184 Responses to “November 10, 2009”

1. Juanita Mathis
   November 10th, 2009 @ 9:59 pm

   I wanted to respond to the u-tube preaching you highlighted on your show of the person describing the grusome suffering of Jesus on the cross at the hand of his Father in order that our sins might be forgiven. The speaker implied that the little sins we commit has a great cost attached to it, namely the death of Jesus. Being a Christian myself, I cannot believe sometimes where our theology takes us. We have, for whatever reason, bought into the concept that God-a Father- could happily throw his wrath at his own son in such an angry sadistic way, as the speaker described, to help save someone who may lie, steal or commit fornication. I cannot understand how we arrived and continue to remain at this place where we are willing to excuse things that we consider sin if it comes from God but are so willing to condemn things in each that we cannot even all agree to is sin in our fellowman. This is why Christianity is in Crisis in the Postmodern world. It doesn’t matter how many people are filling the churches, the truth is people are just not buying that God happily killed his son so that we might live–a life for a life–while at the same time hearing us despise those who would even consider taking embryonic stem cells to save someone’s life–a life for a life. Go figure.

2. Dr Michael L Brown
   November 11th, 2009 @ 12:39 pm

   Juanita,

   Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts. I might read this post and get some feedback on one of the upcoming shows.

3. Jabez H.
   November 11th, 2009 @ 2:04 pm

   It is a mystery, the mystery of what He did for believers. It is written that he took on sin itself, not simply sins, though they were atoned for. Even so, recall that He uttered “Father, why have you forsaken me,” as one of seven last statements. So, it is doubtful that our Father actually enjoyed the process in the sense that we might enjoy seeing justice carried out on a really mean spirited and menacing killer, just to have the satisfaction of justice done (as it is with an eye for an eye).

   True, it is written that it pleased God to sacrifice his son, but the heart of affection, care, and longsuffering did not realign with sadism through the visitation of the Messiah. And, whatever and however God’s involvement occurred, it is the same God who says “vengance is mine,” and “Father forgive them, for they do not know what they do.” The bigger picture is that God, Jesus, and His plans for redemption continued on past that dark moment of death by crucifixion. And, He is risen!

4. Mwiya
   November 11th, 2009 @ 2:36 pm

   Juanita,

   You look at what happened from the human point of view, and that point of view focuses only on the Father rather than The Father and The Son. God is three persons; YHWH, The Word and the Spirit and these three are One in Being, Name, Attributes and essence yet distinct in personality. The Word was with God Almighty in the beginning and they together by the power of the Spirit created all that exists. They made man in their image, that is the image of God. When man sinned, judgement upon man was a certainty for God is just. So how would God do this, well Judgement had to still be passed and yet God wanted to show mercy. So in order to do this each person of the Godhead takes on a role that complements the other and ultimately shows Holiness, mercy, love and wrath against sin. So the Father as Judge has to judge, the Word who like the Father is God and is One with Him..takes on the human form and chooses to be the atonement for man. He allows Himself to be tortured by humans and ultimately he chooses to give his life for our sins…the was the decision of the Son according to the will of His Father. The difference between you or any one killing a person is that when they die, its for good until the judgement that is. When Jesus died He knew full well that He would take his life back, he said this by his own words. He knew it, he said” I lay my life down to take it back up.” He is God and so death could not hold onto Him. So his death satisfies our judgement and because He is Holy and God he took his life back once the sabbath was over. There is no sadism here, God did not find pleasure in allowing this to happen, yet in Love for His Son he allowed it that (a) His Son may give life to all who believe in Him which is His will (b) he shows his love for us based on His Holiness and not our righteousness (c) He shows his hatred for sin (d) Judgement for those who stand against Messiah is certain for they trample on His sacrificial Love though they have heard about Him.

   Ultimately how much we revere the creator of the universe is the question at heart, we can respect his word and what he has done or we can try to use our own understanding which doesn’t lead us to him but away from him for our hearts are not naturally inclined to walk towards God.

   Jesus gave Himself for us, The Father gave Jesus for us, Jesus gave Himself for us for His Father’s Glory….the Father Glorified Jesus to show his dominion over death, satan, demons and all human powers. Through that atrocious act at the cross, Jesus magnified Himself and Glorified Himself and the Father. The difference between that and embryonic stem-cell research is this, Jesus willingly chose to give Himself for us.

5. Mwiya
   November 11th, 2009 @ 4:30 pm

   Dr Brown,

   I was thinking on the words God given to us by the pen of John the apostle regarding how the children of God are not born by the will of man or the flesh but by the will of God. Concerning calvinism and arminianism do you think that the spiritual birth has a parallel with the physical birth in that a child does not choose to be conceived or to be born, rather by the grace of God a child’s parents decide to come together in hopes that they shall conceive. Thus child is conceived by the will of man (according to God’s gift of fruitfulness of course).

   So too with the children of God; we are born-again by the will of God who call’s, convicts, and open’s our hearts to Him as He draws us to Himself and by his Grace gives us faith to believe in His Son as Lord. It is the work of the Holy Spirit that brings us to the faith and sustains us.

   Perhaps those who are vessels of wrath remain so because God allows them to continue in their ways which is their own choice, whereas for others for His Name’s Sake he draws them to Himself so that they believe in Him. The circumcision of the heart is something we can not decide for ourselves, it is a circumcision done by Christ through the Spirit who makes our hearts new.

   Why God saves some and not others perhaps is best summarized by God himself. “I will have mercy to whom I will have mercy.” Its his Sovereign choice. Do I fully understand this? Nope, but I’m open to learn from Him.

6. Richard Coords
   November 12th, 2009 @ 11:31 am

   Hello Dr. Brown,

   1) I think that the perfect verse which marries the sovereignty of God and human freedom is 1st Cor. 10:13: “No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it.” As an omniscient God, He knows our capabilities. As a sovereign God, He sets the parameters by limiting our range of choices, but provides us with a way of escape. God’s determination to allow man to make self-determined choices, is God’s sovereign right, and is for His maximum glory, since He would otherwise get less glory from robots.

   2) I’m concerned when Calvinists use Arminian concepts in order to “prove” or Calvinism. For instance, the concept of “permission” and God’s “allowance” runs counter to the deterministic decrees of an immutable script. Often a Calvinist, such as James White, will defer to “Compatibilistic freedom,” but as an analogy, can we rightly conclude that J.R.R. Tolkien “allowed” Sauron to make a “free choice” that is “compatible” with his nature, when the author, J.R.R. Tolkien, simply invented and scripted Sauron’s nature?

   3) Calvinists frequently defer to “mystery” and insist that we “ought not probe into the secret counsel of God.” But doesn’t this make meaningless, God’s petition to “come now, and let us reason together”? (Isaiah 1:18)

   4) Calvinists such as James White, allege that the driving force behind the rejection of Calvinism is a “traditional” love affair with “free will.” While this may be true of some, including the concern over Calvinism making God into the “author of evil,” I’ve seen many concerned over the damage that Calvinism causes to the integrity of Scripture, such as by invoking a Secret Will, in the verse you cited at Ezekiel 18:23, and by inferring “of the elect” at numerous instances of “all men” and “world” in Scripture.

7. Brian D. Reynolds
   November 12th, 2009 @ 5:07 pm

   To address the subject of free will we must first examine the scope of God’s sovereignty as it pertains to mankind in creation. Sovereignty may be defined as “having supreme rule and authority with freedom from limitation by any external power.”

   God, in His sovereignty, has given man authority over all the earth, “Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image… let them have dominion’” (Genesis 1:26). With this authority, He also gave him (man) the free will to choose, “but of the tree of knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat…” (Genesis 2:17). This is seen throughout the entirety of the scriptures through His continual appeals for men to “choose life” so that he may live.

   Regarding His Omniscience, please understand this; because He KNOWS all things, we should not conclude that He is the CAUSE and author of all things (e.g., rape, murder, hatred, etc…). Remember, He, through His sovereignty, has given man dominion. And it is mankind himself that has made the world as it is today. Where we have honored Him, God has blessed us in a wonderful way; where we have mocked and disregarded Him, He has allowed us to face His judgments for our sins. God has made it so that we have been given this free will to choose life or death within the confines of His sovereign reign.

   The question was then asked, “Does this mean we have the “power” to change God’s mind? If He already knows what’s going to happen to us then why do we plan for our future or pray to Him when He already knows the outcome? Is it necessary for us to pray to Him if He already knows what we need before we ask?”

   It is through the same layout of God’s sovereignty, which the scriptures reveal, that God hears, responds and takes action through the channel of prayer given from His people when they seek Him. There are many citations that can be referenced in the scriptures, but I’ll just note a couple:

   “If My people who are called by My name humble themselves and pray, and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, will forgive their sin, and will heal their land” (2 Chronicles 7:14).

   “For I know the thoughts that I think of you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope. Then you will call upon me and go and pray to me, and I will listen to you. And you will seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with all your heart. I will be found by you, says the LORD…” (Jeremiah 29:11-14).

   Finally, I’d like to address one more point, and this is in reference to Romans 9:21. “Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?

   This seemingly contradictory passage towards free will finds its light from the Old Testament context from which it is used.

   “O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as the potter? saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are you in mine hand… At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation… to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it; IF that nation, against whom I have pronounced, TURN FROM THEIR EVIL, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them… IF IT DO EVIL in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them” (Jeremiah 18:6-10).

   What we find is that even in this passage which identifies God’s sovereignty to do as He wishes with us; He still has operated in the synergistic mode of man’s free will involved in making His righteous judgments toward us. Man has been given free will through God’s sovereign plan in which He has established; hence, He cannot be blamed or charged for the decisions that we make simply because He is all knowing.

   Shalom

8. Richard Coords
   November 13th, 2009 @ 1:20 pm

   I agree with Juanita. As an analogy, do you, Dr. Brown, take pleasure in discipling your children? Perhaps not the act itself, but definitely the result of disciple. Could the same apply to Calvary? Was God pleased with the tears in His Son’s eyes, or pleased with the result of Calvary, which the faithful fulfillment of His Son in rescuing countless, lost souls?

9. Dr Michael L Brown
   November 13th, 2009 @ 2:52 pm

   Richard,

   Did you listen to the show where I addressed Juanita’s question? I think you’ll find us in fundamental harmony.

10. Mwiya
    November 13th, 2009 @ 7:25 pm

    Brian,

    I think that only two human beings have actually had actual and total free will within The Sovereignty of God. That would be Adam and Jesus Christ. Adam was made without sin and so had no natural inclination to do evil that was. Evil was not part of his nature (initially at least). So when He chose to rebel against God, He chose in that instant to do that which was evil, to go against His own nature to follow God and instead follow the words of his wife and disobey God in the process. He had the total freedom to do so. Jesus also had this sort of freedom, He also had no evil inclination within Himself. He was pure and righteous and Just within Himself. His flesh was not corrupted and so His natural inclination was to do good and only good, just like Adam at the beginning. However unlike Adam Jesus continued to do good all His life and never failed to do so, yes He is good and so intrinsically Holy, Holy, Holy but still he allows for his flesh to undergo some of the things we go through. He allowed himself to thirst, to hunger etc. But even when he allowed himself to be weak, He still did not sin. He had this freedom.

    However the natural children of Adam are born corrupt and with a propensity to do evil. It is human nature to do that which is against God, to rebel from Him. The only way a human being can even begin to have saving faith in Christ Jesus, is if God the Father draws that person to the Christ by the power of the Spirit. It has to be God who breaks into us, and takes us as his own. We don’t chose Him, He choses us. So yes God, compells us to reason, He calls us to consider Him……..perhaps this is to highlight the fact that those whose hearts he does not circumcise are incapable of heading His call, only He can make them come unto Him. I think the Exodus story is a beautiful illustration of this, those whom He saved out of Egypt…those who saw His very Glory and heard His thunderous Voice still didn’t not hearken unto Him because their heart’s were cold.

11. Brian D. Reynolds
    November 14th, 2009 @ 4:51 pm

    Mwiya,
    Thank you for your thoughts and the points that you raised; however, I believe that you gave only a partial assessment of God’s method of dealing and responding to the people that He has created. As you have rightly acknowledged that God “breaks into us,” yet, you have implied that He only does that to some people without the offering of prevenient grace to all people, which is the grace that precedes all human decision and endeavor. It is here that I would say that your theological position falls short in light of many clear Scriptures (some noted below) that stand in complete contradiction of God drawing only a few people – while allowing multitudes to be damned without an actual opportunity to come to Him; hence, the appeal to “WHOSOEVER that believes on Him shall not perish” would be just an empty statement, not worthy to be taken serious.

    “And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto Me” (John 12:32).

    “For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men” (Titus 2:11).

    “And when He (Holy Spirit) has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:” (John 16:8).

    In light of these Scriptures, and God’s continuous appeals for men to turn from sin to truth, I would declare that each and every one is genuine and worthy to be taken at the value from which they are given.

    Shalom,
    Brian

12. Dr Michael L Brown
    November 14th, 2009 @ 9:34 pm

    Brian,

    Thanks for your post.

    May I ask how you respond to the reading of Acts 13:48 that is used to buttress Calvinism?

13. Michael
    November 16th, 2009 @ 10:36 am

    Hi all.

    I have been reading these posts on Calvanism and Armenianism with interest. I have a strong view myself, and originally came here to share it, but upon reading these posts, one thing became very apparent to me that I thought might be worth sharing.

    It seems to me that at the very root of both Calvenism and Armenianism is an attempt to get a handle on God Himself and His plan/purposes. But God is God. He is so much larger than any human mind can comprehend. We can at best only hold a part of His plan – and even that will be incomplete and flawed.

    Isn’t it possible that both views are correct in their own way? That each correctly identifies a part – and misses a part – of the Lord and His plan?

    And before you drown me with spam saying “but how can they both be true? They are mutually exclusive!!” I would answer “that is my point exactly – and God is God – and how can the Prince of Peace who has come to rule the world end up dying on a cross – and still rule forever in rightouesness?” Of course you all know the answer to that question in hindsight – but how many knew the answer before Jesus was born on Earth?

    In reading all these posts I can sense deep conviction and emotions running very high – it strikes me that both approaches are useful in as much as they draw people closer to the Lord and require careful study of the Word to uphold and defend – and it is probably very healthy to appreciate that neither view is ( likely ) completely right – and only God knows what the truth is. If He had meant it to be as unambiguous as “No one comes to the Father except through me”, He would have said so.

    I suppose what struck me is that it is a valuable and wonderful thing to hold tightly to such a view – but also to love and honour brothers and sisters who have a differing view – in the end, the views differ on debatable things – not the fundamentals.

    Yours in Christ

    Michael

14. Robert
    November 17th, 2009 @ 6:59 pm

    Hello Dr. Brown,

    “May I ask how you respond to the reading of Acts 13:48 that is used to buttress Calvinism?”

    While you did not ask me specifically this question. I do believe it is a great question as this is one of the Calvinist’s major “proof texts” (i.e. they start with the assumption that God chooses who will be saved and who will be lost IN ETERNITY, they then take 13:48 to be referring to this event which they want to believe, occurred in eternity).

    My first problem with the Calvinist attempt at proof texting is that they will intentionally quote translations which use the word “ordain”, implying that this is speaking of God’s ordaining things in eternity. In fact nowhere is the text talking about God’s actions in eternity. It is talking about historical events which Luke is recording that describe the Jewish and Gentile responses (in time) to the gospel that Paul was presenting. The text in fact is not talking about God’s actions or decisions in eternity before the world existed, at all, that is not the context at all.

    A second problem is that the Greek word “tasso” does not mean to predetermine or ordain **in eternity**. It is a Greek military term that meant to arrange or set up things in a certain way. I prefer the meaning of “set up”.

    Those who frequently evangelize know that the Spirit “sets up” people to hear and respond to the gospel. Without this “set up” by the Spirit no one would turn to Christ for salvation. Arminians call it prevenient grace since it is a work of grace on the part of God, undeserved, and goes before the person is converted, it is grace towards us when we are not yet believers.

    I do a lot of evangelism involving prison ministry and have seen these “set ups” many, many times. I also believe that Jesus was referring to this in Jn. 6:44 where he said that unless you experienced this “drawing” you could not come to him for salvation (it must be noted that that the 6:44 text does not say that: (1) only the preselected elect are drawn; nor (2) that all who are drawn will become believers, rather it says that (3) you cannot come to Jesus unless you have in fact been drawn, or “set up”). Usually when I do a message while some will come forward at the invitation, usually it is some of the audience not all of them. If I speak to say 300 inmates at their chapel service and say 30-40 come forward to begin following Jesus that would be great. But I have never experienced a situation where they all came forward, say all 300! In talking to those who become Christians afterwards they will all tell these amazing and different stories about how God has “set them up” to believe (by arranging circumstances, bringing a certain person, “coincidences” etc. etc.). As I believe the Spirit is God and is sovereign and works powerfully. This is precisely what you would expect: that he sets up people in different ways to respond to the gospel message (we can see this as well if we look at our own conversion experiences).

    If we look at 13:48 what does it say? After the Jews as a whole had rejected the gospel (13:42-46 “since you repudiate it and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life”) Paul turned to the Gentiles and shared the gospel with them (13:46-48). Now let’s say that “tasso” means to “set up people”, that it refers to this prevenient grace of God seen in the work of the Spirit who sets up people to believe. Here is how 13:48 would read then: “And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord: and as many as **had been set up for eternal life**, believed.”

    Returning to my illustration from my own experience it would be like giving the message and then **all of them** being set up to have faith and ALL OF THEM having a faith response to the gospel by believing it. “As many as” would refer to them all. “had been “tasso-ed”/set up for eternal life” would refer to the fact that the Spirit worked in all of these Gentiles. “believed” refers to the fact that all who had been **set up to believe**, did in fact choose to believe. This would be exciting; doing an evangelistic message and seeing everybody experience the prevenient grace of God and everybody getting saved!

    I believe that if we take “tasso” to have the meaning that it had, of setting up or arranging, and if we carefully consider the context of an evangelistic effort towards the Gentiles after the Jews had rejected the message. Then we have a description of a situation similar to a revival but in this case **everybody** who had been **set up by the Spirit to believe**, ended up believing. This would also be a passage where we find both the sovereignty of God in the work of the Spirit in setting them all up to believe AND in the responsibility and free will of man in which all who were set up to believe, chose to trust in Christ for salvation and so **did believe**.

    Robert

15. Brian D. Reynolds
    November 17th, 2009 @ 10:52 pm

    Dr. Brown,

    The following response is to the question of Acts 13:48, which reads:

    “Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been APPOINTED to eternal life believed.” (NKJV)

    The latter sentence in this verse is the one that many Calvinist use to support their doctrine of a particular unconditional election of men; yet, based upon my studies I have not found this verse to substantiate this position. The emphasized word with the verse in question is tetagmenoi, from whence we get the verb tasso, signifying to place, set, order, appoint, dispose.

    My first point of consideration is to recognize that Luke’s intention in writing this passage was not to present a theological position, as much as he was attempting to convey the fact that the gospel was being extended to reach the Gentiles. The significance of this thought is found in its context with the whole passage. Luke noted in verse 46, of the Jews that rejected the gospel “It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you first; but since you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles.” Thus, it is worthy to be noted that they, in their own volition and free will, rejected the gospel. Luke has been consistent with his acknowledgment of this ability as thus noted in his gospel itself.

    “But the Pharisees and lawyers REJECTED THE WILL OF GOD for themselves, not having been baptized by him” (Luke 7:30).

    Hence, from the position of Acts 13:48, we cannot consistently infer that man’s free agency to choose is not to be considered with the gospel being offered to the Gentiles. N.T., Greek scholar, R.C.H. Lenski, stated regarding this verse, ” Who put them in line? God did so by sending Paul and Barnabas and his Word and his grace and by making both come in contact with their hearts. He did the same for the Jews and would have preferred to have them in the same blessed ordo but for the criminal wickedness with which they removed themselves from this ordo by blaspheming instead of glorifying the Word.”

    Regarding this verse, A.T. Robertson, did not regard it as applicable to use in support of fundamental doctrine at all. “This verse does not solve the vexed problem of divine sovereignty and human free agency. There is no evidence that Luke had in mind an absolutum decretum of personal salvation. Paul had shown that God’s plan extended to and included Gentiles” (Word Pictures in N.T.). I’d also like to note F. C. Cook’s comment on this verse as well, “The reference is to the efficacy of God’s grace, not to His eternal purpose. St. Luke was stating a fact, not setting forth a doctrine.”

    It has been through my studies on this verse, and the use and tense of the Greek word “tasso,” that I have found a consistent acknowledgment from noted N.T. scholars (Of which I have only noted a few) of the ambiguity of this verse, as opposed to a clear doctrinal citation to be used in support of the Reformed position. Notwithstanding, I have concluded the best rendering of this verse to imply “a readiness of mind.” This rendering is also found not to conflict with many such passages as, 1 Timothy 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9, as well as other verses which affirm that God desires all men to be saved.

    Shalom,
    Brian

16. Dr Michael L Brown
    November 17th, 2009 @ 11:07 pm

    Brian,

    Thanks for the literate and helpful response. Much appreciated!

17. Nathaniel
    November 18th, 2009 @ 2:46 pm

    Brian,

    I’m a Calvinist, and I would like to bring up some points against your interpretation of Romans 9.

    I think you’re not doing good exegesis. One of the rules of Biblical interpretation is to look within the immediate context for the meaning before going to other texts to figure out the meaning. I think we can agree that both Jeremiah and Paul are using potter analogies to illustrate the sovereignty of God, they are illustrating the sovereignty of God in different ways.

    First, Jeremiah is talking about nations, but Paul is talking about individuals.

    Jeremiah: If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I intended to do to it. And if at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, and if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will relent of the good that I had intended to do to it.

    Paul: What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

    Notice Jeremiah is talking about nations doing evil in his sight versus Paul who speaks about the vessels of mercy being called out of the larger group of Jews and Gentiles.

    Second, Jeremiah speaks of God intending the nations to be used for a good purpose whereas Paul speaks of the intention of the vessels of wrath to be used for displaying God’s justice.

    Jeremiah: and if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will relent of the good that I had intended to do to it.

    Paul: What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction

    Note that Jeremiah says that God intends to use nations that do evil for good. This is a problem for any Christian who believes in the omniscience of God. How can God intend to do something and fail when he already knows that if he tries it, he will fail? I’ll speak to this later.

    Finally, Jeremiah is calling Israel to repentance while Paul is teaching the church in Rome the doctrine of election.

    Jeremiah: and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I intended to do to it.

    Paul: though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls—

    Jeremiah is saying that God can do whatever he wants to, and he calls his people to obedience. This theme is throughout the Hebrew scriptures. God calls his people to obey, but they are unable to obey. “But they say, ‘That is in vain! We will follow our own plans, and will every one act according to the stubbornness of his evil heart.’” God calls Israel to repentance, but they are unable to comply because of the evil in their own heart. What’s the solution? Jeremiah says:

    “Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”

    How are they able to obey the new covenant? They get a new heart. Paul on the other hand illustrates the principle of election – that it is not by faith or works or humility or any other characteristic we have. It is by God and him alone. By election, we get a new heart so that we will have faith in Jesus Christ and be saved.

    So back to God’s intentions. When God speaks of intentions, it is usually illustrative of God’s prescriptive will (as opposed to his decreetive will). It is God’s will for his people to repent and obey. We know that reason people do not obey is because they need a new heart. So what is God doing in this passage? He’s showing his faithfulness and Israel’s persistent unfaithfulness. That’s what the Law does, it shows us our sin and our need for God. In fact, that’s why I became Calvinistic in my thinking. I realized that the only thing holding me to God was he and that the only one who drew me to himself was he. We are all completely rebellious (Romans 3) and the only hope of salvation we have is for God, the good shepherd, to bring us to himself.

18. Brian D. Reynolds
    November 19th, 2009 @ 10:54 pm

    Nathaniel,

    Thank you for your response regarding my comments on Romans 9. I would hope that you understand that I gave a simple overview of that passage, so your exegesis is well noted. However, I would like to build upon your statement that “One of the rules of Biblical interpretation is to look within the immediate context for the meaning…” It is here that I would like to open up our dialogue a bit further with more attention to Romans 9, and its associated chapters.

    It must be first acknowledged that the context of Romans 9 through 11 is centered on God’s purpose and calling for corporate Israel in relation to His intentions for the Gentiles. Found in Romans 9:1-3, Paul revealed his deep sorrow and continual grief – even to the degree of choosing to be cursed if it meant the salvation to his brethren in the flesh. In Chapter 10:1, he thus revealed that is was his desire and prayer to God that Israel (corporate) would be saved. Hence, it would be fair to conclude that Paul’s focus and attention was directed to God’s purposes for Jews corporately, thus comprehending men individually.

    In Romans 9, Paul makes a strong appeal to God’s sovereignty in acknowledging that He can do whatever He wants, to whomever He so chooses, without anyone questioning His decisions. The apostle thus cited individuals in accordance to the Lord’s purpose in election, (e.g., “…the older shall serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.” Yet, and again, it must be emphasized that Paul’s focus was still on Israel as a whole, and not is intention to promote a doctrine of election with his focus on individuals alone.

    Though God can do as He pleases, it is not consistent to both His moral and ethical nature to elect multitudes to damnation – without them having the opportunity to believe and turn to Him. This is fully seen in the continuance of Paul’s discourse in chapter 11, when he clearly declares that “some of the branches were broken off… because of their unbelief,” and, “if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again” (vs.17-23). I ask you, Nathaniel, why would Paul make such a contradictory statement, if there was absolutely nothing within man (faith) that God takes into account in regards to salvation?

    If Paul believed the Calvinist theology that God exhibits an unconditional election and damnation to all of all men, without each individual having the capability to believe – and that God takes pleasure in damning those who cannot have faith, why would he have great heaviness and sorrow for those in whom God had no sorrow? Why would he wish to be accursed for those who were unconditionally damned by the will of God? The answers are discovered in Paul affirming that God will have mercy on whomever He wills to have mercy (9:15); thus acknowledging that God’s desire is that He might have mercy on all (11:32). It is the consistent affirmation of Scripture that it is God’s will that none should perish, and that He desires all to be saved; hence, with His blessed Son being lifted up, He has drawn all men to Himself. This is why I am NOT a Calvinist.

    Shalom,
    Brian

19. Mwiya
    November 20th, 2009 @ 8:02 am

    Brian,

    When Jesus made the statement that He would draw all people all to himself did he mean he would save all people? Because truthfully then that is an untruth. Not all men have heard the Gospel, in fact many have died without ever hearing the Gospel at all. They died in the darkness of their sins and they will be judged by their deeds and without Christ eternal death is the future for those who have not been saved by Him. Now if there are people who have not heard the Gospel then it does not follow that when Jesus said I shall draw all people to Himself He meant He would save them. It is different to when He said that those who follow Him are drawn to Him by The Father. In the case when He was talking about all people being drawn to Him I perceive He was either talking about His preeminence as Judge of the world as all people shall eventually stand before Him in one way or another, or when He said all people he meant it in the universal sense of all nations shall be drawn to Him (speaking only of those people He will save from all nations).

    I think it shouldn’t be a surprise that God only saves those whom he wills to have mercy on. In Exodus God declares that an aspect of Himself, He shows mercy to whom he shows mercy. He chooses whom to have mercy on for his purposes and the glory of His Name. He chose Israel out of all nations for his own purposes. He chooses Non-Jews out of all the world and Jews out of the Nation of Israel to be part of his Body. It does not mean that those who are not saved are not called to Him. They may very well be called, but are not drawn to Him and are not the elect. Not every one who is called is chosen. As per the parable of the King’s feast.

    How would you see the passage in Ephesians 2 that states that faith is a gift, a work of God that no man may boast?

20. Nathaniel
    November 20th, 2009 @ 11:41 am

    Brian,

    Thanks for your response. Yes, Romans 9 has a corporate view in it, but it also focuses on individuals in each group. You’ve already mentioned the individuals Jacob and Esau, but also Paul says this, “even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?” Notice that Paul is talking about individuals (us) being called out of the larger group of Jews and Gentiles.

    Now, as to Paul’s heart for the lost Jews. Starting in Romans 2, Paul makes the effort to show that all men are equal, but he does so in a way that could seem anti-Semitic. For instance:

    “For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical.”

    “Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one—who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith.”

    “For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression.”

    And on and on. Paul’s letter up through Romans 8 talks about the Law and circumcision as if it has very little value in salvation. One could accuse Paul of being anti-Jewish up to this point. Paul is making known the depths of his heart toward his people, he would even cut himself off from Christ if he could for the sake of his people. We Calvinists shouldn’t be cold people. We long for the salvation of our family and friends. We know that God works through means, so we pray for them and we preach them the Gospel. We know that salvation is of the Lord, and we do not claim to know the mind of God, nor do we know how prayer works, but we pray that God would save them according to his will. It is a great mystery. Neither side of this debate can avoid mystery by the way. How can an Arminian pray for the salvation of his friend when God is already trying his hardest to save them?
    You ask where does faith come in? Faith is absolutely necessary for our salvation, but the only way for us to have faith, is for God to give us a new heart which he does according to his good pleasure. As Mwiya has already said, it is a gift from God.

    Romans 9 continues, “It is not as if the word of God has failed…” This has great importance in how we deal with Romans 1-8 and 9-11. This verse connects the two sections. Remember how in Romans 8, Paul list the great promises for those who have been justified? No one can condemn them, no one can bring a charge against them, nothing can separate them from the love of Christ, etc. What kind of promise is this if God cannot fulfill his promise to the Jews? Romans 9-11 gives us a glimpse into the council of God to verify for us that God’s word does not fail. Romans 11 says:

    “Lest you be wise in your own sight, I want you to understand this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written,

    “The Deliverer will come from Zion,
    he will banish ungodliness from Jacob”;
    “and this will be my covenant with them
    when I take away their sins.”

    As regards the gospel, they are enemies of God for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. For just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy. For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.”

    Two things to notice. First, “For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.” What great relief to the elect of God! The promises that God has promised to the Church and to the Jews will be fulfilled. Our calling is sure and election is sure. The second thing to note is this:

    For just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy.

    Who are the two groups spoken of here, the “you” and the “them”? Are they not the Jews and the Gentiles? Isn’t this one of the foci of Romans? Salvation belongs not just to the Jews or just to the Gentiles, but to all. That’s what Paul is referring to in these verses.

    Now you have also brought up John 10 as well. Let me point out to you that earlier in John 10 that even the Jews come to see Christ. That’s what Jesus means that he will draw all men to himself. It is breaking down the walls of ethnocentrism. God’s elect go beyond national boundaries. The great scene in Revelation include every tribe and tongue who have been bought with the blood of Christ worshiping the Lamb.

21. Michael
    November 20th, 2009 @ 1:13 pm

    Mwiya,
    You said: “How would you see the passage in Ephesians 2 that states that faith is a gift, a work of God that no man may boast?”

    Let’s remember that GRACE THROUGH FAITH is the GIFT mentioned in Ephesians 2. In other words, we are saved by faith, and because of our faith, God’s GIFT of grace was bestowed upon us. It has always been this way. Abraham is a perfect example. Abraham believed God and was therefore counted as righteous unto God.

22. Robert
    November 20th, 2009 @ 2:03 pm

    Mwiya wrote:

    “I think it shouldn’t be a surprise that God only saves those whom he wills to have mercy on.”

    Yes. We can only be saved through the mercy of God found in Christ.

    “In Exodus God declares that an aspect of Himself, He shows mercy to whom he shows mercy. He chooses whom to have mercy on for his purposes and the glory of His Name.”

    Yes and the apostle Paul makes mention of this fact as well in Romans 9:15. Paul citing the Exodus passage says that God has the RIGHT TO HAVE MERCY ON WHOMEVER HE DESIRES TO HAVE MERCY UPON. What Calvinists do however, is to STOP with this truth as if this is all there is in scripture on the subject of God saving us through mercy.

    The Exodus passage and the Romans 9:15 citation by Paul speak only to the **right** of God, since God is sovereign and does as He pleases in all situations, to have mercy upon whom he desires to have mercy upon.

    But Romans 9-11 **functions as a unit** and if properly interpreted must be interpreted as a unit. If we do this, then not only do we see that God has the **right** to have mercy on whomever, we also see that God explicitly says in Romans 11:32 “For God has shut up ALL men in disobedience, that [in the Greek a purpose clause, saying for this purpose or reason] He might show mercy to ALL.” So Romans 9:15 tells us (1) He has the right to have mercy on whomever because He is sovereign and he is God: and (2) 11:32 tells us he has mercy on ALL.

    Mwiya asked:

    “How would you see the passage in Ephesians 2 that states that faith is a gift, a work of God that no man may boast?”

    Michael answered:

    “Let’s remember that GRACE THROUGH FAITH is the GIFT mentioned in Ephesians 2. In other words, we are saved by faith, and because of our faith, God’s GIFT of grace was bestowed upon us. It has always been this way. Abraham is a perfect example. Abraham believed God and was therefore counted as righteous unto God.”

    Michael is correct, the gift in Ephesians 2:8 is ***not*** faith but salvation. This is more clear in the Greek text.

    Unfortunately, Augustine invented this mistake and argued according to his misinterpretation of Eph. 2:8 that God gives this gift (which Augustine incorrectly took to be **faith** rather than **salvation**), and further Augustine mistakenly argued that God only gave this gift of faith to the preselected elect. So Augustine did not take the Greek sufficiently into account when interpreting Eph. 2:8, and ended up inventing the Calvinistic doctrine of “unconditional election”.

    There is no evidence whatsoever in church history prior to Augustine of anyone holding to or advocating “unconditional election”. Augustine brought this “Trojan horse” into the church, injected this error into church tradition, which has caused unnecessary confusion and division ever since.

    Robert

23. Nathaniel
    November 20th, 2009 @ 2:19 pm

    Robert,

    If you read my response above, you will find a different reading in Romans 9-11.

    As far as the early church fathers are concerned, there were a lot of things they were wrong about (there were a lot of things they were right about too). They were very much influenced by Greek thought, and they all held to libertarian free will. Augustine also held to this view until the Pelagian controversy. He changed his views to one he thought was more Scriptural.

    Having read Ephesians 2:8-9 in the Greek, I’m not sure what you mean by it’s more clear in the Greek. It looks to me that “grace through faith” is a gift from God. Our salvation, which includes faith, is a gift from God. That being said, I think there are more convincing passages than this one (John 3, for instance).

24. Robert
    November 20th, 2009 @ 2:40 pm

    Hello Brian,

    I want to comment on some of your comments regarding Acts 13:48 as I consider this one of the three most important “proof texts” that Calvinists such as James White most often appeal to (the other passages being Romans 9 and John 6).

    Brian wrote:

    “The latter sentence in this verse is the one that many Calvinist use to support their doctrine of a particular unconditional election of men; yet, based upon my studies I have not found this verse to substantiate this position.”

    Agreed.

    “The emphasized word with the verse in question is tetagmenoi, from whence we get the verb tasso, signifying to place, set, order, appoint, dispose.”

    Again this is why I suggested that it refers to prevenient grace in which the Holy Spirit supernaturally and powerfully works in the person leading them to Christ and enabling a faith response.

    “My first point of consideration is to recognize that Luke’s intention in writing this passage was not to present a theological position, as much as he was attempting to convey the fact that the gospel was being extended to reach the Gentiles.”

    This is a good observation. I add that while the calvinists want to believe that it speaks of God’s decisions to elect IN ETERNITY, the passage and context has nothing to do with eternity but involves events thoroughly situated in real history and time and space.

    “Thus, it is worthy to be noted that they, in their own volition and free will, rejected the gospel. Luke has been consistent with his acknowledgment of this ability as thus noted in his gospel itself.”

    Agreed.

    Brian then cites an important passage that directly contradicts the Calvinist doctrine of irresistible grace:

    “But the Pharisees and lawyers REJECTED THE WILL OF GOD for themselves, not having been baptized by him” (Luke 7:30).”

    John’s baptism at that time represented conversion, so for the Pharisees to reject what John was doing was to reject God’s work of leading people to himself/saving them. So the Pharisees are explicitly said to be rejecting the prevenient grace of God seen in John’s ministry.

    “Hence, from the position of Acts 13:48, we cannot consistently infer that man’s free agency to choose is not to be considered with the gospel being offered to the Gentiles.”

    True and the verse states they believed. Believing is a choice that we either make or do not make in response to the gospel message.

    “Regarding this verse, A.T. Robertson, did not regard it as applicable to use in support of fundamental doctrine at all. “This verse does not solve the vexed problem of divine sovereignty and human free agency. There is no evidence that Luke had in mind an absolutum decretum of personal salvation. Paul had shown that God’s plan extended to and included Gentiles” (Word Pictures in N.T.).”

    Again if the verse was speaking about God’s action of election individuals to salvation in eternity, then why is there absolutely no reference to these actions by God in eternity. It is not stated anywhere in the text and must be read into the text. That is eisegesis not exegesis.

    “I’d also like to note F. C. Cook’s comment on this verse as well, “The reference is to the efficacy of God’s grace, not to His eternal purpose. St. Luke was stating a fact, not setting forth a doctrine.””

    This is a great statement by Cook and perfectly fits the actual text.

    “It has been through my studies on this verse, and the use and tense of the Greek word “tasso,” that I have found a consistent acknowledgment from noted N.T. scholars (Of which I have only noted a few) of the ambiguity of this verse, as opposed to a clear doctrinal citation to be used in support of the Reformed position.”

    I have only a slight disagreement here with Brian, I do not believe the verse is ambiguous at all. It clearly presents that as many as had been set up to believe, chose to believe. If we take “tasso” as referring to the work of God in setting up, or disposing people to belief, there is no ambiguity in the verse.

    “Notwithstanding, I have concluded the best rendering of this verse to imply “a readiness of mind.””

    That is very close to my rendering of “set up”. We both take it to be referring to the preconversion work of the Holy Spirit in leading people to a faith response to the gospel when it is proclaimed. The Spirit always works with the Word and when the Word is faithfully preached as Paul did so in Acts 13 then the Spirit works powerfully in these situations bringing people to faith in Christ and salvation.

    “This rendering is also found not to conflict with many such passages as, 1 Timothy 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9, as well as other verses which affirm that God desires all men to be saved.”

    Yes because this rendering means that what God desires: the salvation of all men. He strongly seeks to realize by the work of the Holy Spirit in people before they become Christians. What Calvinists seem to leave out or forget or neglect or minimize is this pre-conversion work of the Spirit. Without it no one could come to Christ (cf. Jn. 6:44) Yes sin has affected all aspects of man, and Yes we are separated from God due to our sin and Yes we cannot save ourselves and are incapable of having a faith response ON OUR OWN. But that is just it, He does not leave us alone in our lost state, instead he sends the Holy Spirit (cf. Jn. 16:5-15) to work supernaturally and powerfully in us (showing us Christ, showing us our need for forgiveness, showing us Jesus to be the solution to our sin problem, illuminating scripture for us, etc. etc.) and it is this work of the Spirit that enables a faith response to the gospel. And all who have been saved know exactly what I am talking about, we have experienced this powerful work of the Spirit.

    Robert

25. Michael
    November 20th, 2009 @ 3:28 pm

    Nathaniel,
    You said: “Our salvation, which includes faith, is a gift from God. ”

    This is where I feel the Calvinist mistinterprets. It’s easy to lump everything together and say it’s all a gift. After all, life is a gift, as is everything given us. You can even say our decisions are a gift. The key here is to differentiate God’s eternal gift of salvation and the other general “gifts”. God desires for ALL men to be saved, and we know that rejection of God has eternal consequences of separation from Him. Jesus gave all sorts of warnings to his disciples. Despite having spent plenty of time with Jesus, Judas betrayed him. My point is that we choose to obey or disobey. The Holy Spirit draws and captures our attention, but we decide if we will deny ourselves or not and obey the Holy Spirit. This decision is a “gift” in a sense, but we must realize that God made us in His image and therefore have the ability to judge between right and wrong, just as He judges in the same manner. Just because God is all-knowing doesn’t mean His foreknowledge suggests that He predetermined other’s salvation. We must not pretend to understand how God’s foreknowledge works. All we can do is go by the Word of God and understand that God desires ALL men to be saved.

26. Robert
    November 20th, 2009 @ 4:11 pm

    Nathaniel wrote:

    “Having read Ephesians 2:8-9 in the Greek, I’m not sure what you mean by it’s more clear in the Greek. It looks to me that “grace through faith” is a gift from God. Our salvation, which includes faith, is a gift from God.”

    An excellent article which makes it very clear is by George Zeller here:

    http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/reformed/godgift.htm

    Besides the fact that the Greek text does not support the view that **faith** is the gift being referred to in Eph. 2:8. Your words also show a misunderstanding of the nature of faith.

    Faith is not a thing and object than can be passed around and given to or withheld from a person. Faith is a choice to trust in something or someone. We exercise faith all the time; it is just that our objects of faith differ. I sit in a chair, because I make the choice to trust that that chair will support my weight. In the Old Testament one of the great metaphors for trust in God is to place your confidence in Him as you would placing your weight on a staff or upon a strong rock that will certainly hold you.

    Everybody has faith; everybody places their confidence in or their reliance upon something or someone (most often themselves) the issue is where do you place your greatest confidence, reliance? It ought to be God and His Word as he is the most trustworthy person there is. God does not give us faith like an object that he gives to some and withholds from others (that was Augustine’s mistake, to conceive of faith as a thing given or withheld by God). No, the Spirit works in us revealing Christ to us, revealing our sin to us, revealing that Jesus is the way of salvation for us, etc. etc. after the Spirit works in this way in us, as unbelievers, then we are in the place where we can either choose to trust and place our confidence in Christ for salvation alone or we will choose to reject Christ. And we cannot be in this place unless the Spirit has worked powerfully and supernaturally in us. And if we do choose to trust in the Lord this action, this choice is done by us. God does not believe for us, or take over our bodies and force us to trust. He enables the choice to trust and we make that choice.

    Robert

27. Robert
    November 20th, 2009 @ 4:12 pm

    Nathaniel wrote:

    “If you read my response above, you will find a different reading in Romans 9-11.”

    No surprise, you’re a Calvinist!

    As with most Calvinists you attempted to proof text from Romans 9 but did not interact with the passages in Romans 10 and Romans 11 that have a bearing on what is said in Romans 9.

    “As far as the early church fathers are concerned, there were a lot of things they were wrong about (there were a lot of things they were right about too).”

    True and I am well aware of that. What I was pointing out is the COMPLETE ABSENCE of Calvinistic doctrine prior to Augustine. Presumably the early church believers all received the Spirit and had access to the scripture. So with the Spirit and the scripture why didn’t any of them come to Calvinistic doctrines? And this gap, this complete dearth of Calvinistic teaching involves the first FOUR HUNDRED YEARS of church history.

    “They were very much influenced by Greek thought, and they all held to libertarian free will.’

    You inadvertently bring up another problem here. Not only did they not have ANY Calvinistic doctrine for FOUR HUNDRED YEARS, they also all held to libertarian free will. And unbiased person would conclude that they did not hold Calvinism because it had not been introduced yet by Augustine and yet they all held to libertarian free will because they found abundant evidence of it both in scripture and in their own experience.

    “Augustine also held to this view until the Pelagian controversy. He changed his views to one he thought was more Scriptural.”

    Some suggest that Augustine overreacted to the false Pelagian teachings. Augustine had prior to his conversion to Christianity been involved with a group that was into determinism. Some suggest that in responding to the Pelagians, Augustine brought in some of his pre-Christian beliefs, most notable determinism and a denial of free will.

    Robert

28. Dr Michael L Brown
    November 20th, 2009 @ 4:32 pm

    Robert,

    Adding to your comments here for Nathaniel, the Greek fathers were actually fighting against some of the fatalistic predestinarianism of the pagan culture, and so they needed to re-emphasize free will, which was widely accepted and taught in ancient Judaism, along with divine sovereignty. Craig Keener’s John commentary has a great discussion on this, especially at John 3:19-21, as well as at John 6:37-44.

    Thanks!

29. Nathaniel
    November 20th, 2009 @ 11:36 pm

    Robert,

    I actually did interact with Romans 11 if you go back and see. I really don’t see the interpretation of Romans 9 offered by Arminians or non-Calvinists as plausible. Paul is definitely being didactic and his real life examples show that he is illustrating an actuality not a hypothetical. In fact, the more I read through Romans 9-11, the more confident I am of my reading.

    I would say for faith being a gift…my argument is that grace through faith is salvation. It’s not that hard to believe that faith is given to us. Here’s several examples:

    2 Peter 1:1 “To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours”

    Acts 16:14 “One of those listening was a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message.”

    Hebrews 12:2 “Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith…”

    Of course there are many more examples in Scripture of this. I think the “it” in Ephesians 2 refers to “grace through faith”. It’s the whole package. None of it is achieved through works. I do not think that faith is a work, but if we are able to produce faith according to what a non-Calvinist believes, what made one person have faith and not another? Wasn’t it something within himself? That’s what we Calvinists take issue with. The Bible says that no one seeks God, and the reason we do not seek God is because of our evil hearts. In order for us to even exercise faith, we must have a new heart. As Paul says to Timothy, “Those who oppose him (talking about the Lord’s servant) he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth.” So must repentance be granted to us in order to believe.

    Jesus tells the Pharisees that they did not believe because they were not one of his sheep. What? I thought you had to believe in order to become one of his sheep? It goes to show you that God’s chosen people will be ones that exercise faith and believe in him. When we trace the chain of redemption, the first link is not faith or a human decision (although they are all marks of a true believer), it’s God’s election. “For those he foreknew…” as Paul says. This is not mere prescience, but God’s choice to predestine a particular people for himself.

    I don’t see your point from antiquity. Like I said before, there were many things that the early church fathers affirmed that we don’t affirm or at least disagree on today. These things include: infant baptism, baptismal regeneration, and real presence among other things. It may be that the church fathers were fighting against fatalism (Calvinism affirms compatiblism not fatalism, I’m sure you knew that, but some make that mistake). However, I think the reason why Greek thought (including free-will) was mixed with Christian thought was because of apologetics. They wanted to answer Greek questions to the Christian faith. This is why we see Platonist and Aristotelian thought all throughout the early church fathers. There’s nothing against using Greek thought as long as it’s affirmed in Scripture. However, my point is that it is more likely the reason why we see free will as prevalent as it was.

    That being said, we must test what they believed with the Scripture. Even in ancient Judaism, they believed things that are not Biblical. It’s not persuasive to say that since it was believed for a longer time that it’s probably true, it must be tested with Scripture.

30. Nathaniel
    November 20th, 2009 @ 11:45 pm

    Dr. Brown,

    I’m looking forward your debate with Dr. White. He’s definitely a good debater. I’ve heard his debates with Catholics, Bart Ehrman, and Harold Kamping. He could have lambasted for some of the points they made, but he did not. I know on his radio show he can be blunt, but most of the time he is very cordial. I think he is looking forward to discussing the subject with you. You are also very fair to us, and I can’t tell you how refreshing that is. Thanks for your ministry!

31. Dr Michael L Brown
    November 21st, 2009 @ 12:55 am

    Nathaniel,

    By all means I seek to be fair to you and your fellow Calvinists, first, because I recognize the case you can make from the Scriptures (but, of course, see the weight of Scripture as being against your position); second, because of the many fine Calvinists of the past and present; third, because we are joined together by our common faith.

    Yes, it will be great to debate James White, and I take him and his views quite seriously.

32. Michael
    November 21st, 2009 @ 10:11 am

    Nathaniel,
    It is true that no one seeks God. That is why God has to draw someone, but then at that point, we have to decide by faith if we are willing to deny all and follow Him. By God drawing someone, that does not mean someone is automatically going to follow Him. As we know from the parable of the sower, some don’t last. You said “It’s not that hard to believe that faith is given to us.” Again, it is choice that God has given us, and faith is a response of that choice. Remember Abraham! In my immature years as a believer, I was once influenced by Calvinism. Looking back, I can see how dangerous it was in going this route. My attitude eventually became God’s gonna take care of everything, so I shouldn’t worry too much about what I do since I definitely don’t want to be accused of living a works-based life. That drastically affected my zeal for the Lord in a negative way, and my concern for the salvation of others became casual at best. My purpose to life started losing meaning since God was in control anyway, and He didn’t really need me. I became more interested in trying to defend Calvinism than living a selfless sacrificial life making disciples. If there’s anything the Enemy wants, it’s to deceive us and make us ineffective for the Gospel. How in the world are you gonna witness to someone and tell them God predestines some to go to Heaven and some to go to Hell? That makes no sense at all and does not fit with the whole of Scripture! I tried that once and the person became extremely confused, as did I even, while saying that. I tried to convince myself that I could reconcile what I was saying to this person, but I just left bigger unanswered holes that I just pretended weren’t there. All the verses you try to use to back up Calvinism (2 Peter 1, Acts, 16, Hebrews 12), are a great misrepresentation of their true meaning. “Received a faith” from 2 Peter is not what you perceive it to mean. It just means she began to have faith. You found the word “received” and decided to run off with that, but again look at the whole of Scripture. Acts 16 says “the Lord opened her heart”. This can be understood as any other case where the Lord draws a person, and they choose to believe by faith, and when they do, their heart is opened. This can better be understood that her heart was opened BECAUSE she believed Paul’s message. The Lord is given credit because He was the subject of Paul’s message. Hebrews 12:2 says “…Jesus, the author and perfector of our faith”. This means that by understanding what Jesus did for us, we have the ability to come to faith in him. He is who we look to in our new found faith, making him the “author” of this new faith, and as we grow in him, we become perfected to be like him. Our minds are on him, making him the ‘perfector’ as we seek to know him more.

33. Mwiya
    November 21st, 2009 @ 6:38 pm

    If its all about whether we chose to believe then why are we called elect or chosen? Why does Jesus say He chose us, it would seem if we chose to believe then we choose Him. I think in the same way that the death of Jesus gives glory to God alone for He allowed it to happen and chose for it to happen so to does the salvation experience. If we are the one’s who chose Him then we get the glory he just makes it possible for us to be saved, in a sense we are saving our selves.

    What of Paul’s discourse on the potter having mastery over the clay? What of Paul discussing how God can use some clay for honor and some for dishonor.

34. Mwiya
    November 21st, 2009 @ 6:40 pm

    lol. forgot to say this in the previous post. I think we do chose to believe in Him. But only because He gives us the ability, I don’t think every one has this ability. I believe He works in us to bring us to that choice and so the glory is His. We are born of the will of God, not man.

35. Pat
    November 21st, 2009 @ 9:59 pm

    Arminians and Calvinists:

    I have been enjoying the debate!

    Neither side denies that the sinner is helpless to save himself apart from God’s gracious intervention. Both sides agree that the Father must draw the sinner. The real issue in this debate is whether the Father draws and the Spirit enables us in an IRRESISTABLE manner.

    1) For a defense of the Arminian position I quote Dr. Greg Boyd:

    “God graciously makes it possible for us to believe. But he does not make it neccessary for us to believe. It is one thing to claim that without the Holy Spirit we cannot believe and quite another to say that with the work of the Holy Spirit we must believe. Scripture affirms the former but not the latter.”

    “…There is no merit in accepting in accepting a gift, especially if even the ability to accept the gift is itself a gift.”

    2) For a defense of the Calvinist position I refer to Dr. R.C. Sproul:

    He argues that the drawing is irresistable by referring to John 6:44; 12:32 & Acts 16:19 all using the Greek word helkuo. James 2:6 and Acts 21:30 use the Greek word helko. The latter 3 verses speak of being “dragged” and not being able to resist.

    I am also reminded of Phil. 2:12 which uses the Greek word katalambano – “to take eagerly, i.e. seize.”

    I would be interested in hearing further insights from both sides on these Greek terms and there useage in the Bible.

    Pat

36. Nathaniel
    November 21st, 2009 @ 11:51 pm

    Michael,

    I think every Calvinist must guard against hyper Calvinism. It is very clear in Scripture that we are responsible for what we do. It is also clear in Scripture that we must do what God commands us. As an act of worship, we do all we can to fulfill God’s commandments because we love him and take pleasure in doing what he commands. I was a four point Arminian for most of my life, but after examining the Scriptures more closely, I’ve been convinced that Calvinism is more consistent with the Scriptures. There are many Calvinists who are very passionate about evangelism and missions. In fact, I’m on the missions board at my church. Predestination has not quelled my desire to see the nations worship God, it has only fanned the flame that I already had for missions. I pray for lost people at my work, because I know that God doesn’t try to save people, he does. I pray because I know that God is sovereign and deserves all the glory for everything that I say and do – it is an act of worship.

    Your exegesis of the Acts passage is a bit dubious. I’d encourage you to look again and see if you can fit your interpretation into that passage. I maintain that 2 Peter is referring to receiving faith as a gift from God. He’s making it clear that he is writing to believers. Hebrews 12 comes right after the “Faith” chapter. So when it says, “author of our faith,” it is linking our faith to the faith of the OT saints mentioned in the previous chapter.

37. Brian D. Reynolds
    November 22nd, 2009 @ 12:12 am

    Mwyia and Nathaniel,

    I will address both of your comments together.

    Mwyia asked, ” When Jesus made the statement that He would draw all people all to himself did he mean he would save all people?”

    Absolutely not! The drawing of men to himself implied that He would make available the “potential” for all men to be saved. As Jesus thus stated, “…whosoever believes on Him should not perish but have everlasting life” (John 2:16). Again, as been well noted by Robert and Michael, that the condition of faith is conditioned to this salvation, which I will further address a bit later.

    In continued reference to Christ being lifted up and drawing all men to himself, John further noted that “…He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only BUT ALSO FOR THE WHOLE WORLD” (1 John 2:1). The apostolic consistency is continued with Peter’s comments regarding false teachers and false prophets, “who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even DENYING THE LORD WHO BOUGHT THEM…” (2 Peter 2:1). Paul also declared, regarding His death on the cross, “…who gave Himself a ransom FOR ALL…” (1 Timothy 2:6). So, Mwyia and Nathaniel, Jesus actually meant what He said declaring that He would draw all men unto Himself.

    We all agree that man cannot save himself without God’s initiative to act first. We also agree that no one, in-and-of-themselves, seeks after God. Yet, you both believe that God’s offers His drawing grace and faith to only a select few with the ability to believe, while taking pleasure to damn the majority and remainder of the human race – and it is here that we seem to have a divide. Paul declared, “For the grace of God that brings salvation HAS APPEARED TO ALL MEN” (Titus 2:11). It is here that we see God’s initiative efforts to reach out to all people in drawing us to Himself. This drawing from the Spirit of grace has been made available to all men for the potential to believe. Jesus stated that when the Spirit comes, “He will CONVICT THE WORLD of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment” (John 16:8). Again, we can see God’s initiative in awakening the conscience within every man, so that we are without excuse. So, revealed within God’s sovereign rule, He reveals His plan to have mercy on all (Romans 11:32).

    Mwyia says, ” How would you see the passage in Ephesians 2 that states that faith is a gift, a work of God that no man may boast?”

    Nathaniel said, ” Faith is absolutely necessary for our salvation, but the only way for us to have faith, is for God to give us a new heart which he does according to his good pleasure. As Mwiya has already said, it is a gift from God.”

    The verse in question, Ephesians 2:8 states, “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God.” Based the Greek scholarship that I have studied, it seems to be a consensus that the entire statement, “For by grace you have been saved through faith…” is identified through the understanding that the work of salvation as a whole is the gift of God, to include all the factors involved. Citing this verse, A.T. Robertson stated that, “gift refers not to faith or grace, but to the act of being saved by grace conditioned on faith on our part.” Interestingly enough, even John Calvin agreed to this interpretation.

    Hence, the multiple appeals from God to turn to Him, to believe, and to have faith – in one sense comes from Him (all good things come from Him) – but at the same time is something that He takes into account that comes in and from man. Notwithstanding, Scripture states that “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). Elsewhere, God says, “For I have NO PLEASURE in the death of one who dies… therefore turn and live” (Ezekiel 18:32). Again, “…I have NO PLEASURE in the death of the wicked…” (Ezekiel 33:11).

    So, because we know through the revealed Word what does and does not please God, how is it that you have concluded that God is pleased to damn multitudes, without them (according to your theology) ever having the ability, or enabling grace to believe? Please reconcile these above verses.

    I would declare that it is faith, as a condition, that establishes grace, which has been offered to all men. To believe, is not a work and should be discarded as such. I will establish this by noting various biblical passages that draw this distinction.

    By grace through faith – Ephesians 2:8
    By faith according to grace – Romans 4:16
    Not of works, but of faith – Romans 4:5
    Not of works, but grace – Romans 11:6

    Advocates who have attempted to force a theological conclusion that God’s plan for man’s eternal redemption rest solely and exclusively on God’s sovereignty alone – without taking into account any factor in man – falls severely short on God’s multiple appeals for man, in the liberty of his free will choosing, to repent and turn to Him, as well as, His revealed will for the salvation of the whole world. I’ll conclude with the words pinned from Dr. Robert Shank, “There is nothing about it (salvation) which conjures up some dark, inscrutable paradox, loudly insisting upon the impossibility of reconciling Holy Scripture’s revelation of both the sovereignty of God and the moral freedom and accountability of men.”

    I would hope that we all would take strong consideration in understanding the Lord’s heart thus declaring that He is “…NOT WILLING that ANY should perish but that ALL should come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9).

    Shalom,
    Brian

38. Brian
    November 22nd, 2009 @ 8:16 am

    Please excuse the the miscitation for John 3:16.

39. Mwiya
    November 22nd, 2009 @ 10:36 am

    It is true that the Lord does not delight in the death of the wicked. Still many people die without every having heard the Gospel or even had a chance to know what has been done by Christ. Still God allows that to happen. It doesn’t mean it pleases Him, but by their own choice they sin and by their own choice they choose not to seek God and so they perish. God can chose to have mercy and send an evangelist but it doesn’t mean He will. In order that the Ethiopian eunch may be saved he performed a miracle by causing Philip to be transported from one place to another, just so that one person could be saved.

    I see the sacrifice of Jesus in two ways. He makes it possible to be saved and He also empowers the sinful to have faith that seeks God. For those who hear the Gospel and chose not to believe their blood is on their own heads and the wrath of God abides on them still. But they do what is humanly normal and I think this simply shows sin to be sinful, by that I mean humans will do what is natural to them which is rebel from God even when he offers grace.

    Unless The Spirit of God breaks a man’s heart to make it contrite before God I do not see how true faith can be had. Every one has a different experience of the moment they were saved. But I think every one can agree that when they believed it came from within as though someone made them understood when before they did not understand. Why is that? Because the Spirit is the one who makes this possible. He gives our hearts the ability to choose Him and once we see the Light and the Truth how can we refuse it?

    As the angel declared He (The Messiah) would save His people from their sins. He did not say He will make it possible for them to be saved, not that they may possibly be saved. No, that He would actually save them. If The sending of the Messiah by the Father was a Sovereign act of God, if the death of The Messiah, His resurrection and the sending of the Spirit were all Sovereign acts of God, it must follow that in his eternally enduring Love God before the foundation of the world, chose us and saw us and chose to save us in and through Messiah. God’s motivation is not human fairness, it is Him saving whom he wills to save not because we are worthy but simply because in his goodness he decides to save us despite our sins and our inability to truly serve Him with all our heart, soul, mind and strength. He choses us to be a prized possesion, and he leaves every one else to make their own choice. Just like in Romans 1 He gave them up to sin, which was their choice so to He leaves them to make their own choice here.

    Matthew 1:21
    She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he WILL save his people from their sins.”

    Epheisans 1: 4-11

    According as he hath CHOSEN us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

    5Having PREDESTINED us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the GOOD PLEASURE OF HIS WILL,

    6To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

    7In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

    8Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence;

    9Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:

    10That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:

    11In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being PREDESTINED according to the purpose of him who WORKETH ALL THINGS AFTER THE COUNSEL OF HIS OWN WILL.

    Given a simple and plain reading it seems that God saves those whom He has elected for salvation. We don’t know who they are but He does and he has called them to salvation and at the right time they all come to Him by His Spirit’s power.

    In regards to the Ephesians 2:8 passage let us look at the passage in more context.

    I think this passage puts the whole issue in context.
    Ephesians 2:5

    Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;).

    So when we were dead in sins he quickened us together with Christ, by Grace we are saved….furthermore this grace (which is an expression of God’s love; “But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us” (verse 4). He does this to shower us with abundant grace both now and in the world to come “That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. ” This is so that we who are saved by Him in every way, may know the greatness of this grace both now in being sat in high places with Him and experiencing the quickening as well as in ages to come. Now this grace and the faith which allows us to experience the merits of the grace are a gift from God. “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God.” By grace (God’s unmerited favor we are saved, and this is not from within us but it is a gift from God (the faith to believe). There is a difference between the Grace of Messiah’s substitionary sacrifice and the gift to believe in it that comes from the gift of the Father, The Holy Spirit who quickens us so that Messiah’s work is applied to us through our trusting Him.

    All of this shows us to be his worksmanship in Christ.
    “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.”

    We are saved by Christ and drawn to Christ by the Father through the Spirit of Christ who breaks our hearts shines Christ light in them and gives us the faith to believe which we do because of Him who works in us. The breaking of our hearts makes them flesh rather than the stone they once were.

    Thats the way I understand that passage, maybe its a bit jumbled up. But I guess part of discipleship is re-learning our understanding of scripture and I’m open to that.

    Remember “Not of works, lest any man should boast. “

40. Nathaniel
    November 22nd, 2009 @ 5:06 pm

    Brian,

    Thanks for your response. I think you’re misquoting several scriptures that are normally used against Calvinism. You quote a lot of verses, so bear with me. Let me start out by saying we often import our own definitions to words without letting the context speak to the definition of the words. Norman Geisler likes to say, “All means all and that’s all that all means.” Unfortunately, that is not only how our language functions, but that’s definitely now how the language of the early church functions. Here are two examples:

    From our culture, if you were to ask you who came to my party and I said, “Everyone”. Would you think that everybody came to my party? Of course not! You would want clarification as to what I mean by “everyone”, but it could mean that everyone that I invited or everyone of consequence or just a lot of people.

    From the Gospel of Luke, “In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that ALL the world should be registered.” Are we to take this to mean that everybody in the entire world were to be included in this census? No, Luke means all the Roman world.

    So we need to make sure that we let the context of the passage and the theme of the book to determine what it means by “all” or “world” or “everyone”. Let’s take a look at the verses you mentioned.

    John 3:16: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his one and only son that all who believe should not perish but have eternal life.” First, I will point out this is not a verse that supports libertarian freedom. It does not mean that everybody is able to believe. The verse is saying that those who fulfill the condition of believing will receive the result of eternal life. How do you know you have eternal life? You believe in God’s Son. No Calvinist would deny this fact. To do so would be heretical.

    How about the world in this context? Well, this is a very common theme in this Gospel. John the Baptist says, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” This is not saying that everybody’s sin has been taken away, it is saying that Jesus is not just the Jewish Messiah, he is the Messiah for all races.

    John uses world in another sense when he quotes the Pharisees, “So the Pharisees said to one another, ‘You see that you are gaining nothing. Look, the world has gone after him.’” Do the Pharisees mean that everybody, everywhere has gone after Jesus? No, it means Jesus had obtained a large following. It is probably not an accident that the next verse mentions that the Greeks have come to worship:

    “Now among those who went up to worship at the feast were some Greeks. So these came to Philip, who was from Bethsaida in Galilee, and asked him, “Sir, we wish to see Jesus.” Philip went and told Andrew; Andrew and Philip went and told Jesus. And Jesus answered them, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified.”"

    John places the quote of the Pharisees right next to this passage about the Greeks to point out that the whole world had actually gone after Jesus. This is also explains what Jesus means by, “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” He means that he is not only the Jewish Messiah but the Messiah for both Jews and Gentiles. This is not a “everybody, everywhere” kind of all this is an all to indicate that Jesus is not there just for Jews, but for Gentiles as well.

    You also quote 1 John 2:2. I’m assuming we both believe that the author of 1 John is the same author of the Gospel of John. We should take this in the same way. John in his epistle is telling the church what it means to have true fellowship, he is trying to break down the division caused by some people teaching false doctrines. He tells them that Jesus did not die only for sins of the Johannine fellowship, but for the sins of the whole world. There is a similar grammatical construction in the Gospel of John:

    “Nor do you understand that it is better for you that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nation should perish.” He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.”

    Jesus died not only for the nation, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad. There is particularity and intentionality in the death of Christ. But John in his first letter is telling the fellowship that the Christ’s death is not just particular for them but God’s people everywhere.

    You also quote 2 Peter 2:1. “But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.” First, notice that the context is not redemptive or salvific, it is talking about apostasy. Second, we must figure out the identity of “Master”. Third, we must understand what Peter means by “bought”. Let’s tackle the third point first. The word for bought is used in two ways in the NT. First, we all know this, it is used in a redemptive context “you were bought with a price,” says Paul. It is also used in a non-redemptive context it used to indicate purchasing of land or other possessions. Interesting to note, whenever “bought” is used in a redemptive context a purchase price is mentioned with it. Since it is only used a handful of times, I’ll quote them here:

    “Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body. ” – 1 Corinthians 6:19-20

    “And they sang a new song, saying, ‘ Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation” – Revelation 5:9

    “You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men.” – Cor 7:23

    There is one place where a purchase price is not mentioned, but not only is the context clearly salvific but also the subject is the Lamb of God (sin bearer).

    “1Then I looked, and behold, on Mount Zion stood the Lamb, and with him 144,000 who had his name and his Father’s name written on their foreheads. And I heard a voice from heaven like the roar of many waters and like the sound of loud thunder. The voice I heard was like the sound of harpists playing on their harps, 3and they were singing a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and before the elders. No one could learn that song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth. It is these who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are virgins. It is these who follow the Lamb wherever he goes. These have been redeemed from mankind as firstfruits for God and the Lamb, and in their mouth no lie was found, for they are blameless.” -Rev 14:1-5

    Where does that leave 2 Peter 2:1? Well, we have a Master who has actually bought these people. The Greek word is used here is never used in a redemptive context in the NT. Sometimes it is used to describe Christ but other times it is used to describe the Father.

    I think that because the context is non-redemptive, the Greek word “Master” is used, and no purchase price is mentioned. That this is not a reference to the atonement but rather it is saying that God, the Master, actually owns these false prophets. And these false prophets do many egregious things including denying God who owns them by virtue of creating them.

    I’ll handle the next two verses in tandem because they are saying essentially the same thing. 1 Timothy 2:6 and Titus 2:11 say:

    “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man[a] Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.”

    And

    “For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people,”

    The word that is said in the beginning of both these verses is “For.” That word connects what is being said to what was said before, so let’s look at the context of each:

    “First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time. For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.”

    And

    “But as for you, teach what accords with sound doctrine. Older men are to be sober-minded, dignified, self-controlled, sound in faith, in love, and in steadfastness. Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled. Likewise, urge the younger men to be self-controlled. Show yourself in all respects to be a model of good works, and in your teaching show integrity, dignity, and sound speech that cannot be condemned, so that an opponent may be put to shame, having nothing evil to say about us. Slaves are to be submissive to their own masters in everything; they are to be well-pleasing, not argumentative, not pilfering, but showing all good faith, so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior.

    For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age, waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works.”

    I’m sorry for the long quotes. But I want to show that the reason Paul says these things is because he is pointing out to Timothy and Titus that Jesus did not die just for slaves or kings or young or old, but for all kinds of people. It makes more sense to take the all in that context as “all kinds of people” not “everybody, everywhere”.

    I saved the best one for last. This is the most quoted verse against Calvinism. You only quote one have of the verse, it would do you better to quote the whole verse so that you know what is meant by “all” in this context. 2 Peter 3:9:

    “The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.”

    The “all” in the one phrase is constrained to the “you” in the previous phrase. “The Lord…is patient towards you, not wishing that any…” Who are the “you” in this passage? 2 Peter 3:8:

    “But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.”

    It is the beloved to whom he is writing. Furthermore, the “you” in this passage is contrasted with “they” (referring to false prophets). Obviously, God is not patient towards them, because as we see in the previous passage, they were prepared for Hell. What is God patient towards? The answer is his elect. He will not return until everyone he has called come to repentance.

    Well, I am sorry for the length. Hopefully, this is helpful to you. This is really sucking up my time, so I’ll let you have the last word. I pray that God would guide us in the truth and keep us from error. Thanks for the discussion, God bless.

41. Nathaniel
    November 22nd, 2009 @ 5:09 pm

    Oh, I forgot to mention that I got a lot of my information regarding 1 Peter 2:1 from: http://vintage.aomin.org/2PE21.html#_edn35

42. Michael
    November 22nd, 2009 @ 7:17 pm

    Mwiya,
    You said: “Why does Jesus say He chose us, it would seem if we chose to believe then we choose Him.”

    Remember that Jesus also chose Judas the betrayer.

    John 6:70-71: “Then Jesus replied, “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!” (He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray him.)

    Matthew 26:24-25: “The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born.” Then Judas, the one who would betray him, said, “Surely not I, Rabbi?” Jesus answered, “Yes, it is you.”

    If it were supposed that Jesus knew Judas was created simply to go to hell, why would Jesus say it would have been better if Judas had not been born?

43. Mwiya
    November 22nd, 2009 @ 7:27 pm

    Okay so I’m reading through this book by a very missional reformed pastor called “Death by Love.” Any ways he quoted a scripture in Romans about how the carnal mind is hostile towards God and can not and incapable of pleasing Him. In his quotation he is using it in regards to another topic. But I thought about it and it and in regards to this debate it makes complete sense. If the carnal mind is hostile towards God and is not capable of pleasing Him, in fact it can not please Him how is it possible for an unsaved carnal person to do the thing that pleases God, namely have faith (which pleases God). It doesn’t make sense!

    Romans 8:7-8
    the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.

    That is the exact opposite of Spirit filled and led persons. I believe that in the instance when a person is saved they are immediately spiritually circumcised, sealed and filled with the Holy Spirit who makes His home in them so that The Father and Son are also present in them through the Spirit. I think being clothed and covered in the Spirit through the laying of hands is a different matter but thats a debate for another time. So if we receive the Spirit of Christ to make us His when we are saved then in order for our minds to do something that pleases God (have faith) it must be prompted by the Spirit. Much the same way that Jeremiah said he had to speak prophesy because it was like His bones were on fire, the word was in him and he had to say it. Its the same with faith, God opens our eyes and we can’t close them we have to see and so we by the spirit we believe.

44. Dr Michael L Brown
    November 22nd, 2009 @ 8:54 pm

    Mwiya,

    Thanks for your post. May I ask a question for clarification?

    You wrote, “God opens our eyes and we can’t close them,” yet we have many verses in the NT exhorting us not to sin, calling us not to walk in the flesh, commanding us to wake up from our slumber, telling us that we are deceived and need to repent — which would seem to indicate clearly that we can, in fact, close our eyes (and hearts) to God.

    Can you clarify your point? Thanks!

45. Brian Reynolds
    November 23rd, 2009 @ 6:27 am

    Nathaniel,

    I read your response, and I must say that I would respectfully disagree with both your interpretations and, what I would deem, a stretch of context. I would also like to note that in a straight forward reading of the various text in question, one would have to do a lot of “reading into” and “adding to” the various passages to get the meanings that you have derived. It appears that the interpretations as associated with the Calvinistic thought have to be forced and would not be understood without having preconceived ideas at the forefront.

    However, I am thankful for the attention and care that you have taken to dialogue with me in a respectful manner.

    I will leave the responses between you and I on this subject matter right here. We both have expressed ourselves enough to have all readers judge for themselves which concept better represents the heart of God in the accuracy and simplicity of Scripture.

    Shalom,
    Brian

46. Mwiya
    November 23rd, 2009 @ 7:30 am

    Dr Brown,

    Yes I think its possible for us to in a sense be spiritually sleepy or become drowsy headed. I know a lot of christians myself included have at one point or another backslid perhaps for a time and in different ways. But thats not what I’m talking about in the post above. I was talking more about believing the Gospel and knowing in your heart that Jesus is Lord. Basically if the truth has set you free, you are free indeed. I think its not possible for a true believer to fall away. I think those who fall away were not truly of us to begin with and are anti-Christ’s.

    “They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.”

    So I think there is difference between falling away from the faith completely and perhaps having a momentary period of lukewarm faith and lack of spiritual sobriety. For example there is a difference between Peter who denied Messiah and repented and Judas Iscariot who betrayed Him and then instead of repent committed suicide. So I totally agree with you its possible to for a time be sleepy but even then I don’t think a christian truly stops believing or having faith in Jesus. Whereas if someone falls away it simply shows that their faith was not true. No one can pluck those who are truly Christ’s from his hand. So I think where scripture warns of falling away its pointing out the consequences of what would happen to those who would fall away. That said the passage in hebrews about those who have tasted the powers of the age to come through the Spirit and yet fall away still puzzles me a bit. The closest thing I have to a reconcillement between that passage and passages highlighting our security in Christ is what is written in 1 John:2. And perhaps what happened to Judas who may have even cast out demons with the other disciples perhaps.

    In any case the main point of my little illustration was that once your heart be broken and Christ comes to dwell in it as you have faith you become alive to God and so are aware of Him and his goodness. Struggles and moments of lapse may occur but those who are Messiah’s persevere to the end. They’re eyes are opened and they see whereas for those who fall away its doubtful if they ever saw God for who He is.

    Sorry for my jumbled up reasoning

47. Ben KC
    November 23rd, 2009 @ 4:55 pm

    Mwiya,

    Do you believe an unbeliever can cast out a demon?

48. Mwiya
    November 23rd, 2009 @ 6:38 pm

    Ben,

    I believe in order to cast out a demon a person must have faith in Jesus Christ and his authority. Those who are not with Him are against Him.

49. Ben KC
    November 23rd, 2009 @ 7:21 pm

    Mwiya,

    Can you confirm if Judas was saved or not saved at the end of his suicidal death?

50. Ben KC
    November 24th, 2009 @ 1:27 am

    Mwiya,

    Can you also define what backslide means and possibly provide an example.

51. Mwiya
    November 24th, 2009 @ 3:43 am

    In the context of which I meant, I meant a person who was perhaps a fervent christian but slips into some sort of habitual sin or lukewarm state of zealousness whilst they are a christian. An example of this would be a pastor who has a porn habit that he hates and is fighting, he is a christian yes but is in sin of which he must definitely repent of.

    As for Judas, well it would seem to me that none of the apostle’s of Christ were saved in the sense that I think u mean prior to Messiah’s death and resurrection. They only received the indwelling presence of the Spirit after Christ’s resurrection and so were only born again at that point so I would say thats when they were saved in the sense that all other christians know to experience. As for their discipleship experience with Jesus before the death and resurrection I think that was real. And it is possible that Judas may have learned but never understood or believed what Jesus taught them all.

    Jesus for example talked of how none that were his and given into his hand by the Father were lost, except the son of destruction [Judas Iscariot] in order that the word of God may be fulfilled. That should be in John 17.

52. Ben KC
    November 24th, 2009 @ 4:26 am

    Mwiya,

    Scripture verifies that Jesus sent out His disciples with His authority to cast out demons and heal the sick in His name (Matt 10). We would agree that Scripture only indicates Christ gave His authority only to those who believe Him. This would lead to conclusion that Christ would not give unbelievers (non followers of Christ) His authority to perform these spiritual activities. If you confirm that Judas was not truly a follower of Christ, then it would contradict your previous statment that only those who are truly followers of Christ can cast out demons.

53. Ben KC
    November 24th, 2009 @ 5:13 am

    I wanted to clarify my statement/question above:

    If you say:
    1) Judas was not a true follower of Christ from the beginning.
    2) The authority to cast out demons are only given to true followers of Christ (ex matt 10) which concludes that unbelievers do not have the authority from Christ.

    Question is:
    How did Judas get the authority to cast out demons if Judas was considered not to be a true follower of Christ from the beginning.

    Matt 10:1
    “He called his twelve disciples to him and gave them authority to drive out evil spirits and to heal every disease and sickness.”

54. Nathaniel
    November 24th, 2009 @ 9:29 am

    Ben,

    “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

    Matt 7:21-22

    Christ never knew them, yet they cast out demons. It seems to me that unbelievers can cast out demons.

55. Nathaniel
    November 24th, 2009 @ 9:39 am

    I should probably qualify unbelievers as unsaved. They clearly believed something about Christ, but they were not saved.

56. Mwiya
    November 24th, 2009 @ 1:51 pm

    Ben,

    I tried to answer as best as I could to the best of my knowledge. I guess some stuff is beyond me and seems paradoxical. Unbelievers casting out demons by believing in the authority of Christ and yet not truly believing in Him. I guess its all about how genuine one’s faith is. As Jesus said those who love Him do His Word and so if we claim faith and yet deny Him by our works I guess it shows where God’s heart really is. Keeping his word and loving Him is of more importance than miracle working.

57. Michael
    November 24th, 2009 @ 3:06 pm

    Mwiya,
    Keep in mind that in John 17:11, Jesus is praying for the Father to protect his disciples. Why would he pray for their protection? In verse 12, he said “none HAS BEEN lost”, not “none WILL BE lost”. So he is praying for them. In verse 17, he asks the Father to “sanctify them by the truth”. Sanctification is a continual process.

    Nathaniel,
    Based on the Scripture you pointed out, I agree it’s possible that demons could be casted out by unbelievers just by speaking Jesus’ name. These people were probably doing it all for show and praise from men. At the same time, Jesus chose Judas to be a disciple, and Judas betrayed him. Judas allowed his own greed to overcome his dedication to Jesus. Jesus said it would have been better if he had not been born, and John 17:12 says that none of the disciples had been lost except Judas.

    Another interesting verse:

    2 Peter 2
    “17These men are springs without water and mists driven by a storm. Blackest darkness is reserved for them. 18For they mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of sinful human nature, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error. 19They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity—for a man is a slave to whatever has mastered him. 20If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. 21It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. 22Of them the proverbs are true: “A dog returns to its vomit,”and, “A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud.”

58. Ben KC
    November 24th, 2009 @ 6:26 pm

    Nathaniel,

    An unbeliever cannot perform these spiritual activities unless he/she has true faith.

    Mark 16:16,17 says:
    “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons…”

    Matt 7:22-24 does not clearly state the individual was an unbeliever from the beginning. If you read about other examples from Scripture about casting out demons and healing the sick in His name, they were all believers. Scripture doesnt support that an unbeliever can perform these spiritual activities in His name.

59. Ben KC
    November 24th, 2009 @ 7:16 pm

    Mwiya,

    You mentioned “I guess its all about how genuine one’s faith is. As Jesus said those who love Him do His Word and so if we claim faith and yet deny Him by our works I guess it shows where God’s heart really is. Keeping his word and loving Him is of more importance than miracle working.”

    I agree too that one who has true faith will have the evidence by their works but why exclude casting out demons and healing the sick in His name?

60. Mwiya
    November 24th, 2009 @ 7:40 pm

    Ben,

    I think that a true believer can by the power of the Holy Spirit and in the authority of God and His Messiah, cast out demons, heal the sick, raise the dead and cast mountains into seas. This however is dependent on the believer having trust in God and his sovereign power over creation as he is the one working the miracle. It is by the finger of God so to speak.

    That said, I’m not really going to say unbelievers can do the same as I think that would be a paradox. That said, what would you say about the faith of Balam?

61. Ben KC
    November 24th, 2009 @ 7:50 pm

    Acts 19:13-15 says

    “Then some of the itinerant Jewish exorcists took it upon themselves to call the name of the Lord Jesus over those who had evil spirits, saying, “We[a] exorcise you by the Jesus whom Paul preaches.” Also there were seven sons of Sceva, a Jewish chief priest, who did so. And the evil spirit answered and said, “Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are you?”

62. Ben KC
    November 24th, 2009 @ 7:52 pm

    Mwiya,

    Please provide the passage

63. Ben KC
    November 24th, 2009 @ 7:59 pm

    “I’m not really going to say unbelievers can do the same as I think that would be a paradox”

    Mwiya,

    I agree its a paradox to say unbelievers can do the same. There is no Scriptural support to conclude unbelievers/unsaved can perform these spiritual activities in His name.

64. Ben KC
    November 24th, 2009 @ 8:02 pm

    Mark 9:38-41

    “Now John answered Him, saying, “Teacher, we saw someone who does not follow us casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow us.” But Jesus said, “Do not forbid him, for no one who works a miracle in My name can soon afterward speak evil of Me. For he who is not against us is on our[c] side. For whoever gives you a cup of water to drink in My name, because you belong to Christ, assuredly, I say to you, he will by no means lose his reward.

65. Nathaniel
    November 24th, 2009 @ 10:04 pm

    Ben,

    Jesus says to them, “I NEVER knew you.” Don’t you think that implies that they were never saved to begin with?

66. Ben KC
    November 24th, 2009 @ 11:35 pm

    Nathaniel,

    Ezekiel 18:24

    “But if a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits sin and does the same detestable things the wicked man does, will he live? None of the righteous things he has done will be remembered. Because of the unfaithfulness he is guilty of and because of the sins he has committed, he will die.”

    Ezekiel 33:13

    “If I tell the righteous man that he will surely live, but then he trusts in his righteousness and does evil, none of the righteous things he has done will be remembered; he will die for the evil he has done.”

    Rom 11:17-24

    If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.

    Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!

67. Dr Michael L Brown
    November 25th, 2009 @ 1:33 am

    Great discussion, guys. Thanks for all the excellent posts.

    Re: “I never knew you,” that was actually a Jewish formula for excommunication that was probably current in Jesus’ day, so it could well be referring to people who once were in the Lord — and doing miracles — but who had fallen away and were now being forever rejected.

68. Ben KC
    November 25th, 2009 @ 4:06 am

    Nathaniel,

    As I mentioned this passage previously, Mark 9:38-40 says

    “Now John answered Him, saying, “Teacher, we saw someone who does not follow us casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow us.” But Jesus said, “Do not forbid him, for no one who works a miracle in My name can soon afterward speak evil of Me. For he who is not against us is on our side.”

    Jesus concludes that only followers of Christ can only cast out demons in His name.

69. Ben KC
    November 25th, 2009 @ 4:46 am

    I meant to say on my previous post “Jesus concludes that only followers of Christ can cast out demons in His name.”

70. Nathaniel
    November 25th, 2009 @ 9:23 am

    Dr. Brown,

    That’s definitely a possibility. Do you know of any good sources that discuss that? Thanks!

    Ben,

    Just because they believed and they followed for some time does not mean they are converted. In Judas’ case, he was never converted. Your quotations of Ezekiel are just illustrative that God is just. A righteous man who does evil will be punished, but there are none righteous except Christ. I do evil all the time, and my righteousness is Christ’s righteousness imputed to me. As Christians, being in Christ produces good fruit. Through faith we do good works. We are sealed with the Holy Spirit, nothing can pluck us from his hand, nothing can separate us from his love, God’s elect will persevere until the end.

    Romans 11, being elect does not mean we can continue in unbelief. It’s unbelief, by the hardening of God, that caused God to break the Jews off of the olive tree and unbelief would do the same for us. I don’t have any problems with that.

    One last thing, I do not believe in “easy believism”, that is making a decision saves you. There are many people who profess faith but are not regenerated. For the Christian, belief and repentance come immediately after regeneration. It is a regenerational decision not a decisional regeneration. We, who were chosen from the foundation of the world, must persevere to the end.

71. Ben KC
    November 25th, 2009 @ 9:42 am

    Nathaniel,

    When I have time, Ill will get back to you later on your response. But in the mean time, how to do you respond to Mark 9:38-40.

72. Jabez H.
    November 25th, 2009 @ 10:41 am

    Is this debate over permitting Free will or Presumption on the part of Father God as to his interface with believers? We usually associate free will with Christian liberty, which involves the free choice to practice all that Christ commanded. We usually associate presumption with arrogance, about which the attributes of God do not apply.

73. Nathaniel
    November 25th, 2009 @ 10:49 am

    Ben,

    I don’t think Mark 9 is clear on whether the people casting out demons are saved or not. Like I said, there are people who follow Christ for a while but then fall away because they are not regenerate. In this passage, Jesus doesn’t really indicate the state of those who are doing those mighty deeds in his name. He talks about the disciples belonging to Christ, but he doesn’t say anything about those performing the miracles. He says he who is not against us is for us, but that doesn’t mean that person is saved.

74. Michael
    November 25th, 2009 @ 11:18 am

    Dr. Brown raises a very interesting point. With the jewish thought of the day “I never knew you” representing God’s excommunication of a previous believer, this would quite possibly explain why those who had the ability to cast out demons as previous believers were now rejected by Jesus because of their eventually falling away for good. The point here is that those who may have actually cast out demons or prophesied in Jesus’ name ended up rejecting him in the end, despite having a brief time of belief in him.

75. Dr. Michael L. Brown
    November 25th, 2009 @ 11:54 am

    Nathaniel,

    Craig Keener gives the relevant rabbinic sources re: the excommunication formula in his full-length Matthew commentary (they are not listed in his Bible Background Commentary).

76. Nathaniel
    November 25th, 2009 @ 12:01 pm

    Michael,

    Remember Jesus condemns them because they are workers of lawlessness. To say that they were condemned after believing for a short time I think is reading too much into the text. Jesus at this point has been saying that one good work doesn’t excuse a multitude of bad works. He demands perfection. One who reads through Matthew would quickly realize how they fall very short of God’s standard, and how desperately they need a savior.

77. Nathaniel
    November 25th, 2009 @ 12:01 pm

    Dr. Brown,

    Thanks, I’ll take a look at that.

78. Kyle L.
    November 25th, 2009 @ 1:59 pm

    I just wanted to add in that as I first became a believer when I had no room for theological bias, I read through the whole Bible and never even thought of predestination as a possibility, let alone double predestination. I think Dr. Brown mentioned that he needed to be taught about a pretribulation rapture and the same is true for me concerning predestination and the Calvinist position. Just thought I’d throw my lot in.

79. Bill Fawcett
    November 25th, 2009 @ 2:15 pm

    Kyle, you are not the only one to make that observation. That being said, I’m Armenian and pre-trib. I didn’t understand post-trib until Dr. Brown explained it. I still don’t understand post-mil!

    Happy Thanksgiving everybody.

80. Ben KC
    November 26th, 2009 @ 7:13 am

    Nathaniel,

    Before I continue on with my other responses, do you have any other Scriptural support (besides attempting to use Judas) that God will give His authority to unbelievers to cast out demons in His name.

    To everyone else, Happy Thanksgiving!

81. Nathaniel
    November 26th, 2009 @ 9:33 am

    Ben,

    Define “believer”. I’ve already said you can follow Jesus and not be saved. You can believe Jesus and not be saved. Salvation is more than just “I believe”. It involves regeneration, justification, sanctification (which includes producing good works), perseverance, glorification, etc. God has allowed people to taste Salvation but never swallow (Heb 6), and in that it is possible that God has allowed them the ability to cast out demons. That being said, one more thing comes to mind.

    We have many instances from Pharaoh’s magicians to the girl who
    had divination power in Acts. Jesus says

    “Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.” -Matt 24:23-24

    Not only is this further proof that the elect are safe in Christ, but also is proof that unsaved people can do mighty works. My question would be why wouldn’t they be allowed to cast out demons? Surely that would enable Satan to deceive more people. When Jesus cast out demons, he did it against the purposes of Satan. But when Satan does it, he would do it to further his purposes.

    Could you tell me why this is important for what we’re talking about again?

82. Ben KC
    November 26th, 2009 @ 10:00 am

    Nathaniel,

    Not to get too technical for now, but here’s how it will sum up:

    Believer = saved (true follower of Christ)
    Unbeliever = unsaved (unclean, unrepentant, spiritually blind, etc)

    Only the saved, those who are truly in Christ, are given the authority to cast out demons in His name. You verify in your previous statements that the unsaved can cast out demons too in His name. I have provided a couple of passages to support that only those who are truly saved are given by Christ His authority to cast out demons in His name. I am asking if you can provide more passages from Scripture to support that Christ also gives His authority to the unsaved to cast out demons in His name. Also, please explain and provide Scripture why Christ would give His authority to the unbeliever to cast out demons in His name.

83. Ben KC
    November 26th, 2009 @ 10:12 am

    Nathaniel,

    Matt 24 does not support that the unsaved can cast out demons. This would contradict Mark 9:38-41 because they are false christ and false prophets who are against Him

    “Now John answered Him, saying, “Teacher, we saw someone who does not follow us casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow us.” But Jesus said, “Do not forbid him, for no one who works a miracle in My name can soon afterward speak evil of Me. For he who is not against us is on our[c] side. For whoever gives you a cup of water to drink in My name, because you belong to Christ, assuredly, I say to you, he will by no means lose his reward.

    Dr. Brown has a solid teaching about this on the prophetic/prophets. I hope Dr. Brown can add his thoughts in this if he has the chance.

    You mentioned “Not only is this further proof that the elect are safe in Christ, but also is proof that unsaved people can do mighty works. My question would be why wouldn’t they be allowed to cast out demons? Surely that would enable Satan to deceive more people. When Jesus cast out demons, he did it against the purposes of Satan. But when Satan does it, he would do it to further his purposes.”

    Matt 12 says:

    22Then they brought him a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute, and Jesus healed him, so that he could both talk and see. 23All the people were astonished and said, “Could this be the Son of David?” 24But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, “It is only by Beelzebub,[d] the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons.” 25Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand. 26If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand? 27And if I drive out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your people drive them out? So then, they will be your judges. 28But if I drive out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.

84. Nathaniel
    November 26th, 2009 @ 10:15 am

    Ben,

    I’ve already provided you with some examples. I’ve also told you what I think may happen, namely that those who claim to be saved by making an outward profession of belief may be given the ability for a short time. As to why they are given that power, who has known the mind of the Lord? He would have his reasons in allowing an unsaved person to cast out demons. There’s not really a robust theology of casting out demons in the Bible. That doesn’t mean it’s not important, it just means that we can’t make as many statements about casting out demons than we can for something like justification.

    If you disagree with me, you should probably make your point, and I’ll comment on it.

85. Nathaniel
    November 26th, 2009 @ 10:42 am

    Ben,

    I guess we’re just going to have to disagree. I’m familiar with those verses, and I made point while considering them. Again, I’m not sure how relevant this is to the discussion.

86. Joel Santiago
    November 26th, 2009 @ 11:32 am

    Dr Brown:

    I think there could be people that once were saved and received the Holy Spirit but then backslide to the point that the Lord will reject them but still work miracles cause they have gifts of the Spirit but the Spirit have left their temples (bodies); I know of people in my country that live in the streets because of the bondage of drugs that once were in the Lord and received the gifts of the Spirit and when some groups go to outreach and pray they speaks in tongues but not repent. There’s a big different between the Spirit and the gifts of the Spirit; between God and his blessings and between anointing and holiness.

87. Ben KC
    November 26th, 2009 @ 3:10 pm

    Nathaniel,

    It goes down to who Jesus talking about in Matt 7:22-24

    22Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ 23Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

    Was it the unbeliever/unsaved or backslider (used to be saved)? In the context of driving out demons in His name, how can an unsaved person cast out a demon in His name? Does the Scripture faithfully support this position? Or was this person a backslider? Was he/she a person who faithfully followed Christ, repented and washed by His blood but later down the road of his life turned away from Him. Would it be possible that this passage along with the other passages support that a saved person can truly lose his salvation at the end. The question is, how does the OSAS supporters answer this passage of the Bible. This passage of scripture is in harmony with other passages about those who cast out demons in His name were true followers of Christ.

    Previously you brought up Matt 24

    “Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.” -Matt 24:23-24

    You said “Not only is this further proof that the elect are safe in Christ…” Did you read verse 24 “… if possible, even the elect” ? The characteristic of false prophets are those that lead others, even the elect to worship another god. They are lead astray away from Christ, even the elect.

    You mentioned “We have many instances from Pharaoh’s magicians to the girl who had divination power in Acts.” The questions is, where is this power comming from? Is it from the Spirit of God or is it from a different spirit?

    Acts 16
    17This girl followed Paul and the rest of us, shouting, “These men are servants of the Most High God, who are telling you the way to be saved.” 18She kept this up for many days. Finally Paul became so troubled that he turned around and said to the spirit, “In the name of Jesus Christ I command you to come out of her!” At that moment the spirit left her.

    Scripture is very clear when casting out a demon, the authority is given from God. Only faithful followers of Christ can cast evil spirits out in His name.

    Mark 9:38-41
    “Now John answered Him, saying, “Teacher, we saw someone who does not follow us casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow us.” But Jesus said, “Do not forbid him, for no one who works a miracle in My name can soon afterward speak evil of Me. For he who is not against us is on our side.

    Mark 16:16,17 says:
    “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons…”

    An unbeliever cannot cast out a demon in His name which would contradict the two passages above. Matt 7:22-24 would be in harmony with those two passage to conclude that a true follower of Christ can fall away and that a person who was not truly saved from the beginning cannot fit this passage. The OSAS can be presented all over again but the question goes back, can the OSAS supporters answer “Would God ever give His holy authority to an unsaved, spiritually blind person to cast out a demon in His name”

88. Nathaniel
    November 26th, 2009 @ 4:01 pm

    Ben,

    First, I’m not OSAS. I actually don’t like that term. I prefer Once Saved, Always Persevere. I’ve tried to make this clear. The elect must persevere, if they did not persevere they are not elect.

    Second, because something is done in the name of Jesus, doesn’t mean that person is saved. So things like casting out demons in his name doesn’t necessitate that the person is saved.

    Third, Matt. 24 says, IF POSSIBLE, even the elect. Meaning they would try to deceive them, but it’s not possible.

    I’m still unconvinced. Like I said, there’s not a robust doctrine of casting out demons in Scripture, and I don’t think it can be used against the doctrine of perseverance.

89. Ben KC
    November 26th, 2009 @ 6:12 pm

    Strong’s Number: g1415 Greek: dunatos
    Possible:

    “strong, mighty, powerful, able (to do),” in its neuter form signifies “possible,” Mat 19:26; 24:24; 26:39; Mar 9:23; 10:27; 13:22; 14:35, 36; Luk 18:27; Act 2:24; 20:16 (27:39, in some mss.; dunamai, “to be able,” in the most authentic, RV, “they could”); Rom 12:18; Gal 4:15. See ABLE.

90. Ben KC
    November 26th, 2009 @ 6:35 pm

    “Second, because something is done in the name of Jesus, doesn’t mean that person is saved. So things like casting out demons in his name doesn’t necessitate that the person is saved. ”

    Mark 16:16,17 says:
    “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons…”

    Strong’s Number: g4100 Greek: pisteuo
    Belief, Believe, Believers:

    “to believe,” also “to be persuaded of,” and hence, “to place confidence in, to trust,” signifies, in this sense of the word, reliance upon, not mere credence. It is most frequent in the writings of the Apostle John, especially the Gospel. He does not use the noun (see below). For the Lord’s first use of the verb, see Jhn 1:50. Of the writers of the Gospels, Matthew uses the verb ten times, Mark ten, Luke nine, John ninety-nine. In Act 5:14 the present participle of the verb is translated “believers.”

    “Third, Matt. 24 says, IF POSSIBLE, even the elect. Meaning they would try to deceive them, but it’s not possible”

    No where in the original language does it say “its not possible”

    Matt24
    11 Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. 12 And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold. 13 But he who endures to the end shall be saved.

    Verse 12: love in the original language is agape. The love for God which refers to true believers in Christ. Verse 13 doesnt conclude all will be saved but concludes BUT those who endure to the end will be saved.

    Also going back when you attempted to use Matt 7:22-24, I will refer back to Dr. Brown’s response:

    Dr Michael L Brown says:
    November 25, 2009 at 1:33 am
    Re: “I never knew you,” that was actually a Jewish formula for excommunication that was probably current in Jesus’ day, so it could well be referring to people who once were in the Lord — and doing miracles — but who had fallen away and were now being forever rejected.

91. Mwiya
    November 26th, 2009 @ 7:56 pm

    I have a question (yes it is linked to predestination). Here is the question, if the lives of two people were in peril and you had the power to save only one of them who would you save? These two person’s are unaware of the other’s situation and only are aware of their own peril though you are aware of both of their situation’s but can only pick one person. Each of them are in deep peril and yet you can save either one of them without any hindrance and with full assurance that the one you choose shall be in fact saved. But there is a catch, you deeply love one of the person’s in peril whilst you have no idea who the other person is. Who would you save? The stranger or the one you love?

    I know this is not a perfect illustration of predestination, but remember what it says. “Jacob I have loved, Esau I hated..” [paraphrase]. And that was the case before either of them did right or wrong. Perhaps God saves those whom He loves and has chosen in Christ for His Name’s sake. Setting them apart to show his exceeding Grace and Love for Messiah’s sake.

92. Mwiya
    November 26th, 2009 @ 8:01 pm

    Is there a link between knowing God and cleaving to Him? And if so is this linked to abiding in Him, His Word and His Love? Also i see abiding in His Word as starting from the point of first belief and conversion, as we obey the Gospel by Grace and believe and continue to abide in His Word and grow and produce fruit. The Spirit; and in the Spirit the Father and Son make their home in us when we believe and abide in Messiah and his Word. Now if Jesus says he never knew those whom he calls workers of iniquity, that implies they never did abide in His Word or cleave to Him. If so were they ever believers to begin with or was that just a claim of faith where non truly existed? Can there be faith without fruit? Can there be faith without works as James/ Jacob clearly put it in his epistle.

93. Dr Michael L Brown
    November 26th, 2009 @ 8:08 pm

    Nathaniel,

    Are you 100% sure that you are one of the elect? I have a question for you if you say Yes or No, so either way, I have a follow up.

94. Ben KC
    November 27th, 2009 @ 6:28 am

    “Now if Jesus says he never knew those whom he calls workers of iniquity, that implies they never did abide in His Word or cleave to Him.”

    Mwiya,

    Then you would have to ask, can unbelievers/unsaved cast out demons in His name?

95. Ben KC
    November 27th, 2009 @ 6:53 am

    Mwiya,

    I will again refer back to Dr. Browns response:

    Dr Michael L Brown says:
    November 25, 2009 at 1:33 am
    Re: “I never knew you,” that was actually a Jewish formula for excommunication that was probably current in Jesus’ day, so it could well be referring to people who once were in the Lord — and doing miracles — but who had fallen away and were now being forever rejected.

96. Ben KC
    November 27th, 2009 @ 7:52 am

    Matt 7:23
    “I never knew you…”

    KNEW (Verb)
    Strong’s Number: g1097
    Greek: ginosko (γινώσκω)
    Know, Known, Knowledge, Unknown:

    Ginosko implies an active or ongoing relationship. This does not imply there was never a relationship from the start.

97. Mwiya
    November 27th, 2009 @ 1:40 pm

    Ben,

    Nice stuff, would you have an answer for the question I asked in my post (the one above the one about cleaving to the Lord etc).

98. Ben KC
    November 28th, 2009 @ 4:40 am

    Mwiya,

    Ill get back to you on that later if I have the chance. I would like to keep the discussion rolling on OSAS or OSAP.

99. Ben KC
    November 29th, 2009 @ 2:33 am

    Mwiya

    Going back to your question as you brought up Rom 9 “Jacob I approve, Esau I dissaprove”, the context of Rom 9-11 is about the promises God made for Israel.

    If you dont believe Rom 9-11 is about Israel, then you may come from a background that supports that the church replaced Israel which is called Replacement Theology.

100. Chris
     November 29th, 2009 @ 2:03 pm

     Dr. Brown or Ben KC,
     What do you make of John 10:27-30?

     “27My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 29My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30I and the Father are one.”

     “No one can snatch them out of my hand” seems to imply that a believer cannot lose their salvation.

101. Ben KC
     November 29th, 2009 @ 11:18 pm

     Chris,

     “No one can snatch them out of my hand”

     “No one” implies those outside of God’s hands cannot snatch you out. It doesnt imply to the one inside of God’s hand.

102. Ben KC
     November 29th, 2009 @ 11:38 pm

     Strong’s Number: g726
     Greek: harpazo
     Verb

     1) to seize, carry off by force
     2) to seize on, claim for one’s self eagerly
     3) to snatch out or away

     Who is Jesus refering to when He said “No one can snatch them out of my hand”? He is refering about the thief:

     “The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I have come that they may have life, and that they may have [it] more abundantly.” John 10:10

103. Nathaniel
     November 30th, 2009 @ 9:57 am

     Ben,

     Why does he say, “No one” and not “The thief”? Also, you keep using Strong’s in defining words, but you do not explain why you do that. Could you provide an explanation of your use of Strong’s. Thanks.

104. Ben KC
     November 30th, 2009 @ 10:45 am

     Nathaniel,

     When reading the begining of John 10:1-16, the author sets the scenario by explaining who is good and evil; Shepard and Thief. Because the scenario is SET, “no one” will be understood as the thief who does harm and the Shepard will be understood as the hand who provides protection.

     The purpose of Strong is to confirm and give a detailed understanding. The use of the word “snatch” or harpazo in Scripture has been used in a manner of something/someone taking action upon something/someone else. I believe you will not find this word used in the NT in a manner of someone “snatching” themselves.

105. Ben KC
     November 30th, 2009 @ 10:52 am

     Harpazo (ἁρπάζω) used in the NT passages (ESV version):

     Mat 11:12 “From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and the violent take it by force.

     Mat 12:29 “Or how can someone enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? Then indeed he may plunder his house.

     Mat 13:19 “When anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what has been sown in his heart. This is what was sown along the path.

     Jhn 6:15 Perceiving then that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, Jesus withdrew again to the mountain by himself.

     Jhn 10:12 “He who is a hired hand and not a shepherd, who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them.

     Jhn 10:28 “I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.

     Jhn 10:29 “My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than
     all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.

     Act 8:39 And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord carried Philip away, and the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing.

     Act 23:10 And when the dissension became violent, the tribune, afraid that Paul would be torn to pieces by them, commanded the soldiers to go down and take him away from among them by force and bring him into the barracks.

     2Cr 12:2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven–whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows.

     2Cr 12:4 how he was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter. (NKJV)

     1Th 4:17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord.

     Jud 1:23 save others by snatching them out of the fire; to others show mercy with fear, hating even the garment stained by the flesh.

     Rev 12:5 She gave birth to a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne,

106. Ben KC
     November 30th, 2009 @ 10:57 am

     Nathaniel,

     The author could have used “The thief” instead of “No one” but sometimes they dont since the scenario has been set in the beginning of John 10.

107. Dr. Michae L. Brown
     November 30th, 2009 @ 11:38 am

     Nathaniel,

     Did you miss my question to you a few days back about your own assurance re: being one of the elect?

     Please do respond so I can ask my follow-up question.

     Thanks!

108. Nathaniel
     November 30th, 2009 @ 12:39 pm

     Dr. Brown,

     It short, yes, I’m sure I’m elect because I’m sure I’m a Christian. Things like bearing fruit, repentance, loving my fellow Christian brother, etc. Peter tells us to, “be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you; for as long as you practice these things, you will never stumble.” It seems like kind of an odd command (much akin to Phil 1:29), but God works through means, and his elect should possess certain characteristics and should obey what he commands. We have the responsibility as the elect to continue in what God has called us to (holiness, love, etc.). Continuing in these things and remembering God’s faithfulness increases our faith. Although we do not know the future, “we walk by faith and not by sight.” Knowing that God is faithful to keep us till the end.

     I don’t think an Arminian questions whether or not he will endure until the end, how much more is the Calvinist assured (I’m talking in my own thinking. An Arminian is not in any more danger of losing his salvation than a Calvinist) of his perseverance?

109. Dr Michael L Brown
     November 30th, 2009 @ 2:37 pm

     So, just to be clear, since you are sure that you are a believer, and therefore one of the elect, is it impossible for you to backslide? Conversely, if you feel that it would be presumptuous to say that it would be impossible for you to backslide (since, I would expect, you know Calvinists who have fallen away from the Lord), can you rejoice in a present-tense, absolute assurance of your salvation? What, after all, if you’re not really one of the elect? How could you know that for sure before you die?

     In my own experience, just for the record, I have had a deeper assurance of God’s promise to keep me to the end as an Arminian than a Calvinist, but that’s another matter.

110. Nathaniel
     December 1st, 2009 @ 10:01 am

     Dr. Brown,

     I’m not sure what you mean by backslide. It can be used in a variety of different ways. I think it’s possible for Christians to fall into certain sins. I think it’s possible for Christians to have periods of dryness or even to grow a little cold in their love for God, but God disciplines and draws back those who are his. I do not know any Calvinists who have fallen away, but I know there are some who have.

     As an Arminian, there is no way to tell whether or not you will actually endure to the end. You have the same Bible and therefore have the same commands as Calvinists do. You and I would agree that we must bear fruit in keeping with repentance. I pray as I’m sure any Christian would, “Lord, keep me and give me strength to keep your commands.” I know that there I can do nothing on my own power, but I must rely on the tender mercy which drew me to himself. Through each doubt, temptation, or storm…my faith, my confidence in his faithfulness, and my knowledge of his love all grow stronger. I have no reason to doubt that I’m elect because I have no reason to doubt that I’m a Christian.

111. Ben KC
     December 1st, 2009 @ 6:03 pm

     Nathaniel,

     How to you respond to other extreme OSAS or OSAP supporters who believe no sin can cause them to lose their salvation. A couple of months ago, an individual in PA went on a rampage and killed many women at a gym and then shot himself at the end. This individual had a blog which confirmed his extreme OSAS / OSAP view.

112. Brian Reynolds
     December 1st, 2009 @ 6:56 pm

     Chris,

     If you would permit me to chime in on your question addressed to Dr. Brown and Ben KC, I would like to address it. You asked, ” What do you make of John 10:27-30?… ‘No one can snatch them out of my hand’ seems to imply that a believer cannot lose their salvation.”

     This N.T. passage is cited in the support of the doctrine of eternal security, and rightfully so. Jesus, in speaking to unbelieving Jews who said that he had a demon, contrasted those who were his and those people who weren’t. To have the promise that they will never perish, and that no one can snatch them out of his hand is a tremendous blessing to stand upon.

     Any and every one of his sheep will hear the voice of God; are known by God; and will follow Him. These statements of truth were spoken by Jesus as qualifying factors given to those who will never perish or be snatched away from his hands, and should warrant considerable attention. I, too, am an advocate of eternal security – on the basis that one “will continue” to follow and believe on Him – something that is consistently affirmed by our Lord himself.

     Contextually speaking, John 10 was not written to address the question of perseverance of the believer, or of the possibility of apostasy. The question of whether the sheep can continue in the faith or turn away is not addressed; hence, this particular subject matter cannot be directly answered in this passage. Jesus did, however, speak to believing Jews of the necessity of the continuance in the faith, thus positing the fact that eternal salvation is conditional, and not arbitrarily decided on by God alone without taking into account any factor that is in man. Please note the following:

     Jesus said to those Jews WHICH BELIEVED on Him, IF you CONTINUE (abide) in My word, then you are my disciples indeed. (John 8:31)

     Verily, verily, I say unto you, IF a man KEEP my saying, he shall never see death. (John 8:51)

     It is here that Jesus clearly acknowledged that man is challenged to keep his word in order to obtain eternal life. The very fact that Jesus posited his statements with the “IF” clause reveals that each person has the free will to decide “not” to continue in, or keep his word it they so choose.

     To say that we believe in eternal security is one thing, something that is affirmed in Scripture – but on what basis we believe this doctrine is purely another. Hence, the New Testament consistently substantiates the condition of obedience to salvation, and the possible peril of those who do not continue in the faith.

     (John 3:36) He that believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not OBEY the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.” (NASB)

     (Hebrews 5:9) And having been perfected, He (Jesus) became the author of eternal salvation TO ALL WHO OBEY him.

     Shalom,
     Brian

113. Nathaniel
     December 1st, 2009 @ 10:29 pm

     Ben,

     I think you put your finger on it. He had an extreme view of OSAS…it was not Biblical. He also had many other problems which is obvious.

114. Dr Michael L Brown
     December 1st, 2009 @ 11:10 pm

     Nathaniel,

     There is quite a difference between the Arminian position and the Calvinist position in terms of assurance of salvation. Because I don’t believe that there is a predetermined “elect” group — and a predetermined non-elect group — I don’t base my assurance on being one of the elect. Rather, I base it on a host of Scriptures that proclaim God’s promises (if I put my trust in the Lord Jesus to save me from my sins, he will do that, etc.) and give me understanding as to how I can be sure of standing with God (including the witness of the Spirit and having a heart to keep God’s commandments), and I put my total trust in the one who promised to keep me and who assures me that no one can snatch me out of His hand. He who began the good work in me will bring it to completion. I have no doubt, no fear, no worry. I am safe and secure in the Lord’s hands! And what if, God forbid, I should decide to turn my back on Him and choose habitual sin or deny Him as Savior and Lord? Then I would lose all assurance — quite rightly!

     For you, however, the ultimate proof that you are one of the elect is that you persevere until the end, and therefore, it is possible until your dying breath that you are actually a counterfeit believer, no matter how sincere you might be. Should you protest and tell me that I’m misinterpreting your faith, then we go back to where we started: If you are 100% sure that you are one of the elect, then it is impossible for you to turn away from the Lord (either in habitual, willful sin, such as that which is proscribed in 1 Cor 6; Gal 5; or Eph 5, among other passages; or in apostasy from the faith into another religion or atheism, etc.). Either way, you will either have the potential for lack of assurance (since you have not yet reached the end and you don’t want to be presumptuous) or the potential for complacency (based on your absolute certainty that you’re one of the elect, and therefore you cannot apostasize) — or else your assurance will be no different from that of an Arminian!

     Your thoughts?

115. ThirdDay
     December 2nd, 2009 @ 9:03 am

     I think a KEY to understanding the sovereignty of God is to recognize the “two wills” of God expressed in Scripture. God expresses both a will of decree (which will always occur) and a prescriptive will (moral will – what he expects of us). They are obviously not the same. Here are some good references on the topic:

     mp3 talk by Gene Cook: http://unchainedradio.com/freedownload/2willsmono.mp3

     http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/Providence–Gods-Will/The-Two-Wills-of-God/

     Blessings in Messiah!

116. Robert
     December 2nd, 2009 @ 3:34 pm

     ThirdDay wrote:

     “I think a KEY to understanding the sovereignty of God is to recognize the “two wills” of God expressed in Scripture. God expresses both a will of decree (which will always occur) and a prescriptive will (moral will – what he expects of us).”

     I completely disagree with this claim: one does **not need** the “two wills doctrine” to understand the sovereignty of God.

     And as a point of fact the vast majority of Christians throughout church history have not held or espoused the “two wills doctrine” of theological determinists.

     The “two wills doctrine” of determinists is **not** something given by scripture but ***imposed upon*** scripture by theological determinists.

     God’s sovereignty as defined by scripture is that He does as He pleases (e.g. Ps. 115:3 “But our God is in the heavens, He does whatever He pleases.”). This means that when he acts unilaterally, that no one stops him or prevents him from doing as He pleases in any given situation. Because He is sovereign, it is his right as God to design the world the way that he wants it to be (which for the non-Calvinist includes creating us with the capacity to have and make our own choices, to have free will). Within God’s sovereignty He also has the right to command us to do whatever He wants us to do. But when commands of other wills are involved, since obedience to these commands is not dependent upon God’s will alone (other wills are involved: people have to choose to obey and they can also choose to disobey) people may choose to obey or disobey these commands.

     The theological determinist ***assuming*** that God has exhaustively predetermined every event (cause that is what their theological system and tradition [e.g. the Westminster Confession states it as “He ordaineth whatsoever comes to pass”) **dictates**) invented the “two wills doctrine” in which God has a secret will (known only to God), a total plan that encompasses every detail of history and which is always done (i.e. God has already predecided how every detail of history will take place, he has “decreed all that comes to pass”).

     He then posits the moral will which is merely what the bible presents about what God “wants” or “desires” (and which can be rejected and frustrated).

     The problem is that the secret will often ******CONTRADICTS****** the revealed will. For example, in the revealed will He commands us not to commit murder (but in the secret will every murder that occurs is predetermined and exactly what God wants to occur as he predetermined for it to occur in line with his secret total plan). Or take another example in the revealed will He commands us not to commit adultery (but in the secret will every act of adultery that occurs is predetermined and exactly what God wants to occur as he predetermined for it to occur in line with his secret total plan).

     Put simply every sin and evil that occurs in this world, is ***exactly what God wants to occur*** as part of the secret will. This makes God the author of sin and does not help explain his sovereignty but instead unnecessarily complicates things and makes God will and desire things in his secret will that he supposedly hates and tells us to avoid in his revealed will.

     The revealed will is swallowed up by a “secret will” if the two will doctrine were true, making the “revealed will” meaningless and useless (He says he does not like certain things and commands us not to do them, but then he predetermines for every single instance of evil to occur, He says one thing in the scripture but really wants something entirely different in real life).

     God does not engage in these kinds of contradictions and we can fully trust that what he has in fact revealed (when properly interpreted) really **is** His will. We also do not need to speculate about the supposed “secret will or total plan”, because he has told us enough in the bible to live out obedience to Him in every area of our lives.

     Robert

117. Mwiya
     December 3rd, 2009 @ 1:18 am

     Dr Brown,

     I dont think Nathaniel has denied that in order to persevere to the end one needs to cling to God. Perseverance unto the end itself means cleaving to Him. Believing that the elect of God do this does not mean one puts their assurance in the belief that they are the elect. No, the fact that they believe in God and cleave to Him and his promises and finish their race prooves that they are of the elect. They are called and elected and have shown their faith to be genuine only by the power of God who works through and in them for his own Glory. The conclusions are the same, the trains of thought aren’t and somewhere I think thats where the miscommunication is or maybe its be misunderstanding the argument completely?

118. Ben KC
     December 3rd, 2009 @ 7:46 am

     “… the fact that they believe in God and cleave to Him and his promises and finish their race prooves that they are of the elect.”

     We continue to believe and cleave to Him but we have not finished the race yet. With your statement above, you wouldnt know that you are one of the elect, correct?

119. Nathaniel
     December 3rd, 2009 @ 8:08 am

     Ben,

     By the very fact that we are abiding the truth, that we love our brother, and we keep ourselves from idols. We know that we are elect. The very fact that we can do that means that God’s power and grace works in us to “will and do of God’s good pleasure.” It makes our election sure.

120. Ben KC
     December 3rd, 2009 @ 9:04 am

     Based on Mwiya statement, he concluded “and finish their race prooves that they are of the elect.”

     Did you finish your race?

121. Ben KC
     December 3rd, 2009 @ 9:12 am

     Of course, if I passed away to be with Jesus, Mwiya’s statement would confirm my situation. But since we all have not finished our race, I would request Mwiya to rewrite who the elect are or explain/clarify the statement.

122. Mwiya
     December 3rd, 2009 @ 11:38 am

     Ben,

     To make a long story short. You shall know them by the fruit. If the fruit of the Spirit are present then so is the Spirit, and if the Spirit is present that person belongs to Christ and is firmly in His hand. Nothing on earth, in heaven or under earth can take that person from Messiah. Their fruit says it all.

123. Mwiya
     December 3rd, 2009 @ 11:41 am

     The elect are those who are called by God and chosen by Him in Christ, they are those who are faithful till the end, even unto death. But even before they die they can be known by the fruit. And so every christian who is faithful to God and Loves God and practices righteousness is of the elect. The assurance is in the work of Christ and His Faithfulness.

124. Dr. Michae L. Brown
     December 3rd, 2009 @ 12:03 pm

     Mwiya,

     I fully understand that Calvinists believe in perseverance of the saints. That’s not the issue here. My point is that the assurance of salvation of a Calvinist, in practical terms, is either the same as that of an Arminian, less than that of an Arminian (since they can’t know for sure until the end who is truly elect), or in danger of being complacent (since, if they claim to be elect without possible doubt, then they would be claiming that it’s impossible for them to backslide).

     The issue here is a practical one more than a doctrinal one. That is to say, How does our doctrine affect our personal life and practice?

     So, when you say that “The assurance is in the work of Christ and His Faithfulness,” that is something that Arminians and Calvinists have in common, whereas Calvinists tend to claim that Arminians do not have this kind of assurance. Still, however, I would press the point to you: What if your heart grows cold? What if, God forbid, you are pulled into habitual, unrepentant sin? Would you still find assurance in the work of Christ and His faithfulness? Surely not — unless you are self-deceived. At that point, His Word to you would be, “Repent!” Thus your will and His work come together, and that’s where the ultimate assurance is found. But the notion that, “I’m one of the elect” really isn’t a factor.

125. Robert
     December 3rd, 2009 @ 2:27 pm

     Hello Dr. Brown,

     I posted in response to your message on “does God get disappointed?’ over on the Nov. 19th thread.

     I would appreciate seeing your response, at your convenience, thanks.

     Robert

126. Mwiya
     December 3rd, 2009 @ 6:01 pm

     Dr Brown,

     Though I view the main ideas of Calvinism as doctrinally correct. I do see your points, I also know that Christians are called to repent at various times and I know we are not perfect till we reach home so we can’t ever become so confident that we are being saved that we forget to actually abide in the Word. I think an understanding of what it means to be of the elect should always drive a person to live worthy of their calling. Not the opposite. So I think we agree on that. Just like a person calling themselves Christian doesn’t mean they are what they say they are, it essentially is the same argument.

127. Nathaniel
     December 4th, 2009 @ 10:33 am

     Dr. Brown,

     Sorry it took so long to respond to you. I base my assurance on the same Scriptures you do. I know the only reason I am able to do those things is because God works within me to do and will of his good pleasure. The only reason I stand here as a Christian is because God chose me. The only reason that my faith remains is because God chose me. Furthermore, nowhere in the Bible is this a warrant for sin. In fact, those who claim to be believers or elect or whatever and do not fight their sin, that is, they take on an attitude of complacency, are in danger of Hell. They say they claim to be Christian, yet they remain in willful rebellion – those two things are incompatible. Will one who places trust in Christ, who fights his sin, who bears the fruit of the Christian life be barred from heaven because he’s not elect? No, it doesn’t work that way. The only reason they were ever able to do any of those things in the first place was because of the grace of God. Though I myself am very far from perfect, my assurance comes from the fact that I have continued in my faith until now.

     Practically speaking, I know myself well (not as well as I should though), and if the choice to remain in Christ was ultimately left up to me, I doubt I would have any assurance of tomorrow because I am so prone to sin. It was actually this fact that convinced me of Calvinism. I asked myself, “How do I wake up day after day a Christian? How do I continue in my faith?” In the light of my own sinfulness, I could not answer that it was because of me…the only answer was God’s constant abiding sovereign grace.

128. Dr. Michael L. Brown
     December 4th, 2009 @ 12:19 pm

     Nathaniel,

     From the start, I have not been talking about a warrant for sin but rather the grounds for assurance. Based on what you’re saying, however, you could be opening the door to potential deception. That is to say, there are people who leave their spouses and live in adultery and tell you that they’re right with God because they still believe the gospel, etc., whereas the Word makes clear that if they were die in that unrepentant state, they would be lost (even if they were once saved).

     What God’s Word says to you (based on 2 Peter 1) is to make every effort to make your calling and election sure, and that calls on you to demonstrate the fruit of faith in a godly and dedicated life.

     In any case, your answer once again proves my point: The idea of being one of the elect is not the grounds for assurance, and were it to be made into the grounds for assurance, it would become an open door for self-deception and apostasy (unless it was coupled with a serious, ongoing commitment to the Lord that was examined on a periodic basis). This is also part of the reason that I have enjoyed far more assurance in my salvation as an Arminian than as a Calvinist.

129. Nathaniel
     December 4th, 2009 @ 1:28 pm

     Dr. Brown,

     I don’t I’m following you. When I say “warrant for sin” I mean what you say here, “[a Calvinist's ground for assurance] would become an open door for self-deception and apostasy”. Why? The grounds for assurance in Calvinism is the fact that one is not living in apostasy or self deception. No Calvinist would say otherwise. Read John Macarthur’s Gospel According to Jesus, listen to John Piper’s sermons on unbelief, read John Owen’s Sin and Temptation or even any of John Calvin’s works on the subject. Any attempt to go beyond the Biblical commands in the way you’re suggesting (that Calvinism does) is Hyper Calvinism which is a detestable heresy that ignores the Biblical mandate to persevere and preach the Gospel.

     I could do the same thing to Arminianism by saying its grounds of assurance opens to the doors to some form of Pelagianism. The truth is if we let our “practical” thinking interrupt our Biblical thinking, we will all be in danger of falling to some degree of heresy.

     You asked me if I’m 100% sure I’m elect. The answer is yes because the my faith as a Christian, my continuing in good works, being convicted of my sin, loving my brother, etc. are not from myself (for I am only capable of rebellion), but from God, and they all testify to God’s keeping me.

     That being said, I’m glad you enjoy assurance as an Arminian. What a great blessing we have as Christians to be assured of our salvation.

130. Ben KC
     December 4th, 2009 @ 4:28 pm

     “You asked me if I’m 100% sure I’m elect. The answer is yes because the my faith as a Christian, my continuing in good works, being convicted of my sin, loving my brother, etc. are not from myself (for I am only capable of rebellion), but from God, and they all testify to God’s keeping me.”

     So you confirm your doctrine leads you to believe you can never backslide such as commit in your heart: fornication, murder, unforgiveness, etc?

     When you say “God’s keeping me” from sin, to speak from the “geek” (not Greek) terms, did God program Christians so that we can’t turn away from God? Meaning, once you get saved, you become a “spiritual robot”?

131. Dr. Michael L. Brown
     December 4th, 2009 @ 8:13 pm

     Nathaniel,

     Amen! What a great blessing we have to be in God’s family.

     I’m sorry that I haven’t been clear enough in my communication, but your point again backs up mine. If you read through the thread carefully, hopefully you’ll understand what I was seeking to communicate.

     To repeat, though, for simplicity: If you say that you know you are saved and therefore one of the elect and therefore cannot possibly backslide, that opens the door for apostasy or deception. But that is not what you are saying, which again was my point.

132. Kyle L.
     December 4th, 2009 @ 8:39 pm

     Adding to what Ben KC said,

     Doesn’t God all throughout scripture tell us to CHOOSE life? Believers are warned all throughout the epistles to turn away from sin and BACK to God. God always tells us to choose him.

133. Nathaniel
     December 5th, 2009 @ 10:41 am

     Dr. Brown,

     Correct me if I’m wrong, but you’re saying that you can have as much assurance as an Arminian as you can a Calvinist? If that’s true, I can see your point. Biblically speaking, whether Arminian or Calvinist, I think you’re right in saying you can have same degree of assurance.

134. Nathaniel
     December 5th, 2009 @ 10:48 am

     Ben and Kyle L.,

     There are many differences between us and robots. I’m saying we are constrained by our natures to sin, and therefore, we are in need of a new heart. When the Bible says “choose life” or “choose this day whom you will serve”, that itself does not imply that we have the ability. If that were true, we would be able to follow the Law of God perfectly. The problem, as many of those passages point out, is that we have evil hearts, and we need God to give us new hearts in order to serve him and choose life.

135. Dr. Michael L. Brown
     December 5th, 2009 @ 1:23 pm

     Nathaniel,

     I’m basically saying that our grounds for assurance remain the same, and they are the some of the grounds that you mentioned in earlier posts. Calvinism, however, can work against those grounds either by thinking that, on the one hand, only those who persevere to the end are truly saved (and therefore elect) and we can’t know that until the end — which can rob assurance — or, on the other hand, Calvinists can think, “Because I am sure that I am saved, I am therefore one of the elect and cannot possibly fall away,” which obviously opens the door for pride or complacency or even apostasy.

136. Nathaniel
     December 5th, 2009 @ 5:38 pm

     Dr. Brown,

     I can accept that an Arminian can have the same degree of assurance as a Calvinist, but I obviously reject that Calvinism, if properly understood, can do damage to assurance. I can say the same about Arminianism. An Arminian can be robbed of assurance if they fall into Pelagianism.

137. Dr. Michael L. Brown
     December 6th, 2009 @ 12:46 am

     Nathaniel,

     Thanks for the interaction, and let’s rejoice in God’s goodness. I’d encourage to you think through the implications of what I shared briefly here when you have the opportunity. Again, thanks for the thoughtful interaction.

138. Ben KC
     December 6th, 2009 @ 2:30 am

     Nathaniel and Mwiya

     I mentioned previously “So you confirm your doctrine leads you to believe you can never backslide/turn away from God such as commit willfully in the heart and/or physically: fornication, murder, getting drunk, etc? ”

     Most Calvinist would agree if someone commits any of these sins, they were not saved from the beginning. Would you agree?

139. Nathaniel
     December 6th, 2009 @ 9:41 am

     Ben,

     I think I’ve been clear in saying that I don’t affirm a doctrine that allows people to sin all they like. However, I don’t think people pass from a state of saved to unsaved. It’s not the committing of sin (something which we all do) that determines our state, it’s the mindset in which we commit sin. “You must no longer walk in the futility of your minds,” and “do not be conformed to this world,” as well as a plethora of many other exhortations. The nature of apostasy is such that way of the world is much more attractive than living for Christ.

140. Ben KC
     December 8th, 2009 @ 12:09 am

     “I think I’ve been clear in saying that I don’t affirm a doctrine that allows people to sin all they like. However, I don’t think people pass from a state of saved to unsaved.”

     Im am not clear on your statement here. You confirm you do not support a doctrine that gives people a license to sin but then you go to the next sentence confirming OSAS or OSAP. I would kind of expect the second sentence to respond to the first sentence to say something like, “they were never saved from the beginning”.

     “It’s not the committing of sin (something which we all do) that determines our state, it’s the mindset in which we commit sin.”

     Sins that are committed outwardly/inwardly reflect the spiritual condition of the heart. Hopefully you are not justifying that Christians who commit the sins I listed on above are saved.

     So let me ask again similar to my question previously. If a Pastor who lived a clean life for 30 straight years but one day WILLFULLY commits one of these sins outwardly/inwardly such as fornication, adultery, murder, etc, would you confirm this individual was not saved from the beginning. Yes or no. If no, please explain.

141. Nathaniel
     December 8th, 2009 @ 9:47 am

     Ben,

     It depends. Christians are capable of sinning…even “big” sins. I really don’t understand what makes one sin bigger than the rest. Oftentimes, the Biblical writers will throw the “little” sins in with the “big” ones. Paul throws gossip in with murder and sexual immorality. If you gossip, does that mean you’re not saved?

     Let me ask you a question. If you were to commit one of these sin would you still be saved?

     One more thing, you need to distinguish OSAS from perseverance…they are different. Could you tell me what you understand perseverance to be? It would be a lot easier for us to interact that way. I say this because I think you have a false understanding of the doctrine.

142. Ben KC
     December 9th, 2009 @ 12:08 am

     “It depends”

     In the context I provided above, please explain why it depends in further detail.

     “Christians are capable of sinning…even “big” sins. I really don’t understand what makes one sin bigger than the rest.”

     Questions is, who is labelling it big/small sins? So you confirm that someone who is saved can be capable of committing these sins such as willfully murdering someone?

     “Let me ask you a question. If you were to commit one of these sin would you still be saved?”

     If one willfully murders someone physically/internally, it expresses the condition of the heart which indicates they are not saved. 1 John 3:15 confirms murderers have no eternal life; “Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life in him.”

     “Oftentimes, the Biblical writers will throw the “little” sins in with the “big” ones. Paul throws gossip in with murder and sexual immorality. If you gossip, does that mean you’re not saved?”

     Please provide you Scriptual reference in regarding gossip. I think I know what passage you might be refering to but I would like you to confirm so that I can respond in further detail.

     “One more thing, you need to distinguish OSAS from perseverance…they are different”

     You can argue how it is different in other areas but both confirms one who is truly saved cannot fall away from God.

143. Dr Michael L Brown
     December 9th, 2009 @ 12:11 am

     Ben KC and Nathaniel,

     Perhaps the more precise way to ask the questions would be:

     1) Is it possible for a Christian to commit murder and not repent and still be a Christian?

     If so, this would be OSAS, as opposed to perseverance of the saints.

     2) So then, is it possible for an elect person to commit murder and not repent?

144. Ben KC
     December 9th, 2009 @ 12:38 am

     Dr. Brown,

     I believe Nathaniel may confirm the elect can commit murder as he stated above “Christians are capable of sinning…even “big” sins”.

145. Mwiya
     December 9th, 2009 @ 6:10 am

     Ben KC,

     You will note that Dr. Brown after saying commit murder says and not repent. Repentance is always importance, we all sin…but if we confess our sins and repent of them…turn away from them and seek God and devote ourselves to Him even after we commit sin like gossip or murder or lust within our hearts…..there is forgiveness. I think its very simple, the elect once saved are truly saved and will persevere till the end. This is just another way of saying a christian who is really a christian fears God and will repent when he or she sins. I’ll give the OT example of David who sinned by planning and executing through the army commanders of Israel, the murder of Uriah after sleeping with his wife. When Nathan confronted Him, he repented and persevered to the end.

     Whereas a false convert, a reprobate will claim faith and have NO Lasting fruits to show for their faith. They may go to church and even pray and worship for a while, but for some reason or another they will fall away. Those are not true believers.

146. Ben KC
     December 9th, 2009 @ 9:30 am

     Mwiya,

     1) Can you determine who the elect are and guarantee they will never fall away?

     2) Even if one falls into a lifestyle of sin and doesnt repent immediately, would you come to conclusion that the individual is not the elect?

147. Ben KC
     December 9th, 2009 @ 9:36 am

     “They may go to church and even pray and worship for a while, but for some reason or another they will fall away. Those are not true believers.”

     1) In this context, will you say they are not the elect?
     2) Please explain what “fall away” means.

148. Ben KC
     December 9th, 2009 @ 9:57 am

     If one shows fruit, can you conclude it will last long?

149. Nathaniel
     December 9th, 2009 @ 10:38 am

     Ben,

     We sin all the time, so I’m just wondering what separates us from non-Christians in your view. Also, could you explain the doctrine of perseverance as you see it. We need to get some of these definitional issues out of the way before we can actually discuss what you want to discuss.

     To answer the two questions that Dr. Brown posted. I would answer “no” to both of them.

150. Dr Michael L Brown
     December 9th, 2009 @ 5:28 pm

     Nathaniel,

     Thanks for the response. So then, if you are elect, it is impossible for you to commit murder without repenting, correct?

     Also, what do you mean by saying that we sin “all the time”? Does not God’s grace empower us to lead holy lives? (Not sin-free lives, but lives that are marked my holiness and purity and obedience rather than lives that are marked by sin.)

151. mwiya
     December 9th, 2009 @ 6:34 pm

     Ben KC,

     This is how I see perseverance:

     Faith is not just an initial act of belief but a continual state of faithfulness whereby one’s faith or trust in Messiah causes them to Love Him with all they are. In other words their faith works through love. The hallmark of this love is keeping Christ’s commandments and delighting in them so that one abides in Christ’s words. Though we are not perfect, the reality is that we are bound to sin in some way or another at some point even being prideful for a moment is sin. Our response to that sin however also shows whether we love God or are cold towards Him. One who is faithful and loves God will repent of their sins continually and will also through out their christian life seek to cut off all the sins that hinder their walk. This is enabled by living and walking in the Spirit so that the power by which one lives and walks in not their own but God’s.

152. Dr Michael L Brown
     December 9th, 2009 @ 9:36 pm

     Mwiya,

     Please help me understand something here. What is the difference here between your view and that of a non-Calvinist?

153. Ben KC
     December 10th, 2009 @ 3:35 am

     Nathaniel,

     This is my third attempt to ask you because I feel you have not directly answer to my question in details which was:

     1a) “So you confirm your doctrine leads you to believe you can never backslide/turn away from God such as commit willfully in the heart and/or physically: fornication, murder, getting drunk, etc? ” Most Calvinist would agree if someone commits any of these sins, they were not saved from the beginning. Would you agree?

     1b) If a Pastor who lived a clean life for 30 straight years but one day WILLFULLY commits one of these sins outwardly/inwardly such as… murder… would you confirm this individual was not saved from the beginning. Yes or no. If no, please explain.

     I have even provided a passage previously: “If one willfully murders someone physically/internally, it expresses the condition of the heart which indicates the true spiritual state. 1 John 3:15 “Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life in him.””

154. Joel Santiago
     December 10th, 2009 @ 8:43 am

     The question is:
     what salvation means to you?

     Like Leonard Ravenhill once said:
     “Are you saved from what?”

     He came to save us from our sins, are we saved from sexual immorality, gossip or such things that belongs to a past way of life that he doesn’t approve?

     Another question:

     The elects are whom elects?

     They are his elects, so He only knows who they are. And we know by his Scriptures that he doesn’t have favoritism (1Peter 1:17).

     One question for Nathaniel:

     Was Moses elected to enter the promise land? If the answer is yes, then, what happened that he did not make it?

     The Covenants are different but the God is the same. So let serve our Master with a holy fear.

155. Nathaniel
     December 10th, 2009 @ 9:29 am

     Dr. Brown,

     I should have clarified my statement. I should say our struggle with sin is constant because we still live in sinful bodies. We definitely have the power to overcome sin, but until we die or Jesus returns, we will continue to struggle with sin.

156. Nathaniel
     December 10th, 2009 @ 9:40 am

     Ben,

     1a) I’m not sure what you mean by “willfully commit”. Is there such thing as “not willfully commit”? Is there ever a time where we do not “willfully commit” sin? James would suggest otherwise. Someone who denies Jesus does so by either not believing or not bearing fruit to keep with repentance. One sin whether it is murder, adultery, hating your brother, or looking at a woman lustfully reflects the disposition of the flesh but not necessarily the state of faith of the believer. God forbid that any believer would ever do such things, but it has happened before. That being said, I would doubt whether the person is saved or not if they do commit murder. However, it’s not my job to judge whether or not they are a believer. It’s my job to call them to true repentance.

     1b) I think I answered this above.

     Now, please my questions which were in a previous post.

157. Dr. Michael L. Brown
     December 10th, 2009 @ 10:46 am

     Nathaniel,

     Thanks for your clarification.

     On my end, I have no further questions to ask about the assurance and election issue, since it has become clear through the interaction with you and others here that a Calvinist has no more grounds for assurance than an Arminian. We put our trust in the work of Jesus and His keeping power, and we walk in obedience to His commands, not for a moment thinking that because we are children of God we have a licence to sin. And the witness of the Spirit and the promises of God, coupled with a life devoted to Him, assure us that we are His.

158. Robert
     December 10th, 2009 @ 11:29 am

     Hello Dr. Brown,

     Now that you **seem** to have finished with this thread, I am still wondering about your response to my post on the Nov. 19th topic of whether or not God gets “disappointed”.

     I would still like to see a response from you on this topic.

     Thanks.

     Robert

159. Nathaniel
     December 10th, 2009 @ 11:31 am

     Dr. Brown,

     Thanks for your interaction. I’ve learned a lot about Arminianism as well. God bless!

160. Joel Santiago
     December 10th, 2009 @ 11:38 am

     Dr Brown,

     Amen. God bless his people!!

161. Dr. Michael L. Brown
     December 10th, 2009 @ 12:45 pm

     Robert,

     Sorry that I missed your question. I address this in a Reflection to Jer 3:19 in my commentary on Jeremiah, which is about to come out. Perhaps I can explain my views on radio one day before the commentary is released, since it’s a bit too detailed to address in this blog.

     In short, however, my answer is yes and no.

162. Nathaniel
     December 10th, 2009 @ 12:57 pm

     Joel,

     I’m not sure I understand your question. Could you clarify it please?

163. Mwiya
     December 10th, 2009 @ 2:08 pm

     Dr Brown,

     LOL. I think we pretty much are on the same page when it comes to assurance and what it means. BTW I loved the analogy of the sun and the ligh of the sun as an analogy for God and The Messiah who is the radiance of the Glory of God.

164. Ben KC
     December 12th, 2009 @ 1:19 am

     Nathaniel,

     “Perseverance of the saints”

     “Perseverance (or preservation) of the saints. The word saints is used in the Biblical sense to refer to all who are set apart by God, not in the technical sense of one who is exceptionally holy, canonized, or in heaven (see Saint). The doctrine asserts that, since God is sovereign and his will cannot be frustrated by humans or anything else, those whom God has called into communion with himself will continue in faith until the end. Those who apparently fall away either never had true faith to begin with or will return.”

     “This doctrine is slightly different from the Free Grace or “once saved, always saved” view advocated by some evangelicals in which, despite apostasy or unrepentant and habitual sin, the individual is truly saved if they accepted Christ at any point in the past; in traditional Calvinist teaching, apostasy by such a person may indicate that they were never saved.”

165. Nathaniel
     December 12th, 2009 @ 11:12 am

     Okay, so the “slight” difference (in my opinion it’s a major difference) is being saved no matter what you do.

166. Ben KC
     December 16th, 2009 @ 1:58 am

     “One sin whether it is murder, adultery, hating your brother, or looking at a woman lustfully reflects the disposition of the flesh but not necessarily the state of faith of the believer.”

     How do you respond to 1 John 3:15 “Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life in him.”

     “That being said, I would doubt whether the person is saved or not if they do commit murder. However, it’s not my job to judge whether or not they are a believer.”

     Scripture makes it clear who are true believers in Christ. We use Scripture to discern correctly.

167. Nathaniel
     December 16th, 2009 @ 8:39 am

     Ben,

     The same way you would probably respond to it. Anyone who claims to be a Christian and hates their brother and does receive the rebuke of this verse should know they are in danger of Hell because they might not be who they claim to be. A Christian who is angry with his brother and receives the rebuke of this verse and repents, is exemplifying true Christianity.

168. Ben KC
     December 16th, 2009 @ 8:59 am

     “A Christian who is angry with his brother and receives the rebuke of this verse and repents, is exemplifying true Christianity.”

     But that is not what the verse is talking about. It says “… no murderer has eternal life in him.” In context, one who commits the sin manifests the true spiritual state.

169. Ben KC
     December 16th, 2009 @ 9:07 am

     1 John 3:9 says “No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God. 10This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother.”

170. Ben KC
     December 16th, 2009 @ 9:14 am

     If one genuinely repents, they are now saved. The question is, were they saved before they committed the sin?

171. Ben KC
     December 16th, 2009 @ 9:26 am

     At what point would you consider the individual not saved? Scripture makes it clear of those who are not saved. Its not just about the amount of sin the person commits. Its the sin that exposes the individual’s true state.

172. Nathaniel
     December 16th, 2009 @ 3:42 pm

     Ben,

     Can a Christian sin?

173. Ben KC
     December 16th, 2009 @ 4:09 pm

     You cannot call yourself Christian and murder.

174. Ben KC
     December 16th, 2009 @ 4:26 pm

     1 John 5:15-17 (English Standard Version)
     15And if we know that he hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have the requests that we have asked of him. 16If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask, and(A) God[a] will give him life—to those who commit sins that do not lead to death.(B) There is sin that leads to death;(C) I do not say that one should pray for that. 17(D) All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that does not lead to death.

     Question is, what kind of sin are you talking about. Sins that lead to death?

     Death in this passage is “thanatos” in Greek. Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words says:

     “the separation of man from God; Adam died on the day he disobeyed God, Gen 2:17, and hence all mankind are born in the same spiritual condition, Rom 5:12, 14, 17, 21, from which, however, those who believe in Christ are delivered, Jhn 5:24; 1Jo 3:14. “Death” is the opposite of life; it never denotes non-existence. As spiritual life is “conscious existence in communion with God,” so spiritual “death” is “conscious existence in separation from God.”"

     So are you saying you can call youself Christian and commit sin that leads to spiritual death? You can call yourself Christian and murder?

175. Ben KC
     December 16th, 2009 @ 4:49 pm

     As we are discussing about this, Its kinda funny to know that on Nov 10, Dr Brown speaks on “Liberty from Sin, Not to Sin”

176. Ben KC
     December 18th, 2009 @ 1:45 pm

     Nathaniel,

     You may have addressed this before but if you have, please redirect me or repost your response. My question is, do you have Scriptual support that someone can be saved, call themselves Christian and murder at the same time?

177. Ben KC
     December 19th, 2009 @ 1:28 pm

     “Liberty from Sin, Not to Sin”. A needed message. There are definitely a growing trend going in churches today that speaks on “freedom” which is actually freedom from tradition but remains in bondage to the worldly desires.

     People attempt to get out of the legalistic ditch and try to get back on the path but fall off onto the other side of the worldly ditch.

178. Nathaniel
     December 19th, 2009 @ 2:05 pm

     Ben,

     Sorry for the late response, I’ve been really busy this week.

     You say if a Christian murders, he is not a Christian. John brings this down to if you are angry with your brother it is the same as murder. So if you hate your brother, you are not Christian.

     You say this: So are you saying you can call yourself Christian and commit sin that leads to spiritual death? You can call yourself Christian and murder?

     This misses John’s point. He is commanding the believers he is writing to to not pray for someone who commits the sin that leads to death. You say that is murder which John compares to hating your brother. So according to your interpretation if a “Christian” brother hates his brother, we should not pray for him…I don’t think that’s what John is getting at.

     Continually, in John’s letter admonishes the believer to stay in the light, to love their brothers, to not sin, to be in the truth. He also makes reference to Christ’s sacrifice saying, If you sin, we have an advocate with the Father who makes intercession for us and will cleanse us of all unrighteousness. The state of sin is not just a point-in-time action, it is a continual state of mind. John says he who loves his brother, walks in the light, and he who hates brother stumbles in the darkness and he does not know where he is going. The sin that leads to death is resisting the will of God (repentance) and continuing in darkness.

     So can a Christian murder? I would say that if one who claims to be a Christian murders, it is very strong indication that he is not walking in the light (he’s not a Christian). But also, that is not just true for murder, if we continue in any type of sin (lust, anger, envy, etc.) and we do not repent and we do not fight it, we, as John says, make God a liar and the truth is not in us. John’s point is not murder vs. lying, it’s sinning vs. not sinning, darkness vs. light, truth vs. lies, love vs. hate. As Christians, we should be moving towards one side of the spectrum, beholding God more and more each day becoming more and more as he has called us to be.

179. Ben KC
     December 20th, 2009 @ 3:55 am

     “You say this: So are you saying you can call yourself Christian and commit sin that leads to spiritual death? You can call yourself Christian and murder? This misses John’s point. He is commanding the believers he is writing to to not pray for someone who commits the sin that leads to death. You say that is murder which John compares to hating your brother. So according to your interpretation if a “Christian” brother hates his brother, we should not pray for him…I don’t think that’s what John is getting at.”

     It doesnt matter what we want to think. What matters is what 1 John 5 is saying. There are several commentaries that will confirm if someone who knows the truth decides to walk on the path of death, John wouldnt pray for restoral because its an indication the person is not willing to change. That also includes hating your brother/sister which is the indication of their spiritual condition. If one cannot love a person, then its a reflection that one does not love God. Once the person decides to walk on the path of spiritual death, at this point, its in God’s hands to decide what to do with the person. If the person responds to correction and request for help, then prayer will be applicable.

     “I do not say that he should pray about that: Apparently, when a Christian is being corrected in regard to a sin leading to death, there is no point in praying for his recovery or restoration – the situation is in God’s hands alone.” – Commentary by David Guzik

     On your last paragraph, I agree that someone who murders is not saved. That is what I have been wanting you to acknowledge. If you were to justify that a saved person can murder, that is not Scriptural and possibly lead to a doctrine which gives a license to sin.

     The common ground I find with moderate Calvinist is that someone cannot be saved and be in darkness. If one repents, they are saved afterwards. One of the difference I find with moderate Calvinist is, “can a saved person backslide / turn away from God?”. Moderate Calvinist says no and the Arminians say yes. The “liberal” or hyper Calvinist says a saved person can backslide and still be saved. The moderate Calvinist would confirm that the person was never saved from the beginning or never “slid foward”. The Arminian can agree with the Calvinist but can also include that a saved person can backslide / turn away from God.

     Another difference is about perseverance. The moderate Calvinist believes the saved are predestined to persevere till the end and never fall away (backslide) while the Arminian believes the saved will persevere till the end if they continue to remain in Christ till the end.

180. Jabez H.
     December 20th, 2009 @ 8:48 am

     Spiritual death. The notion seems bigger than life or established clear scriptural reference to it in the discussions above. Such subject matter does not become the substance for dispute among brethren. The Lord stated that attributing the works of the Holy Spirit to the enemy of the righteous Father, i.e. to Satan or Belizbub (the Lord of the Flies, which also was a considerable insult as assigned to anyone in the Middle East), was the sin that led to death. In Hebrews falling away from grace back under the law, where such a position does not permit a renewal of repentance unto the new and living way life that Yeshua offered (as it is in Galations so too stated), is akin to spiritual death. Here in John’s letter not walking in the light of the love and faith Yeshua brought to us (e.g. by hating your brother, and embracing pattern sin) is a definition of it.
     So, it is taking steps toward embracing and practicing personal sin, also highlighted in John’s letter as in tension with a living faith, which hardens the heart by indulgence over time, and may lead to falling away from faith itself. Such would be the path to death that John is discussing from several different angles in his letter. This has little to do with a Calvinist/Armenian dispute on doctrine on election or predestination. Plain and simple it is warning about what happens to the heart, hardened by pattern sin, and resulting in a loss of a living faith through its idolatry formed over time.

     Life in the Spirit is defined with considerable insight by Yeshua, Paul, James, John, and Peter in many of their expressions, resulting writings, New Covenant wisdom statements, and references. A faith in Yeshua’s finished work, without boasting of one’s own conformity to the law as adequate for renewal unto life and salvation suffices–where regeneration from above by this position of heartfelt regard of the Spirit of God and of the sufficiency of the work of the Cross of Yeshua begins the connection to it–leading to an establishment of ever expanding grace and truth in a life abiding in Him. Hence, that Spirit convicts of righteousness, sin, truth, grace, mercy and justice, and the judgment to come in reference to Yeshua and belief in Him. Eventually, as Paul says in Galations, “the only thing that counts is faith expressing itself in love,” a great definition of life in the Spirit. And all of this is placed into an individual life’s considered regard by accepting the Life of the Messiah as sole possibility for the foundation of Life in the Spirit.

     If one is going to debate spirital death, one has to find all the possibilities of spiritual life, its antithesis.

     A. Murray has a great work so titled. It offers both sound scriptural reference and the unique qualities of abiding in the Messiah being key to ever increasing life, and pure hearted love.

181. Nathaniel
     December 21st, 2009 @ 12:51 am

     “It doesnt matter what we want to think. What matters is what 1 John 5 is saying. ”

     Yes, Ben, I am aware of this. I’m not really into deriving my own meaning from the text. When I say, “What I think John is saying…” I mean, “I’m about to present an argument for what John is saying,” or “I’m about to elaborate on what John means when he says this.”

     “if someone who knows the truth decides to walk on the path of death, John wouldnt pray for restoral because its an indication the person is not willing to change.”

     Absolutely! You don’t need a commentary to see this either. This is plain in the text. Is John saying that the attitude of a murderer is what we should avoid or just the act itself? Answer: Clearly both. We are not to hate our brother nor participate in the act of murder. Doing either of these things is a strong indication that we are not saved, and if are doing these things, we should repent.

     Anything can lead to anything if we use our imagination. If a Christian has the ability to sin, that does not mean they have the license to do so. The Bible speaks otherwise, doesn’t it? We are, after all, only trying to be Biblical. Scripture does not give us any license to sin at all, and if we try to reason our way into gaining license, we are reasoning our way out of Scripture. To put it another way, “Did God not say…” is never a phrase that should come out of a Christian’s mouth when trying to justify sin. So when you say, “If you were to justify that a saved person can murder, that is not Scriptural and possibly lead to a doctrine which gives a license to sin,” this is actually a slippery slope fallacy.

     Finally, I’m not sure what you mean by “moderate” Calvinist. I’ve read Geisler’s book…and he fudges the lines. He does nothing but confuse the issue. He even redefines the points which is why he can call himself a “moderate” Calvinist. A moderate Calvinist is in reality a 4-point Arminian.

     I’m not sure a “hyper” Calvinist would say that you could backslide (this is actually an ambiguous term if you ask me) and still be a Christian. Although they do hold to several deeply heretical beliefs including denying the Great Commission, so I wouldn’t be surprised if they did. This position (backsliding Christians), however, is supported by a great deal of 4-point Arminians (a.k.a “moderate” Calvinists).

182. Ben KC
     December 21st, 2009 @ 1:36 am

     “We are not to hate our brother nor participate in the act of murder. Doing either of these things is a strong indication that we are not saved, and if are doing these things, we should repent.”

     I am glad we are on the same page.

     I should have left out the word “moderate”. I meant to say calvinist vs hyper calvinist.

183. Ben KC
     December 21st, 2009 @ 2:11 am

     “I’m not sure a “hyper” Calvinist would say that you could backslide (this is actually an ambiguous term if you ask me) and still be a Christian.”

     You are correct. They wouldnt say that. That was defined from my perspective which is basically: No matter what they are in or what they do, they are still “saved”.

184. Nathaniel
     December 26th, 2009 @ 11:52 am

     “You are correct. They wouldnt say that. That was defined from my perspective which is basically: No matter what they are in or what they do, they are still “saved”.”

     I don’t understand. Are you saying that they wouldn’t say that, but you are saying that’s what they believe or are you just defining a new term?

Leave a Reply