I hope you had an enjoyable break. Before you get back to school, I wanted to offer you a few thoughts and questions, plus I wanted to address the questions you sent a while back.
Since you provided so much, and because I did not want to overlook anything, I will address your
essential questions, point by point. I am not trying to dodge the "barb" on any of your questions, so if you feel that I do, please bring that to my attention, and I will be happy to address them specifically and directly.
We have both raised many points and questions; however, if we keep going at this rate, we will never get anywhere. Please allow me to suggest that we focus on reduced set of points, maybe just one or two. Although these sweeping overviews may be useful for orientation, they are not ultimately helpful for resolving anything. If you agree, please pick a point or question for the next discussion, so we can focus on that. Maybe you can pick a text, and I'll pick a text? So, that we can have a fair, but focused two-way discussion? I pray that this discussion will prove spiritually profitable, bringing us closer to Christ and thereby each other!
Independent of future discussions, here are my brief answers to your questions, plus a few observations.
May God help us to love truth supremely, no matter the cost.
email wrote:... surprised that someone could believe the fact that Jesus death "finish" work on the cross is not enough for salvation. If you are to look at the passage of when Jesus is on the cross, he says "It is accomplished" this is an accounting term that means that the debt had been paid. Ephesians 2:8-9" For by grace you are saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God; it is not from works, so that no one can boast." My favorite part of this verse is... this is not from yourselves. To me this basically shows us that we don't really have much to do with our salvation, or I would even go as far as saying nothing to do with it at all.
I believe this interpretation assumes too much. It is reading too much into the word "finished". Or, more to the point, it is assuming too much meaning for the word "it". What was finished? You have assumed "it" was the payment for sins, which directly resulted in our salvation. Admittedly, this is one possible interpretation, but does the Scriptures indicate that the scheme of redemption was finished on the cross? What if Jesus was not resurrected? Would we have been saved if everything stopped after the cross?
Paul wrote:And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty . ... And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins ! Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable. ( I Corinthians 15:14-19)
If the thing finished was the payment of our debt, and there was nothing left to be done, then how could our sins still hinge on Christ's resurrection as Paul clearly states in the above passage? Yes, Christ's suffering, life, and satisfaction of Old Testament prophecy were all finished at the cross, but the Scriptures clearly show that something more was still required for us to be saved. Therefore, it is a Scripturally contradictory assumption to state that Christ finished everything related to our redemption upon the cross.
email wrote:If you are going to tell me that you think you need to be baptized in order to be saved, you are basically telling me that Christ death on the cross saved no one.
Yes, Jesus' sacrifice was one link in a chain of many required events. If you are choking on that idea, go back to the resurrection. Furthermore, what about Jesus living a perfect life - was that required? What about the preaching of the gospel - does God require that? Do people have to hear the gospel? Do they have to believe? There are many pieces, or "links" in the chain of salvation. If you believe that God foreordained all these things, then the cross is insignificant too! If God made all these decisions, then we were saved before time began, when God made the decision. Are you comfortable with that reduction of the cross' significance? I do not see how you can logically avoid it.
This single point is not a question about the limit of God's power, but it is a question about choice - God's choice . I am not saying that God was powerless to save without our submission, but I am saying that the Scriptures reveal that persuasion of our free-will is part of the scheme God has chosen; therefore, we must follow it. Just because God could have saved us another way, we should not reject the gift given to us as revealed by Scripture.
One more caveat: Now, not all "links" are equal in this mighty chain. In fact our "link" in the chain is insignificant when compared with the many mighty "links" of God's doing, but nonetheless, I believe the Scriptures teach that God required at least one thing from us, if we desire to serve and please God (
I Corinthians 4:1-2; Hebrews 11:6). However, for the sake of getting somewhere in this discussion, I would like to leave the number and identity of things generic for the moment. I just brought up baptism as one example to explain why we cannot be united in our present state.
email wrote:Yes, I have seen Act 2:38-39, and I know the language that is translated there, but if you go back to the Greek you will see that the word "for" can be translated to "with view to" so basically baptism is a declaration of what Christ had done for us. It is a command from God, but not a command for salvation. Someone who is saved and has not been baptized is living outside the will of God.
I would like to avoid a general defense of baptism for the simple hope that we might first resolve the more fundamental source of division. Therefore, I will not press baptism, until we can resolve our differences regarding election. What is the point in discussing a particular condition for election, if we cannot agree if there are
any conditions for election? ... However, I am conscience bound to answer the points you raise:
Even if the Greek can be translated "with a view to forgiveness of sins", it does not necessarily have to be translated that way. We must first look at the context! For example, the Greek in Acts 2:38 is identical to that found in
Matthew 26:28 , and it reads:
Matthew wrote:"For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." (Matthew 26:28)
Now, did Jesus have to shed His blood because our sins had already been forgiven, or because the shedding of His blood was unto ,
towards, or for the remission of sins?
Looking back at the context of
Acts 2, does the passage read like those Jews were already saved?
Luke wrote:"Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ." Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, " Men and brethren, what shall we do?" Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins ; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. "For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call." And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, "Be saved from this perverse generation." Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them. ... And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.
(Acts 2:36-41, 47b)
I believe the following contextually based questions demonstrate that these Jews were not saved preceding the command to be baptized, which proves that baptism was required for their salvation:
- Peter's preceding statement (v.36) indited the Jews of profound guilt, the murder of God's Messiah! Yet, it offered no hope of forgiveness. If Peter was telling them they were already saved, why did they ask what they could do to escape this tremendous guilt (v.37)?
- Does repentance precede their forgiveness? If repentance comes before forgiveness, then how could their sins have already been forgiven, when Peter was commanding them to repent?
- Please notice that these Jews would not receive the gift of the Holy Spirit until after they had repented and were baptized ("you shall receive" - future tense). Can the Calvinist be forgiven of sins before He has received the Holy Spirit?
- How could Peter exhort them to "be saved", a command which they were to perform, if they were already saved? Furthermore, how could they do anything to "save themselves", if they were all saved at the cross, or earlier?
- What action do we see these Jews doing in response to Peter's command to "be saved" (NKJ, NAS, NAU, RWB, YLT) or "save yourselves" (KJV, ASV, NIV, RSV, NRS)?
- Finally, if the Calvinist interpretation is correct, then "every one" of those Jews were already saved and forgiven of sins, because the command was given to every one ("let every one of you be baptized"). If Peter's command was based upon the eternal election and preceding forgiveness of sins, then everyone there must have necessarily been one of the elect and already saved! Yet, v.41 indicates that only some received the word of Peter and were baptized (reception limited to "those who gladly received his word "). How could some of the elect reject the gospel, if they were unconditionally elected and God's grace is irresistible?! Why did God's grace work on some of the elect and not others of the elect?
- How were people "being saved", if they were already saved? How did the Lord add people to the universal church, if they were already part of the spiritual body from the beginning of time?
Everything in the context indicates that they were guilty of sin (lost), realized their sinful predicament, and were instructed how they could escape condemnation and receive forgiveness of sins, which command they obeyed and were then saved. I do not see anything in the context that indicates they were already saved, much less, independent of any action upon their part. Since the context shows that these Jews were not yet saved and in need of remission of sins, it would do great violence to the context to interpret
eis as "with a view to". Rather, we should translate it according to the more common and more natural rendering, "for the purpose of", "unto", or "towards", or simply "for" as do the vast majority of reputable translations (KJV, NKJ, ASV, NAS, NAU, NIV, NIB, NRS, WEB, RWB). What are the ground contextual grounds for translating eis as "with a view to", indicating they were already saved, except to maintain the integrity of Calvinism?
email wrote:I think that this same problem we see here with baptism was going on in the time Paul wrote the first epistle to the church at Corinth. He said " For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel – and not with clever speech, so that the cross of Christ would not become useless" 1:17 ... The issue was not the baptism that separated them, but names such as Apollo's or Paul though, but baptism seem to be a problem. I love the fact that Paul said to preach the gospel because it shows that it is a bigger concern than baptism. Like I said early if you want to add to the finish work of Christ, then you are trying to forfeit the end of this verse... making the cross of Christ useless.
Yes, I agree that baptism is not the ultimate aim, nor is it the central concern of the gospel, but it is not fair to argue that something is unessential just because it is not primary. For example, please consider other similar elliptical "not ... but" expressions:
John wrote:"Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him." (John 6:27)
Then Jesus cried out and said, "He who believes in Me, believes not in Me but in Him who sent Me . (John 12:44)
Is Jesus saying that we should not work to gain daily bread!? Or, is He saying that we should not believe in Him!? Obviously, no! These elliptical expressions set a precedence, priority, and emphasis. However, they do not necessarily eliminate the lesser in their effort to emphasize the greater. Likewise, baptism is not the essence of the gospel, but it would be grave mistake to assume it is unessential. If baptism is not part of the gospel, then why did the Ethiopian eunuch asked to be baptized only after Phillip
"preached Jesus to him" (
Acts 8:35-38)? Why does baptism appear in just as many
Scriptural conversion stories as does belief, if not more? Furthermore, why did Paul baptize
anybody, if Jesus sent him not to baptize? Did Paul disobey Jesus, when he baptized a few (
I Corinthians 1:14-16 )? ... Any literal interpretation of I Corinthians 1:17 that ignores the clear elliptical nature of this language does great violence to both the immediate context and the greater context of Scripture!
email wrote:And this is probably one of the reasons that I am a Calvinist, even though St. Augustine did talk about it before him, but even before him was Paul who did talk about election.
This is too brief to be a full defense, but just to make sure we are on the same page: I do agree that there is an election, because I agree that Paul taught about election, forordination, and predestination (
Ephesians 1:3-11; Romans 8:28-30). However, I do not agree that Paul taught the election was unconditional or that the predestination was independent of our character and choices. I believe he elected us corporately in Christ,
"in Him", as expressed in Ephesians 1:3-11 so many times. Our election is not individual, but corporate. The gospel calls to a certain
type of individual, who has some measure of humility, honesty, and desire for things noble among other characteristics (
I Peter 5:5-7; Luke 8:4-11; Acts 10:1-3; Matthew 4:23-5:9; I Thessalonians 2:9-12). Logically, when God defined the means (
"in Him" ) and type of persons (
humble, honest, open-minded, etc.), He foreordained us corporately and categorically. In as much as He foresaw and foreknew the consequences of those choices, He naturally foreknew us individually, as a logical consequence of both of our choices! ... I believe you are assuming that the election is unconditional and the predestination independent of our actions, just because you see the keywords "election" and "predestine" in 2-3 passages. Naturally, you will not agree with this statement, but hopefully it can give you some pause for thought and provide a springboard for further, more detailed dialog, explanation, and expounding.
email wrote:I just use the term Calvinist because most people do know what Calvinist believe.
Sure, I understand that. That's the reason the article series is title "Calvinism" and not "Augustinism".
http://www.insearchoftruth.org/articles ... #calvinism
email wrote:I am happy to say that yes I do believe in unconditional election instead of requirements for salvation because I do not want to depend on myself for salvation.
Not all alternatives to Calvinism put so much weight on us mortals, like the Jewish system of works and perfect law-keeping (Romans 4:4-5 ). I believe the required "works" are conditional, not meritorious (
James 2:14-26). They perfect our faith, making it complete, which necessarily implies they require grace to be effective; otherwise, they would not make faith complete -- they would eliminate it! But, yet we see that our works make faith complete; therefore, the required works are not the meritorious works as defined in
Romans 4:4-5, but are merely conditional for the justification of our faith.
email wrote:If you look at Matthew 9 "When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Have courage, son! Your sins are forgiven." This paralytic had nothing to do with this situation at all. The faith of their friends is what Jesus saw here, but he told the paralytic that his sins were forgiven? How can this be, he did not make a choice, nor was there any water involve. Nope, you know what was involved, an All-Knowing Savior who was there before the foundation of the earth. "For he chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world that we may be holy and unblemished in his sight in love" Ephesians 1:4 Therefore, since only God could forgive sin and Christ was God on earth in the form of a human, he did have the ability to do this, but how did he know this specific person? This paralytic like I said, did nothing to choose Christ. The reason why he could forgive this person's sins is because He knew him. How? He chose him before the foundation of the world.
So, you are saying that the paralytic did
not believe that Jesus could heal him? Do you believe that his friends brought him kicking and screaming? Obviously, the man believed; otherwise, he would not have been there. The more amazing part is that the man had friends who were willing to go that far for him, so that is the part emphasized by Scripture. Even if I grant that the paralytic was not included as part of the antecedent in "their faith" (Who is antecedent? "they and ... paralytic"), the text implies the man believed too and wanted to be there; otherwise, he would not have been there. Or, we would read some reference to his refusal, because that would have been truly noteworthy - a man dragged to a healing against his will. You go too far in assuming the paralytic did not have faith, just because Jesus focused on the faith of his friends.
No, the paralytic must have had faith; otherwise, his acceptance by Jesus and forgiveness of sins would flatly contradict this clear passage on faith and salvation:
The author of Hebrews wrote:"But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him." (Hebrews 11:6)
Incidentally, I would agree that here Jesus exercised His prerogative as Judge to forgive the paralytic of his sins apart from the man's compliance with the terms for atonement under Old Testament law; however, that was and is Jesus' right as Lawgiver and Judge (
James 4:11-12). However, we do not have that right! We can only speak where God has spoken (I Peter 4:11). Since Jesus did not reveal His complete basis for judgment under these exceptions, who are we to determine that basis and preach our conclusion instead of what God has clearly revealed?
These passages indeed show the possibility that Jesus can and may offer mercy beyond the terms promised, but since those terms are not revealed, we cannot presume to preach those terms. Furthermore, we cannot even operate on faith under those terms, because faith only comes from the Word of God (
Romans 10:17), and since God has not revealed those terms, we cannot have faith in them! We would be operating in presumption in conflict with other clear teaching.
More here on a similar case, notorious for this line of reasoning:
http://www.insearchoftruth.org/articles/thief.html
email wrote:(Look back at the Ephesians verse) therefore God knows whom he has chosen. And the best part is the last part of the verse... he did it "in love", even though some see this has a horrible and egotistical thing to do, you have to remember, this is God who is doing this and not a person. He did it in love because He knew it was best.
No, he does not do it in "love", because "love seeks not its own" (
I Corinthians 13:4-7). And, the god of Calvinism seeks only his own glory, and his "love" is intended only to magnify his own glory. It is a self-seeking "love", if we can even say such a thing! How can it be "best" for the reprobate to send them to hell without them having even a chance, much less a fair chance, to do anything else? In Calvinism, god only makes choices that are "best" for his own glory - nothing more. Is that not what you believe? That God chose the elect according to his pleasure and what would glorify him? Therefore, he only cares about you in as much as you bring glory to him - nothing more, assuming you are one of the elect.
If you disagree, they why did he deny the non-elect even an opportunity? They did not even have a chance! If that is not being a "respecter of persons", then what is partiality ( Acts 10:34-35 )!? God has no special people that get special favor, just because of who they are, but His acceptances is freely open to " whoever fears Him and works righteousness" (
Acts 10:34-35). How does Calvinism not make God a
"respecter of persons", "showing partiality"?
email wrote:I agree with this...the fleshly minded individual will eventually say to himself, "Hey, if I'm elect it doesn't matter what I do, and if I'm reprobate, it doesn't matter either, so why don't I just go ahead this one time and ... God doesn't really care about me. He's just seeking His own glory, and either way, I'll add to His glory by committing this sin, so ..." .
Yeah, and 1 Corth 3 has a great treatment on this... The ones who are on the spiritual milk really do not understand their true purpose, doctrine, or have much of a clue what the Bible is really all about. If you are talking about unregenerate people, then I still agree with this comment for this reason... How many people seek God... zero... Romans 3:13... Those who are not born again do not seek God. This is later talked about in Romans 3, and continuing in the passage of 1 Corth 3 those who are not born again do not understand things of God because they do not have the Holy Spirit. This is why no one seeks after God because it does not make any sense to the carnal mind. If no one seeks God because of this carnal mind, then how would God anyone choice salvation if it made not sense to them???? This is how salvation comes forth….
Do you think the Corinthians were saved? Paul said that he still had to feed them with spiritual milk because they were still carnal. Therefore, the possibility for this thinking exists among the elect! And, Calvinism is powerless to stop it, because it's god is not a god of love. So, your reasoning about resisting this downhill slide because of God's love is not applicable to the Calvinist ... Plus, it also suggests that people exist along a spectrum of both spiritual growth and consciousness, because among the elect, we see that some people are still carnal, yet the gospel still speaks to them. This also suggests that carnality does not necessarily imply impenetrability of the gospel.
Look, my original point is that the some of the actions you are seeing are unavoidable, simply because people will eventually follow a system of thought through to its logical conclusions. For example, that's the reason why liberal thinking leads to more liberalism, generation after generation. Only tradition constrains the parents, but children will take the next logical step, because they are less tightly bound by traditions and memories of their forefathers. ... Anyway, that does not prove anything. More on this latter point below...
email wrote:So what do you say to a person who believes that "hey I am saved, therefore I can continue in my sin so you will add his glory... Instead of me answer it in my words, I will let Paul do the talking "Now the law came in so that the transgression may increase, but where sin increased, grace multiplied all the more, so that just as sin reigned in death, so also grace will reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. What shall we say then? Are we to remain in sin so that grace may increase? Absolutely not! How can we who died to sin still live in it? " Romans 5 and 6...
Would you like to quote the next few verses of Romans 6 to see how we can become dead to sin?
email wrote:Even though I am predestined to heaven this does not give me any licence to sin. Jude also talks about this... "For certain men have secretly slipped in among you– men who long ago were marked out for the condemnation I am about to describe – ungodly men who have turned the grace of our God into a license for evil" Jude 4. By no means am I going to turn my back on God because I believe I am going to heaven no matter what. For those people who believe they can do whatever they want because they are an elect, do they truly love God? Jesus said "if you love me, then you will keep my commandments".... Why do we keep Jesus commands... out of love... not because we are afraid that we will fall from grace, but because we are so in love with Christ that we want to serve Him? Serving Christ is out of love, not in fear of losing our salvation. "There is no fear in love, but perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears punishment has not been perfected in love.
I agree that the
mature Christian is driven by love, not fear of hell. In fact, I would use all the verses you quoted from
John and
I John to prove that very point. However, as you noted, we do not start out life as mature spiritual Christians; therefore, this language will not motivate us very well (
I Corinthians 3:1-3). Furthermore, when we relapse into carnal thinking, these more nobler forces will again be less influential upon us. In both cases, the carnally minded man is moved more strongly by carnal motivations - fear of punishment and the promise of reward, which we see Jesus and others using frequently. Remember, just because men are carnally minded, it does not mean that God does not have a message for them. Was not the entire book of
I Corinthians written to "carnally minded" and "carnal" men (I Corinthians 3:1-3)? Therefore, the gospel does contain both extreme themes - love and fear of punishment. It appeals to men, no matter what their frame of thought. We have many Scriptural examples and commands of both extremes (examples of warning through threat of punishment: I Corinthians 10:1-12; Hebrews 3:7-4:1; II Peter 2:20-3:1-2, 15-18), so if we choose to only preach the motivation that appeals to us and coincides with our theology, then we will become guilty of failing to preach the whole counsel of God, and we will become responsible for losing the group of people who would have been reached by the sections we omit (
Acts 20:26-27; Ezekiel 3:17-21)!
If a preacher, church, or theology fails to preach on fundamentals regarding hell, avoiding it, repentance, etc., then we would expect to see a loss among among the babes in Christ, such as children, new Christians, and the morally weak, who require spiritual milk until they can digest spiritual meat... At the most, what you see in your personal circumstances could only be regarded as anecdotal evidence, correct? It does not prove my case, but it should give us both pause for thought...
email wrote:"Therefore, Calvinism does not give you a license to since, it give you an obligation to love. This of this for a moment, God has hand picked you and wants to basically had you a gift that you do not desire nor deserve, not because of something you did, because he decided to give you this even before you were born, because he loves you and He will be glorified.... You would love God because He first loved you.
No, in Calvinism, god does not love you. He loves himself, and everybody else is
used by him. The elect just got lucky and ended up on the better end of the stick than the non-elect. But, such a god doesn't love either one. He just loves himself. I am open to recanting this, but you must prove how you can avoid this logical conclusion.
The true God loves everyone, and does not want anyone to perish (
John 3:16; II Peter 3:9; Ezekiel 18:20-32). The gospel invitation is open to all, and as many as voluntarily answer that call, God has promised to save them ( Acts 10:34-35; 17:26-27; Psalm 110:3). God's grace, love, and justice are clearly demonstrated in His willingness and requirement that Jesus suffer for our sins in our place (
Romans 3:25-26; 5:6-8; I John 4:8-10). The true God is willing to give up His glory such that we might be saved, and in that, He is due and ultimately receives all the more glory (
John 13:1-6; Philippians 2:3-11 )!
...
Not only do we have very different and incompatible views of God, I think it is important to highlight that we have very different view of mankind. Whereas you see men as being born totally depraved, incapable of anything good, I understand that our conscience can exist along a spectrum - not just at two extremes (absolutely depraved or saved). Certainly, we can become hardened and unreceptive to the gospel call ( I Timothy 4:1-2; Ephesians 4:17-19). However, this is a process that occurs over time (
Romans 1:18-32). In fact, we each begin life morally innocent ( Deuteronomy 1:39), just as Adam and Eve were created (Genesis 3:5, 22). With each sin, its power over us grows stronger (
Romans 7:14-24 ), but it is only by exposure to truth and rejecting it that our conscience becomes hardened. A sin committed in ignorance has no effect on our conscience (
Acts 2:36-37), but any deed committed against our conscience hardens it (I Corinthians 8:7-12)! Every time we sin in such a way, our conscience gets a little more hardened. However, until we reach the hardened point, "where there is no remedy", we are still open to the gospel invitation - to be like Cornelius, or that "noble and good heart" upon which the seed of the kingdom fell.
I believe it may be your belief in our inherited total depravity that eliminates the possibility of accepting many of these other truths. I can see your conundrum, if you believe in only two possible extremes. Maybe we should focus on total hereditary depravity before unconditional election? I currently think this may be the root of our division, whereas our different views of God is only the ultimate logical outcome, which proves useful for highlighting the magnitude and ramifications differences, but maybe little more.
...
Although we have covered some of these already, I wanted to also provide answers to your original questions too:
email wrote:Whenever repentance is preached, the alternative is typically taught as well. The warnings of sure punishment upon the unrepentant is found throughout the Bible. In fact, Jesus used the phrase "hell fire" more than any other preacher in the Bible.
Are you sure this is what we are to preach today. I know that John the Baptist taught to repent for the kingdom is at hand. I don't think that we can truly teach this concept anymore because, this kingdom that he spoke about is different than the Kingdom of God's people in the fact that Jesus offered the literal kingdom... soooo... How much does repentance play in our job in evangelism. If you were to look at the ministry of Jesus, I do not think that telling people about a fire hell was exactly what he did. When Jesus would heal people or forgive sins it was through faith because they knew that he was their savior, not because they feared a fire hell. The problem with trying to scare someone into salvation is that Jesus wants a relationship with us, and if we merely believe just because we don't want to go to hell, then I doubt we will produce good fruit. The reason I believe this is because if you are doing something in fear, there is absolutely no trace of love, just like Jesus called out the Pharisees for their worship was not from the honest heart.
Where does repentance fall when it comes to salvation?... My guess is that repentance happens at salvation. The changes that happens to us after we believe Christ is conforming to his image (Since this article is against Calvinist doctrine then I will leave out the part in the Bible where it says that we are predestined to be conformed to his image)
Whoa! Are you saying that we are not living in the kingdom of God? Maybe we should not let ourselves get derailed here, but I believe the church is the kingdom of God (
Mark 9:1; Luke 24:49; Acts 1:3-8; 2:1-4; Colossians 1:13)! Therefore, Jesus' preaching concerning the kingdom of God is just as applicable today as it was back then, except it is now much closer than just "at hand". Christ's kingdom was never intended to be physical, but it was to be spiritual (Luke 17:20-21). Anyway, Jesus' technique is just as applicable today, and should be emulated, lest we fail to preach
"the whole counsel of God".
email wrote:Next question:
Regardless of its noble intentions, Calvinism seems to have necessarily indited God with characteristics that He would condemn, even in His creation.
Why do you want to limit the power of God? Why shouldn't God condemn us all?
Because, with the exception of Adam and Eve, nobody deserves their condemnation according to the doctrine of total hereditary depravity. The reprobate are condemned because of Adam's sin, not their own. Even what sins they committed are a result of their degenerate nature, inherited because of Adam's fall and through his seed. Would it be fair to condemn someone of a sin that they did not commit, or because of sins, which they could not help but commit because God ordained it that way!?!!!
Regarding the specific accusation of "limiting God's power": Is God's power limited because He does not sin? Cannot tell a lie? No, because these are weaknesses in and of themselves, whereas truth and purity are intrinsic in His nature. He could not lie or sin without violating His own nature and without exhibiting lack of power. Similarly, God's adherence to justice rises not out of a limitation or obedience to a transcendent code, but it comes from His own nature. He cannot be but just because He is justice (
Genesis 18:25; Psalm 98:9). He cannot but love, because He is love (
I John 4:7-8, 16). More on this below...
email wrote:God has full authority to condemn everything that he has created because it has turned against him. In Ecclesiastics, Psalms (which the verse is used in Romans) tell us how that we all sin. Ok, well what is sin.... disobeying God. God gave the law in the Old Testament that says for this we deserve death. To deny this is denying the need for Jesus
But, why do we sin? Because we chose to sin, or because Adam chose to sin?
email wrote:Your page says this too "Calvinism teaches that God unfairly condemned the human race for sins that He prearranged and predetermined." How is this unfair? Romans 9 takes care of this answer. How much freedom does the pot over the potter? The Bible does also say that some clay is for noble use and some are well... not. Does this make unjust or unfair. Is there unrighteousness with not. Certainly not!
The problem with Calvin's infamous dodge is that God deliberately chose to set up the scheme of redemption as a model and testament to his fairness, justice, righteousness, and love (
Romans 3:25-25; 5:6-8)! Any doctrine that flatly and clearly demonstrates god to be unfair and unjust and unloving in the very plan which He planned to demonstrate those things must be swiftly dismissed with prejudice!
In this matter, God determined that we could see His justice and fairness and love. If we cannot see it, who failed? God or Calvin?
email wrote:Next Question: Where is Calvinism does this occur? "Calvinism blames God for man's mistakes"
Total Depravity basically tells us differently. Need I say more?
In Calvinism, according to the doctrine of total hereditary depravity, God ordained Adam's sin, correct? Furthermore, God ordained the laws which transmit spiritual guilt from father to son, correct? Therefore, who is responsible for our sin? Us, Adam, or God?
email wrote:Next Question: "It teaches that the guilt for the original sin was unfairly passed down through all generations, condemning children for sins they did not commit. This is also unfair. How can we use the words "equity", "fair", "right", and "just" to describe God's judgment according to Calvin? Compare Calvin's vision of God's judgment with the Bible's description:"
Okay, maybe it is just where I am a history student, but if you are going to make such a claim to this, you might want to cite your sources, it gives validaty to your arguement.
This is how I knew you had not read the entire article series and were unaware that you were only reading the conclusion. Obviously, this statement contains something of a conclusion, but the foundational quotes are provided in the preceding articles. I provided those references to provide the very validity you are desiring.
email wrote:Moving on: "How can He arbitrarily choose who will go to heaven or hell regardless of their actions".... This is not biblical at all. What do our actions have to with salvation? Our actions are a work. If grace is through faith, not by works, then our actions have nothing to do with salvation at all.
Again, I believe the fallacy here is a failure to distinguish between meritorious and conditional works. Meritorious works
earn salvation. They place God in the works debt (Romans 4:4-5). They eliminate faith, because they earn salvation through perfect law keeping ( Galatians 3:10-12). However, conditional works complete faith. They justify it (
James 2:20-24).
email wrote:There is a wonderful story in the bible about two men. Jacob and Esau. There lives were planned out by God, why? Because he knew the situation in which he would most be glorified. Was it a choice of Esau to be born first, but have his younger brother run over him. No it was part of a sovereign plan of God did not arbitrarily chose, but decided in his infinite foreknowledge. Why? According to the good pleasure of his will.
Yes, but Jacob's election was not unto his individual salvation. His election was only unto the supremacy of the two nations. Much more could be said, and I would be willing, but this should suffice for now, until a counterargument is raised.
email wrote:"You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit, fruit that remains, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name he will give you" John 15:16... Yes I know Jesus is talking to the disciples in this context.
The reason I point this out is that because of the word usage there. The word chose in Greek is "eklegomai" which means to pick out, choose, to pick or choose out for one's self.
It is very clear that Jesus hand picked his disciples and they had no say in being his disciples, they just dropped their nets and went. Why would I bring this word up? Because the disciples are no different than the church itself (when it comes to the calling). Don't believe me, then believe Paul. He used the same word in Ephesians 1:4 ( remember this is a letter written to a body of believes... yeah they were already saved) Here is the verse:
For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love (NIV)
Again, I agree with this choosing, but please notice that He chose us
"in Him ". The election is corporate, not individual apart from anything else. ... Furthermore, did Jesus not also choose Judas (John 6:70-71)? Maybe this "choosing" is neither irresistible nor immutable? Also, keep in mind that when Jesus chose the twelve, that was not their first experience with Him. They had already been disciples of Jesus for some time. He did not choose any apostle that was not already a disciple; therefore, Christ's choosing of the twelve was not independent of their actions, was it? And, it is the same word used in Ephesians 1:4, so... Maybe you are injecting more meaning into this word than the Scriptures will bear?
May God help us both to have a sincere love of truth above all else.