The Trouble With Calvin – Pt. 1 [Total Depravity]

Tim Staples' Blog ^ | May 1, 2014 | Tim Staples

[GonzoII]

The Trouble With Calvin – Pt. 1

---

Over my next five blog posts, I am going to critique the famous “five points” of Calvinist theology: 1. Total Depravity 2. Unconditional Election 3. Limited Atonement 4. Irresistibility of Grace 5. Perseverance of the Saints (“Once Saved, Always Saved”).

Pt. 1 – Total Depravity

In John Calvin’s magnum opus, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Calvin presents a view of man that is very much like Luther’s, but contrary to what we find in the pages of Sacred Scripture. Calvin used texts like Gen.6:5,

The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually,

and Romans 3:10ff,

None is righteous, no not one; no one understands, no one seeks for God. All have turned aside, together they have gone wrong; no one does good, not even one…

in order to prove that man is totally and utterly depraved through the fall of Adam and Eve. Calvin’s conclusion from these texts and others was to say, “The will is so utterly vitiated and corrupted in every part as to produce nothing but evil” (Institutes, Bk. II, Chapter II, Para. 26).

What Say We?

The context of the texts Calvin used actually demonstrate the opposite of his claim. For example, if we read forward just four verses in Genesis 6, we find this:

But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord… Noah was a righteous (“just”) man, blameless in his generation (Gen. 6:8-9).

While we Catholics agree that God’s grace or “favor” was absolutely essential for Noah to be truly “just” before God; nevertheless, Noah was truly just, according to the text.

As far as the quote from Romans is concerned, the greater context of the entire epistle must be understood. One of the central themes of St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans is the fact that it is through “the goodness of God” that we are led to repent (cf. Romans 2:4), to be justified (Romans 5:1-2), and persevere in the faith (cf. Romans 11:22). It is solely because of God’s grace that we can truly become just:

Therefore, since we are justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through him we have obtained access to this grace in which we stand and we rejoice in our hope of sharing the glory of God” (Romans 5:1-2).

Further,

For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of sin and death…in order that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit (Romans 8:2-4).

Notice the emphasis on the fact that man is truly made just so much so that he can fulfill “the just requirement of the law.” It doesn’t get any more just, or righteous, than that!

Thus, Romans 3:10ff simply does not teach total depravity in a Calvinist sense. It cannot when the context is understood.

Moreover, if we examine the very verses where St. Paul paints his picture of the wicked who have “turned aside” and “done wrong,” we find he actually quotes Psalm 14:3. The next two verses of this Psalm explain who these “evil ones” are.

Have they no knowledge, all the evil-doers who eat up my people as they eat bread, and do not call upon the Lord? There they shall be in great terror, for God is with the generation of the righteous.

The Psalmist clearly refers to both evil-doers and “the righteous.”

The impetus of these and other texts from Romans tell us that Christ came to make us just, not that there are absolutely none who are just. We must stress again that it is because of the justice of Christ communicated to the faithful that their actions, and indeed, they themselves, are truly made just. But they indeed are truly made just.

Little children, let no one deceive you. He who does right (Gr.—ho poion tein dikaiousunein—the one doing justice) is righteous (Gr.—dikaios estin—is just), as he is righteous (Gr.—kathos ekeinos dikaios estin—as he is just) (I John 3:7).

There is no way the Scripture could be any clearer that the faithful are truly made just in their being and in their actions through the grace of Christ.

The Problem Magnified

More grave problems begin to arise when we begin to follow the path Calvin lays for us with his first principle. Even when considering the unregenerate Calvin is wrong about total depravity because Scripture tells us even those who are outside of the law can,

… do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts” (Romans 2:14-15).

Though Catholics agree with Calvinists that grace is necessary even for these who are ignorant of the law in order for them to be just before God—in other words this text is not saying these pagans can be justified apart from grace—the text does infer that nature is not totally depraved because man can clearly act justly on a natural level, or by nature.

But an even more grave error comes to the fore when we consider his notion of the depravity of the just. “Depravity of the just?” Yes. That was not a typo. According to John Calvin, even those who have been justified by Christ “cannot perform one work which, if judged on its own merits, is not deserving of condemnation” (Institutes, Bk. III, Ch. 9, Para. 9). How far from “he that acts justly is just” (I John 3:7) or the plain words of the Psalmist who uses similar words as found in Gen. 15:6 with regard to Abraham being justified by faith: “[Abraham] believed the Lord; and he reckoned it to him as righteousness,” in Psalm 106:30-31: “Then Phineas stood up and interposed, and the plague was stayed. And that has been reckoned to him as righteousness from generation to generation.”

Phineas was clearly justified by his works and not just by faith. In other words, Phineas’ works are truly “just as he is just” to use the words of I John 3:7.

There are a multitude of biblical texts that come to mind at this point, but what about the words of our Lord in Matthew 12:37, “For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.” Or, “by works a man is justified and not by faith alone” (James 2:24). Or,

But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, “God, be merciful to me a sinner!” I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for every one who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted (Luke 18:13-14).

These texts do not even come close to saying all of these works were “worthy of condemnation.” They say just the opposite!

We should be clear here: All “good works” man performs that contribute to his salvation are first and foremost God’s gifts, which, along with his cooperation, truly make him just and worthy to “walk with [Christ] in white; for [he is] worthy” (Rev. 3:4), by God’s grace and mercy. But we cannot escape the biblical fact that these works truly are just and they are truly the fruit of the just man himself.

The Problems Continue

Once Calvin deduces “total depravity” via poor exegesis of a relatively few texts of Scripture, all sorts of unbiblical notions follow. For example, Calvin also concludes from this that human nature is so totally depraved that free will is an impossibility. It’s a farce:

The grace offered by the Lord is not merely one which every individual has full liberty of choosing to receive or reject, but a grace which produces in the heart both choice and will (Institutes, Bk. II, Ch. 3, Para. 13).

According to Calvin, man’s total depravity means necessarily that he does not have the capacity to cooperate with God’s grace.

In fact, I argue that Calvin’s notion of grace and nature is a carbon copy of the theology of Sunni Islam. And I am far from alone in my conclusion. The famous Calvinist and anti-Catholic, Loraine Boettner, a graduate of Princeton Theological Seminary, provides:

Dr. Samuel M. Zwemer, who in a very real sense can be referred to as “apostle to the Mohammedan World,” calls attention to the strange parallel between the Reformation in Europe under Calvin and that in Arabia under Mohammed. Says he: “Islam is indeed in many respects the Calvinism of the Orient. It, too, was a call to acknowledge the sovereignty of God’s will… It is this vital theistic principle that explains the victory of Islam over the weak divided and idolatrous Christendom of the Orient” (Boettner, The Doctrine of Predestination, p. 318-319).

Strange bedfellows? Perhaps not. Islam and Calvinism agree based not only upon a distorted notion of the sovereignty of God, but also because of a distorted notion of man’s depravity. The two are very similar.

Understanding the Strange

When John Calvin says man is utterly dependent upon God for every single just thought in his mind (see Institutes, Bk. II, Ch. II, Para. 27), Catholics will happily agree. And they would be correct. We do agree. However, appearances can be deceiving because there is more meaning beneath those words that Catholics cannot agree with.

With Calvin, there is no sense of grace aiding and empowering our wills as St. Augustine taught and the Catholic Church teaches. For Calvin, being “dependent upon God” means our free cooperation or free wills have no part to play. God does not merely empower our wills; he operates them.

In the end, this may well be the most disturbing idea stemming from Calvin’s notion of total depravity. Man is essentially a puppet of God’s, which led to Calvin attributing both the good and the evil actions of man to God.

And mind you, Calvin rejects and ridicules the Catholic notion of God merely permitting evil and working all things together for good. In his words:

Hence a distinction has been invented between doing and permitting, because to many it seemed altogether inexplicable how Satan and all the wicked are so under the hand and authority of God, that he directs their malice to whatever end he pleases… (Institutes, Bk. I, Ch. XVIII, Para. 1).

Evildoers do not commit acts of depravity in spite of the command of God, but because of the command of God, according to Calvin (Ibid. Para. 4)! In fact, Calvin uses Is. 45:7 and Amos 3:6 to teach that there is no evil that occurs that is not “impelled” by God’s positive command (Ibid. Para. 2).

God is the author of all those things which, according to these objectors, happen only by his inactive permission. He testifies that he creates light and darkness, forms good and evil (Is. [45:7]); that no evil happens which he hath not done (Amos [3:6]) (Ibid. Para. 3).

As Catholics we understand—as St. Paul teaches—“since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct” (Romans 1:28). This means God may well remove grace that is rejected. He may also hold back grace as well, but this is, as St. Augustine said, God’s “just judgment.” But, according to Calvin’s unbiblical teaching, God does not give grace in the first place and then “impels” men to act sinfully. As quoted above, according to Calvin, God causes evil. And we are not talking about physical evil here; we are talking about moral evil. That is categorically absurd! God cannot “do” or “impel” moral evil because He is infinitely and absolutely good!

God cannot lie (Heb. 6:8, Number 23:19), “he cannot deny Himself” (II Timothy 2:13)—or act contrary to His nature. If God’s nature is one of love and pure being, it is absurd to say that he can “do” evil, which is by nature a lack of some perfection that ought to be present in a given nature. In fact, James 1:13 tells us that God not only cannot cause this kind of evil, but he cannot even tempt anyone with evil. That is contrary to his nature.

The Bottom Line

When Is. 45:7 and Amos 3:6 say God “creates evil” and “does evil,” this must be seen only in a sense in which it does not contradict God’s nature and what is clearly revealed to us about God in Scripture. God can directly cause physical evil, such as the ten plagues he released against Egypt in Exodus. But this was an act of justice, which in and of itself was morally upright and justified. We can also say that God permits evil in view of the fact that he chose to create us with freedom. But even there, God only permits evil in view of his promise to bring good out of that evil as is most profoundly demonstrated through the greatest evil in the history of the world—the crucifixion of our Lord Jesus Christ. Through this greatest evil God brings about the greatest good—the redemption of the world. God did not kill Christ, nor did he “impel” anyone to kill Christ. But by virtue of his omnipotence, he brings good out of the evil acts committed.

[ctdonath2]

Such is like learning about conservatism by listening to rabid Leftists.

[Gamecock]

There, was that so hard? You made an accusation and it is only right to provide the source. Don’t take offense when asked to do so.

But before I answer your post, I would like to say that the source you provided:

-Is Hypocritical. Why? They claim to be “Bible Only” and then proceed to tell the reader what they should believe. The author/s of the site are doing the exact same thing confessional Christians do in looking at Scripture and then interpreting said doctrine.

-Is Intolerant. Based on the venomous tone I suspect they would like to persecute folks who don’t believe exactly as they do.

So, what do we do about Calvin?

There is obviously no excuse for some of Calvin’s behavior. BUT he grew up in a time when the church and the state were so intertwined that heresy was considered capital offense because it was a threat to the state.

Servetus seemed to take great pride in poking the leaders of Geneva with his heresy. He threatened to return to Geneva and Calvin, who was under threat of death by Rome, traveled into Catholic territory and begged Servetus not to do so. Guess what? Servetus did just that. He wanted to overthrow the Government of Geneva. (looking for my reference)

Again, Calvin’s actions cannot be excused. But nor can any one else’s from that time. He was a product of his time and his behavior was nothing unusual for Europe. And let’s not forget that the punishment for the behaviors listed in your source, if accurate, are based on Old Testament laws. We certainly don’t prosecute folks to the OT standards today like they did in the middle ages, but in same cases we still do. Are we right to do so?

It’s late, and I have to get up early. Blessings

[Elsie]

The "good soil" is the elect.

ALL the soil is ELECT!

[Elsie]

I might say though, that Luther and Calvin were not much better than the Inquisitor’s when it came to dealing with those with whom they were in theological disagreement. Consider the Anabaptists, tied to a long pole and dunked in the river...and some of those so dunked drowned. My understanding is that both Luther and Calvin resorted to this...or their followers did.

---

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said, "Stop! Don't do it!"

"Why shouldn't I?" he said.

 

I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!"

He said, "Like what?"

 

I said, "Well...are you religious or atheist?"

He said, "Religious."

 

I said, "Me too! Are you Christian or Buddhist?"

He said, "Christian."

 

I said, "Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?"

He said, "Protestant."

 

I said, "Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"

He said, "Baptist!"

 

I said,"Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of GOD or Baptist Church of the Lord?"

He said, "Baptist Church of GOD!"

 

I said, "Me too! Are you Original Baptist Church of GOD, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of GOD?"

He said,"Reformed Baptist Church of GOD!"

 

I said, "Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of GOD, reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of GOD, reformation of 1915?"

He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of GOD, reformation of 1915!"

 

I said, "Die, heretic scum", and pushed him off.

-- Emo Phillips

[Elsie]

The problem, especially with the last statement, is that it nowhere actually says this in scripture.

The 'problem' is the FIRST statement!

It is true that there is no such thing as free will.

[Elsie]

However, I assume you are referring to these passages:

Or perhaps these: a direct answer given to a direct question ...

 

 

 

John 6:28-29

Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”

Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

You have not presented any to me.

I have referenced them, and have indeed presented them, in multiple posts in this thread.

Those passage do not say anything about God having a list of names, or his choosing people as individual names to come to Christ. Nor does it discuss election.

These are mere assertions. You do not prove your argument. “Ultimately the primary difference between Arminian and Calvinist readings of John 6 is that Arminians think that the drawing spoken of is God’s reaching out with grace and Calvinists believe the drawing is speaking of unconditional election.”

The Arminian view is impossible, since it says clearly that "all" that the Father gives to the Son do come, and none who come are cast out; and, secondly, that it was not given to the Jews who disbelieved at all. If God is merely "reaching out with his grace" to all, and God is making elect whoever responds to this "initiative," then it must both be conditional and universal, which does not exist anywhere in the passages. The initiative, or the starting point, is not God at all, but the man who He foresees will believe or reject. This is rejected by these verses which clearly say that the cause of salvation is the Father's "giving," and explains to unbelievers that it was "not" given to them to believe at all.

If you say that God is only reaching out to those He knows He will respond, this also has no basis anywhere in those verses, and also does not escape the objection. Since, if Christ knew those would not believe because they would reject if given the opportunity, it still does not follow that He would tell them that the reason for their unbelief rests in God's refusal to give the initiative to them. He would say, they do not believe because of their wickedness, and not because God did not give them a chance.

I will also say that you are still not actually responding to the texts I have cited. You are quoting generic website responses, but none of these actually respond to the wording of the text either.

“If a person is going to interpret helkuo in John 6.44 and 12.32 to be an irresistible drawing, he must first find a passage elsewhere that irrefutably teaches that there is such an irresistible drawing. Then, he might suggest that as the meaning in John. These verses cannot be used as a part of a person’s arsenal of irrefutable proof of an irresistible calling.”3

John 6 most certainly irrefutably teaches this, and, therefore, is its own proof-text. We do not ignore passages because we cannot make sense of them, or do not like them, or believe them only if some other verse also says it. If John 6 is holy scripture, then it is just as unbreakable as anything else. Though, the doctrine is supported by all of John's Gospel, where we repeatedly find the same pattern in all of Christ's dealings with the Pharisees. He tells them, again and again, that they "Sheep" hear His voice and will come to Him, and those who do not believe are told that they are "not [His] sheep," and that is why they do not believe. And, beyond John, there are many other places besides.

You can swear what you want, but you neither own the forum not set the rules. In a forum debate, other posters can raise any objections they like.

So it follows that, I have the right to point out the tactics of the sophists, as you do not own the forum.

[SeaHawkFan]

Spurgeon got it right in this sermon.

http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/1516.htm

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

Spurgeon is a Calvinist, though he is wrong to dismiss the response by the “older calvinists” on this point, as the Jews gave responses and used language in the same way, speaking of “all the men of the world” when referring to all the Rabbis of a city.

[Mr Rogers]

“These are mere assertions.”

If that is your best response to an argument, then we are wasting each other’s time. Yes, the opposite side in an argument makes assertions. I back mine with scripture. The passages you never cited to me, but that I answered anyways, do not in any way say that God makes lists of names, and elects or ‘non-elects’ individuals.

“The Arminian view is impossible, since it says clearly that “all” that the Father gives to the Son do come, and none who come are cast out...”

Incorrect. It says that while God reaches down to all, not all will believe. However, those that do believe are those that God gives to Jesus, and “whoever comes to me I will never cast out.” If we respond as Jesus commands “repent and believe”, then we are given to Christ and are placed ‘in Christ”...as it says,

“In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, 12 so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory. 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, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.”

IN HIM. When we heard the word of truth (God’s initiative) and believed in him, we were given life by the baptism of the Holy Spirit: “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all.”

As Jesus said: “And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. 40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

But speaking of proof, feel free to show your proof that John 6 is discussing the election of individuals to salvation...

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

If that is your best response to an argument,

I would not be so bold, if I were you, to refer to your posts as an "argument" in the strictly logical sense. This is more of an "argument" in the Monty Python sense. I'll demonstrate:

"Incorrect. It says that while God reaches down to all, not all will believe. However, those that do believe are those that God gives to Jesus, and “whoever comes to me I will never cast out.” If we respond as Jesus commands “repent and believe”, then we are given to Christ and are placed ‘in Christ”...as it says,"

You are quoting me referencing the verse which says: "All that the Father giveth me will come to me, and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out." Nowhere does it "say," using your word, that God "reaches down to all" and "not all will believe." It only says what it says, that "all" that the Father gives to the Son do come to Him, and none of these are cast out. Where do we find your "some"? Where do we find your "if"? Where do we find your "Reaching out to all"? It cannot be found in the verses you assert claim them. But if you can find them in this chapter, I would be pleased to be corrected. But, they are simply not there.

Further, you state that "those the Father gives" are those who already believe. IOW, they believe, and therefore God gives them to the Son. Where is your evidence for this assertion? It is presupposed, but it is not sourced in the text. The Father is the first cause of the giving in these verses, and the direct cause for unbelief in the other verse referenced, and to "come" is tied with believing. Hence Christ states that there are those who do not believe, and then immediately explains, 'That is why I told you, no man can come to me unless it is given to Him by the Father.' Thus to "come" to Christ is another way of saying "to believe" in Christ, and all those whom the Father gives to the Son, therefore, believe in Christ, and this infallibly, with none of them being lost.

IN HIM. When we heard the word of truth (God’s initiative) and believed in him, we were given life by the baptism of the Holy Spirit:

The verse you cite does not support your assertion in any way. In what way do you come to the conclusion that God's initiative is fallible, when the very first verse you quote says "having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will"? Now if he "works all things," there is nothing which He does not work, and if He works all things 'according to the counsel of His own will,' it is not according to our will, but His will born from His own plan, that He works "all things". Now if God works "all things," but not the effectual gift of faith which keeps and preserves, then He does not "work all things," but only some things, and leaves much to the "counsel of OUR own will," which is certainly fallible.

But speaking of proof, feel free to show your proof that John 6 is discussing the election of individuals to salvation...

My first evidence is that you've been speaking of individuals this whole time, though you imagine stuff into the verse like "Some," and "if," and "revealed to all," but subtracting entire sentences like "All that the Father gives..." and "no one can come to me unless it is given to them by my Father." Nevertheless, you also know that individuals are being discussed, although you change the meaning.

My second evidence is that He says "Him that comes to me I will no wise cast out," and "Believe on Him whom God has sent," in response to individuals, and, finally, to the unbelieving Jews, He refers to individuals who do not believe, saying "there are some of you who do not believe," and explains 'That is why I told you, no one can come to me unless it is granted to him by my Father."

Thus Christ speaks to 'him' who would come, "whoever," "some of you," "no man," or "no one" as the ESV puts it, responds to individuals, and the individuals who did not believe, and not, say, to a collective without any "ones" or "hims" or "yous" in them.

[Mr Rogers]

“Nowhere does it “say,” using your word, that God “reaches down to all” and “not all will believe.” It only says what it says, that “all” that the Father gives to the Son do come to Him, and none of these are cast out. Where do we find your “some”? Where do we find your “if”?”

If you actually READ what I wrote, it was in immediate response to your statement ““The Arminian view is impossible...”. While I was using John 6, I was also responding with what ““The Arminian view” says in light of John 6. I do not know if Monty Python would approve, but it is reasonable to read one sentence in light of the sentence immediately before it.

Once one understand the Arminian view, then how that view applies to John 6 becomes apparent. The interpretation of those verses in John 6 depend largely on what one’s assumptions are about election and calling. The Calvinist assumes the truth of his position is shown by those verses in John 6, but someone of an Arminian viewpoint will read them differently.

The verse simply says “All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.”

Of course, Jesus says, a couple of sentences later, ““And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. 40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

Thus we know what is the will of the Father: “that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life”. Calvin says that set of people consists of those whose name are on God’s List To Save, and that is the entrance requirement. I say that List is the List of Those Who Believe.

The verses in John 6 can support either interpretation. But since we are saved by grace through faith, rather than grace thru predestination, it seems reasonable that the list is the list of those who respond to God with faith rather than a list of names that God picked without reference to their faith. Indeed, my interpretation is in complete accord with the 500 verses on faith and believing in the New Testament, and require no belief in a “secret will of God”, not discussed in the Bible, that Calvin postulates and then uses to interpret the Bible.

“IOW, they believe, and therefore God gives them to the Son. Where is your evidence for this assertion? It is presupposed, but it is not sourced in the text.”

Neither does it say anywhere in John 6 that those are people who won God’s Life Lottery, when God pulled names out of a celestial hat and decided to save those individuals. The verses in John 6 can be interpreted either way. The difference is that Calvin relies on the “secret will of God”, not found in scripture, while my interpretation is in line with all the rest of the New Testament.

“Now if he “works all things,” there is nothing which He does not work, and if He works all things ‘according to the counsel of His own will,’ it is not according to our will, but His will born from His own plan,”

Part of the fallacy of Calvinism is the belief that God cannot, in His will, give humans ANY freedom. However, there is nothing to support that view. I can give my kids freedom of choice, or not. When riding a horse, I can say “Go left”, or I can let the horse choose. Either way, I am choosing - either a specific path, or to let the other being make a choice. If it is God’s will to present us with a choice, and treat us according to the choice we make, then it IS His will at work, not ours.

Calvin does not get to dictate to God how God must behave. Calvin does not get to tell God He MUST obey Calvin’s will! Calvin does not get to choose the plan of salvation. God already did that:

““For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.”

Jesus does not say, “...that whoever is on God’s List of Names shall not perish...and whoever is not on the List of Names is condemned already, because he is not on the List of Names”. JESUS told us what the Father’s will is: “For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

Calvin cannot change it. God is sovereign. Calvin is not.

[Gamecock]

Your problem is not with Calvin, or those of us that believe in Sovereign Grace, but with God.

Every objection you have is answered in this passage of Scripture:

Romans 9:13 Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses,

“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”

16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” 20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’”[h] 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?

22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? 25 As he says in Hosea:

“I will call them ‘my people’ who are not my people;
and I will call her ‘my loved one’ who is not my loved one,”

[Mr Rogers]

“Every objection you have is answered in this passage of Scripture”.

No it does not. Romans 9 is not talking about individual salvation, but God’s right to decide who he chooses. When Paul wrote “Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”, he was quoting MALACHI. He was talking about tribes and nations, not individuals.

---

“We have already noted that God’s Old Covenant people were chosen in Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. More specifically, God chose Abraham and his descendants, but limited his election of Abraham’s descendants to only some of them by his choice of Isaac as the head of the covenant through whom Abraham’s covenant descendants were to be reckoned. He then limited his election of the covenant descendants even further by his choice of Jacob as the head of the covenant. At the same time, and as already pointed out above, people not naturally related to Jacob and so not part of the elect people could join the chosen people, becoming part of the elect. On the other hand, individual members of the elect people could be cut off from the covenant people due to violation of the covenant, rendering them non-elect.

Finally, the Apostle Paul would argue, God limited his election even further to Christ as the head of the New Covenant (Gal. 3–4; see especially 3:16; cf. Rom. 3–4; 8), which is the fulfillment of the Old. Paradoxically, this also widened the election of God’s people because all who are in Christ by faith are chosen by virtue of their identification with Christ the corporate covenantal head, opening covenant membership to Gentiles as Gentiles. Just as God’s Old Covenant people were chosen in Jacob/Israel, the Church was chosen in Christ (as Eph. 1:4 puts it). And as Ephesians 2 makes clear, Gentiles who believe in Christ are in him made to be part of the commonwealth of Israel, fellow citizens with the saints, members of God’s household, and possessors of the covenants of promise (2:11-22; note especially vv. 12, 19). Indeed, any Jews who did not believe in Jesus were cut off from the elect people, and any believing Gentiles who stop believing will likewise be cut off, while anyone who comes to faith, whether Jew or Gentile, will be incorporated into God’s people (Rom. 11:17-24).

In the New Covenant, God’s people are chosen corporately as a consequence of their union with Christ, which is effected by faith. While this is not quite the traditional Arminian position, it fully supports Arminian theology because it is a conditional election. Most directly, such election is conditioned on being in Christ. But then being in Christ is itself conditioned on faith, meaning that the divine election of God’s people and the election of individuals for salvation is ultimately conditional on faith in Christ. (Misconceptions, pp. 7, 8, emphasis his)”

http://evangelicalarminians.org/corporate-election-quotes/

Romans 9 addresses ‘The Problem of the Jews’, not individual salvation. Paul already addressed individual salvation in Romans:

“5 Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. 2 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...For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. 11 More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.”

Notice we obtain access to the grace of God “by faith”, not “by election”.

And please notice that before salvation, we were “enemies” with God. An enemy is not a dead man. A corpse is not an “enemy”. Like the Prodigal Son, we are reconciled to God when we respond with faith: “Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand...”

Faith is the condition of our salvation, not election to a list of names. Calvin cannot overrule God, and tell God He can only save those on a list of names. God has chosen, by His will:

“...to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, 12 and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.”

[Gamecock]

**No it does not.**

Yes. It does. He singles out the Pharaoh and they reason he hardened his heart. You are right that it is families (covenantal) and but it is individual. Clear as the nose on your face. (I am assuming you have one.)

Tell me something. Surely you know someone that is very close to you that doesn’t believe. Do you pray that they will come to faith?

[Mr Rogers]

Egypt was ‘in Pharaoh’, and all of Egypt suffered punishment.

“For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.”

When God hardens a heart, he does not reverse the desire of the heart. “And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.” In essence, God hardens a heart by shoving it further in the direction it already wants to go. But all Egypt was in Pharaoh as its head, and Egypt received the punishment as well as Pharaoh. Thus we see CORPORATE guilt, with Pharaoh being the head - as Jesus becomes our head, if we believe and are grafted into him.

But Romans 9 is clearly discussing Jew corporately - while individual Jews had followed Jesus, the majority did not. Why, and what would happen to them?

And the answer Paul gives is:

” Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, 33 as it is written,

“Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense;
and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”

The Jews were complaining that they were already God’s Chosen People, and that they did not need faith. But Paul points out that faith had always been needed, from Abraham on, and that God had the right to set the condition of faith.

He continues his argument in Romans 10, and finishes in Romans 11 with:

“17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, 18 do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. 19 Then you will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” 20 That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you...And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again. 24 For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree.”

In Christ, a gentile is grafted in if he believes. But a Jew who refuses to believe will be cut off. But if that Jew then believes, he will be grafted back on. It is BELIEF that determines the outcome, not saying, “But God has chosen me!”

As for prayers for the lost, I ask God to reveal Himself to them in a clear & explicit fashion. But I also understand that God will not force them to believe, and that a man may hear the Gospel, have had every chance to believe, and yet not do so. When you give someone the right to choose, then their choice becomes significant.

Some people meet this description: “For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened...Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.”

[Gamecock]

As for prayers for the lost, I ask God to reveal Himself to them in a clear & explicit fashion. But I also understand that God will not force them to believe, and that a man may hear the Gospel, have had every chance to believe, and yet not do so.

Does God not do that anyway? What about those who have never heard?

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

Once one understand the Arminian view, then how that view applies to John 6 becomes apparent. The interpretation of those verses in John 6 depend largely on what one’s assumptions are about election and calling.

This is the Papist method of biblical interpretation. I don't care about the Arminian view and how they'd read it, or the Papist view, or the Mormon view of these verses. I just want a plain reading of the text. I say that List is the List of Those Who Believe.

We also say this, as previously explained, as all those given by the Father to the Son, do believe as a consequence. What we are debating, however, is the cause of belief. Please re-read my previous post and properly respond to me. I honestly hate repeating myself all the time.

The verses in John 6 can support either interpretation.

This is, essentially, an admission that you consider John 6 useless for interpretation. It, of itself, has no meaning, and can be twisted either way. But can you prove this? You have not done so.

Neither does it say anywhere in John 6 that those are people who won God’s Life Lottery,

Ignoring your mockery, you know as well as I do that it most certainly does, and I have repeatedly asked you to address my points. I have made direct analysis of the text and have used them against you. Will you respond? Just pretending I've said nothing and shown nothing cannot help you escape this. You must be able to demonstrate an alternative view, or else we must conclude that you have none.

The verses in John 6 can be interpreted either way.

The second time you've said this. But I can't help but to notice the contradiction inherent in this admission. You stated earlier that my view is not in these verses, but then you confess my view is in these verses, because, logically, they can be "interpreted" in that way. That means the nouns and verbs the subjects and the predicates can lead to my reading. But can you actually demonstrate how your view can be interpreted out of these verses in any way?

Part of the fallacy of Calvinism is the belief that God cannot, in His will, give humans ANY freedom. However, there is nothing to support that view. I can give my kids freedom of choice, or not. When riding a horse, I can say “Go left”, or I can let the horse choose.

This doesn't actually respond to the text, again, regarding the God who "works all things according to the counsel of His will." But, to address these totally unrelated arguments, my first response is that you are not an omnipotent, omniscient God.

There is a filthy atheist on facebook who has this posted on his profile page. I copied it down since, from the Augustinian/Paulian/Christian view, it is easy to answer, though harder if you do it from the Arminian view. It has something to do with your response though:

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" - Epicurus

The scripture clearly teaches that God does indeed "work all things according to the counsel of His will." This includes the acts of evil spirits, evil men, kings, rulers, the cast of the lot, etc., a few examples:

Pro 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD.

Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one. Seeing his days are determined, the number of his months are with thee, thou hast appointed his bounds that he cannot pass; (Job 14:4-5)

1Sa 16:14-16 Now the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD tormented him. And Saul’s servants said to him, “Behold now, an evil spirit from God is tormenting you. Let our lord now command your servants who are before you to seek out a man who is skillful in playing the lyre, and when the evil spirit from God is upon you, he will play it, and you will be well.”

1Ki 22:19-23 And Micaiah said, “Therefore hear the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing beside him on his right hand and on his left; and the LORD said, ‘Who will entice Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?’ And one said one thing, and another said another. Then a spirit came forward and stood before the LORD, saying, ‘I will entice him.’ And the LORD said to him, ‘By what means?’ And he said, ‘I will go out, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ And he said, ‘You are to entice him, and you shall succeed; go out and do so.’ Now therefore behold, the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; the LORD has declared disaster for you.”

1Ch 21:1 Then Satan stood against Israel and incited David to number Israel./2Sa 24:1 Again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, “Go, number Israel

Joh_3:27 John answered, "A person cannot receive even one thing unless it is given him from heaven.

Psa 115:3 Our God is in the heavens; he does all that he pleases.

Psa 135:6 Whatever the LORD pleases, he does, in heaven and on earth, in the seas and all deeps.

Pro_16:4 The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.

Pro 21:1 The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the LORD; he turns it wherever he will.

God has left nothing to chance, not the cast of the lot, nor the day of our death, but works all things according to His will. The answer to the atheist, therefore, is this one:

“… God foreknows nothing contingently, but that He foresees, purposes and does all things according to His own immutable, eternal and infallible will. This bombshell knocks free-will flat, and utterly shatters it; so that those who want to assert it… must deny my bombshell.” (Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will, Eds. J. I. Packer and O. R. Johnston. Pg. 80)

To explain Luther a little better, what this means is that God, who is omniscient, sees all things before they happened. And, consequently, if He does nothing to change them, He must, therefore, approve of them, and their happening is according to His will. He is not the Arminian who does not know his horse will leap over a fence and cast him off. He is the God who knows all things, and nothing occurs, therefore, without His say so. So the answer to the atheist is: Not only is their evil in the world, but God has purposely ordained it, that every terrible thing, and every good thing, should happen as they do, so that He may bring a greater good out of that evil. So that He may "shew forth His mercy" on the vessels of mercy, and "shew forth His wrath" on the vessels of wrath, ordained to destruction. So all things work according to God's will, and there is not one stray atom in the universe.

[GGpaX4DumpedTea]

“But before I answer your post, I would like to say that the source you provided:

-Is Hypocritical. Why? They claim to be “Bible Only” and then proceed to tell the reader what they should believe. The author/s of the site are doing the exact same thing confessional Christians do in looking at Scripture and then interpreting said doctrine.

-Is Intolerant. Based on the venomous tone I suspect they would like to persecute folks who don’t believe exactly as they do.”

If you don’t like the link I provided that is ok...there are many others that confirm the intransigence of both Luther and Calvin. Google it...

Luther and Calvin were both Roman Catholic Priests. Their similarities relate to their intolerance of any religious views other than their own. Luther kept all the trappings of the Roman church in his church, while Calvin stripped the church to bare walls. And so you have it...Lutherans and Prysbeterians, in all of their various hues.

Later in England there were two brothers, both Anglican Priests, the Wesley’s. From them sprang the Methodists, though they themselves continued to be Anglican Priests.

The anabaptists spawned such as Menonites, Amish and of course the various branches of the Baptists.

[Elsie]

Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works.

But; If I don't have FAITH that the 'works' that Rome requires is necessary; then I am DOOMED!!

--Catholic_Wannabe_Dude(Hail Mary...)