The Theology of John Calvin

The subject of this address is the theology of John Calvin and I shall ask leave to take this subject rather broadly, that is to say, to attempt not so much to describe the personal peculiarities of John Calvin as a theologian, as to indicate in broad outlines the determining characteristics of the theology which he taught. I wish to speak, in other words, about Calvinism, that great system of religious thought which bears John Calvin's name, and which also--although of course he was not its author, but only one of its chief exponents--bears indelibly impressed upon it the marks of his formative hand and of his systematizing genius. Of all the teachers who have wrought into it their minds and hearts since its revival in that tremendous religious upheaval we call the Reformation, this system of thought owes most perhaps to John Calvin and has therefore justly borne since then his name. And of all the services which Calvin has rendered to humanity--and they are neither few nor small--the greatest was undoubtedly his gift to it afresh of this system of religious thought, quickened into new life by the forces of his genius, and it is therefore just that he should be most widely remembered by it. When we are seeking to probe to the heart of Calvinism, we are exploring also most thoroughly the heart of John Calvin. Calvinism is his greatest and most significant monument, and he who adequately understands it will best understand him.

It was about a hundred years ago that Max Gobel first set the scholars at work upon the attempt clearly to formulate the formative principle of Calvinism. A long line of distinguished thinkers have exhausted themselves in the task without attaining, we must confess, altogether consistent results. The great difficulty has been that the formative and distinctive principles of Calvinism have been confused, and men have busied themselves rather in indicating the points of difference by which Calvinism is distinguished from other theological tendencies than in seeking out the germinal principle of which it itself is the unfolding.

The particular theological tendency with which Calvinism has been contrasted in such discussions is, as was natural, the sister system of Lutheranism, with which it divided the heritage of the Reformation. Now undoubtedly somewhat different spirits do inform Calvinism and Lutheranism. And equally undoubtedly, the disunguishing spirit of Calvinism is due to its formative principle and is not to be accounted for by extraneous circumstances of origin or antecedents, such as for example, the democratic instincts of the Swiss, or the superior humanistic culture of its first teachers, or their tendency to intellectualism or to radicalism. But it is gravely misleading to identify the formative principle of either type of Protestantism with its prominent points of difference from the others. They have vastly more in common than in distinction. And nothing could be more misleading than to trace all their differences, as to their roots, to the fundamental place given in the two systems respectively to the principles of predestination and justification by faith.

In the first place, the doctrine of predestination is not the formative principle of Calvinism, it is only its logical implication. It is not the root from which Calvinism springs, it is one of the branches which it has inevitably thrown out. And so little is it the peculiarity of Calvinism, that it underlay and gave its form and power to the whole Reformation movement--which was, as from the spiritual point of view a great revival of religion, so from the doctrinal point of view a great revival of Augustinianism. There was, accordingly, no difference among the Reformers on this point; Luther and Melanchthon and the compromizing Butzer were no less zealous for absolute predestination than Zwingli and Calvin. Even Zwingli could not surpass Luther in sharp and unqualified assertion of this doctrine; and it was not Calvin but Melanchthon who paused, even in his first preliminary statement of the elements of the Protestant faith, to give it formal assertion and elaboration.

Just as little can the doctrine of justification by faith be represented as specifically Lutheran. It is as central to the Reformed as to the Lutheran system. Nay, it is only in the Reformed system that it retains the purity of its conception and resists the tendency to make it a doctrine of justification on account of; instead of by, faith. It is true that Lutheranism is prone to rest in faith as a kind of ultimate fact, while Calvinism penetrates to its causes, and places faith in its due relation to the other products of God's activity looking to the salvation of man. And this difference may, on due consideration, conduct us back to the formative principle of each type of thought. But it, too, is rather an outgrowth of the divergent formative principles than the embodiment of them. Lutheranism, sprung from the throes of a guilt-burdened soul seeking peace with God, finds peace in faith, and stops right there. It is so absorbed in rejoicing in the blessings which flow from faith that it refuses or neglects to inquire whence faith itself flows. It thus loses itself in a sort of divine euthumia, and knows, and will know nothing beyond the peace of the justified soul. Calvinism asks with the same eagerness as Lutheranism the great question, "What shall I do to be saved?" and answers it precisely as Lutheranism answers it. But it cannot stop there. The deeper question presses upon it, "Whence this faith by which I am justified?" And the deeper response suffuses all the chambers of the soul with praise, "From the free gift of God alone, to the praise of the glory of His grace." Thus Calvinism withdraws the eye from the soul and its destiny and fixes it on God and His glory. It has zeal, no doubt, for salvation but its highest zeal is for the honour of God, and it is this that quickens its emotions and vitalizes its efforts. It begins, it centres and it ends with the vision of God in His glory and it sets itself; before all things, to render to God His rights in every sphere of life-activity.

If thus the formative principle of Calvinism is not to be identified with the points of difference which it has developed with its sister type of Protestantism, Lutheranism, much less can it be identified with those heads of doctrine--severally or in sum--which have been singled out by its own rebellious daughter, Arminianism, as its specially vunerable points. The "five points of Calvinism," we have no doubt learned to call them, and not without justice. They are, each and every one of them, essential elements in the Calvinistic system, the denial of which in any of their essential details is logically the rejection of the entirety of Calvinism; and in their sum they provide what is far from being a bad epitome of the Calvinistic system. The sovereignty of the election of God, the substitutive definiteness of the atonement of Christ, the inability of the sinful will to good, the creative energy of the saving grace of the Spirit, the safety of the redeemed soul in the keeping of its Redeemer,--are not these the distinctive teachings of Calvinism, as precious to every Calvinist's heart as they are necessary to the integrity of the system? Selected as the objects of the Arminian assault, these "five-points" have been reaffirmed, therefore, with the constancy of profound conviction by the whole Calvinistic world. It is well however to bear in mind that they owe their prominence in our minds to the Arminian debate, and however well fitted they may prove in point of fact to stand as a fair epitome of Cavinistic doctrine, they are historically at least only the Calvinistic obverse of "the five points of Arminianism." And certainly they can put in no claim, either severally or in sum, to announce the formative principle of Calvinism, whose outworking in the several departments of doctrine they rather are--though of course they may surely and directly conduct us back to that formative principle, as the only root out of which just this body of doctrine could grow. Clearly at the root of the stock which bears these branches must lie a most profound sense of God and an equally profound sense of the relation in which the creature stands to God, whether conceived merely as creature or, more specifically as sinful creature. It is the vision of God and His Majesty, in a word, which lies at the foundation of the entirety of Calvinistic thinking.

The exact formulation of the formative principle of Calvinism, as I have said, has taxed the acumen of a long line of distinguished thinkers. Many modes of stating it have been proposed. Perhaps after all, however, its simplest statement is the best. It lies then, let me repeat, in a profound apprehension of God in His majesty, with the poignant realization which inevitably accompanies this apprehension, of the relation sustained to God by the creature as such, and particularly by the sinful creature. The Calvinist is the man who has seen God, and who, having seen God in His glory, is filled on the one hand, with a sense of his own unworthiness to stand in God's sight as a creature, and much more as a sinner, and on the other hand, with adoring wonder that nevertheless this God is a God who receives sinners. He who believes in God without reserve and is determined that God shall be God to him, in all his thinking, feeling, willing--in the entire compass of his life activities, intellectual, moral, spiritual--throughout all his individual, social, religious relations--is, by the force of that strictest of all logic which presides over the outworking of principles into thought and life, by the very necessity of the case, a Calvinist.

If we wish to reduce this statement to a more formal theoretical form, we may say perhaps, that Calvinism in its fundamental idea implies three things. In it, (i) objectively speaking, theism comes to its rights; (ii) subjectively speaking, the religious relation attains its purity; (iii) soteriologically speaking, evangelical religion finds at length its full expression and its secure stability. Theism comes to its rights only in a teleological view of the universe, which recognizes in the whole course of events the orderly working out of the plan of God, whose will is consequently conceived as the ultimate cause of all things. The religious relation attains its purity only when an attitude of absolute dependence on God is not merely assumed, as in the act, say, of prayer, but is sustained through all the activities of life, intellectual, emotional, executive. And evangelical religion reaches its full manifestation and its stable form only when the sinful soul rests in humble, self-emptying trust purely on the God of grace as the immediate and sole source of all the efficiency which enters into its salvation. From these things shine out upon us the formative principle of Calvinism. The Calvinist is the man who sees God behind all phenomena, and in all that occurs recognizes the hand of God, working out His will; who makes the attitude of the soul to God in prayer the permanent attitude in all its life activities; and who casts himself on the grace of God alone, excluding every trace of dependence on self from the whole work of his salvation.

I think it important to insist here that Calvinism is not a specific variety of theistic thought, religious experience, evangelical faith, but the perfect expression of these things. The difference between it and other forms of theism, religion, evangelicalism, is a difference not of kind but of degree. There are not many kinds of theism, religion, evangelicalism, each with its own special characteristics, among which men are at liberty to choose, as may suit their individual tastes. There is but one kind of theism, religion, evangelicalism, and if there are several constructions laying claim to these names they differ from one another, not as correlative species of a more inclusive genus, but only as more or less good or bad specimens of the same thing differ from one another.

Calvinism comes forward simply as pure theism, religion, evangelicalism, as over against less pure theism, religion, evangelicalism. It does not take its position then by the side of other types of these things; it takes its place over them, as what they too ought to be. It has no difficulty thus, in recognizing the theistic character of all truly theistic thought, the religious note in all really religious manifestations, the evangelical quality of all actual evangelical faith. It refuses to be set antagonistically over against these where they really exist in any degree. It claims them in every instance of their emergence as its own, and seeks only to give them their due place in thought and life. Whoever believes in God, whoever recognizes his dependence on God, whoever hears in his heart the echo of the Soli Deo gloria of the evangelical profession--by whatever name he may call himself; by whatever logical puzzles his understanding may be confused--Calvinism recognizes such as its own, and as only requiring to give full validity to those fundamental principles which underlie and give its body to all true religion to become explicitly a Calvinist.

Calvinism is born, we perceive, of the sense of God. God fills the whole horizon of the Calvinist's feeling and thought. One of the consequences which flow from this is the high supernaturalism which informs at once his religious consciousness and his doctrinal construction. Calvinism indeed would not be badly defined as the tendency which is determined to do justice to the immediately supernatural, as in the first so in the second creation. The strength and purity of its apprehension of the supernatural Fact (which is God) removes all embarrassment from it in the presence of the supernatural act (which is miracle). In everything which enters into the process of the recovery of sinful man to good and to God, it is impelled by the force of its first principle to assign the initiative to God. A supernatural revelation in which God makes known to man His will and His purposes of grace; a supernatural record of the revelation in a supernaturally given Book, in which God gives His revelation permanence and extension ,--such things are to the Calvinist matters of course. And above all things, he can but insist with the utmost strenuousness on the immediate supernaturalness of the actual work of redemption; this of course, in its impetration. It is no strain to his faith to believe in a supernatural Redeemer, breaking His way to earth through a Virgin's womb, bursting the bonds of death and returning to His Father's side to share the glory which He had with the Father before the world was. Nor can he doubt that this supernaturally purchased redemption is applied to the soul in an equally supernatural work of the Holy Spirit.

Thus it comes about that monergistic regeneration--"irresistible grace," "effectual calling," our older theologians called it,--becomes the hinge of the Calvinistic soteriology, and lies much more deeply imbedded in the system than many a doctrine more closely connected with it in the popular mind. Indeed, the soteriological significance of predestination itself consists to the Calvinist largely in the safeguard it affords to the immediate supernaturalness of salvation. What lies at the heart of his soteriology is absolute exclusion of creaturely efficiency in the induction of the saving process, that the pure grace of God in salvation may be magnified. Only so could he express his sense of men's complete dependence as sinners on the free mercy of a saving God; or extrude the evil leaven of synergism, by which God is robbed of His glory and man is encouraged to attribute to some power, some act, some initiative of his own, his participation in that salvation which in reality has come to him from pure grace.

There is nothing therefore, against which Calvinism sets its face with more firmness than every form and degree of auto-soterism. Above everything else, it is determined to recognize God, in His son Jesus Christ, acting through the Holy Spirit whom He has sent, as our veritable Saviour. To Calvinism, sinful man stands in need, not of inducements or assistance to save himself; but precisely of saving; and Jesus Christ has come not to advise, or urge, or woo, or help him to save himself; but to save him; to save him through the prevalent working on him of the Holy Spirit. This is the root of the Calvinistic soteriology, and it is because this deep sense of human helplessness and this profound consciousness of indebtedness for all that enters into salvation to the free grace of God is the root of its soteriology, that election becomes to Calvinism the cor cordis of the Gospel. He who knows that it is God who has chosen him, and not he who has chosen God, and that he owes every step and stage of his salvation to the working out of this choice of God, would be an ingrate indeed if he gave not the whole glory of his salvation to the inexplicable election of the Divine love.

Calvinism however, is not merely a soteriology. Deep as its interest is in salvation, it cannot escape the question--"Why should God thus intervene in the lives of sinners to rescue them from the consequences of their sin?" And it cannot miss the answer--"Because it is to the praise of the glory of His grace." Thus it cannot pause until it places the scheme of salvation itself in relation with a complete world-view in which it becomes subsidiary to the glory of the Lord God Almighty. If all things are from God, so to Calvinism all things are also unto God, and to it God will be all in all. It is born of the reflection in the heart of man of the glory of a God who will not give His honour to another, and draws its life from constant gaze upon this great image. And let us not fail punctually to note, that "it is the only system in which the whole order of the world is thus brought into a rational unity with the doctrine of grace, and in which the glorification of God is carried out with absolute completeness." Therefore the future of Christianity--as its past has done--lies in its hands. For, it is certainly.true, as has been said by a profound thinker of our own time, that "it is only with such a universal conception of God, established in a living way, that we can face with hope of complete conquest all the spiritual dangers and terrors of our times." "It, however," as the same thinker continues, "is deep enough and large enough and divine enough, rightly understood, to confront them and do battle with them all in vindication of the Creator, Preserver and Governor of the world, and of the Justice and Love of the divine Personality."

This is the system of doctrine to the elaboration and defence of which John Calvin gave all his powers nearly four hundred years ago. And it is chiefly because he gave all his powers to commending to us this system of doctrine, that we are here today to thank God for giving to the world the man who has given to the world this precious gift.

I completely agree that the Twelve Apostles were chosen specifically by God/Jesus, in order that the prophecies of the Old Covenant would be fulfilled and that the New Covenant would be taught to the world. But I completely disagree that an entire theology can be based on this one single selection process.

John chapter 6 specifically describes the selection process of the Twelve Apostles starting with the building up of the disciples and the multitude through teaching and miracles, and ending with only the Twelve remaining, whom God had specifically chosen ahead of time. I encourage everyone here to take 10 minutes and re-read the entire chapter.

Picking up from the point where the multitude had already been built up:

John 6:24-25 "When the people therefore saw that Jesus was not there, neither his disciples, they also took shipping, and came to Capernaum, seeking for Jesus. And when they had found him on the other side of the sea, they said unto him, Rabbi, when camest thou hither?"

Those that followed Jesus to Capernaum claimed the desire to be His apostles. They followed after Him and called Him "Rabbi", teacher or scholar.

John 6:26-27 "Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled. Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed."

Jesus tells them they only followed Him because He had filled their bellies (shortly before He had fed the multitude with bread and fish out of thin air). They should follow Him instead, He says, because He is the Christ sent from God.

John 6:28 "Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?"

But they insist they know what they are asking. They were sure they wanted to be Jesus' apostles, and they asked how they might achieve that goal.

John 6:29 "Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent."

Jesus answers them honestly, all they have to do is believe in Him, that He is the Christ sent from God. Simple.

John 6:30-31 "They said therefore unto him, What sign showest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work? Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat."

But they could not simply believe. If it was an easy thing for an Old Covenant Jew to simply believe that Jesus was the Christ, then all Old Covenant Jews would have so believed. Then the prophesy of Jesus' crucifixion could not have come to pass, for no believer would demand the death of the Christ. Because they could not believe, they asked Jesus to "prove it". Beyond any miracles a man of great faith could work through God (like Moses receiving manna from Heaven for the children of Israel in Exodus), what sign could Jesus show them to remove all their doubt?

John 6:32-33 "Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world."

Jesus assures them that He is the one sent of God, but He does so in riddle fashion. The weeding out process has begun. Because they first admitted they could not simply believe, Jesus was now justified in pushing them away. In their doubt, they had proven not to be among the elect Twelve. Remember His ultimate goal here was the selection of His core group and He already knew who the chosen Twelve were.

John 6:34 "Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread."

They totally didn't get the riddle, but receiving life sounded good :-)

John 6:35 "And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst."

Jesus explains the riddle, but He is also preparing them for additional frustration in the near future. Soon He will tell them they must eat His flesh and drink His blood to live. Imagine telling that to an Old Testament Jew. The Eucharist was not yet a sacrament.

John 6:36-37 "But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not. All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out."

All these people sincerely wanted to be His apostles, but that was not meant to be. Only the Twelve had been pre-selected (but not yet fully made known) for this task. So He kindly explains that the Father has already provided a select few (the Twelve) to come to Him. This select group would not doubt Him, would not require further convincing, and He would not turn them away. But everyone else consequently must be turned away.

John 6:38 "For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me."

The Father provided Him a specific group of disciples, and He would accept only them, because His purpose was to do the will of the Father. We know that were it not the will of the Father, He would rather have had the cup of crucifixion pass from Him. By teaching the entire multitude into belief, something He was entirely capable of, that cup would have passed from Him - for what believer would demand His execution. But that was not the will of the Father, so only those few pre-chosen by God would be accepted as His apostles. The rest would be turned angrily, as we will see, away.

John 6:39 "And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day."

This is for the chosen disciples. It was God's will that all of them be saved. But that, sadly, was not the case due to the weakness of Judas Iscariot. Still, God made it very clear that even in the case of Judas it was not His will that he be lost. Man often falls short of the will of God.

John 6:40 "And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day."

And this was for all those that remained un-chosen, all those that Jesus would instead turn away. They had seen the Son with their own eyes and many, after the complete fulfillment of the Old Covenant prophesies, would doubt no longer but believe in the Son. Even though they were not chosen to establish Jesus' church, it was God's will that they not be exempted from salvation. Jesus wanted them to be aware of this so they knew they were welcome back to Him even after His death.

John 6:41-42 "The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven. And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?"

The bulk of the Jews were now a little upset. Not only did Jesus tell them that those who doubted would not be chosen, but He also refused to "prove" that He was the Christ (to allay their doubts as they had asked Him to). The weeding out is beginning to work. Remember that Jesus had to weed them out; He had to turn them away angry that they would rise up against Him and have Him crucified in order that the will of the Father be done, prophesy fulfilled.

John 6:43-44 "Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves. 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."

Jesus was giving them the bottom line of it. He would only accept those apostles drawn out by the Father, period. All their disenting could not change this; so they should just pipe down about it.

John 6:45 "It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me."

Essentially those who were pre-chosen, who had no doubts, were then called to make themselves known and be prepared to be taught by God (Jesus) Himself.

John 6:46 "Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. I am that bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

Sometimes when asking for volunteers to step forward, it is easier to get the rest of the group to step back. Jesus repeated what He said before. He meant it and it is accurate. But He also threw in the foreshadowing of the Eucharist in order to work them up a little more.

John 6:52 "The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat?"

He succeeded :-) They'll be stepping back soon.

John 6:53-59 "Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum."

Again, He's driving the concept of the Eucharist into them, expounding upon it. Why? Because after the apostles are commanded to perform the Eucharist in remembrance of Him, after He is crucified, after all the prophesies of the Old Covenant are fulfilled, many in this crowd will remember the shocking words Jesus spoke on that day. They will finally come to understanding. They will be among the first to accept Jesus' gift of salvation, all because it was the will of the Father that all those that saw Jesus and believed Him would live.

John 6:60-61 "Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard [this], said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?"

Jesus had some of those who had followed His teaching for some time back-pedaling. The weeding out process included them. Only those chosen in advance by God would remain in the end.

John 6:62-65 "[What] and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life. 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. And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father."

Jesus is challenging the faith of the disciples following Him (a larger group than just the twelve that ultimately remained). The same deal that applied to the multitude applied to them as well. If they doubted, if they could not believe that He was the Christ, they would not be numbered among his apostles either. They would not be allowed.

John 6:66 "From that [time] many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him."

Mission accomplished. Those disciples with doubts, who were not chosen, left Him. Only twelve remained.

John 6:67-69 "Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God."

Eureka! These twelve passed the test. They had no doubts. They believed without need of further convincing that Jesus was the Christ. Truly, these were the ones drawn by the Father, chosen to be Jesus' apostles, destined to grow His church.

John 6:70-71 "Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? He spake of Judas Iscariot [the son] of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve."

Jesus confirmed it; these were indeed the ones chosen. Not only did He confirm this; but He also foreshadowed the fall of one of them, Judas. He knew who they would be before the multitude and the disciples were turned away, and He knew who would betray Him before the act took place.

And that is the end of Chapter 6! It is an incredibly detailed and accurate history of the selection of the Twelve Apostles. And the insight into the plan for salvation is a joy to read; it's amazing how all the pieces fall into place as God's will unfolds. But, Chapter 6 is still only a history.

I don't want to rain on anyone's parade, but using the selection process of the Twelve Apostles to validate an entire theology of the "elect" is bewildering. And that is before considering how many Bible passages have to properly interpreted, left as untenable mystery, or chalked up to "figurative" speech in order to support the assertion. Noodle it for a bit, and tell me what you think.

Law: I see in Acts 10-11 an unsaved man seeking God... "...No one seeks for God." [Romans 3:11] FTD: Cornilus did in Acts.10! Careful there, man. Building a doctrine out of Acts is dangerous, given that Acts portrays the transition from the Old Testament dispensation to the New.

Well, now, are going to do a dispensational defense of Calvinism?

Believe me, I have thought about that, but it doesn't say that Cornilus became a Christian,(a transition from an Old Testament saint to New) but that he was saved.

Besides, this would indicate he was regenerate, after the pattern of the Old Testament saints: "[Cornelius was] a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, and gave many alms to the Jewish people and prayed to God continually." -- Acts 10:2 [NASB]

An Old Testament saint was already saved, Corinilus got saved by going to Peter and hearing and believing the Gospel.

What the passage states is that one could be 'devout' and 'pray' and be unsaved!

Maybe Romans 3:11 is hybolic to make a point that both Jews and Gentiles are both equally in sin. Yes, to some extent: it shows that all men are completely evil. This is what Total Depravity means -- that man is as bad off as he can be. After all, not all men are as wicked as the description of those who follow in vs 13-18. Really now? I know I was. This described me completely before salvation, and alas, it still describes my old nature. It describes every single person on this board.

It does?

Does it describe the 'rich young ruler' who Jesus loved?

Even Calvinists admit that there are unbelievers who are moral men.

The point that Paul is making is in vs. 19 that all the world is guilty before God, not that there is no one who being an unbeliever, does not fear God.

In Gen. 20 the Pharoah defended himself by stating that he had done this from the 'integrity of my heart and innocency of my hands have I done this' and God agreed with him.

Moreover, there was an unbeliever who feared God and did what God told Him to do!

I know that verse is one of the Calvinist key proof texts, but the fact is men do seek God even if blindly, needing God's light (Acts.17:27,30) Actually Acts 17:27 says, "if perhaps they might grope for him," as if it anticipates that men do not.

No, it is saying that men may do so and that man is commanded to do so (Acts.17:30)

In other words, God is there working in our lives, and not hiding himself, so that if we sought after him, we'd find him. But, because we are utterly and completely sinful, we do not, so we are without excuse. We cannot claim, "well, if he showed Himself to be God, I would believe Him." Well, He has, and many of us still do not believe Him.

LOL!

You Calvinists are a hoot!

So God puts man into Total Depravity,(Willing that Adam would fall and the consquences of the Fall) so that man cannot respond to the God's calling, but it is man who is responsible for not responding!

No one seeks God, no not one.

Since God seeks man via nature and conscience, man does seek God by responding to that 'call'.

Man must make a decision to respond or reject it.

Man can respond to the call and go the route of Religion (works) as did the Jews or philosophy, as did the Greeks, and then reject the final Gospel call to receive Christ as Saviour.

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.