Posts
Calvinism Opposed - Part I
This is an overview of Nate's view of Salvation. Again, he will be taking the side opposed to Calvinism, while Seth from Contend Earnestly is taking the affirmative. - Seth
By Nate A.
Let me preface my comments by saying that I am not a Calvinist nor an Arminian. I would consider myself a zero point Calvinist and I find many flaws in the Arminians doctrine as well. That said, here is how I see salvation laid out in the Bible:
Sin first entered the world through Adam's sin in the Garden of Eden. After that, death passed upon all men. Man was incapable of attaining eternal life in heaven because sin separated them from God. God sent Jesus to the earth to be the pefect blood sacrifice that would atone for the sins of the entire world. I believe this atonement was made complete when Jesus cried on the cross: "It is finished."
Jesus has done his part but man also bears some responsibility if they wish to attain salvation and eternal life in heaven. Repeatedly, scripture states that "whosoever believeth in him" or "whosover shall call upon the name of the Lord" shall receive this free gift of salvation. These comments point out a couple of things. First, salvation is not by works but of faith and faith alone. Eph. 2:8-9 tells us that we are saved by grace through faith. When the Philipian jailier asked Paul "What must I do to be saved?"
Paul responded "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved."
Nothing else was added. The second thing I notice is that salvation is available to all. This is one place where I feel Calvinisim fails. We will get into this much more specifically later on, but there are numerous places in scriptures where we see that anyone who wishes to be saved can be saved.
God even assures us that we will find him, when WE seek with all of our heart. I certainly do not believe that man can save himself or that man plays any part in the saving process. Jesus did it all and it was finished on the cross. Atonement was made for all.
Romans and Ephesians both speak of salvation as a "gift." This gift was made available to everyone because of Jesus' sacrifce and paying the penalty for our sins. He took our punishment upon him and in turn offered us his righteousness. Many people have refused to accept this free gift that God offers. Many people have also accepted. The difference between them, from what scripture appears to say, is not elect vs. non elect but rather a repentant attitude and accepting of the gift versus a willful rejection of Jesus' sacrfice. Let me give an illustration of how I believe this works.
Lets say that I have a gift for you. All you have to do is come over and get it. Its a really nice gift and I'm sure you would like it. And its very easy to attain, just come over any time and get it. This is what God has offered us. However, many people choose to never come over and get their gift. Its theirs. Its paid for. It even has their name on it. But until they come over and get it, it is not accepted. Salvation is the same way. God does not go out and hand the gift to some and not to others.
Remember, we are saved by his grace through faith, not the other way around.
Providing the gift is gracious, but going out and handing it to someone requires no faith. God has made salvation so simple that even a young child can understand the gospel. But it does require faith, a child like faith we are told. People sometimes will say that if God offers me this gift and it requires some effort on my part to go and get it, doesnt that mean I am doing something to achieve salvation? No. By us going to God to recieve our free gift, that in no way means that we then somehow paid for that gift or did anything to deserve it. Faith is how we respond to God. Without faith, it is impossible to please God.
That is where I will leave it for now. I will get into things more specifically once we tackle the five points of Calvininsm. This is just an overview of salvation and how I see it in the Bible. The goal of this whole discussion on Calvinism is not to offend or see who knows more about the Bible, it is to see what the Bible says on these issues. I dont want to twist the scriptures to get them to say what I want nor do I believe thats what Seth wants either. But we do have some differences of opinion and it is always good to have our beliefs challenged.
God Bless
Nate
7-19-07
Let me preface my comments by saying that I am not a Calvinist nor an Arminian. I would consider myself a zero point Calvinist and I find many flaws in the Arminians doctrine as well. That said, here is how I see salvation laid out in the Bible:
Sin first entered the world through Adam's sin in the Garden of Eden. After that, death passed upon all men. Man was incapable of attaining eternal life in heaven because sin separated them from God. God sent Jesus to the earth to be the pefect blood sacrifice that would atone for the sins of the entire world. I believe this atonement was made complete when Jesus cried on the cross: "It is finished."
Jesus has done his part but man also bears some responsibility if they wish to attain salvation and eternal life in heaven. Repeatedly, scripture states that "whosoever believeth in him" or "whosover shall call upon the name of the Lord" shall receive this free gift of salvation. These comments point out a couple of things. First, salvation is not by works but of faith and faith alone. Eph. 2:8-9 tells us that we are saved by grace through faith. When the Philipian jailier asked Paul "What must I do to be saved?"
Paul responded "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved."
Nothing else was added. The second thing I notice is that salvation is available to all. This is one place where I feel Calvinisim fails. We will get into this much more specifically later on, but there are numerous places in scriptures where we see that anyone who wishes to be saved can be saved.
God even assures us that we will find him, when WE seek with all of our heart. I certainly do not believe that man can save himself or that man plays any part in the saving process. Jesus did it all and it was finished on the cross. Atonement was made for all.
Romans and Ephesians both speak of salvation as a "gift." This gift was made available to everyone because of Jesus' sacrifce and paying the penalty for our sins. He took our punishment upon him and in turn offered us his righteousness. Many people have refused to accept this free gift that God offers. Many people have also accepted. The difference between them, from what scripture appears to say, is not elect vs. non elect but rather a repentant attitude and accepting of the gift versus a willful rejection of Jesus' sacrfice. Let me give an illustration of how I believe this works.
Lets say that I have a gift for you. All you have to do is come over and get it. Its a really nice gift and I'm sure you would like it. And its very easy to attain, just come over any time and get it. This is what God has offered us. However, many people choose to never come over and get their gift. Its theirs. Its paid for. It even has their name on it. But until they come over and get it, it is not accepted. Salvation is the same way. God does not go out and hand the gift to some and not to others.
Remember, we are saved by his grace through faith, not the other way around.
Providing the gift is gracious, but going out and handing it to someone requires no faith. God has made salvation so simple that even a young child can understand the gospel. But it does require faith, a child like faith we are told. People sometimes will say that if God offers me this gift and it requires some effort on my part to go and get it, doesnt that mean I am doing something to achieve salvation? No. By us going to God to recieve our free gift, that in no way means that we then somehow paid for that gift or did anything to deserve it. Faith is how we respond to God. Without faith, it is impossible to please God.
That is where I will leave it for now. I will get into things more specifically once we tackle the five points of Calvininsm. This is just an overview of salvation and how I see it in the Bible. The goal of this whole discussion on Calvinism is not to offend or see who knows more about the Bible, it is to see what the Bible says on these issues. I dont want to twist the scriptures to get them to say what I want nor do I believe thats what Seth wants either. But we do have some differences of opinion and it is always good to have our beliefs challenged.
God Bless
Nate
7-19-07
31 comments:
BOQ= Begin of Quote, EOQ= End of Quote
Nate BOQ: Sin first entered the world through Adam's sin in the Garden of Eden. After that, death passed upon all men.EOQ
Let me introduce myself. I am Josh and I am a Calvinist (just to get that part out of the way) However, I in NO way see non Calvinism as this automatically defined heresy. I embrace all that love Jesus Christ as brothers to be cherished above theological differences (or misunderstandings, for the Arminians hahahah jk,….. kinda)
My first question is what kind of death passed to all men? How extensive is that death? Do you mean spiritual or physical or both? ( I am sure you know where I am going with this)
BOQ: Jesus has done his part but man also bears some responsibility if they wish to attain salvation and eternal life in heaven: EOQ
I ask about the nature of death, because true death renders one incapable of responding to anyone including a Dr. that is trying to administer life saving medicine. So, if we are “dead” are we able to respond?
BOQ: but there are numerous places in scriptures where we see that anyone who wishes to be saved can be saved. God even assures us that we will find him, when WE seek with all of our heart. I certainly do not believe that man can save himself or that man plays any part in the saving process. Jesus did it all and it was finished on the cross. Atonement was made for all. EOQ
If man cannot save himself, then how are we saved apart from the total drawing of us from God to Himself? Again, how do you see “death” and our ability to play our part from that death? You said that WHEN WE SEEK, let me request how does that square with the bibles statement that NO ONE SEEKS according to Rom 3:11. (no one understands; no one seeks for God.)
I want to ask more, but I really do not want to start a blog war that takes hours and hours to defend each position.
If you are not inclined to answer at this point, then no worries. I am sure your answers will come out eventually. I do not intend to hard press for answers to end up sacrificing the entire conversation.
Nate,
Wow, you are brave for coming on a Calvinist blog and debating in public! From the sound of it, though, it looks like this will be a charitable interchange.
I too am a Calvinist reader. Your gift analogy interested me. Where in Scripture do we get the teaching that the gift is for everyone if they but take it? Where do we see teaching that the gift can be scorned? I'm talking specifically about the gift terminology in Scripture.
Beyond Scripture, in life isn't the normal use of the idea of gift this: something someone else freely gives a person. Gifts are usually intended for someone specific and they are rarely turned down. It just doesn't happen.
Now Scripture says that more than just salvation is given, it says that faith and repentance are given. Consider 2 Tim. 2:24-26:
"And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will."
Notice that God might grant repentance. And God grants repentance. Such is the language used elsewhere: Acts 11:18b "Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life." In Phil. 1:29, God is said to grant not only faith but also an apportioned suffering for his sake. Again the word "grant" is used.
Now how is repentance a gift? Is the gift merely the opportunity to repent? God is merciful and gives man the opportunity to repent, even though he could just refuse to save any. Well, the text says that God might grant but might not grant repentance. So the gift of repentance can't be the mere opportunity to repent, because not all will be given repentance.
And how is their room for receiving the gift, here? The person is blinded, and doesn't have knowledge of the truth (notice that once repentance is granted that will lead to a knowledge of the truth). The person is held captive by the devil. He doesn't seem to be in a position to accept or reject a gift. Further he is in the state of non-repentance. How does he remove from that state to receive repentance?
The force of the text is inescapable, some are granted repentance, for them, the blinders are taken off and they come to a knowledge of the truth, and this repentant-faith is a gift of God, necessarily not given to all men (see 1 Pet. 2:8-9).
Anyways, that is my two bits about this post. I understand this is just the preliminaries. And I don't intend to be a prime debater over here. I do intend to follow the action! And again I commend the spirit of those participating here.
Also, I wholly embrace you as a brother in Christ. I don't think the worst of you because you don't see eye-to-eye with me.
Blessings from Jesus,
Bob Hayton
ALright guys, thanks for the comments. I will try to answer some of it now, though I hope you understand that much more of this will unfold as we cover each of the points.
Josh, I believe the death that passed upon all men in the Garden of Eden was a physical death. They were driven from the garden and denied of the tree of life, ensuring that physical death were to take place. I will cover this more thoroughly in the total depravity disucussion. God also spells out in his curses to man following the sin in the garden: women will have much pain in childbirth, work becomes much more difficult, and man shall return to the ground. God says for dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return. Sounds like a physical death to me. Don't you think if God had passed a curse, rendering man completely incapable of ever seeking him and finding him that it would be spelled out here? I mean, that sure would have been the worst curse of all. Yet of this there is no mention at all.
Now let me also say that after this, a sin nature was passed on. A sin nature is different than total depravity. I dont believe we are sinners because we sin, but we sin because we are born sinners. This comes from our sin nature, or what the Bible calls "the natural man." Again, more on this later.
I'll try to deal quickly also with your reference to Romans 3. Of course, I will cover this in depth soon, during my total depravity discussion. But as I have encountered many Calvinists, they all seem to use Romans 3, and quite out of context. Yes, it says no one seeks God and no one does good. But look at the whole context of the passage. Vs. 10-18 are a quote from Psalms 14 in which David is teaching on the sinfulness of man. Reading Rom. 3:9, the verse that precedes this oft quoted passage of the Calvinist, we see the purpose of the scripture. Paul says that Jews and Gentiles alike under sin. Sin is not only in the "lower" Gentiles but also in the "favored" Jews. Paul then hammers home his point with a quote from Psalm 14 which tells us in verse one that it is dealing with "the fool." This passage has been so badly taken out of context in my opinion that it has been shaped to fit the idea of Total Depravity. Other scripture references righteous men such as Job, who was upright and eschewed evil. II Chron. 11:16 and Lam. 3:25 also are among some passages which talk about people who "seek the Lord." Again, I will continue this discussion in full during Total Depravity.
Bob, I 'll try to answer you quickly, much more so than I did Josh! Many of these questions will be answered when I get into the five points but I will try to at least give you some insight into where I am coming from.
I believe that salvation is defintely the gift referred to in the two passages I used, Eph. 2 and Rom. 6. I would say that the scriptures are filled with verses that indicate that salvation was intended for and is available to all people. I'm trying to keep this short but there is a list of verses that say that "whosoever" believes, asks, etc. will receive. I know, Calvinists claim that only the elect will be those who believe and thus receive salvation. I do believe there are some huge contradictions that go along with this view, but I must save that for later. But Romans 10 gives us some good inights. We see that whosoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved (v.13). It goes on to tell us how we believe and is summed up greatly in v. 17 when we read that "faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God." People respond not to some inner miracle that God gives but by listening, believing and accepting the truths set forth in the word of God. This is confirmed by Peter and James who both claim the word of God as the reason for finding salvation (Jam. 1:18, I Pet. 1:23)
I'm sorry but I have got to run. I promise I will do my best to answer these in full during the disussion on the five points. I do appreciate your comments though and the kind and appropriate manner in which they are given. I never intended this debate to be mean spirited in anyway. Have a great weekend everyone!
Seth and Nate,
I address the both of you because it seems to me that the real difference between the two of you will be one of hermeneutics (and, of course, the presuppositions that drive our understanding of biblical interpretation).
Nate, this seems particularly important in some of the arguments you have made thus far. You desire to appeal to the context in Romans 3, but in your appeal to the nature of death in Gen 3 you've not done the same (as an aside, I don't think the context of Rom 3 supports your assertions about that text; quite the opposite, in fact). You appeal to the curses issued in vv 16-19 to claim that the curse against Adam's transgression was merely physical. Granted, these are common curses (i.e., pertaining to all men, pertaining largely to man's toil in this fallen age). But how does the rest of Scripture interpret this passage -- remember, Scripture is its own infallible interpreter. While the spiritual and eternal aspects of the curse are not missing from the context of Gen 3 (especially with reference to the significance of the tree of life, the curse against the serpent, man's expulsion from the Garden, etc.), but particularly noteworthy is the way in which the rest of God's Word interprets the curse of death. Romans 6:23, Galatians 3:10-14, but especially Romans 5:12-21 cannot support your argument. In these passages what kind of death is Paul speaking of? Physical death? No. He's speaking of the judicial sentence pronounced against man due to his violation of the covenant of works (i.e., the first covenant with Adam, in which he stood as a federal or covenantal respresentative of all men). In other words, Paul views the curse of death as including condemnation and eternal death (i.e., eternal separation from the Holy Creator). If Paul is speaking of anything less, then the nature of the righteousness and life merited by the Second Adam in our place can be nothing more than the continuance of physical life -- but that is hardly the point of the gospel. In fact, your argument would appear to undo Paul's whole analogy, taking with it the gospel of justification by grace alone, through faith alone, on account of Christ alone.
I've only touched the surface here; but we must say the same thing about spiritual death and your interpretation of Eph 2:1ff. This passage must be read contextually as well. The gift Paul refers to in the latter verses (vv 4-10) needs to be understood against the backdrop of the earlier verses where he describes man's plight in sin (vv 1-3). And if our being dead in trespasses and sins is not spiritual death, which the rest of his description of fallen man would seemingly demand, then the mercy of God he extols in vv 4ff. can hardly be anything more than the continuance of physical life.
The exceedingly awfulness of the curse against sin -- including man's depravity, inability, and judicial condemnation before God -- extols the grace of God to sinners. And these arguments depend on interpreting the Scriptures contextually and systematically.
I've rambled long enough, so I won't continue on; I suppose my entire point is to plea with both of you to make sure that the theological conclusions you are drawing are the result of implenting sound and sane principles of biblical interpretation, viz., those arising from Holy Scripture itself.
May God bless both of you as you search the Scriptures.
Stefan
Nate,
I appreciate your kind response, and understand your reasons for delaying a full answer until later. I am looking forward to the discussion, although I'll be out of town Sun. through Wed.
As for spiritual death, I think you are missing something. God said "in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die". Since Adam did not die physically, that would make God a liar. But Adam did die spiritually, he lost the spiritual life he enjoyed with God, fellowship was broken, etc. Now he faced condemnation.
Also, I think your quote here is problematic: "Other scripture references righteous men such as Job, who was upright and eschewed evil." Are you implying that some men can become righteous on their own? Total depravity does not imply that their can be no righteous people, only that the righteous are made righteous through the work of God not the work of themselves.
Also, if you try to dodge Rom. 3, what about Rom. 8. See vs. 7-9:
"For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you."
Notice the fleshly, natural man, who is totally depraved, cannot please God. He is not able to. Without faith you cannot please God (see Heb. 11:1-6). And truly faith pleases God, but the unsaved cannot please God. They cannot even believe. And what makes you in the Spirit? Not that you've beleived, necessarily, but that you have the Spirit dwelling in you. A work of God does this, and that also results in God-wrought faith.
Well, I'm done for now, and I've gotta run.
Blessings from the Cross,
Bob
Ok,
I have a quick question for both of you. What is the purpose of this debate? Let me expound.
I am not a Calvinist. I do not believe in Calvinism because of the context of scriptures concerning the character of God. I think that all Calvinism does is comment on the character of God.
What possible doctrine is changed whether someone believes in Calvinism or not? The only one I can see is a lack of need for evangelism, but I'm betting, to a man, that every single Calvinist here would suggest that it is necessary to go through the motions of evangelism (despite the fact that it would be completely unnecessary) because God has commanded it.
Now, I do have a lot of bible and a lot of questions, but I will save those for the debate. I guess, I just want to know... what does it matter except to further a philosophical movement? I think Calvinism is a dangerous thing, but I think more than anything it is a dangrous distraction and a waste of time. We ought to be talking about how to lead more people to Christ and how to meet the needs of the poor, and so on. Please explain why I am wrong. Thanks.
BOQ: What possible doctrine is changed whether someone believes in Calvinism or not? The only one I can see is a lack of need for evangelism, but I'm betting, to a man, that every single Calvinist here would suggest that it is necessary to go through the motions of evangelism (despite the fact that it would be completely unnecessary) because God has commanded it: EOQ
Adam, thanks for your honest comments and questions. I think your comments display some of the common misconceptions about Calvinism.
Calvinism does not deny common grace nor a general call to salvation for ALL men (not just all kinds of men).
Your comments reminds me of the question "Why pray". The answer is pretty much the same.
We evangelize as the means of bringing the gospel to the elect. God has chosen to work in and through us and let us share in his work for His kingdom.
We do not "go through the motions" that would be lip service. We actually and truly seek the salvation of all men.
Again, to my prayer anology: Why pray? God knows all things, God knew if He would answer or not answer our prayers before we were born. -We pray for a few reasons:
To learn to be dependant on our Father, to share in His work in our lives and the lives of others, etc.
Evanglism and prayer are both means to an end. God is not just concerned with the end result, but also with the means to that end.
You make Calvinism sound like fatalism. I suggest that one weak area non Calvinists hold is divorcing the idea of relationship and family between God and His creation.
Through Christ, we are sons of God, and share in His work.
Becuase God has ordained the means to the end as well as the end, means that evangelism to all and prayer for all are necessary.
The discussion of these things is not a waste of time for at least a few reasons. We are told to study and show ourselves approved. We are to flesh out the true from the false, and we grow in grace and sanctification through God's word.
Since baptism does not save, are we to ignore that doctrine? There are at least three versions of baptism in the Church today..so why waste time studying it?
There are three views on the Lords Supper as well, why waste time on that?
The majority of Christians do not understand the Trinity when they are first saved, so why waste time studying that, lets just go out and evangelize.
My point is that Calvinism exposes the sinfullness of mankind better than anyother system. To me, Calvinism stands or falls on total depravity.
Are we offering life to the dead? or just medicine to the sick?
That question is the essence of Calvinism. Giving medicine to a dead man does not work...
Free Will or Not
HI,
Ok... Concerning prayer, God says that if we don't ask we won't recieve. It is clear that there is a direct reason to pray. If we do not pray for something, we won't recieve it. I believe in understanding baptism because, again, it is something we do. We as christians need to identify with Christ, and, I am a Baptist, and I belive that the Bible is clear on the doctrine.
Concerning evangelism, we are commanded in the great commission to go out and tell others about the gospel. I agree that the commandment in and of itself would be good enough reason to do it, but I believe scripture shows more reason to do it, a direct cause and effect.
For example, let's say Philip said... "nah God, I don't wanna go to the wilderness" and then the elect Ethiopian eunoch wouldn't have heard the gospel. Now, I've heard Calvinists argue that Philip couldn't deny witnessing to him, essentally because God made him do it. Sort of a Christian automoton. I have even had Calvinists argue to me that Adam sinned because it was in God's plan. Essentially God made him do it. I realize that not all Calvinists hold this perspective, but it often seems to be the end result of that philosophy.
I believe that the issue with Calvinism focuses on the free will of man. In Isaiah 53, a key point is that his own rejected him, and salvation is God wanting us to choose him as opposed to actively choosing to deny him, as all men have a knowledge of God.
I do believe that men cannot choose God without influence of God. The Bible says that faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. Without the Word, and without influence and example of Chrisians, who have the Spirit, certainly man couldn't choose God.
My problem with this argument is that is seems to have no end. It would be like arguing about how big heaven is, or exactly what Christ looked like. (The Bible talks about these things as well) I am always for studying and becoming more armed to battle the devil, and I think that this is something worth talking about, but I often see this being pushed as such a huge point that people focus on this too much. Evangelism needs to be #1 is my point. An idea that has no act associated with it seems like... well, not so important. I think Satan loves when we spend loads of time on lesser issues. Anyway, thanks for your response.
This is gonna be a long long long series :-)
My Main Point.
Ok... My concise main point is this. My main problem with Calvinism and in turn, this debate, is that Calvinists spend so much time debating others over a philosophy that has no application, when that time could be used to further the Kingdom. That's my point. Let's just remember to keep it in perspective.
Have a good debate.
Adam,
My comment was not directed at you specifically :-) Just to the general reality that these debates bring.
We often talk past each other. I do not agree with your basic argument against Calvinism, but I do look forward to interacting with you as things progress.
I admire your conviction to work for the Kingdom, and not to get lost in theological debate at the expense of other work we are called to.
Guys, I appreciate all your comments. Adam, you bring up some very good points. I guess my main point for facilitating such a debate was because I had read some things on this blog which I happened to find very out of context with scripture. I emailed Seth to tell him such and ask if he wanted to discuss this with someone from the opposite view. He asked if it go on the blog and I agreed. I had no original intention of this being public, but it has. I agree there are many more important things to focus on and hopefully this wont take away from those things. That is also why I believe we are trying to keep these debates "friendly." Maybe even someone will come across something that leads them to change their mind. And Josh, you said something I agree with whole heartedly when you said that the idea of Calvinism rises and falls on Total Depravity. Everything else feeds off that very point and I feel I can show extremely adequate scripture why men are depraved, but not totally depraved. I'll explain soon, but at the very least I believe I can show ample Bible for why total depravity is an unreliable view of the scriptures.
It is my intention to keep this debate from getting too long. Feel free to comment as much as you'd like, but this could go one forever if we wanted it to. I don't. Just want to give my views on the five points and also here Seth's. Comments are welcome, but please realize this needs to keep a decent pace.
Talk to ya'll soon
Adam,
Check out this article by Pastor John Piper on 10 Effects of Believing Calvinism. I believe that will help show why this debate is important and some of the many conclusions one can draw from this teaching besides the erroneous conclusion that evangelism is optional. As a side note, many, like Spurgeon himself, conclude that an understanding of Calvinism is a safeguard to the Gospel. Spurgeon said the 5 points were the gospel.
Blessings from the cross,
Bob
Hello - I just wanted to comment, rarely get off my own blog at www.baptistandreformed.org but that is another story....anyway, even after 4 years of Bible Institute education of Arminianism and Dispensationalism, I am obviously now a 5 pt Calvinist and one of the questions I had to ask myself was "What made me different from my brothers who don't believe? Was I somehow smarter, more spiritually sensitive, knowing enough (better than my brothers) to accept God's prevenient grace?" This is an essential queston, because if we answer in the affirmative it flies in the face of many a passage (not the least of which are all the "without works" passages in the New Testament. This is a philosophical argument, to be sure, but a good place to start. The other problem is that Calvinism has been so misrepresented in Christendom that a clear understanding of it becomes shrouded in "straw-man" argumentation. It does ultimately come down to: can we simply choose to ignore all the "election" passages and attempt to explain them away based on our own understanding of libertarian free will (which by the way is nowhere in Scripture)? We need to go deeper.....and the Scripture supporting Calvnsim is far too voluminous to ignore. And by the way.....none of the leading theologians of our time (or any time for that matter)- not by a lack of trying - has successfully defeated Calvinism in a manner using consistent exegesis of the Scripture. Put all of these together and you have something that must be dealt with....I found AW Pink to be very helpful in my nderstanding of God's sovereignty in salvation. Give it a read....
Blessings,
Scott
Scott...thanks for popping over and giving us a little insight to how you "came to light" ;)
If you want to be a Zero Point Calvinist, there is no better place than the Orthodox Church. John Wesley knew this as he developed his ideas by reading Orthodox source material. If you are satisfied with being a One or Two Point Calvinist, try the Methodists or Roman Catholics. If you want a Perfect Zero and would even like to go lower than Zero, Go Orthodox!!!
Anonymous...
Just so you are clear, this was a post from a debate on Calvinism.
I am a Calvinist. Nate, the one whom I debated, was not, and this post is the one that you commented on.
Just wanted to clear that up.
Nate:
I'd like you to look at the Official Study Bible of the Calvinists, edited by John Calvin's Successor Theodore de Beza, and printed by Clavin's Brother-in-Law William Whittington, The 1599 Geneva Study Bible [Link: http://www.studylight.org/com/gsb/ ].
Look at, in particular, Revelation 22;19, I Timothy 2:4, and Deuteronomy 30:19, and compare thes Scriptures with the same verses in other Bibles, in other words, Compare Scripture with Scripture. Then "Let Scripture Decide" whether or not the Calvinisst Bible is a Full Gospel Bible.
That should clear up some of the questions you have.
Ooops! I meant Deuteronomy 30:20.
Abon:
Funny how the Calvinists dissapear when you mention that their Bible is missing a few verses. The very same people whose slogan is "Let Scritpure Decide." apparantly are refering to Calvin's Institutes, not the Holy Bible, when they say that.
Mongol.
You are going to have to more clear on your comment. Not sure where you are drawing this from or who "abon" is.
Can you clarify?
I meant "Anon" I have a sticky keyboard, and sometimes the wrong letters get typed.
I'll make myself clear! I doublechecked Anon's Scripture in that document which was supposed to pass as a bible as given in the link of his post, and have found the verses mentioned, and others, deleted. One thing is clear, that Scripture was edited as according to Calvinist Agenda, which they refer to as "Doctrine", rather than Doctrine being formulated to conform with the Scriptures.
That's what I conclude from Theodore de Bozo's editing out the adverse passages of Scripture that go contrary to his Agenda/Doctrine.
Mongol.
Thanks for clearing it up a bit.
But we both know that what you have provided as "argument" is no better at this point. Not saying your arguments aren't valid, or even correct, but your comments have no meat to them but are just meant to...well not sure what they are meant for. You would have to tell me.
I can see that you aren't in agreement with Calvinistic doctrines, so that much is clear. But everything else in your comments will fall on deaf ears as will anons by just posting verses with no exegesis or argumentation.
I hope you are well, and if you wanted to discuss more, I would be willing.
May Christ be glorified.
Argument?
Theodore de Beza was caught en flagrante with the deletion of Revelation 22:19 from Scripture in order to support the Calvinist Agenda, which reads:
If anyone takes away any words from the book of this prophecy, God will take away his portion of the tree of life and the holy city that are described in this book.
What is there to argue, except that if Theodore was ever "Predestined", he's done the one thing, on his own volition, that would undo his "Predestination". . . . and of course, if Theodore wasn't "Predestined", that also concedes the point, and raises the additional point that because of Total Depravity (No Man can further the end of his own Salvation), no one could ever competantly publish a valid Bible, which would certainly further a Man's salvation.
I see the Calvinist Agenda as invalidationg the Bible itself.
Saying that my arguments, which are based upon Comparing Scripture with Scripture, have no meat to them, only means that you yourself have not looked up those verses in the 1599 Geneva Study Bible cited above and have not compared them with a REAL Bible, or you discount the Bible yourself.
Here's what Francois Turretin, one of John Calvin's associates said about the matter of editing Scripture to suit your purpose, as Theodore de Beza did in the 1599 Geneva Study Bible:
Unless unimpaired integrity is attributed to Scripture, it cannot be regarded as the sole rule of faith and practice, and a wide door is opened to atheists, libertines, enthusiasts, and others of that sort of profane people to undermine its authority and overthrow the foundation of salvation. [Source: A Puritan's Mind: http://www.apuritansmind.com/FrancisTurretin/francisturretinscriptures.htm#The%20Authority%20of%20Scripture]
Mongol.
By pointing at a man and trying to show how that proves or disproves predestination is a complete ad hominem to Calvinism itself and a fallacious "argument".
Also, your idea and understanding of total depravity completely misses the point, although I do agree that no one can further their salvation. No one can further their salvation, although they do have a responsibility to advance their sanctification which, again, only comes through the work of the Spirit.
And you say:
Saying that my arguments, which are based upon Comparing Scripture with Scripture, have no meat to them,
Unless I missed something, I didn't see you comparing Scripture with Scripture. I saw you attacking Anon's comments with your own convictions and thoughts, but not with Scripture.
This has just been a very odd comment section. If you desire to just come and comment random thoughts against Calvinism that have no merit and aren't grounded in Scripture, then I am not interested.
You can also see that I added nothing to Anon's comments, because I am not into shooting Scripture at someone through a gun and telling them to read it and they will be convinced.
Before you comment and try and bring forth arguments on this site, please do further investigation on what it is about and what it isn't about.
Am I a Calvinist? Yes. Do I merely quote the Institutes or the WCF to make my points? No. I go back to Scripture to try and wrestle with them and understand them more fully.
If you would like to do that, then by all means, please do. Otherwise, I am just not interested in talking about who was predestined and who wasn't. Because that gets us no where.
Are you telling me that Revelation 22;19 is not Scripture, and that Theodore de Beza is free to edit this passage out in the 1599 Geneva Study Bible [Link: http://www.studylight.org/com/gsb/view.cgi?book=re&chapter=022] is a permissible thing to do, even though the passage reads If anyone takes away any words from the book of this prophecy, God will take away his portion of the tree of life and the holy city that are described in this book." ?
You sure have an interestingly convoluted definition of Personal Attack if pointing out de Beza's Scriptural deletion is indeed a Personal Attack. What I said about Calvinist Scribe Theodore de Beza is but a Love Tap compared to what St. Irenaeus said about the Gnostics for doing worse in Against heresies.
Do you also consider Revelation 22:19 to be an ad hominem attack from St. John himself because St. John had Foreknowlege of de Beza's deletion of this verse from Revelation, or did St. John cause you to delete this verse from the Book of Revelation?
Is it even a Christain thing to do to edit the Bible to your own personal liking, as it has been demonstrated that Theodore de Beza did?
One has only to follow the link to see that this is so, though it appears that you have had two chances to do so. Look it up and don't embarrass yourself further.
Seth:
If you follow Scripture as you CLAIM you do, why haven't you looked up Revelation 22:19 in the 1599 Geneva Study Bible cited, and why haven't you compared it with other Bibles? Your credibility is wearing thin and I don't believe you.
If you want to defy the curse of Revelation 22:19 as Theodore de Beza and other Calvinists have, that will be something you do on your own FREE WILL, without my blessing or anyone else's blessing. I couldnt't put your choices down any more succinctly than Deuteronomy 30:19 & 20, [I call heaven and earth today to witness against you: I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. Choose life, then, that you and your descendants may live, by loving the LORD, your God, heeding his voice, and holding fast to him. For that will mean life for you, a long life for you to live on the land which the LORD swore he would give to your fathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." ] which is a verse couplet that de Beza also tampered with.
Constantino and Mongol.
I am not sure what your play is here. But, again, if you are trying to prove something against Calvinism because of Beza, this is a very stupid play.
You can completely disarm any man you want to, but that is not going to disarm theological conviction.
Call Beza what you will, call Calvin what you will, but the theological convictions found in Calvinism are not found in men, but found in the writings of the Bible.
Not sure if you guys hold hands while you write your comments or what, but chill out.
Did Beza kill your parents or something? Seems like you need to go to counseling over Beza.
Tell it to Moses and St. John for writing those verses in their respective books of scripture. A True Christain would side with Moses & St. John against Calvin and Bozo, as Mongol and Constantine have done.
Post a Comment