:5 - God did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly; Who was Noah preaching to? It was those who weren't spared and were punished by the flood because God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. If no man, either elect or reprobate, can resist the will of God, against whom or what is the Spirit striving when He "strives with man"? If there is in man no faculty of decision which God takes into account, any striving of the Spirit that fails to bring man to submission proves God incapable of performance. Any "striving" not intended to bring man to submission would be a farce and prove God hopelessly insincere. If decision rests with God alone, any striving at all is totally phony and superfuous.

2Chronicles 24:19 - Yet He sent prophets to them, to bring them back to the Lord; and they testified against them, but they would not listen.

2 Chronicles 36:15 And the Lord God of their fathers sent warnings to them by His messengers, rising up early and sending them, because He had compassion on His people and on His dwelling place. 16 But they mocked the messengers of God, despised His words, and scoffed at His prophets, until the wrath of the Lord arose against His people, till there was no remedy.

I guess there was no decision which God took account here huh?

Isaiah 66:4 So will I choose their delusions, And bring their fears on them; Because, when I called, no one answered, When I spoke they did not hear; But they did evil before My eyes, And chose that in which I do not delight."

So what would you make of these verses? I could probably give about 15-20 examples found through out Scripture. But this should be sufficient. Tell me these instances of people didn't have a chance!

[puritan lad]

God does offer salvation to people. First, I will point you to Cain.
Genesis 4:6 So the Lord said to Cain, "Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? 7 If you do well, will you not be accepted?

God offered Cain a chance in the form of a hypothetical question to "be accepted" if Cain would "do well". Yet Cain did not. Was God pretending, having preselected Cain for hell, or was God serious in that Cain could have been accepted?

Sorry Lowly One, There was no offer of salvation here. Cain chose to disobey, but could not repent because “He was of the Wicked One' (1 John 3:12). His choice was a result of His own sinful nature, totally depraved.

So what would you make of these verses? I could probably give about 15-20 examples found through out Scripture. But this should be sufficient. Tell me these instances of people didn't have a chance!

You have given NO verses that teach that God “offers” salvation. Examples of commanding the wicked to repent do not show an “offer” of anything. You ignore the fact that God's Word NEVER returns void, that it ALWAYS accomplishes that which He intended it (Isaiah 55:11). This was true in Noah's day as well. The word Noah preached accomplished God's purpose (unless Isaiah was mistaken).

Proverbs 16:4
"The LORD has made all for Himself, Yes, even the wicked for the day of doom."

John the Baptist preached the gospel of repentance to the Pharisees (Matthew 3:7-8). Jesus also told them the truth, but they would not believe (John 10:25-26). Why did they not believe? Because they were not His Sheep. Jesus did not say that they were not His sheep because they did not believe. Instead, He plainly told them that they did not believe BECAUSE they were not His sheep.

Jesus purposely hid the kingdom of God from them. (Matthew 13:11). This is why Jesus spoke in parables. The Pharisees were “disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed” (1 Peter 2:8).

When Peter preached to the Gentiles, “as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.” (Acts 13:48). Not hard to understand, but hard for many to swallow. They are too much in love with what John Owen refers to as “The Idol of Free Will”, an idol which challenges God to do His work of salvation, and then tells God to His face, “My council shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure”.

Yes, they had a choice. However, they could only choose those things which were allowed by their sinful nature. God must regenerate a person before he can even see the kingdom of God, let alone choose it. (John 3:3)

John 6:65
“And He said, “Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.””

Would you like to talk about pharaoh? Most Arminians don't, for obvious reasons.

God Bless,

PL

[LowlyOne]

P.L. wrote

Cain chose to disobey, but could not repent because “He was of the Wicked One' (1 John 3:12). His choice was a result of His own sinful nature, totally depraved.

Sorry, but the sinful nature of man is not a machine that controls the rest of mans spirit, soul, and body. The Calvist view of fallen man is incorrect. Look at what God said to Cain. "And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it." This is clear, how much clearer can it get. Cain, being of the wicked one could have ruled over the sin at the door and it's desire for him. Was God deceiving Cain telling him he should do something, implying that Cain was able and without excuse if he didn't, if God foreordained that Cain would forever remain of the wicked one as you say? Proverbs talks of something similar.

Pro. 16:32 He who is slow to anger is better than the mighty, And he who rules his spirit than he who takes a city. Here, we see that man is capable of ruling his spirit, knowing that God gives grace to the humble and provides the ability to do so.

Puritan Lad wrote

John the Baptist preached the gospel of repentance to the Pharisees (Matthew 3:7-8 ). Jesus also told them the truth, but they would not believe (John 10:25-26). Why did they not believe? Because they were not His Sheep. Jesus did not say that they were not His sheep because they did not believe. Instead, He plainly told them that they did not believe BECAUSE they were not His sheep

.

Come on now, you got to do better than quote John 10:26 to support the faulty monergism doctrine. As for this verse, the biblical interpretation goes about like this. Jesus' "sheep" were those given to Him by His Father (John 10:29). These people were previously the Father's sheep—that is, they were the believing remnant in Israel—and the Father gave them to be under Christ's pastoral leadership (John 17:6).

When Jesus arrived in Israel, most Jews were not of the believing remnant, and were, therefore, not among the sheep that the Father gave to Jesus. Those who were not of the believing remnant before Jesus came (not surprisingly) did not believe in Jesus, either. This is what Jesus is acknowledging when He said, "You do not believe [i.e., in Jesus] because you are not of my sheep [i.e., you are not among those who believe in my Father, and are thus not of the group He has given me.]"


Jesus did not declare it impossible for them to believe, He only observed that their not believing was not surprising, because they were already rejecting the truth of God before Jesus even arrived.]Also, we must remember the context of this verse. Context Context Context!

John 10:22 It was now winter, and Jesus was in Jerusalem at the time of Hanukkah. 23 He was at the Temple, walking through the section known as Solomon's Colonnade. 24 The Jewish leaders surrounded him and asked, "How long are you going to keep us in suspense? If you are the Messiah, tell us plainly." 25 Jesus replied, "I have already told you, and you don't believe me. The proof is what I do in the name of my Father. 26 But you don't believe me because you are not part of my flock. 27 My sheep recognize my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one will snatch them away from me, 29 for my Father has given them to me, and he is more powerful than anyone else. So no one can take them from me. 30 The Father and I are one."


Look at verse 25. He told them already and they didn't believe what he said.

Lastly, when examining this verse, it must be noted that their unbelief did not derive from some eternal, irrevocable decree of God. This is evident (if one takes of their reformed glasses) from the fact that to the same men Jesus appealed in verse 37 and 38, “believe the (My) works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him."

To take this further, it's really sad, that many make the error of trying to derive an order in the process of salvation from a verse that is metaphorical and merely meant to be descriptive. I mean, if a shepherd says about certain sheep that are grazing among his own flock, “These ones are not white, because they are not of my sheep,” does that prove that the wool of his sheep was black before he obtained them, and then became white after they became his sheep? Is the shepherd declaring that the sole reason that his sheep have white wool is because they are his sheep? No, the only real conclusion one can draw from such a statement is that the shepherd only has sheep with white wool in his flock. Likewise, Jesus was simply describing His true sheep among the bigger “flock.” His sheep believe. Those who are not of His flock don't believe. He was not establishing an order in the process of salvation.

I wonder why people don't quote the two verses that follow John 10:26 in order to be certain his interpretation fits the context. There we continue reading, “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they shall never perish; and no one shall snatch them out of My hand” (John 10:27-28 ).
Here Jesus continues to describe His relationship with His sheep. He mentions things that they do and things that He does for them. Not only do they believe in Him, but they also hear his voice (because they are near and attentive), and they follow Him (because they have obediently submitted to Him). True Christians believe in, listen to, and obey Jesus. Jesus, like any good shepherd, knows which sheep are His. He gives them eternal life, promises that they won't perish, and also guarantees that they won't be stolen. Clearly we see this is a two-sided relationship, both sides having responsibility.

How would we fare if we used this same means of interpreting John 10:26 to interpret Jesus' words regarding a just-converted prostitute, recorded in Luke 7:47?:
“For this reason I say to you, her sins, which are many, have been forgiven, for [because] she loved much; but he who is forgiven little, loves little."

Was Jesus teaching that the reason this prositute's many sins were forgiven was because she first, prior to being forgiven, "loved much"? Or was Jesus simply describing people who have been forgiven much, identifying them as being people who love God much? The answer is obvious. Thus we should be extremely careful in deriving an order of the process of salvation from John 10:26, grasping for a cause and effect relationship in a

statement that was only meant to describe true believers. With this being said, the interpretation that reformed teachers give has nothing to due with the context, Jesus' intent to His hearers. The only way to come up with such a view is to isolate this text from the context and quote it by itself.

Puritan Lad wrote

Jesus purposely hid the kingdom of God from them. (Matthew 13:11). This is why Jesus spoke in parables. The Pharisees were “disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed” (1 Peter 2:8 ).

Nope, Jesus did not hide the kingdom of God from them, he hid the mysteries of/about the kingdom of God from them. This wasn't dealing with the gospel message.

John 13:11 He answered and said to them, "Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. I'll say this again, this was not the gospel message that was hid from them. In context, it is talking about the word of the kingdom, the four conditions of the heart and fruitfulness. But then we have the verse that says Christ is speaking in parables so that they will not understand and be converted, with their sins forgiven. That makes no sense in the Calvinist model. Why use parables with the totally depraved? It would be unnecessary.

I do believe that this question is unanswerable in terms of Calvinist presuppositions. Upon those suppositions, the natural man is incapable of repenting or believing. He can only do these things if God first works a special unilateral work of regeneration in to the heart, bringing him from death to life, which then allows the man to be freed from his blindness, to repent of sin and to put his faith in Christ. These presuppositions are not found in scripture, but they are a necessary part of Calvinist anthropology.

Obviously, if these Calvinist assumptions were correct, and if God did not wish for a man to repent or believe, there would never be any occasion for God to further harden a man's heart or conceal His message in mysteries, since the man's default condition, lacking special grace, would preclude any possibility of his repentance or faith anyway. God need do exactly nothing, and He would thereby guarantee that man would never repent or believe.

The fact that God is specificly said to actively "harden" certain peoples' hearts, to "blind their eyes" and to conceal His mysteries "lest they should be converted," bears eloquent testimony that the Calvinist view is wrong, and that God sees the sinner as one who, even in a state of being "dead" (like the prodigal son—Luke 15:24), has the potential of repenting and believing, unless God takes special steps to render this impossible in certain cases (e.g., Pharaoh, the Jews of Jesus' day).

This seems so obvious to me that it is hard to imagine why there are Bible students who are still Calvinists. "Seeing, they see, and do not perceive..."

1 Pet. 2:8 ...and "A stone of stumbling And a rock of offense." They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed.
If you look at greek wording and word play, you would be able to see what Peter was trying to say. They were appointed to stumble, as a consequence of them being disobedient to the word. Jesus talks of two types of houses being built in the gospels. The wise one put in to practice what Jesus said, and his has was built on the rock. The foolish one did not do so, and built his house on the sand. The storms came, and the foolish house fell, which was the consequence of being disobedient and not putting into practice Jesus' Words. Same message being portrayed here. No problem for the non-calvinist.

....continue on

[LowlyOne]

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.

Can you say this man did not have a choice, Puritan Lad? Notice that Jesus loved Him, and if He truly did, then He would not have wanted Him to make the decision he did. He had a chance, but blew it.

[August]

Lowlyone,

The conclusion that can be reached from your position is that God is not God. Because salvation depends on the will and works of a man, man ascribes divinity to himself. God is not God because He depends on man. Man himself determines whether he will be saved. This means that God's grace is not irresistable, but man can reject the grace of God. Man then has more power than God, God passively waits to see what man will do.

Your emphasis seems to be on what man must do to be saved, and not on what God has done in Jesus Christ. Therefore Jesus is not the only way of salvation.

I would also caution you not to build a strawman as regards Calvinism. It does not teach that man has no action in his own salvation, he must believe, by accepting. The WCF states:

But the principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace. (WCF 14.2)

John 1:12 and Acts 16:31 are the Scriptures that are referred to in this regard. Where we differ is on where the ability to accept and believe comes from. You hold that the ability comes from man, while I agree with the reformed teaching that it is as a result of the work that the Holy Spirit has done in us, since faith, through grace, is a gift of God.