Posted on 07/12/2013 8:38:23 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
Today is the 504th anniversary of the birth of John Calvin (July 10, 1509) — and the 497th anniversary of misunderstanding Calvinists.
To commemorate the event, let’s look at a recent notable example provided by The Economist. The article is out-datedly titled, “Dippers divided” and the subhead is “Where evangelicals disagree.” Where evangelicals disagree, apparently, is on whether to maintain,
the “theocon” alliance in American politics between Catholics and evangelicals, who have set aside their doctrinal differences (over the Virgin Mary, for example) to take a joint stand against abortion and in favour of the traditional family.
What could be causing the rift between Catholics and evangelicals. According to The Economist, the alleged culprit is Calvinists in the Southern Baptist denomination.
. . . the effectiveness of the Catholic-evangelical axis may be compromised by a deepening ideological fissure within the evangelical camp; or more specifically within America’s largest Protestant denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention, which has about 16m members.
Broadly speaking, the difference is over whether Jesus Christ died to save mankind as a whole, or sacrificed himself only for a particular group of human beings, the elect, whom God had chosen in advance. The latter view is associated with John Calvin, the French reformer of the 16th century; critics find it too fatalistic, and inconsistent with the idea of a loving God. Taken to its logical extreme, some say, Calvinism can lead to an introverted, exclusive mindset: if most of humanity is irrevocably damned, what’s the point of engaging with the world?
Who is this “some” who “say?” Probably the same “some” who claim that premillennial dispensationalists (who are rarely, if ever, Calvinists) also believe that if most of humanity is irrevocably damned (see: the Left Behind novels), there is no point of engaging with the world. Of course, these same groups — Calvinists and dispensationalists — are frequently portrayed as also wanting to create a theocracy in America, so who knows what to believe. The “some” have a tendency to “say” contradictory things.
The Economist adds,
The perceived leader of the Calvinist camp is Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. He has helped to ensure that many of the young Baptist ministers now starting their careers have a Calvinist way of thinking. In many cases they are out of their step with their flock, and that can lead to stormy pastoral situations.
Change the opening “The” to an “A” and that paragraph is mostly right — predicated on the “Calvinist way of thinking” being actual way Calvinists think and not the caricature presented earlier. A few more paragraphs detail some of the controversy over Calvinism in the Southern Baptist Convention. The reporting on the controversy is rather uncontroversial, until they slip in the F-word:
Neither party will have the slightest truck with liberal ideas. But even among fundamentalists, there can be hard arguments over what the fundamentals are.
So now the opposite of theologicaly liberal is “fundamentalist” rather than, say, theologically conservative? Ugh. You already know what we at GetReligion think of that term so I’ll let that slide without further comment. Now back to the Calvinism:
Will the outcome of this argument make a difference to anybody outside the world of Baptist theology? Yes, because as well as being hard-line over salvation, the Calvinists oppose any blurring of the boundaries between Christian denominations. So there are limits to their willingness to co-operate with higher-church Christians. “The Calvinists have a very anti-Catholic theological stand,” I was told by David Key, director of Baptist studies at Emory University’s Candler School of Theology.
Mr Mohler, for example, responded to the general excitement over the election of Pope Francis by recalling that evangelicals utterly rejected the Catholic idea that the pope was Christ’s vicar on earth. In another statement, he said that Catholics and evangelicals might still agree on sexual and reproductive issues, but he also stressed that evangelicals could not accept the validity of the pope’s office.
Let’s examine some of the many confusions in those two short paragraphs. First, Calvinists do not oppose “any blurring of the boundaries between Christian denominations” because Calvinism is not a denomination. Calvinism is a theological system that crosses numerous denominational boundaries; you can be a Calvinist and be a member of a “low-church” denomination (e.g., Southern Baptist) or you can be a Calvinist and a “higher-church Christian” (e.g., Anglicans). Second, the limits to Calvinists willingness to co-operate with Catholics is almost purely on a theological level. But this is a trait shared by all Protestants. That’s why we’re called Protestants.
The Economist assumes that disagreements about theological matters (e.g., the validity of the pope’s office) will cause conservative Calvinist evangelicals to refuse to work with conservative Catholics on social and political issues. Obviously, they are unaware that this is the exact opposite of what most Calvinist evangelicals believe.
Within evangelicalism, the use of the term ‘co-belligerence’ was popularized by the Calvinist intellectual Francis Schaeffer. Schaeffer, whose influence on evangelical politics is incalculable, emphasized the importance of activism that leads neither to compromise nor separatism because of theological differences. As Schaeffer once wrote, “A co-belligerent is a person with whom I do not agree on all sorts of vital issues, but who, for whatever reasons of their own, is on the same side in a fight for some specific issue of public justice.”
Indeed, this view is not only shared by many evangelicals, it is the exact same position taken by Dr. Mohler. Here is Mohler’s own words:
. . . with the cultural challenges now before us, Evangelicals, Roman Catholics, and the Orthodox should stand without embarrassment as co-belligerents in the culture war. The last persons on earth to have an honest disagreement may also be the last on earth to recognize transcendent truth and moral principles—even the sanctity of human life itself.
This quote is from an essay Mohler published in the the ecumenical(!) journal Touchstone titled “Standing Together, Standing Apart: Cultural Co-belligerence Without Theological Compromise.” The date: July 2003.
Francis Schaeffer, the godfather of the Religious Right, wrote about co-belligerence 33 years. Albert Mohler, the “perceived leader of the Calvinist camp”, wrote about co-belligerence 10 years ago. For Calvinists, the concept of working together with Catholics goes back more than 400 years (Calvin himself worked with the French Catholic Inquisition on the Michael Servetus heresy trial). In other words, Calvinism is likely to have the exact opposite effect that The Economist seems to think it will have.
This is an embarrassing unforced error by one of the world’s most esteemed newspapers.* But other journalists can learn from their mistake and can avoid such shame-inducing gaffes by using a technique that has worked for four centuries: When you want to know what Calvinists think, ask them.
*For historical reasons The Economist refers to itself as a newspaper. Since Carter’s Rule of Religious Labels states that “Use a religious label a person would use to describe themselves and avoid using ones they would not,” I figure a similar principles should apply to publications.
” It turns Ephesians into “For by grace you have been saved through faith” into “For by grace you have been saved through predestination”.”
Or, we eeevil Calvinists could just read the whole thing, where it concludes: “and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God.” So is your “faith” of yourself, or is it the gift of God?
Again...no...Calvin would say whoever believes is saved.
And he would add that a believer has been chosen before the beginning of time (Eph 1:4) . Thus:
the issue of salvation under Calvin is not “Do you believe?” but “Are you chosen?
It's not either/or. It's both. The chosen believe and vice versa.
Calvin taught that God chooses people before time, and then irresistibly saves them and them alone. The chosen ones are born again and THEN believe - Limited Atonement/Irresistible Grace.
But John wrote: “...but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
Do you believe, and live? That is Arminian thought. Do you live, then believe? That is Calvin.
“Or, we eeevil Calvinists could just read the whole thing, where it concludes: “and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God.” So is your “faith” of yourself, or is it the gift of God?”
Sorry, but the text does not support you. In the Greek, the gift is linked to salvation, not faith:
“That is, salvation does not proceed from yourselves. The word rendered “that” - touto- is in the neuter gender, and the word “faith” - pistis- is in the feminine. The word “that,” therefore, does not refer particularly to faith, as being the gift of God, but to “the salvation by grace” of which he had been speaking.”
God’s salvation is His gift. Saving faith is never called a gift in the Bible. Saving faith is something we do, or do not do:
“For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes believed him. And even when you saw it, you did not afterward change your minds and believe him.”
“Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God.”
“Do you believe, and live? That is Arminian thought. Do you live, then believe? That is Calvin.”
Actually, the teaching is that we believe when the Holy Spirit quickens our souls and reveals to us that Jesus Christ is the Lord (1 Co 12:13). IOW, it’s more accurate to say that belief and regeneration happen at exactly the same time, or, perhaps, like a hammer hitting a nail, if we liken the hammer to the quickening power of the Holy Spirit, and the nail entering the board to the faith of the man.
““That is, salvation does not proceed from yourselves. The word rendered “that” - touto- is in the neuter gender, and the word “faith” - pistis- is in the feminine. The word “that,” therefore, does not refer particularly to faith, as being the gift of God, but to “the salvation by grace” of which he had been speaking.””
From Gill’s commentary:
“”In this verse, to what does the word “that” refer to? Adam Clarke, Wesley & company say that it is neuter plural and “Faith” is feminine hence it cannot refer to faith, (Such an admission would destroy their theological system.) However “Grace” is also feminine as is “Salvation”.’’
“Saving faith is never called a gift in the Bible.”
Except that it is indeed described as coming from God, and not of ourselves. For example:
Joh 6:64-65 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. (65) And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
Mat_16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
Php_1:29 For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake;
Therefore, your assertions are totally false.
No, the sequence isn't correct. Belief and re-birth are simultaneous. Eph 1:4 says believers were chosen before time but the moment of rebirth occurs with faith.
But John wrote: “...but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
And how does this contradict Calvinism? Calvin taught that belief i.e. faith brings life.
Do you live, then believe? That is Calvin.
This is false.
Calvin taught we are DEAD in sin, and need to be born again in order to receive belief. Scripture teaches we are alienated from God (think about the Prodigal Son) and doomed to eternal death unless we believe the promise of God in Christ Jesus.
Well, yes we are dead in sin in ourselves.
But where do you get your idea that Calvin said belief comes after being born again?
I don't know any Calvinist who believes this and I don't know where you got the idea.
Which is exactly what all reformers (including Calvin!) believed.
“Calvin taught we are DEAD in sin”
Sounds good!
Col 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
Luk 9:60 Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God.
Eph 2:1-2 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; (2) Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
“In the Reformed camp, the ordo salutis is 1) election/predestination (in Christ), 2) Atonement 3) gospel call 4) inward call 5) regeneration, 6) conversion (faith & repentance), 7) justification, 8) sanctification, and 9) glorification. (Rom 8:29-30)
In the Arminian camp, the ordo salutis is 1) outward call 2) faith/election, 3) repentance, 4) regeneration, 5) justification, 6) perseverance, 7) glorification.
Notice the crucial difference in the orders of regeneration and faith. While the Reformed position believes spiritual life is a prerequisite for the existence of the other aspects of salvation, the Arminians believe that fallen, natural man retains the moral capacity to receive or reject the gospel of his own power. Even with the help of grace he still must find it within himself to believe or reject Christ.”
http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/ordo-salutis/
“One of my professors went to the blackboard and wrote these words in bold letters: “Regeneration Precedes Faith.”
These words were a shock to my system. I had entered seminary believing that the key work of man to effect rebirth was faith. I thought that we first had to believe in Christ in order to be born again.”
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/sproul01.html
I think scripture overwhelmingly teaches we believe to live, not that we live to believe. When Jesus came preaching, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”, was Jesus mocking us? Was he calling to repentance those who could not do otherwise, and rejecting those who could not, or had God’s prevenient grace made it possible for all who heard to either believe the Gospel, or reject it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevenient_grace
“Sounds good!”
“11 And he said, “There was a man who had two sons. 12 And the younger of them said to his father, ‘Father, give me the share of property that is coming to me.’ And he divided his property between them. 13 Not many days later, the younger son gathered all he had and took a journey into a far country, and there he squandered his property in reckless living. 14 And when he had spent everything, a severe famine arose in that country, and he began to be in need. 15 So he went and hired himself out to one of the citizens of that country, who sent him into his fields to feed pigs. 16 And he was longing to be fed with the pods that the pigs ate, and no one gave him anything.
17 “But when he came to himself, he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired servants have more than enough bread, but I perish here with hunger! 18 I will arise and go to my father, and I will say to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you. 19 I am no longer worthy to be called your son. Treat me as one of your hired servants.”’ 20 And he arose and came to his father. But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and felt compassion, and ran and embraced him and kissed him. 21 And the son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’ 22 But the father said to his servants, ‘Bring quickly the best robe, and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet. 23 And bring the fattened calf and kill it, and let us eat and celebrate. 24 For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.’ And they began to celebrate.”
What happened?
““But when he came to himself, he said...”
Yet his father said, “For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.”
Dead didn’t mean incapable of returning. It referred to alienation from the Father.
Scripture also calls us slaves to sin. Are slaves dead? Are slaves incapable of wishing for freedom? How does Jesus describe the lost?
“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed...”
“Dead didn’t mean incapable of returning. It referred to alienation from the Father.”
It means far more than just being alienated. To be dead in our sins before salvation refers to spiritual and moral death as what occurred to Adam at the garden:
Gen_2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
If this was not so, there would be no need for a rebirth by the working of the Holy Spirit. Salvation, then, would just be when the man has the good sense to unalienate himself, having no difference in his nature from before, except what he himself accomplished through his own will.
This isn’t even the Arminian view, which you claim to uphold.
“Scripture also calls us slaves to sin. Are slaves dead? Are slaves incapable of wishing for freedom?”
When one is enslaved to sin, it is his will that is enslaved. The scripture writes:
Eph 2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
Those who are spiritually death are the slaves of their own sin, willingly, as a choice that they make. So, of course, a person who wills to sin does not desire to be freed. It is against his will.
This is why only by the Holy Ghost, through revelation from God Himself, that a man is freed from his own sinful will.
1Co_12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.
From the same link:
“We must always keep in mind that the orders expressed in the following articles occur together or happen simultaneously like heat and fire. All aspects of the work of God continue together throughout the life of a Christian.”
That’s essentially what both What’s up and I have been saying. Though, of course, we do agree that the initiating act is by the Holy Spirit. It is inaccurate, however, to separate, through a gap, the faith that occurs “like heat from fire.”
re: “Men, by nature, are already evil”
I readily agree that all men have a sin nature that wars against God. I also agree that none of us are righteous by God’s standard of righteousness. I agree that no man can earn salvation through works and, as Paul said, no man naturally seeks out God. Without God’s initiating grace, we are without hope. However, none of these passages say that man has no ability to respond to God’s grace or call.
In Jonah, the people of Nineveh, at Jonah’s preaching repented and God changed His plan to destroy them. There is no indication that God caused the people of Nineveh to respond to Him.
In the Book of Job, in fact, what is the point of the Book of Job if man is incapable of responding in faith to God?
Satan accuses Job in God’s presence of being disingenuous in his faith toward God - that Job only served God because of all the blessings God had given him. Satan never once accused Job of having faith only because God allowed it or sovereignly chose Job to have faith. That would have been the easiest accusation by Satan to say, “Sure Job has faith in You - because it’s You who is giving it to him!” But, Satan never says that.
As to Matthew 16:17, yes, of course Jesus told Peter that his understanding that Jesus was God’s Son, the Messiah, was definitely NOT revealed to him by another human being - it was revealed to him by the Father through Jesus, God the Son, who did His Father’s will, by His miracles and by His Words. This is not necessarily referring to whether or not Peter was incapable of perceiving who Jesus was. Peter saw the witness of Jesus’s words and deeds. Peter saw these things firsthand, not through human testimony, but as an eye-witness to God’s actions through His Son.
I am not saying that a sinful person can repent and believe apart from God’s gracious assistance. Any who do are in error.
God graciously attempts to get the attention of the unregenerate man, speaking to Him through His creation (see Rom. 1:18-20), His providence (see Acts 14:17), and each person’s conscience (see Rom. 2:14-16). By His Spirit and by His grace, God calls and anoints messengers who take the message of His saving grace to the sinner. By His Spirit and grace, God warns and convicts every sinner of sin, righteousness and judgment (see John 16:8). All of this God does by His grace in order that the sinner might be saved, and He does it all before the sinner has taken a single step towards repentance! Without God’s prevenient grace, certainly no person would ever repent. Jesus is, as He declared, “draw[ing] all men to [Himself]” (John 12:32, emphasis added) since He has been lifted up from the earth by crucifixion. And as Jesus also declared, “No one can come to Me, unless the Father who sent Me draws him” (John 6:44a). The Calvinist, ignoring the testimony of so much of Scripture that declares God’s universal love, His universal atonement, and His universal call to salvation, wrongly concludes that the Father is only drawing some, but not all, to Jesus. Yet Jesus plainly stated that He would draw all men to Himself. This fact cannot be denied by any honest reader of Scripture.
Note, however, that although Jesus is drawing all men to Himself, not all men are saved. This again proves that man has something to do with his salvation. He must yield to God’s drawing.
Ok, as to John 6:64-65. We read Jesus saying, “But there are some of you who do not believe.”
John then interjects: “For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him.” John then continues his narrative: “And He [Jesus] was saying, ‘For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me, unless it has been granted him from the Father.’”
Disregarding the greater context of John 6:41-71 as well of scores of other scriptures that reveal God’s desire for all people to come to Jesus (e.g., Matt. 11:28; 16:25; 22:9; Mark 16:15; Luke 9:23; John 3:16-17; 5:34-40; 7:37; 12:47; Acts 17:30; 1 Tim 2:3-6; 2 Pet 3:9; 1 John 4:14), Calvinists conclude that Jesus’ statement, “No one can come to Me, unless it has been granted him from the Father” proves that God sovereignly chooses only some to be saved.
This interpretation, however, stands in contradiction to so many other plain scriptures that declare God’s love for all, Jesus’ death for all, and God’s desire that all be saved. Since inspired Scripture can’t contradict itself, we must find an interpretation that harmonizes rather than contradicts the rest of Scripture.
When Jesus said, “There are some of you who do not believe,” it wasn’t the first time He mentioned believing in John’s sixth chapter. Jesus spoke in 6:28-29, 35-36, 40, 47 of believing in Him, and He spoke of it in such a way that anyone who reads what He said without a preconceived bias would conclude that believing in Him was something anyone could do, and something that God desires every person to do.
Thus, in 6:64, Jesus indicts some of His audience for not believing, just as He did to the crowd in 6:36. Clearly, believing is something they were supposed to do, not something that God did for them. Jesus said, “Some of you do not believe.” Those words strongly affirm the non-Calvinist view of human responsibility in salvation.
John then explains that Jesus possessed foreknowledge of those who would not believe, which of course is no surprise. Non-Calvinists maintain (and rightly so) that God knew before the foundation of the world who would and who would not believe in Jesus. John is only endorsing that truth, again affirming the non-Calvinist view. And John again supports the non-Calvinist view that each individual is held responsible to believe. Notice that John said, “Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not [not could not] believe, and who it was that would [not had no choice but to] betray Him” (6:64).
Finally, John quotes Jesus as saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me, unless it has been granted from the Father” (6:65). Contextually, Jesus must mean that God grants that people can come to Jesus only by believing, and that is in perfect harmony with what Jesus said in the two preceding verses, the entire context of 6:26-71, and the whole of Scripture.
Calvinists also use this portion of Scripture to support the theory that the reason Judas betrayed Jesus is because salvation was not granted to Judas. This, of course, makes God the real betrayer of His Son Jesus, as it eliminates Judas’ responsibility in the matter. To the Calvinist, Judas had no choice but to betray Jesus—He was acting out his predetermined destiny. But if this were true, why would Jesus pronounce woe upon Judas for what he did, clearly holding him responsible for his treacherous act? If Judas had no choice but to betray Jesus because God didn’t grant him salvation, why would Jesus say, “Woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born” (Matt. 26:24). How could Jesus rightly hold Judas responsible for his actions if he really had no free choice in the matter? To the Calvinist, it was actually God the Father who betrayed Jesus, and Judas was just a tool in God’s hand. Thus Jesus should have said, “Woe to My Father for betraying Me!”
As I’ve said before, this is now the third time! We are not going to change each others opinion on this question of Calvinism. The argument has been going on for 500 years and we are not going to settle it now.
So, let’s just go love our Lord and serve Him and tell as many people as we can about His love for them in His Son.
Death means alienation that leads to eternal death. But if it meant incapable of responding to the grace of God, revealed by God to man, then Jesus was lying when he called on people to repent. Under Calvin’s thought, Jesus was calling people to repent when they either A) would do so irresistibly, or B) could not do so - all predetermined by Jesus.
If whosoever means ‘only the few I make do so’, then Jesus lied again in John 3. But he did not lie, because his call to repent and believe was something the hearers could do.
Think of the example of healing:
Mat 8:13 And to the centurion Jesus said, “Go; let it be done for you as you have believed.” And the servant was healed at that very moment.
Mat 9:28 When he entered the house, the blind men came to him, and Jesus said to them, “Do you believe that I am able to do this?” They said to him, “Yes, Lord.”
Luk 8:50 But Jesus on hearing this answered him, “Do not fear; only believe, and she will be well.”
Mat 8:10 When Jesus heard this, he marveled and said to those who followed him, “Truly, I tell you, with no one in Israel have I found such faith.
Mat 9:2 And behold, some people brought to him a paralytic, lying on a bed. And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Take heart, my son; your sins are forgiven.”
Mat 9:22 Jesus turned, and seeing her he said, “Take heart, daughter; your faith has made you well.” And instantly the woman was made well.
Mat 9:29 Then he touched their eyes, saying, “According to your faith be it done to you.”
Mat 15:28 Then Jesus answered her, “O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed instantly.
Mar 2:5 And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “My son, your sins are forgiven.”
Mar 5:34 And he said to her, “Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace, and be healed of your disease.”
Mar 10:52 And Jesus said to him, “Go your way; your faith has made you well.” And immediately he recovered his sight and followed him on the way.
Luk 17:19 And he said to him, “Rise and go your way; your faith has made you well.”
Luk 18:42 And Jesus said to him, “Recover your sight; your faith has made you well.”
For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
Gal 3:22 But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
Eph 1:13 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit,
Hbr 4:3 For we who have believed enter that rest, as he has said, “As I swore in my wrath, ‘They shall not enter my rest,’” although his works were finished from the foundation of the world.
1Pe 2:6 For it stands in Scripture: “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”
This does not mean there is no such thing as election, or predestination. But just as the Jews were chosen in Israel, we are chosen in Christ. That is the part Calvin dropped out of his systematic theology - IN CHRIST.
A short discussion of corporate election - election in line with how election was used in the Old Testament - can be found here:
“Summary. Concerning election and predestination, we might use the analogy of a great ship on its way to heaven. The ship (the church) is chosen by God to be his very own vessel. Christ is the Captain and Pilot of this ship. All who desire to be a part of this elect ship and its Captain can do so through a living faith in Christ, by which they come on board the ship. As long as they are on the ship, in company with the ship’s Captain, they are among the elect. If they choose to abandon the ship and Captain, they cease to be part of the elect. Election is always only in union with the Captain and his ship. Predestination tells us about the ship’s destination and what God has prepared for those remaining on it. God invites everyone to come aboard the elect ship through faith in Jesus Christ. [Life in the Spirit Study Bible, pp. 1854-1855]”
Also see:
http://evangelicalarminians.org/brian-abasciano-clearing-up-misconceptions-about-corporate-election/
“As I’ve said before, this is now the third time! We are not going to change each others opinion on this question of Calvinism. The argument has been going on for 500 years and we are not going to settle it now.
So, let’s just go love our Lord and serve Him and tell as many people as we can about His love for them in His Son.”
Amen. Thank you.
“However, none of these passages say that man has no ability to respond to God’s grace or call.”
Certainly they do, rather explicitly:
Rom 3:10-12 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: (11) There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. (12) They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
Joh 6:64-65 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. (65) And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
This is why the Arminians even invented the idea of an “initiating grace” in the first place, because man has no native ability to “respond to God’s call.”
Therefore, your position must conclude that we have no native ability to respond to God’s call, unless He gives it to us. This is the only meaning of an “initiating grace” you can have.
The problem with that position, though, is that it pretends that there is still some native part of man that is capable of responding to God’s call after God simply being woken up. As if there is still some spark of goodness in man, just waiting for God to get rid of all the gunk that blocks it. IOW, man really isn’t utterly depraved. He is still, at least on some level, good, despite the Apostle saying otherwise. However, if this were so, then everyone would be similarly “shaken” so as to have the option of believing. Yet, as you can see in John 6, and in other places, Christ connects their unbelief not with a rejection of God’s initiating grace, but rather with them not receiving the call by God to believe at all. “There are many of you that believe not... Therefore I said unto you, no man may come unto me except it is given by my Father.” It is an explanation for their unbelief.
The same occurs again when Christ speaks of His sheep.
Joh 10:26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
The fact that they are not sheep is the explanation for their unbelief, not a result of a refusal to become the sheep. The sheep are given by the Father to the Son:
Joh 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
Neither are any lost who are indeed given, which can only be so if “to give” really means what it implies; that it is the Father who gives, and not the man who gives himself.
Joh 17:9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.
Also notice that Christ does not covet more than those who are given to Him. Not praying for every individual in the world, but for His people given to Him out of the world.
“In the Book of Job, in fact, what is the point of the Book of Job if man is incapable of responding in faith to God?”
What is the point if God is all knowing, and therefore presumably knows, in advance, all possibilities and scenarios, and whether any could succeed or not? Perhaps to teach, and to make His glory known, as the same God who knows His elect from the beginning, also ordained that there should be means for their gathering, that they should go through fire, and come to learn through the preaching of the word, through the enlightening of our souls, through words of reasoning, upon a heart sanctified with God’s favor.
“Peter saw the witness of Jesus’s words and deeds.”
It says “flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee.” This does not mean that Peter’s flesh and blood, his carnal nature, figured it out. It is given from above, and not from below, and therefore that Peter saw, with his eyes, meant nothing, until the Father gave him spiritual eyes and brought him to believe. Again, your view doesn’t seem to even be the Arminian view, which you claim to uphold.
“God graciously attempts to get the attention of the unregenerate man, speaking to Him through His creation (see Rom. 1:18-20), His providence (see Acts 14:17), and each person’s conscience (see Rom. 2:14-16).”
And yet unregenerate man, despite all these pleas, simply refuses to repent. Hence why they are judged for it. This is why it is necessary for God to do a lot more than just try to get someone’s attention.
Act_13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.
“Yet Jesus plainly stated that He would draw all men to Himself. “
And yet that is plainly refuted, with the evidence already given above, with the Jews who were not drawn at all, but were rather blinded. So by “all men,” we can only think that He means all sorts of men, from every nation. The Jews often speak in this manner, using the “world” and “all” to have limited meanings, simply to refer to a large number of people, or all kinds of people.
From Gill’s commentary:
“Nothing is more common in Jewish writings than to call the Gentiles, “the world”; and “the whole world”; and “the nations of the world” (l); See Gill on John 12:19; and the word “world” is so used in Scripture; see Joh_3:16; and stands opposed to a notion the Jews have of the Gentiles, that , “there is no propitiation for them” (m): and it is easy to observe, that when this phrase is not used of the Gentiles, it is to be understood in a limited and restrained sense; as when they say (n),
“it happened to a certain high priest, that when he went out of the sanctuary, “the whole world” went after him;’’
Thus when the scripture speaks of the world in other places, but plainly means the land of Israel, or perhaps the Roman empire, who are accounted the rulers of the world, though they didn’t really rule every speck of dirt on the planet.
“Note, however, that although Jesus is drawing all men to Himself, not all men are saved. This again proves that man has something to do with his salvation.”
It proves an anemic savior who has no real power to draw, since if He is equally the advocate for a person who will be damned, and a person who will be saved, then there is no real difference between the two. It is simply in the personal righteousness and struggling of the latter.
“and He spoke of it in such a way that anyone who reads what He said without a preconceived bias would conclude that believing in Him was something anyone could do, and something that God desires every person to do.”
On the contrary, Jesus affirms several times throughout the chapter that the reason for their unbelief and mumuring was because it was not given to them by the Father to believe.
Joh 6:43-44 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves. (44) No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Christ affirms that the only way to salvation is through faith in Him, and that the only way to have faith is if it is given from above, in explanation to those who did not believe, or scoffed at His teachings.
“Clearly, believing is something they were supposed to do, not something that God did for them.”
Yet that isn’t what is said at all, because it is said “Therefore I said unto you, no man can come unto me unless it is given to Him by my Father.” This is not stating “My Father gave it to you, and you rejected it.” It is stating that they did not believe, and the reason for it was because it was not given.
“John is only endorsing that truth, again affirming the non-Calvinist view. “
But what that “truth” is, you have not explained. You just made a few random statements, and then made a conclusion, not based on anything the scripture said. Because if Jesus only foreknew that they would reject Him, then He would not have said that the Father not giving it was the explanation for their unbelief. That’s not a future prediction of rejection. It is evidence of God not giving faith to some, and leaving others to be blinded.
“How could Jesus rightly hold Judas responsible for his actions if he really had no free choice in the matter?”
So you give the same reply as Paul’s hypothetical opponent:
Rom 9:19-21 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? (20) Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? (21) Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
But your question has already been answered in previous posts. That is, that though it was God’s design that Judas should betray Christ, yet Judas, according to the providence of God, acted by necessity, that is, by his own inclinations, according to his own desires and the desire of the devil, whose child he was. God’s providence is certainly higher than the willing and working of the enemy, and uses them for His own designs freely. Yet, that they are used so, does not make them innocent of their behavior. Christ, for example, didn’t use Paul to do it, or John to do it, but a child of the devil, ordained to that condemnation from old (Jude 1:4).
“The argument has been going on for 500 years and we are not going to settle it now.”
Yes, but at that time it was the Papists who championed your cause.
“So, let’s just go love our Lord and serve Him and tell as many people as we can about His love for them in His Son.”
And yet, it was you who came in shooting, condemning us in general as unloving. If that is how you want to end it, you ought to start it that way too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.