March 5, 2010
March 5, 2010 | 527 Comments
Dr. Brown Tackles the Controversies and Answers Your Questions (including Warnings Against Exclusivism and Still More on Calvinism)
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Category:
Q & A Show
Comments
527 Responses to “March 5, 2010”
March 5th, 2010 @ 8:25 pm
A Calvinist gets trapped on top of his home because of a flood. However, because he believes in the utter sovereignty of God, he’s confident that the Lord will save him.
Hours later, while the waters continue to rise, a large log floats his direction. The Calvinist, however, looks toward the heavens and allows the log to pass him by. Still later, a boat comes his way and offers assistance, but because of his great humility and unwillingness to boast, he refuses the help of the good Samaritan. Finally, with flood waters surrounding his chest, a helicopter miraculously sees the Calvinist and comes to his rescue, but the humble Calvinist, confident in God’s sovereignty, refuses the assistance.
Later at the Judgment Seat, the humble, deceased Calvinist asks the Lord, “Sovereign Lord, why didn’t you save me?” The Lord replies, “Dear Mr. Calvinist, I sovereignly provided you with three free gifts: a log, a boat, and a helicopter. All you had to do was receive my sovereign blessing?”
Poor Calvinist
March 6th, 2010 @ 7:04 pm
For Dr. Brown, to say the foundational or causal reason why someone go to Heaven and an other go to Hell, is one’s freewill acceptance of the gospel, is to give himself grounds to boast in Heaven. He is saying that in Heaven he can make the boast that he was smarter by his freewill to accept the gospel by his freewill as against the guy who was dumber by his freewill to reject the gospel by his freewill.
March 6th, 2010 @ 7:09 pm
Very, very sad for Dr. Brown, but thank God very, very much, that Dr. Brown, is 100% wrong.
March 6th, 2010 @ 7:17 pm
I am Gregory I would like to say I am not a Calvinst, I am a Christian. Yes! Dr. Brown, did put some words into my mouth on the program for the 1st March, what I meant to say is that the Pharisees, scribes, lawyers, the High Priest, Saducees, Sanhedrin, etc. strudied the scriptures in its original languages (and I take it that they were much, much better in its original languages than Dr.Brown), they also prayed and fasted for many years but were still wrong which resulted in them crucifying Jesus and persecuting His church. While many dumb, ignorant, unlearned gentiles who never ever studied the scriptures, didn’t know the original languages came to know the truth, were set free by it and were now in the position to teach those very learned erudite bible scholars the truth from and of the scriptures because these gentiles now knew the truth while these learned bible scholars didn’t. So studing the scriptures and having degrees in it, as well as praying and fasting in addition does not mean or guarantee that person know the scriptures and may still be on the way to Hell and someone who is unlearned and dumb may know the bible and be on the way Heaven.
March 6th, 2010 @ 7:18 pm
If what the Arminians say were true (which is not) that man has a freewill, he exercise and originates his saving faith from his freewill, that God loves everybody (without exception) alike, He is gracious to all alike, Jesus died for all alike, The Holy Spirit wooes or draws all alike, my questions then are what is the causal or foundational reason why some go to Hell and others to Heaven? what makes or is responsible for the difference? Is it man’s originated freewill saving faith? The Arminians answer is yes. Thus the Arminians preaches and teaches a fatal damnable works based gospel and salvation, Galatians 1 and the following chapters as well, as well as Romans condemns such as damnable heresy.
The scriptures that you quoted to me (on the 1st March) when interpreted in their proper context means the elect of God only and not everybody without exception as the Arminians do interpret based on feelings only. The Arminians make the scriptures contradict themselves so to speak because the scriptures dont do such at all. Dr.Gordon Clarke in his book ‘Predestination’, Combined edition, copyright edition 1987 (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing Co.) pp.201-204, properly explains what the scriptures mean when it say God takes no pleasure the death of the wicked (referring to His elect only).
Rom 8:28 (in order for God to work all things for the good of His own He must first be working all things), Rom. 11:36, Eph. 1:11, etc. teaches that all that exist in, take place and happens in God’s creation are by the hand of God it is all of God’s doing and directing. Those above scriptures atleast teaches that much truth.
Ps. 115:3, 135:5-6, Isaiah 46:10 say all that pleases God or is His desire He does, the Arminians say God desires to save all humans without exception, this is His pleasure to do, this is what pleases God to do yet because of man’s freewill some (most) go to Hell. Oh, what fatal contradicting nonsense the Arminians make of the bible.
Vincent Cheung, (from http://www.vincentcheung.com/ ) and Thomas W. Juodaitis (from http://www.trinityfoundation.org/ ) are far much more better calvinists to debate with than James White (from aomin.org). …
March 6th, 2010 @ 11:30 pm
Hi Dr. Brown, You are such a blessing to me. I’m so grateful the LORD led you into my path. I am a 50 year old truck driver & listen to you on the Truth network when I am able to pull in a signal. Good to know I can listen to you on the internet as well. I was saved in 1987. When the LORD saved me He put a hunger for the Word of God into my heart. As I was burning the midnight oil learning all these deep truths of the Bible, it wasn’t long until I ran head long into the doctrines of election & predestination. IOW’s the 5 points of Calvinism. Fortunately I had a wise mentor, (who years earlier went through the same bouts of dealing with Calvinism as I now was) told me “I was waiting for Satan to throw that doctrine at you! He tries to trap every believer who delves deep into the Word with it” He told me that Satan uses Calvinism for one reason & one reason only Dr. Brown. “IT KILL’S SOUL WINNING” & how true that is! In my 23 years of being saved I have never met a Calvinist that was a soul winner or passed out Tracts! MOF I have had Calvinist tell me one can’t be saved reading a gospel tract! I wish that person could of been with me at the Saturn dealership in Fayetteville N.C. as I was winding up from making a delivery I saw a man standing in the parking lot & the LORD spoke to me to give him a tract. I did, but when I handed him the tract the LORD said to read it to him. Dr Brown, I’ll never forget what that man said to me after he bowed his head to receive Christ in his life…he thanked me for reading the tract to him because he couldn’t read! You people don’t know what your missing! If you are more concerned about the meaning of the word ‘world’ in John 3:16 than your neighbor going to hell! Shame on you!! BTW I got saved from the verse in John 3:16 when my wife led me to Christ in our living room & I can say the world means the world, just like whosoever will means everybody! We all need to take heed of God’s warning in Ezekiel 3:17-19 that if we fail to warn the wicked then their blood shall be required at our hand. I’ll just add one more thing I heard of Dr. J Vernon McGee. One can sum up the doctrine of election this way. The door is Christ! On the outside it says whosoever will may come! Those who come through the door can now look back & see the words “Chosen in Him from the foundation of the world” Let’s quit worrying who’s the elect & let’s go after the whosoever wills!
March 7th, 2010 @ 1:44 am
Dr. Brown, you respond to the calvanist’s position by saying that God gives faith with the Word to all who hear the Word, and then the person is or is not saved based upon if that person chooses to accept or not accept the gift of salvation.
It seems however that this idea seporates having faith (or trusting) from choosing to accept salvation. I cannot find this seporation in the scripture, because when a person has trusted Christ for salvation, that person is choosing Christ. Eph 2:8 says that that the grace AND the faith that saves is not from (Gr. ek) Christians (”yourselves”), but from God. It is this faith that saves. The choosing God that brings salvation is wraped up in the faith (or trust) that God gives, and not that we produce.
(And I should add that the what God gives in Eph 2:8 does in it’s Greek grammar, I understand from scholars, refer to the faith and the grace because the gender of what God gives is neutral, not matching the gender of the word “grace,” “faih,” or “faith.” This can only mean that the gift of God here is the salvation, the grace, AND the faith.)
So God gives it all. Therefore the faith that saves is part of the gift of salvation, so that the grace that saves and the faith that recieves it is not at all due to the choice of the person being saved, but due to The sweetness of God’s choosing grace.
As to the John 6 passage, I would simply point out that the text there seems to exclude your interpretation. It does so, most directly where it says in verse 44, “No man can come to me, except the Father that sent me draw him: and I will raise him up in the last day.” It is the “and I will raise him up on the last day” that would make one a universalist to believe that the drawing in this passage is done to every human being, because if every human being were drawn in the way the text speaks, then the all would be raised up on the last day, which is to be given eternal life.
Personally, I don’t think this means that we don’t choose God but rather that God gives tast buds to experience his sweetness. This is why all those who have heard and learned from the Father come to Jesus. The granting of God to believe or the teaching of the fear of the Lord is done by God making all things new, and making is completely alive to God.
As to John 3:16 the word world does not refer individualistically to every human being, but in the context of God having had his people almost only from the Jewish people, the world seems to most naturally refer to the fact that God has sent his son now for every tribe, language, people and nation. The issue in John 3 is not about God wanting to save every human being. Actually it says that God loved the world so that he sent his Son so that all all those who believe in him will live. (The words “whosoever believes in him” are most simply and directly translated “everyone who believes in him” as in the CSB, as there is no such English concept of whosoever, as in anybody can, in the the Gr.) The text does not say that God sent his Son for all who live, but for those who believe. Those who believe do so in the same chapter in verses 5-8 because of the Spirit who blows and gives life to whom HE wills. This is what I am forced to see by the text and then what what I think is a beautiful thing if understood along with the rest of the beauty of Scripture.
I would thank you very much for your consideration of this issue because of it’s centrality to the Bible’s discussion on salvation. And I do want to thank you for your program because I apreciate it very much.
March 7th, 2010 @ 1:49 am
Sorry, I meant to say,
(And I should add that the what God gives in Eph 2:8 does in it’s Greek grammar, I understand from scholars, refer to the faith and the grace because the gender of what God gives is neutral, not matching the gender of the words* “grace,” “are you saved*,” or “faith.” This can only mean that the gift of God here is the salvation, the grace, AND the faith.)
Thanks
March 7th, 2010 @ 8:47 am
Only the bible (The Word of God) is inspired, inerrant, etc., not the bible lexicons, bible exegetical works, bible dictionaries, handbooks, encyclopedias, etc., they can and does be wrong, and so they should never ever be treated or held as inspired, inerrant, etc. The bible only is the inspired, inerrant, etc., interpreter of what its words and passages mean and how they are used. All other works can and does give you wrong definitions and interpretations of biblical words and passages. Only the Bible can and must be perfectly relied on for the correct definitions and interpretations of biblical words and passages. All the other works (no matter how scholarly, erudite, informed, etc. the contributors to them are) except the bible can be correctly and properly disagreed with by any anyone not matter how dumb or dunce they are and such do happen.
Dr. Brown, as well as many others need to be very, very humble when using, handling, and quoting these non inspired, errant, etc., works, materials, etc. that do be wrong.
March 7th, 2010 @ 9:03 am
So tell me …. If God had predestined the Calvinist to take the log, and the Calvinist used his free will to override the will of God, would God’s plan have been thwarted?
Poor God.
And what if God had predestined the Calvinist to die in the flood and go to heaven, but the Calvinist used his free will to take the helicopter ride and live, and then went on to become an Atheist, then die and go to hell, would God’s plan have been thwarted? Would God be eternally sad that he wanted to save the Calvinist, but couldn’t? (Oh, if only he were a more powerful God!)
Poor God.
And what if God decided that he would glorify himself alone (Exo 20:5, Rom 1:17) in the hearts of his people (Eze 36:26, Act 13:48, 1Co 2:12, ), by causing them to believe the Gospel (Joh 16:13, Eph 1:18-19), the Gospel that reveals him to be a just God and a saviour (Isa 45:21, Rom 3:26) the Gospel that is conditioned on the blood and righteousness of Christ ALONE (Rom 3:21), the works and will of the creature COMPLETELY excluded (Joh 1:13, Rom 3:27, Rom 4:4-5, Rom 5:6-10, Rom 9:16)?
Poor Arminians.
Chris Adams.
March 7th, 2010 @ 9:45 am
In my posted comment above that was posted March 6, 2010 at 7:18 pm which begins with the words “If what the Arminians say were true…” where the word ‘faith’ occurs in that comment you can also, and should substitute it with the words “acceptance of the gospel” so that it can also read “acceptance of the gospel” in the place of the word “faith” wherever the word “faith” occurs.
March 7th, 2010 @ 1:28 pm
Dr. Brown: I have been greatly blessed and edified by your sermons and books over the past few years, but I have to confess that I find myself getting in the flesh and taking offense when witnessing caricatures like these. You uttered a very similar statement in your recent sermon about prayer. Do you really think this is what Calvinists believe? I’ve listened to countless hours of your sermons and have never once heard you go on a similar tangent against Judaism, Homosexuality, or Islam.
Everyone is careful to represent an opposing position during official dialog. But when you can assume that most of your audience already agrees with you, what reason do you have to show restraint? Why not take advantage of an opportunity to poke fun at your opponents? Normally I would the first person to admit that Reformed folk struggle with intellectual pride and elitism, but in this case, you can’t critique us for elitism if you yourself return the favor by taking cheap shots at us.
March 7th, 2010 @ 3:24 pm
Gregory,
You write, “Dr. Brown, as well as many others need to be very, very humble when using, handling, and quoting these non inspired, errant, etc., works, materials, etc. that do be wrong.”
Be assured, Gregory, that I tremble before the Word of God and would be deeply grieved if I misrepresented Him and His truth in any way. Based on your posts and your calls, I would urge you to apply that standard in your own life, since you are the one accusing me I quoting verses based on “feelings” rather than context, not to mention other more severe charges you level and me and others.
Work on Matt 7:1ff. for a few years and then get back to me. You will be a very different man by then!
March 7th, 2010 @ 3:29 pm
Rob S.,
Would you be kind enough to let me know where I have been guilty of this? When I speak of Calvinists I also do so in an honoring way, and when I speak of intellectual pride I always state that this was my own experience.
When correcting an extreme, hyper-Calvinist like Gregory (who says that all those who do not hold to his particular views are preaching a false — and therefore damnable — gospel), I will be very clear in my rebuke.
So, please let me know where you feel I have spoken unfairly, and if I am guilty, I will correct that publicly. Please also check to see if, perhaps, you misunderstood me. Fair enough? And because I cannot read every post here, it’s best to email me with the details at drbrown@askdrbrown.org, OK?
I would never knowingly take a cheap shot at anyone, especially a brother, so again, please listen for details and then let me know what you find.
March 7th, 2010 @ 3:31 pm
Chris Adams,
I take it your post is meant seriously? Given the nature of what you post and the presuppositions found therein, it’s hard for me to know whether you are a stealth Arminian trying to make Calvinists look bad or else a Calvinist missing the point of what you’re trying to refute.
I mean this sincerely, so a simple response is all that’s needed.
March 7th, 2010 @ 3:37 pm
Harold,
First, try to read the Bible for a while from a non-Calvinistic viewpoint and notice how God constantly requires faith and obedience from His people, how He makes it clear that He has done everything He could rightly do for them (without forcing them to obey), and how His people — or, more broadly, creation — willfully sin against Him, and how this grieves Him. That is to say, when He says, “Choose” He means it, and He is pained when we do not. This is all so self-evident that to not see this requires the reinterpretation of hundreds of verses in the Bible.
Second, God calls us to believe and holds us responsible for not believing. The ability to believe itself is a gift from God — as is our free will — but whether we trust Him or not is up to us. Is not that found throughout the Word?
You may have missed the hundreds of other posts on this subject some weeks back, and even then, my ability to interact here is limited. In order to help you see things more accurately here (if you’re open to that), can I ask you what serious, anti- or non-Calvinistic books you have studied carefully on these subjects? This way I won’t refer you to things you have gone through already.
March 7th, 2010 @ 4:25 pm
Chris Adams,
If a person is moments from certain death and someone throws them a rope, thereby saving them from either flood-waters or flames (etc), how does this enable that person to go about boasting of self-salvation?
It’s a weak argument.
Greg
March 7th, 2010 @ 6:21 pm
Gregory,
Thanks you so much for these posts! You have now demonstrated for every one to see the very ugly spirit of hyper-Calvinism. Up until now, when I made reference to these things, most Calvinists denied them — and understandably so, since this was not the position to which they held — but at last, you have articulated them here. Thank you so much for bringing these extreme sentiments to light!
In case some readers missed some of your statements, let me repeat the most salient ones:
“Thus the Arminians preaches and teaches a fatal damnable works based gospel and salvation, Galatians 1 and the following chapters as well, as well as Romans condemns such as damnable heresy.”
“Oh, what fatal contradicting nonsense the Arminians make of the bible.”
As to the question, Is God responsible for every single human act, however sinful it may be?, you have made yourself very clear too:
“Rom 8:28 (in order for God to work all things for the good of His own He must first be working all things), Rom. 11:36, Eph. 1:11, etc. teaches that all that exist in, take place and happens in God’s creation are by the hand of God it is all of God’s doing and directing.”
Gregory, what a small view of God you have, and what an unbiblical picture of him you paint!
I challenge every Scripture-loving Calvinist reading these posts to denounce Gregory’s errors.
As for you, Gregory, feel free to post here as often as you like (staying within our guidelines, of course), but I recognize your position as unbiblical and divisive and I will not be interacting with you until you recognize the true Body of Christ which, thank God, is far bigger than you imagine.
May the Lord extend His mercy to you, brother, as He has extended it to me and to so many others, both Calvinist and Arminian!
March 7th, 2010 @ 7:33 pm
To all my Calvinist friends,
In case you missed my response to Gregory’s posts, please read it here, immediately above, with selective quotes from his posts, and then take me up on the challenge to denounce his extreme position.
March 7th, 2010 @ 9:41 pm
Dr. Brown,
Very nice job dealing with Gregory and hyper-Calvinism. You gave a very clear explanation of faith not being a work.
I too have never thought for one “second to take an ounce of credit for my salvation.” It is all grace! But I have only been saved for 31 years. I guess you’re my big brother.
I’ll never forget that morning I accepted Y’shua’s offer. I’ll never forget being instantly, miraculously delivered from drugs at that same moment. I’ll never forget those cramps in my cheeks from smiling all the time (even in my sleep) and begging YHWH to help me stop. Of course He didn’t help me stop smiling, but His grace was sufficient for me to endure until I got used to it.
Shalom
March 7th, 2010 @ 9:45 pm
“Greg says:
March 7, 2010 at 4:25 pm
Chris Adams,
“If a person is moments from certain death and someone throws them a rope, thereby saving them from either flood-waters or flames (etc), how does this enable that person to go about boasting of self-salvation?
“It’s a weak argument.
Greg”
My responce is this if two persons are moments from certain death and someone throws them a rope, one by his freewill choose to grab the rope and be saved from the flood-waters or flames (etc), while the other exercise his freewill to reject the rope and perish as a result. The one who exercise his freewill to grab the rope and be saved as a result of his freewill choice can now boast by his freewill to of been smarter or wiser by his own freewill (and that is now why he is saved) over and against the other (the idiot who is an idiot by his freewill) who by his freewill refused to rope and perish as a result.
The freewill doctrine is totally unscriptual, no creature of God has a freewill. For a creature of God to have a freewill would mean that God is not omniscience, all knowing, because God’s infallable omniscience and a creature having freewill are mutually exclusive logically and scriptually. God is logical not illogical or irrational. The Greek word for word in John 1:1 is Logos which can also mean logic or reason.
March 7th, 2010 @ 9:56 pm
Gregory,
I choose to fervently disagree with your beliefs regarding free-will. I DO, however, agree with your assessment regarding God not being illogical or irrational – which brings me directly back to my choice to fervently disagree with your beliefs regarding free-will…
Greg
March 7th, 2010 @ 9:58 pm
Dr. Brown…I think that it will be much, much easier on your readers if you reverse to order of the comments on the pages, the most recent posts goes to the top of the page and the earlier ones to the bottom of the page.
Just a suggestion, some people do it that way.
March 7th, 2010 @ 10:12 pm
Greg…try and get the books off the net written by Gordon H. Clark, esp. his book ‘Predestination’ that deals very much with freewill you can get them at, http://www.trinityfoundation.org/ . Also try and get Vincent Cheung’s books as well, you can get them at http://www.vincentcheung.com/ . They also I believe have articles on their site that touches on freewill but try and get their books because they deal alot with freewill in their books and they are very scriptual in refuting and destroying the teaching of creaturely freewill.
March 7th, 2010 @ 10:26 pm
I forgot to mention this. I am going to repeat it again, I am not a Calvinist. I am a Christian, not a Calvinist. Please do not make me out to be what I am not, ie. a Calvinist.
March 7th, 2010 @ 10:32 pm
Gregory, do you fully agree with the doctrines of grace?
March 7th, 2010 @ 11:01 pm
Greg…all that God knows from eternity that His creatures are going to do they have to and must do so how can a creature have freewill. And if a creature have freewill for that will to be truly free the creature’s future choices, decisions, etc. have to be unknown to God, thus God learns things. That will also means logically that God is not sovereign over all things in His creation including all the future but the bible say that His is Rom 8:28, 11:36, Eph 1:11, etc. If freewill is true it will also mean we cannot really rely on God that all of His prophecies will come to pass because the smallest of thing, choice, decision, etc. can have the greatest of future results and ramifications. I have read that if Cleopatra’s nose was a little bigger or smaller world history would of been very completely different today.
The unscriptual creaturely freewill teaching only causes and results in all sorts of confusions and logical contradictions.
March 7th, 2010 @ 11:15 pm
Yes! I fully agree with the doctrines of God’s absolute sovereign grace and power in that I also believe in the eternal unconditional repobation of the nonelect to eternal Hell.
March 7th, 2010 @ 11:16 pm
Dr. Michael L Brown, I first want to say that I am very glad that God saves those who do not have everything figured out, as I am most certainly one of them. I am no hyper-Calvinist, and would strongly disagree with such people who want to draw the line of the People of God around almost no one but themselves and their circle of friends, etc., as if they had the glasses that make the elect glow.
Now, I want to be first Biblical. I believe that God predestines all things according to the purpose of His will and that God requires all men everywhere to believe. I simply believe that Scripture explaines Scripture as I’ll breifly explain.
I have grown up holding generally to the concept of the free will of man until about 2 years ago. So in that respect I have read the Bible longer from that perspective. Also I do try to see the Bible for what it is and do not want to let any over-riding conceptions of it that I have distort the Scriptures. The only way to try to guard against this, that I can see, is to seek to do careful, Holy Spirit filled exegesis. I don’t believe I am in disagreement with you when you say, “God calls us to believe and holds us responsible for not believing.” Christians do chose Christ, and non-Christians chose to reject Him. The question is, “Why or why wouldn’t a person do so?” I think ther is a deeper issue in the Scriptures that there bare decision.
It hurts me very badly to see people reject God, and I believe that God is displeased by people who spit in His face. The reason people do that is not that God is just making them do such, it is that they are playing out the desires and will of their sinful heart. When people reject God, I believe that it’s because they’re blinded “lest they should see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ who is the image of God.” And when He punishes such people, the Scripture says He doesn’t do it from His heart (literally) in Lamentations 3:33.
When a person comes to the obedience of faith, I do not think this is because God made the person believe against the person’s will. Rather, the Scripture shows that God takes a person who has the nature of a child of wrath (Eph 2), and makes the person’s nature new, giving him life. The reason a person believes is that “God..has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (2 Cor 4:6). When someone is so given new life, the person sees this irresistibly beautiful light. So God is not forcing a person to believe, but rather circumcising the person’s unfeeling heart, and wiping away the blindness from the blind so that the person can feel the goodness of God and see His beauty. I just think, according to the scripture, that such a person could not resist such awesomeness and sweetness, but will with his new nature desire God’s goodness and freely come to the fountain of grace in Christ.
As to reading, I have not read many books addressed directly to the topic except the book, Debating Calvinism, Five Points Two Views by James White and Dave Hunt. Rather, I have so far furthered my study by studying the Scripture as deep and exegetically as I can, reading many commentaries from various sides and generally listening to many debates on the topic. I must say that another help to me has been so far the reading of sermons by men such as C. H. Spurgeon, Jonathan Edwards, and John Piper. I have also read a book on salvation by a puritan or so.
Thank You
March 7th, 2010 @ 11:25 pm
Gregory,
What specific scriptures from Genesis to Malachi show your doctrine to be true?
Shalom
March 7th, 2010 @ 11:28 pm
Gregory,
Just references of the obvious passages will be sufficient.
Thanks.
Shalom
March 7th, 2010 @ 11:41 pm
Gregory,
Why not say youre a Christian with a hyper-Calvinistic perspective?
March 7th, 2010 @ 11:47 pm
Bo,
You’re sounding less dangerous by the minute.
March 7th, 2010 @ 11:51 pm
Gregory,
I would like to ask if you would recognize the difference between on the one hand, saying that God chose from all eternity to save some of His enemies by dying for them and leaving the rest who hate Him for just judgment, and on the other hand, saying that God not only elects to save a people for Himself, but wills for the non-elect to go to Hell?
Also, do you not think that God may save people who do not understand all that God has revealed, as even the Apostle Paul says that we see as through a dark glass.
Thanks .
March 7th, 2010 @ 11:52 pm
Harold,
Thanks for sharing your journey with me here, and since you feel that you have been convinced by reading the Scriptures that Calvinism is true, the best thing you can do is to continue to read the Word in a prayerful and reverent manner.
For me, it was mainly reading theology and books on Calvinism that convinced me of the Reformed Faith and then a continued reading of the Scriptures that convinced me it was not biblically accurate.
I’m glad you feel that your life has been enriched by your beliefs and I pray that in every way you would continue to grow in God’s grace and knowledge, just as I pray the same for myself.
One question for you, based on your citation of Lam 3:33. Do you feel that God is truly grieved by many of the decisions we make? If so, does that in any point to our free will?
March 7th, 2010 @ 11:54 pm
Gregory, sorry to direct this towards you but I haven’t met anyone who has held to this extreme position before. I just have a question for you, do you consider people who disagree with your views of predestination (election – damnation), grace, etc, pretty much your whole view of God, would you consider someone who disagrees with that position, someone who is not a member of God’s family?
Also I’d like to address something else you said;
You say, “And if a creature have freewill for that will to be truly free the creature’s future choices, decisions, etc. have to be unknown to God, thus God learns things. That will also means logically that God is not sovereign over all things in His creation…”.
I don’t quite understand that logic and I believe that is the problem here, foreknowledge does not indicate predestination. Just because God knows something will happen doesn’t mean He set it up that way. Do you believe it’s logically possible to force someone to do something freely? Isn’t that what God requires of us? He wants us to freely serve Him.
Blessings.
March 8th, 2010 @ 1:03 am
Dr. Brown,
I assume that you meant to say, “does this in any *way point to our free will.”
I believe the Biblical model seems to be that where the person acts out of the heart, the center and sum of one’s self. So when I talk about someone having a will, I mean that one choses what seems good to him. The issue is the “what seems good to him” part. That is determined by what the desires of the heart are. If the heart is uncircumcised, then it will be unfeeling to the things of God, unable to desire or will to have the God it is dead to.
Yes I believe that God is truly grieved by decisions we make, the Scripture warns not to grieve God the Holy Spirit. The position of the uncircumcised in heart and ears is different, I must point out, than that of the saved because they cannot but help but to always resist the Holy Spirit.
I should mention though that I am personally amazed that only a few verses later in Lam 3:37 it says, “Who has spoken and it came to pass, unless the LORD has commanded it.”
So, the fact that God is truly grieved by people’s actions does not take away at all in this passage from the fact that not one of these actions happened outside of the command of God.
How would you understand this and why?
Thanks
March 8th, 2010 @ 1:16 am
This is my last post for now I have to catch some sleep. When the bible speaks of God been grieved over the sins of man is is just figurative language describing God’s dealing with man over his sins it is not literal since God does not change, and is eternally the same, and from eternity knows all things.
Rom 8:28 (in order for God to work all things for the good of His own He must first be working all things), Rom. 11:36, Eph. 1:11, etc. teaches that all that exist in, take place and happens in God’s creation are by the hand of God it is all of God’s doing and directing. Therefore based on those scriptures and many others more, all who ends up in Heaven and Hell also is of God’s doing. That is a logical teaching and deduction from those scriptures.
I too don’t undestand all that God has revealed but I understand all of the gospel and believes it all if a person don’t understand and believes all the gospel they are not saved, it is 100% of the gospel that saves not 99.99999% of it.
Eric asked, “Gregory, sorry to direct this towards you but I haven’t met anyone who has held to this extreme position before. I just have a question for you, do you consider people who disagree with your views of predestination (election – damnation), grace, etc, pretty much your whole view of God, would you consider someone who disagrees with that position, someone who is not a member of God’s family?”
Eric, I have to respect the rules of this discussion forum so I will answer by telling you read all of my previous comments on this page, listen to the audio show at the top of the page and also the shows on the 1st March and on 4th March and the answer will be made very clear to you.
Eric, you also said,”Also I’d like to address something else you said;
“You say, “And if a creature have freewill for that will to be truly free the creature’s future choices, decisions, etc. have to be unknown to God, thus God learns things. That will also means logically that God is not sovereign over all things in His creation…”.
“I don’t quite understand that logic and I believe that is the problem here, foreknowledge does not indicate predestination. Just because God knows something will happen doesn’t mean He set it up that way. Do you believe it’s logically possible to force someone to do something freely? Isn’t that what God requires of us? He wants us to freely serve Him”
The scriptures above teaches that all things are The Lord absolute sovereign doing so they destroy the freewill teaching plus all that God knows (which is everthing) from eternity before He created anything all have to and must come to pass and nothing else can ever happen at all. Therefore logically there can’t be any creature with a freewill because all that the creature is doing is simple what God knew from all eternity that, that creature will be doing and the creature can’t do anything else at all. So scriptually and logically there is no such thing as a creature having freewill.
I am a Christian not a hyper-Calvinist.
I have tied to answer more than one comment at the sametime.
March 8th, 2010 @ 2:15 am
Eric…I forgot to mention it’s not logically possible to force someone to do something freely, and no, God does not requires of us to freely serve Him. Those who God predestine to serves Him God will have them all come to serve Him in God’s own time. All whom He predestine to Hell will never ever come serve Him.
Rom 8:28 (in order for God to work all things for the good of His own He must first be working all things), Rom. 11:36, Eph. 1:11, etc. teaches that all that exist in, take place and happens in God’s creation are by the hand of God it is all of God’s doing and directing.
God is the potter we are the clay (Romans 9) He does with us as it is His will that is His right as the Potter.
In a very similar vein if you write a story book are you forceing your characters to do anything? Don’t they have to do what you will have them to do, can they do anything else that is independant of or contrary to you will for them? Can’t you make them love one another, etc.? Can’t you make them to be making choices and to be responsible to each other in the story? Can you send one into a heaven and another into a hell? Does this in anyway make you the author unfair to any of your characters in anyway? Remember that in the story they go to a heaven or a hell because of your doing only in the ultimate sense and you may have already planned it all before you put pen to paper.
If you can do all these things and much more with your characters, etc. in you story and that you have that right to do as you will with them and at tha same time it does not make you unfair to any of them nor does it make you an evil unloving author. Then why do people have a problem with God being the potter and we the clay and He does with us as He wills? And if He predestine someone to Hell He is held by many to be unloving? And that there is thought by many people to be some problem with the teaching from Romans 9, etc. that God from eternity love, is mercyful and gracious to His elect only and hate from eternity the reprobate?
Does not God as the creator and potter has the right and does as He wills and pleases with all of His creation, just as an author has and does over all his characters, etc in his story?
March 8th, 2010 @ 2:26 am
Gregory,
What makes you different from a hyper-Calvinist?
March 8th, 2010 @ 2:43 am
Harold,
God was grieved by the actions of unsaved men in Genesis 6, correct? (Again, I’m skipping over Gregory’s explanations, first, for the reasons I stated earlier in my posts to him, and second, because he ignores biblical language in order to prove his case.) Did God create people with no choice but to commit these acts? If so, why was He grieved?
As for Lamentations 3:37-38, are you sure you can find no other way of reading the text than that God ordains everything that happens? Wouldn’t this be contrary to the whole theme of the book, where human actions contrary to God’s plan (remember the principle of Jer 18!) cause God to bring judgment although He would rather not have brought it?
March 8th, 2010 @ 2:51 am
Eric,
Yes, Gregory has made himself totally clear, which I have marked him here as a divisive brother. According to his viewpoints — which are NOT typical of Calvinists — he believes that unless you hold to his hyper-Calvinistic views, you are not saved.
My purpose in allowing him to continue to post here is: 1) even atheists can posts here; how much more misguided brethren; 2) he continues to articulate the ugliness of hyper-Calvinism very clearly; 3) he gives other Calvinists the opportunity to repudiate his views (or not!) by posting as he does.
March 8th, 2010 @ 2:52 am
Sorry — the first line should read, “which is why I have marked him here as a divisive brother.”
March 8th, 2010 @ 3:21 am
Dr. Brown,
Regarding Gregory, you said that, “…unless you hold to his hyper-Calvinistic views, you are not saved.”
Like Gregory, I was taught very similar information in school by an instructor that was considered by others to be a moderate Calvinist. Thus, I’m apparently not clear on what is considered hyper-Calvinism. From my experience, Gregory is simply conveying ideas that many Calvinists believe (e.g. double-predestination).
It seems that one mans Calvinist is another man’s hyper-Calvinist.
How would you differentiate the two?
March 8th, 2010 @ 8:01 am
I just turned on the radio this morning and heard a bit of John MacArthur teaching on “Once saved, always saved.” .
Heres the recorded show:
God Won’t Let You Go
“Once saved, always saved.” What do you think — true statement? Or could you do something — commit some horrible sin — that would cause you to forfeit your salvation? John MacArthur challenges you with what Scripture says about the permanence of salvation in God Won’t Let You Go.
Today’s Message: The Perseverance of the Saints, Part 1
http://www.gty.org/Radio/
btw, Im not a Calvinist. I think this would be interesting to post since we are discussing about Calvinist.
March 8th, 2010 @ 8:25 am
God has no emotions of passions, His is eternally immutable and omniscience. How can a person or being who is eternally
immutable and omniscience have emotions or passions? Think about logically. The framers of the West Minister’s Confession atleast know that and said in the confession God has no passion. When emotions or passions are attributed to God it is figurative or anthropomorphic language to describe God’s different dealings with man? The human emotions or passions that are attributed to God are not meant to be taken literally of God, just like when human body parts are attributed to God, like God having hands, feet, eyes, etc.
How can a person or being who is eternally
immutable and omniscience have emotions or passions? Think logically about it.
Greg, you are so right It seems that one man’s Calvinist is another man’s hyper-Calvinist, but I am none of them.
I myself have come across some amazingly very strong statements against Arminianism by people who are considered to be normal or nonhyper-Calvinist by many.
March 8th, 2010 @ 8:27 am
In the article above when I said, “Think about logically.” I meant to say, Think about it logically.
March 8th, 2010 @ 9:19 am
Greg,
When I was a Calvinist and fellowshipped extensively with other Calvinists, we never questioned the salvation or our non-Calvinistic friends, nor would I think that some of today’s best-known Calvinists — men like Piper or Sproul, e.g., — would dare say that their non-Calvinistic friends are not saved. That’s one part of the equation.
The other part is the extreme nature of Gregory’s statements, which are normally branded as hyper-Calvinistic by those in the “mainstream.”
In any case, as word of his posts and calls gets out, I’m looking forward to other Calvinists renouncing his views here on this forum. If they won’t — shame on them. They are being equally divisive and unbiblical.
For the record, Dr. White would classify men like Gregory as hyper-Calvinists.
The biggest issue to me is not the error of the doctrine to which he holds but the arrogance with which he judges others, beginning with his accusation when I quoted verses to him — which I have studied carefully in context for decades — and said that I was quoting them based on “feelings.”
In any case, enough said. I’ll let the posts of Gregory and others speak for themselves.
March 8th, 2010 @ 9:59 am
Gregory I was basing that off of any given commandment, are you saying God forces you to love Him and obey His commandments? What is the point there, is that even a relationship? Anyway I think you are happy with your own views and not willing to change them I was just curious what you believed, thanks for your answers.
And thank you Dr. B for clearing that up! (very sad!)
Blessings!
March 8th, 2010 @ 10:21 am
Gregory,
I found these in one of your previous posts:
Ps. 115:3, 135:5-6, Isaiah 46:10
Are these the only Old Testament passages that clarify your view point? Please supply more references.
2 Timothy 3:16-17 says that the Tanakh “is profitable for doctrine…that the man of YHWH may be perfect…”
So give me some more references, please. Not commentary, references.
Shalom
March 8th, 2010 @ 10:31 am
Gregory you said “listen to the audio show at the top of the page and also the shows on the 1st March and on 4th March and the answer will be made very clear to you.”
Okay,
Does it bother you that you are only basing your ENTIRE view of God and you believe you have Him figured out over, what? Those 4-5 passages, and your “logic” ?
Gregory I believe you have to interpret nearly all the Scriptures that contradict your viewpoints with your logic and try to give an answer to them like they just don’t count because they don’t fit into your personal image of God. I don’t believe we can say we have God all figured out and know absolutely everything about Him, it’s okay to say “I don’t know” or “I don’t have all the answers”, sometimes but for instance Dr. B. quoted tons of Scripture to you on the radio show the first day, that go against your views and instead of helping him out (not that I believe you needed help Dr. Brown, as a I fully agree with your stance regarding the Gospel message, “whosoever”) but rather Gregory, you insulted him by saying he was basing it on feelings. I think that you owe Dr. Brown an apology and was very disrespectful especially since it’s his show, Gregory I noticed you always saying “logically, logic, etc etc” I don’t believe we can base any doctrine on God with our flawed logic if that is possible, remember God has made the wisdom of this world is foolishness.
All I am saying is, if there are passages that contradict your views, you can’t just ignore them by saying people interpret them wrong and your way is right. If you can’t see the flaws in your own doctrine, how can you ever point out flaws in someone else’s? Why take the speck out of your brothers eye when you have a plank in your own? As I said though, I believe Gregory, you are happy with your views and unwilling to change even if there was 100 passages to the contrary, I pray that is not true but I believe it is.
Take care people! I am looking forward to todays show at 3, may the Lord bless all of your days abundantly!
March 8th, 2010 @ 10:53 am
Dr. Brown,
I would be glad to try to discuss more in depth the book of Lamentations, and I will try to do so if you will ask me. However, to answer the question, can it be true that God predestined all things whatsoever come to pass in every respect AND that God is grieved by sin of all sorts:
I believe this is illustrated by the death of Lazarus, where Jesus said that Lazarus had not died to be dead, but he had died for the glory of God, so that the Son might be glorified in it (John 11:4).
If Gregory’s line of thinking is correct, then I would have to say, Well Jesus said that this human being’s death was to make Him look good, to glorify Him, SO Jesus doesn’t really care about the death of Lazarus, after all Jesus said that it happened for a reason. So it seems that Gregory cannot see how God could both will that something happen because it will bring about the maximum glory to God over all AND how God is grieved in His complexity, when He considers the specific act of sin.
It seems your view about the issue would lead you to say that God really didn’t have a an overall plan that included God specifically killing this man, in the sense that the Scripture said that the LORD kills and makes alive. (Please correct any misunderstanding of you that I may have.)
Now, Jesus is the image of the invisible God. And this passage clearly shows that Jesus actually wept, being grieved by Lazarus’ death AND that God had him die for to make the Trinity, specifically the Father and the Son, look good in God’s resurection of Lazarus.
So, I believe the Scripture leads us to believe the heart of God is complex, and not simple. It seams to lead us to believe that God is able to both will for a sinner to perish in his willful unbelief and disobedience and for God to be truly grieved by the sad unbelief of the blind sinner. To close, God does not positively will for people to be dead and blind to him, but He does will for some those He choses to create in Adam to be destined for distruction, as Romans 9 says. This ought to be true for all of us outside od the electing grace. However, whatever we do, let’s not forget to be blown away by God’s justice in damnation and mercy to save a specific people in Christ and in no other for God’s glory. In this I am amazed, awed, humbled, and thankful.
March 8th, 2010 @ 11:10 am
Gregory,
Eric and Harold make good points. You do seem to have a very 1 dimensional “god” that you have invented and then try to use scripture to back up you concept of Him. Aristotle would be proud, but Paul would just shake his head. YHWH is extremely more personal than are we. We are made in His image, not He in ours.
If what you proclaim is true, nothing we do matters. If nothing we do matters, why the argument? It just “is what it is”, and “God” is really just arguing with himself about something that is already a determined outcome. This is kind of a shallow confused “god” don’t you think?
Shalom
March 8th, 2010 @ 11:14 am
Dr. Brown,
I do want to speak directly into your questions, and I understood your problem with the theology to be the idea that God can predestine something and be grieved by it. Please tell me if I have directlly spoke into your question and how you see what I’ve said to relate to the Bible.
Thanks.
March 8th, 2010 @ 11:44 am
Harold,
Thanks for the spirit in which you are approaching this. To answer you directly, I do not see the situation with Lazarus providing any kind of real parallel to the question I asked.
To frame it more sharply, then, since God explicitly distances Himself from Israel’s sin on many occasions, making clear that He is against it, had nothing to do with it, is grieved and angered by it, will judge it, and calls for His people to repent of that sin, how can it possible that He predestined them to commit such sin? It would be a blatant contradiction of Scripture, not just a few verses here and there, but the overall tenor of the Word.
Should you question that the Lord expresses Himself this way in the Scriptures, I can provide you with relevant references, but a good start would be Jeremiah 2, 3, 18, 19, and Ezekiel 18. You’ll find the relevant verses therein.
March 8th, 2010 @ 12:30 pm
Gregory,
You say that God has no emotion! How can you say such a thing? How can a God that has no emotion create us such emotional beings? In Mathew 3:17 at the baptism of Jesus the Father said “this is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased” How can someone use the words beloved & pleased in such a manor as to not show any kind of emotion. I’m wondering if your Calvinist views have left you so emotionless over lost souls dying & going to hell!
I understand you to say your not a Calvinist, Well I’m not an Armenian, Armenian’s tend to the belief that a person once in the faith can be lost. I don’t hold to that view at all. I’m a bible believer, I take the bible very literally. Also Armenians tend to use the word “freewill” I never liked the word freewill. I tend to lean toward the word “responsibility” God gave us His law in the 10 commandments to live by. When God said ” Thou should not commit adultery” am I so depraved a being that I don’t realize what God is commanding of me! When Jesus reaffirmed that in Matthew 5:27,28 that whoso looks at a woman to lust after her is guilty…well that got me, I had to say I was guilty! (I was saved while watching a XXX rated movie) If your driving down a street & the light turns red the law says you must stop but you do have the freedom to keep going! Your wrong choice in circumstances may cost you, but you were warned! Well the Bible is our warning. It’s been written in such a way that we can read & understand it’s warning & take heed to what God is telling us or we can completely ignore it & suffer the consequences! Why can’t you see that?
Greg (btw there sure are alot of us Gregs on here) LOL!!!
March 8th, 2010 @ 12:35 pm
I was listening and just wanted to point out that is completely illogical to say that the free will recieving of the free gift (faith) is a work. If I were to give you a gift, you have 2 choices. You can tell me no thank you I don’t want it, or you can recieve it. If you choose to recieve it, did you work for it, or is it a free gift based on my will to give it to you.
Now compare that to working for a paycheck. Do you see the difference?
The gift you did not work for or earn. The giver (God) gets all of the glory because He gave the gift when I don’t deserve it, I did not earn it. I (the reciever) get no glory and cannot boast because without His grace and mercy I would be in Hell, but in His Love and mercy He gave me something I could not get by working for it.
I hope that example Helps….
God Bless
March 8th, 2010 @ 1:10 pm
To all who do not believe in the electing grace of God.
One verse that is often given to say that there is not chosing in God’s grace is John 3:16. So I’d like to comment on this text. While I’m not an studied in Greek, so based on my amature study of the language behind this passage, I take it to be most accuratly translated by the CSB thus:
“For God loved the world in this way: He gave His One and Only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life.”
“God loves the world in this way”
“In this way” is a better translation than “so” because the word is Οὕτως, should be seen to simply mean “so” in the sense of “thus”, or “in this way” and not directly “so” as in the phrase, “this much” directly. You may check its usage in the New Testament (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3779&t=KJV ).
Thus we see that we are about to be told how God loved the world.
“He gave His One and Only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life.”
Here is where the non-reformed often say “whosoever” indicating that it could be anyone. But is this what John means? To see the answer, notice the translation, “everyone who believes in Him.” The text says in Greek, πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν, which is being translated literally says, all (πᾶς) the (ὁ) beliving (πιστεύων) in (εἰς) Him (αὐτὸν). It does not say for every person who hopfully will believe, rather it says, for all the believing.
Now it would make sense if the text said, “God loved every human being in this way: He gave His Only Son to save every human.” But this is not what the text says. It says, “God loved the world in this way: He gave His One and Only Son so that ALL THOSE BELIEVING would not perish but have eternal life.”
But what then is meant by the word “world”? We see that it cannot refer to all people individualisticly, because it wouldn’t make much sense. I should say that the issue the text is dealing with is not whether or not God loves every individual in the same saving way. I would like to rather suggest that the most natural reading of the text by a first century Jew would be that the word “world” refers to the nations (or peoples) generally being loved, in addition to Israel. I see this because this was the very issue even the early ones of the Way had to deal with, and the issue that Jesus deals with speaking of “other sheep”, the thing prophesied about Jesus in the Law, Prophets, and Writings, and the thing the same writer, John, said would happen in Rev 9:5.
I only beg for you to see that God’s love is both a deep and complex love.
March 8th, 2010 @ 1:20 pm
Dr. Brown,
I don’t want you to think I’m ignoring your refferences by my post on John 3:16, as I had written if before I read your responce. I will examin those Scriptures before I respond.
Thanks.
March 8th, 2010 @ 1:24 pm
Harold,
Do you believe God loves you more than say, an individual who is going or as some would say “predestined” to hell?
March 8th, 2010 @ 1:26 pm
Harold,
Please find me one verse in which world (kosmos in Greek) means “the elect.” Saying that God loved the world is saying that He loved every human being. This is further emphasized in passages like 1 John 2:2; 1 Tim 2:1-6; Heb. 2:9.
In any case, simply take a concordance and check out the usage of kosmos in the NT — in John’s writings in particular — and you’ll see that if never means “the elect.”
Perhaps you’re thinking too much about what the Word says (in an analytical, hyper-logical way) rather than just absorbing the obvious message?
March 8th, 2010 @ 1:27 pm
Matt,
Yes, of course, your simple analogy is correct.
March 8th, 2010 @ 1:34 pm
Matt,
Have you had time to read my response to you on the March 3rd forum?
Shalom
March 8th, 2010 @ 1:36 pm
Eric,
Did you see my post on the March 3rd forum?
Shalom
March 8th, 2010 @ 1:44 pm
Dangerous Bo, I only now just read it, sorry for the late response, I don’t know if there is a show on that topic – it’s fine though as I’ve been reading more and more of your posts I am starting to understand what you believe and I respect your views even if we differ in some areas. I would like to encourage you to keep doing what you are doing, God bless you!
Peace
March 8th, 2010 @ 1:47 pm
Harold,
As much as we need to be faithful to the text we also need to be faithful to communicate the true nature of God.
For instance, does God love all babies or just a minority of them? Let’s assume that one of your loved-ones is pregnant, do you look at her belly with a big question mark or are you comfortable with the notion that God genuinely loves that child. Does He skillfully form children in the womb for the purposes of wrath and eternal destruction, or is it His intention to be loving to them and offer them hope?
The common Calvinist interpretation of Romans 9 is at odds with God’s character.
God loves all of us and He demonstrated this by sending His Son to die in our place. 1 man’s sin brought death to all me. 1 man’s righteous act enabled all men to have life – yet all do not receive His free gift.
March 8th, 2010 @ 2:24 pm
Dr. Brown
How would you interpret the verse that says
“The LORD has made all for Himself, Yes, even the wicked for the day of doom” (proverbs 16:4).
March 8th, 2010 @ 2:37 pm
Dr. Brown,
I have heard you claim that kosmos never refers to the elect only before. I would ask you to reconsider your position for this:
The The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon gives good number of usages of the world kosmos (http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/kjv/kosmos.html),
(I should mention that I have found this sort of list in a number of other lexicons.)
It says,
“an apt and harmonious arrangement or constitution, order, government”
“ornament, decoration, adornment, i.e. the arrangement of the stars, ‘the heavenly hosts’, as the ornament of the heavens.”
“the world, the universe” Acts 17:24
“the circle of the earth, the earth”
“the inhabitants of the earth, men, the human family” like Romans 3:19
“the ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God, and therefore hostile to the cause of Christ” like John 15:18; Romans 3:6
“world affairs, the aggregate of things earthly”
“the whole circle of earthly goods, endowments riches, advantages, pleasures, etc, which although hollow and frail and fleeting, stir desire, seduce from God and are obstacles to the cause of Christ”
“any aggregate or general collection of particulars of any sort”
“the Gentiles as contrasted to the Jews” like Romans 11:12
“of believers only” And for this it gives these references: “John 1:29; 3:16; 3:17; 6:33; 12:47 1 Cor. 4:9; 2 Cor. 5:19″.
Particularly interesting is 2 Corinthians 5:18-19, “All this is from God, l who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us m the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.”
When it says, “God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them,” it could not possibly be referring to any but those who are saved, those who I believe the Scripture describes as elect. Unless people were actually regenerated, saved and justified, how could the text possibly say that these people actually have been reconciled to God at the cross where God did not count their trespasses against them?
Therefore, the word kosmos does not first and only refer to every human being, but has many meanings, each of which must be established in any particular passage.
If you take the word kosmos to refer to every human being in John 3:16, please establish this particular usage.
So again, in light of the then present reality that God had almost only dealt with with the people of Israel until then, do you not see that the thing that would strike the hearers of Jesus would have been that God is now undertaking to save non-Jews as well? Would not that have been the most obvious meaning?
As far as I can understand the issue of whether or not God is sending His Son to save every single person is not even an issue in this text or in the minds of Jesus’ hearers, or in the minds of the first Christians. I mean, it surprised many then that God was giving His Spirit to non-Jews, let alone every human being.
Does it not seem that this question of whether or not Jesus was saying that He had been sent into creation to save every person or not is a question of a modern, western, individualistic thinking?
March 8th, 2010 @ 3:00 pm
Harold,
Actually, you won’t find such a listing in the standard scholarly lexicons, but again, this is perfect example of reading into the texts what is being presupposed. Who is “the world” in John 1? Start at the beginning of the chapter and read until v. 12. It’s clear. Who is the world in John 1:29? The same people!
Our message to THE WORLD — meaning every person — is that God offers them mercy and salvation through the gospel, since Jesus has paid for all their sins (as written in 2 Cor 5), thus our call to THE WORLD — meaning every person — is to be reconciled to God.
To whom do you preach the gospel and say, “Be reconciled to God”? To the elect only or to every person?
Paul summed things up wonderfully well in 1 Tim 4:10 (and note what he had already written in 1 Tim 2:1-6): Jesus is the Savior of ALL MEN, in particular, those who believe. It is the latter who receive the benefits of what He did by faith and the former — ALL MEN — for whom He saving love.
Please, Harold, take out a Greek lexicon and mark every single time kosmos appears in John’s writings. The meaning is so clear as to be overwhelming.
This may be my last post on this for a while — as I mentioned several times, we’ve been over this ground time and again in the forum here, plus my time is limited — but I do hope and pray that you’ll see the truth of what I’m writing. I see absolutely zero contextual basis to support your argument in the least.
March 8th, 2010 @ 3:18 pm
Greg,
I want to be very careful to communicate the character of God from the Scriptures, as I am sure you do.
First, to answer how I look at children: Because I believe I am to understand the all things how they truly are from the Scripture, I must first see how the Bible views children. First, when I see a child I am blown away by the child as a blessing from God, because the Scripture says children are a blessing from the LORD.
Second, sadly I must recognize that, “that which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born or the Spirit is spirit.” So I recognize that because we are born first as a part of Adam’s humanity (as Rom 5 which you referenced speaks of) children are born hostile to the Law of God and are all headed for an eternity of just punishment. This were true of all people without exception, unless God had intervened. It is the intervening of God that puts someone in the new humanity that’s in Christ that Romans 5 talks about.
So I pray that God will save the soul of every child, woman, and man, because God is actually able to do so. I work as hard as I possibly can to make the gospel explicit and clear to them, because God can actually save them through it, and pray for God’s gracious will to be done.
I think that all Christians must look at people we do not know with a “big question” because none of us know who will be saved or not. I have no special glasses that make the elect glow green, so I know nothing more in that respect than the non-reformed person. I have nothing to do with whose eyes God choses to open.
The point is that blind people can’t chose to see God, only those to whom God gives sight. They chose God because God has shown in their hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ (2 Cor 4:6). They chose God just as freely and naturally as the bird choses to fly, they do so because it is then desirable and natural for them to do so. They have a new nature, new desires.
I know that God loves to save people and does so. Paul says, “Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham.” And God promised Abraham that his children would be as many as stars in the sky and as many as the sand of the world. So I don’t think of the elect as a small group of people! There will be myriads and myriads singing with incredible joy, “Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth.”
March 8th, 2010 @ 7:20 pm
Dr. Brown, in a previous program said, Romans chapter 9:13 is national and not about individuals because vs 12 says The elder shall serve the younger and that never ever happened between the individuals Jacob and Esau, Esau didn’t serve Jacob, but Esau’s decendants did serve Jacob’s decendants the nation of Israel.
Now listen to John Gill, who had it right, “The sense is, Esau shall be a servant to Jacob; which is to be understood, not of temporal servitude; for in this sense he never was a servant to him; so far from it, that as soon as Jacob had got the birthright and blessing, he was obliged to flee from the face and fury of Esau; and upon his return after many years, he sent messengers to Esau in a very submissive manner, charging them after this manner, “thus shall ye shall say to my lord Esau, thy servant Jacob saith thus”, &c. Gen_32:4, and when he found that his brother was coming to meet him, which threw him into a panic fear, lest he should “smite him, and the mother with the children”, Gen_32:11, he prepares presents for him; and when he came to him, bowed himself seven times, and his wives and children bowed likewise; and the language in which he addressed his brother Esau, all the while they were together, was that of “my lord”: now if this oracle was to be understood of outward temporal servitude, it is strange it should have no appearance, nor any shadow of an accomplishment in the persons of Jacob and Esau, supposing it was to have one in their posterity; and indeed the completion of it, in this sense, is not very evident in their offspring. It is certain, there was a long train of dukes and kings in Esau’s family, before there was any king in Israel; the posterity of Esau were in lordly grandeur and splendour, when the children of Israel were grievously oppressed with hard bondage in Egypt. The single instance usually referred to, when the Edomites became tributaries to David, was near a thousand years after the giving out of this oracle; and this show of servitude did not last long, for in Joram’s time they revolted, and so continued; and it is evident, that at the time of the Babylonish captivity, the children of Edom were prosperous and triumphant, and said concerning Jerusalem, “Raze it, raze it, even to the foundation thereof”, Psa_137:7, this servitude therefore is to be understood in a spiritual sense, of Esau’s exclusion from the favour of God, and blessings of grace, signified by his being rejected from inheriting the blessing, which was given to Jacob; and it appeared that he was not a son, but a servant, by his departure, and pitching his dwelling elsewhere; which showed he had no interest in spiritual adoption, no right to the covenant of grace, nor was he an heir of heaven, all which were peculiar to Jacob: Esau was a servant of sin, under the dominion of it, and in bondage to it; whilst Jacob was the Lord’s freeman, and, as a prince, had power with God and with men, and prevailed: Esau was serviceable to Jacob, both in things temporal and spiritual; as reprobates are to the elect, for all things are for their sakes, and work together for their good; Jacob’s being obliged to flee from his brother, was for his good; by this means he got him a suitable wife, and large substance: his brother’s meeting him on his return, which gave him so much pain and uneasiness, issued in his spiritual good; this sent him to the throne of grace, to humble himself before God, acknowledge his mercies, and his dependence on him, to implore his help, and plead his promises; and thus the oracle was verified in the persons of Jacob and Esau. (i) Midrash Kohelet, fol. 80. 1.”
Jesus in His human nature had passions or emotions because these are human things but in His eternal immutable omniscient God nature He didn’t. There are things that were true of His human nature that weren’t true of His God nature. In His human nature He was hungry, tired, and sleept, but these was not true of His God nature. When God said concerning Jesus “This is my beloved Son in whom I am well please”, was not about God having emotions but of His particular dealings with Jesus and of His relations to Jesus , they were and are one.
I would like to know something in John 3:16 when people say the word world mean everybody without exception in that passage do they mean every person from Adam to the last concevied person just before Jesus return? What does Dr. Brown, mean? If the answer is yes, can that meaning be consistantly apply to John 1:29? With such a meaning how much passage in the bible where the greek word kosmos (world) appear can such a meaning be consistantly to applied to that word?
For the proper interpretation of 1 Tim 4:10 check this link out http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/NTeSources/NTArticles/WTJ-NT/Baugh-1Tim4SaviorAll-WTJ.htm .
“The LORD has made all for Himself, Yes, even the wicked for the day of doom” (proverbs 16:4). That is unconditional reprobation by God of the nonelect.
If someone is giving me something, and me having or not having that thing depend on my ‘freewill’ acceptance or rejection of it then if I take it I now have it is based on my doing, if my ‘freewill’ acceptance of the gospel makes tthe difference of me going to Heaven then I will be in Heaven based on what I did and not based on the work of Jesus on the cross. And thus in Heaven I can boast of being there by what I did by my ‘frewill’. But nonsense and peope who preach it are cursed in Galatians.
March 8th, 2010 @ 7:25 pm
Gregory,
Are you going to answer my posts?
Shalom
March 8th, 2010 @ 8:19 pm
Dangerous Bo…can you please repeat that post again so that I can know specifically what you are talking about. By the way do you have a problem with using the names and terms God, Jesus Christ, Lord, etc.? If you do why? And what is your view of the New Testament?
March 8th, 2010 @ 9:22 pm
Gregory,
These are my posts to you:
1)What specific scriptures from Genesis to Malachi show your doctrine to be true?
2)Just references of the obvious passages will be sufficient.
Thanks.
3)I found these in one of your previous posts:
Ps. 115:3, 135:5-6, Isaiah 46:10
Are these the only Old Testament passages that clarify your view point? Please supply more references.
Timothy 3:16-17 says that the Tanakh “is profitable for doctrine…that the man of YHWH may be perfect…”
So give me some more references, please. Not commentary, references.
4)Eric and Harold make good points. You do seem to have a very 1 dimensional “god” that you have invented and then try to use scripture to back up you concept of Him. Aristotle would be proud, but Paul would just shake his head. YHWH is extremely more personal than are we. We are made in His image, not He in ours.
If what you proclaim is true, nothing we do matters. If nothing we do matters, why the argument? It just “is what it is”, and “God” is really just arguing with himself about something that is already a determined outcome. This is kind of a shallow, confused “god” don’t you think?
Shalom
March 8th, 2010 @ 9:42 pm
Gregory,
If I answer your questions extensively I would be breaking the rules for posting on this thread.
So in short:
I try to use the revealed names and titles instead of the substitutes and translations. It appears to me that YHWH told us to remember Him this way. Y’shua is the name that Father YHWH revealed for His Son to be called. So I try to Honor His wishes in both cases.
I think the “New Testament” is scripture on equal ground with the “Old Testament.” I think we need both and believe that YHWH’s will for us is only found in using all scripture as our authority. We should live by every word of YHWH.
Shalom
March 8th, 2010 @ 10:37 pm
Bo,
We’re discussing Torah in the New Covenant on the October 13th, 2009 thread. I was searching for “Law” and this is the first one that came up, but there are others, maybe pithier.
Anyway, this is a subject you’re convinced of, and we’re winnowing it out, not as any kind of contest, but because of Truth. That’s all that matters. Just finding that. You’d be welcome to join in.
I haven’t gotten back to you regarding “millennial” stuff because, I’m in Ezekial right now and I haven’t finished it. If it’s going to be used in a discussion, I want to have read the whole book first. Then I’ll look up your references, and if I have anything to communicate re that, I will.
Hey, Bo, don’t take it all too personally. Asking Dr. Brown for his take on this issue is part of discovery. These are the issues I’m sure the LORD meant for us to discuss; it’s all a part of His plan, to bring the Gentiles and Jews together, to have, as Erika just wrote, One People; One God. It’s brilliant.
Part of this process, no doubt, is in the members of the Body working out all the issues and stances that have placed walls between Jews and Gentiles.
God’s amazing.
Anyway, you are more than welcome to bring whatever you have to the table.
Right now, I’m still digesting stuff that Erika posted and that I posted…but we’re definitely going to be looking at all the classic doctrinal dividing walls between Messianic Jews and Messianic Christians.
All for Truth. It’s all that matters.
Peace bro
March 8th, 2010 @ 10:41 pm
correction: Ezekiel
March 8th, 2010 @ 10:58 pm
Oh, btw, it helps to get a fresh Line of Fire page and then in the search box, type in the date
March 8th, 2010 @ 11:31 pm
Gregory,
For some reason my earlier post to you disappeared. To repeat: As per my previous posts to you, I will not be engaging you here in dialog until you humble yourself and recognize the rest of the Body of Christ (as opposed to espousing the “Outside the Camp” website philosophy).
As such time, it will be my joy to discuss these issues as time permits.
March 8th, 2010 @ 11:35 pm
Ruth,
Shalom
March 9th, 2010 @ 5:09 am
you mean Craig Blomberg re: Historical reliablity of gospels?
March 9th, 2010 @ 7:54 am
All who would like to know why I say that I am not a Calvinist or hype-Calvinist can email me at, gbrookes02@yahoo.com . I do not want to go against to rule of this forum.
Gordon H. Clark in his commentary on 1 Timothy properly interprets 1 Tim 4:10 as well.
March 9th, 2010 @ 7:58 am
Gordon H. Clark’s commentary on 1 Timothy can be bought from, http://www.trinitylectures.org/catalog/index.php?cPath=21 .
March 9th, 2010 @ 8:35 am
Remember in the verse where God say’s, “this is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased”, the word Son there is figurarive not literal God The Father is not literally the father of God The Son. Words like beloved and well please in the passage are also just as figurative and not literal because God don’t and can’t have emotions so they not talking about God having emotions. Remember that God in His eternal being is eternally immutable and omniscient.
Dangerous Bo, I am thinking at how best to answer your questions I might just referance some sources for you to get so that you can read the answer to your questions. In them you will see the scriptures listed. Such sources are “The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, Documented” by David N. Steele, Curtis C. Thomas, and S. Lance Quinn, another is, “Studies in the Atonement” by Robert A. Morey, another is, “The Atonement” (Trinity paper) by Gordon Haddon Clark, and another is, “Predestination: The Combined Edition of Biblical Predestination and Predestination in the Old Testament” (Paperback) by Gordon Haddon Clark, these sources answer your questions and have listed the many OT scriptures that you ask about. You can get them all at http://www.amazon.com/ .
March 9th, 2010 @ 12:18 pm
Gregory is perfectly free to explain why he claims that he is not a Calvinist (but rather a Christian) here on this forum, since it is quite relevant to the discussion. It is especially relevant because he claims that all those who do not hold to his hyper-Calvinistic views are not Christians!
Also, for a useful discussion of the nature of hyper-Calvinism, see George Bryson, The Dark Side of Calvinism.
March 9th, 2010 @ 1:41 pm
Gregory, can you just please clarify what gospel someone must hold to in order to be saved? I understand you believe we must hold to your hyper-Calvinist views in order to be saved, but what are they exactly, perhaps you can make a small list?
Also and most importantly, do you believe we are saved by doctrine or by grace?
I am just curious how your gospel is different than say, an esoteric kind of gospel. You say we must come to a certain knowledge of God (IE hyper-Calvinist doctrines) in order to be saved. But yet you believe you, or I have nothing to do with our salvation – so why does it matter what doctrine we hold to if we can’t change where we are going when we die? I hope that isn’t a strawman argument but this is what you believe, isn’t it?
March 9th, 2010 @ 2:11 pm
Eric,
Good point, “Why does it matter what doctrine we hold to…” if it is all predetermined. Why should we not just go for the gusto and continue in the pleasures of sin knowing that one day we will be coming to faith and that there is nothing we can do about it. Or do the same thing knowing that we are going to hell any way. And keep in mind we can’t choose to do either one, it has been decided for us whether we like it or not, according to this gospel of Gregory’s. At least that is what it looks like to me.
Eric, I posted an answer for you on the Oct 13 Forum.
Shalom
March 9th, 2010 @ 4:02 pm
The elect are saved by grace only but there is a figurative sense in which we can say that the elect are saved by doctrine who believes:, the bible say the gospel saves the elect who believes, eg. Roman 1:16. When an elect hear the gospel, in God’s own time The Holy Spirit work through the words or doctrine of the gospel causing the elect to believe it and to be saved. So in that figurative sense the doctrine of the gospel saves.
A brief summary of the gospel is The Lord God Jesus Christ came to seek and save the lost elect helpless (who can’t save themselves) sinners of God, and that He did, He did both seek and saved them all, and that He rose from the dead on the third day because of their salvation. That this is the only one true gospel that saves from hell, sin, and God’s wrath to be in the kingdom of God for all eternity. And that all who believe the gospel are saved by God’s grace. One can’t be saved and not believe the gospel.
So why does it matter what doctrine we hold to if we can’t change where we are going when we die? God predestine both the means (the gospel) and the end of the elects’ salvation (the kingdom of Heaven in relationship to and in fellowship with Him) for His glory. God will cause the elect to believe the gospel when it is preached to them and be saved all in God’s own timing. Not one of them will be lost in Hell.
March 9th, 2010 @ 4:10 pm
I prefer not to use this forum to explain why I am not a Calvinist or hyper-Calvinist, because I may not be this restained in my language. If anyone email me to find out why I say that I am not any of such do so at their own risk, be warned. Many can’t handle the truth.
March 9th, 2010 @ 4:16 pm
Gregory, you are saying, “That this is the only one true gospel that saves from hell…”
At what point in time were you *saved* from hell, and were you ever in danger of going to hell?
March 9th, 2010 @ 6:36 pm
Eric…that is the only true gospel that saves. I was saved from Hell when I believed that gospel of the bible.
March 9th, 2010 @ 7:09 pm
Gregory,
You said “Jesus in His human nature had passions or emotions because these are human things but in His eternal immutable omniscient God nature He didn’t. There are things that were true of His human nature that weren’t true of His God nature. In His human nature He was hungry, tired, and sleept, but these was not true of His God nature. When God said concerning Jesus “This is my beloved Son in whom I am well please”, was not about God having emotions but of His particular dealings with Jesus and of His relations to Jesus , they were and are one.”
Do you have any Biblical support that God doesnt have any emotions? Please, no commentaries. Only Scripture.
March 9th, 2010 @ 7:41 pm
Ben KC…I am going to have to say this, all that can be logically and properly deduced from scripture are just as much scripture as that which is directly written in God’s Word (see the WestMinister Confession on this point they got this one right) Jesus and the men of God also deduced certain scriptual truths from written scriptures, see eg. Luke 20:27-44 and Galatians 3:16. All scriptures that talk about God’s eternal immutability and omniscience are also saying just as much scriptually and deductively that God don’t have emotions or passions. How can God in His being that is eternally immutable and omniscient have emotion literally in His being? Can somebody please explain that to me. Emotions come and go and they changes in a being. How can that be true of God’s eternal immutable and omniscient being.
March 9th, 2010 @ 7:42 pm
Gregory,
Please give us scripture references so we can study the word. Where does it say YHWH has no emotion?
Is this a philosphy? Or is it stated in scripture?
Shalom
March 9th, 2010 @ 8:03 pm
Dangerous Bo…There is no scripture that directly say God has no emotion just like there is no scripture that directly say God is a trinity but the concepts are there and they are properly deduced from what is written. Read my last comment again.
March 9th, 2010 @ 8:06 pm
Gregory,
Then give us a set of scriptures that we can logically deduce that this must be true.
Shalom
March 9th, 2010 @ 8:07 pm
Gregory,
That should have been:
Then give us a set of scriptures from which we can logically deduce that this must be true.
Shalom
March 9th, 2010 @ 8:12 pm
Gregory, you mentioned, “…God’s eternal immutable and omniscient being.”
Since God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and Jesus has always been in total harmony with the Father, how do you reconcile Luke 9:56 (For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them.) with the concept of unconditional election?
Are the non-elect mere animals and not men?
If you believe that He was only referring to the elect then that would suggest that Christ only loved and desired to save a small minority of people as well as suggesting it was His intention to eternally destroy (hate) the non-elected super majority.
Is this supposed hatred of a super majority of people in any way reflected in the Gospel accounts of Jesus?
March 9th, 2010 @ 8:22 pm
Gregory,
A court judge or jury is supposed to give sentence in an impartial manner. They may experience emotions while the testimony is being given, but just because they feel empathy or disgust does not mean that they will let that influence the verdict. YHWH may be disgusted with our actions or feel empathy toward our situation, but that does not preclude Him from judging righteously or impartially. It does not make His character change.
Shalom
March 9th, 2010 @ 8:24 pm
Gregory,
You said “All scriptures that talk about God’s eternal immutability and omniscience are also saying just as much scriptually and deductively that God don’t have emotions or passions.”
This interpretation is incorrect. Plus you cannot support your conclusion since you have not provided a clear Biblical passage. You only attempted to make assumptions.
March 9th, 2010 @ 8:26 pm
Dangerous Bo…All scriptures that talk about God’s eternal immutability and omniscience are also saying just as much scriptually and deductively that God don’t have emotions or passions. How can God in His being that is eternally immutable and omniscient have emotion literally in His being? Can somebody please explain that to me. Emotions come and go and they changes in a being. How can that be true of God’s eternal immutable and omniscient being.
Books that list scriptures on God eternally immutable and omniscient attributes are, “Battle of the Gods”, “Exploring the Attributes of God”, “The Nature and Extent of God’s Knowledge”, they are all authored by Dr. Robert Morey, and you can by them at http://shop.faithdefenders.com/SearchResults.asp?Cat=29 .
I am living in the West Indies and I have made the investment I have them all and more. If you are are living in the USA you can surely make the same investment if you have not already done so. I don’t work for much. And it is much more expensive for me than for someone living in the USA. This is the best that I am going to do in listing the scriptures.
March 9th, 2010 @ 8:44 pm
Gregory,
I appreciate your investment as far as money involved and the time it takes to earn that money. Americans are very wealthy and would probably do well to spend their money on that which is truly “Bread.” Myself included.
I would like to see if you can defend your position with scripture instead of relying on books that may or may not be teachings of men. I would like to hear from YHWH by reading that which is absolutely true(scripture) instead of the reading of many books that is “vanity.”
In saying all this I am concerned that you have been instructed by man instead of YHWH’s spirit. I hope you are one of the elect. I would like you to list the scriptures that verify your points. I fear that you have accepted logic over revelation.
Shalom
March 9th, 2010 @ 9:09 pm
Ben KC…God’s eternal immutability and omniscience are mutually exclusive to emotions. Emotions are apart of our beings or our make up. Emotions come and go and they changes in a being. When they changes to that extent our being changes with them since they are an inherant apart of our being. When I have happy emotions I am a happy being, when they change to sadness I have changed to a sad being, the same happens when I am angry, etc. Therefore I am not immutability my being keep changing based on my changing emotions, it keep changing emotionally. But God is eternally immutability and omniscient in His being therefore no change occure whatsoever in His being, therefore He has no emotions.
Greg, yes Jesus was referring to His elect only and that is consistant with Jesus teachings in the gospel.
March 9th, 2010 @ 9:12 pm
If something is immutable it never ever changes in anyway at all, if it does in anyway then it is not immutable.
March 9th, 2010 @ 9:17 pm
Gregory,
What are the scriptures that show YHWH’s immutability?
Shalom
March 9th, 2010 @ 11:39 pm
“Greg, yes Jesus was referring to His elect only and that is consistant with Jesus teachings in the gospel.”
Christ said, I came to save and not destroy. God’s immutable. It has always been His intention to save all men. He didn’t come to destroy the Pharisees, Sadducees, or anyone else. They willingly chose to reject Him.
Why tell the Pharisees and scribes, “Woe to you…blind..fools..hypocrits,” if you’re the one that created them to act that way? It’s an utterly fallacious position.
If the immutable God hates the non-elect and has created them for destruction, this type of attitude is not at all revealed in the character of the biblical Jesus. What we read “consistently” about in the Gospels is a God that genuinely loves everyone and wants them to repent & believe.
Please provide scriptural support that Jesus, the immutable God, hates people.
March 10th, 2010 @ 12:07 am
Gregory,
You conclusion doesnt reflect Scripture. The OT and NT expresses God’s emotion.
March 10th, 2010 @ 3:56 am
God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent who expresses His emotions. For example:
“Then the LORD came down in the cloud and stood there with him and proclaimed his name, the LORD. And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, “The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness…” Exodus 34:5-6
God’s expression of His emotion does not contradict His nature. There is no Biblical support that says God has no emotion.
March 10th, 2010 @ 6:27 am
Amen, Ben.
March 10th, 2010 @ 10:07 am
Dangerous Bo…some scriptures on YHWH’s immutability Num. 23:19 ,1 Sam. 15:29, Num 23:19, 1 Sam. 15:29, Mal. 3:6. Even God’s very name “I AM” implies that He does not change. In the words of Dr. Norman Geisler, “this statement identifies God in terms of His immutable and eternal Being.” Dr. Geisler suggests that the Hebrew word for I AM found in Exod. 3:14, can be translated “the One Who Always Is.” His name is not “I will be” or “I have been.” But the I AM simply “is.” The past and present tenses of the word “to be” indicate a state of change either from being something or to being something. I AM tells us clearly there is no before or after in God. This is precisely why the Psalmist says “Those who know your name will trust in you” (Ps. 9:10). He is simply “I AM.”
These verses make it clear that God not only does not change, but cannot change. His immutability is part of His nature and as such, He cannot act contrary to His nature.
Dangerous Bo, do you believe that the NT was written in greek and that the authors of it used Theos, kyrios, etc. for Lord and God, and not Elohim and YHWH?
Greg, you said, “Why tell the Pharisees and scribes, “Woe to you…blind..fools..hypocrits,” if you’re the one that created them to act that way? It’s an utterly fallacious position.”
Jesus simply called them for what they were as God made them to be. See Rom. 9:11, 13, 15-23, esp. vss 22-23.
One of the ways to know that what you are teaching is scriptual is, do you provoke the same quetions that authors of the bible provoked? If you are not provoking the same questions then know for sure you are teaching something very different. If man has a freewill and God desires or wants all to be saved without exception and genuinely loves everyone, is gracious and mercyful to all without exception, then whow such a teaching can logically provoke the questions in Rom 9:14, 19 that Paul provoked at his teaching.
In different words these are the very same questions that I am now provoking on the site with the same presuppositions that Pauls questioners had at his teachings in Rom 9:14, 19. But your all teachings can’t logically provoke the same questions that Paul provoked. I challenge you all to prove me wrong in this.
Greg, you said, “What we read “consistently” about in the Gospels is a God that genuinely loves everyone and wants them to repent & believe.”
All that God wants He brings to pass without exception Ps. 115:3, 135:5-6, Isaiah 46:10. So that mean you aught to believe in universalism, ie. God will cause all to repent & believe to be consistant with Ps. 115:3, 135:5-6, Isaiah 46:10 or you will be going against them.
Rom 8:28 (in order for God to work all things for the good of His own He must first be working all things), Rom. 11:36, Eph. 1:11, etc. teaches that all that exist in, take place and happens in God’s creation are by the hand of God it is all of God’s doing and directing. Those above scriptures atleast teaches that much truth.
Ben KC, “Then the LORD came down in the cloud and stood there with him and proclaimed his name, the LORD. And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, “The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness…” Exodus 34:5-6. These verses are describing the gracious, blessed, favourable, dealings of God with His Elect for His glory and their good. To say that they are talking about literal emotions in God being is to go against His eternal immutable and omnoscient attributes logically speaking based on scripture. Plain and simple.
March 10th, 2010 @ 10:11 am
Read this very important article on God’s omniscience, http://www.the-highway.com/omniscience_Clark.html .
March 10th, 2010 @ 10:21 am
Gregory,
I continue to wait for you Biblical passage that confirms God has no emotion. You continue to use your logical and philosophical reasoning and commentaries instead of letting Scripture speak for itself.
March 10th, 2010 @ 10:35 am
Very, very great articles concerning God and emotions,
http://puritanreformed.blogspot.com/2009/11/god-who-suffers-evaluating-dennis.html ,
http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/impassib.htm ,
Please to read these articles everybody.
March 10th, 2010 @ 10:44 am
Ben KC, God’s eternal immutablity and omniscience implies lack of emotions. What scriptures implies is just as much scripture as what is directly written in God’s Word. Please to prove me wrong if you can.
March 10th, 2010 @ 10:49 am
Gregory,
You interpretation implies lack of emotion. Scripture implies God has emotion.
March 10th, 2010 @ 10:59 am
Ben KC…Please to read these very, very great articles concerning God and emotions,
http://puritanreformed.blogspot.com/2009/11/god-who-suffers-evaluating-dennis.html ,
http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/impassib.htm . They will inform you alot about the scripture teaching on the issue. Please to read them.
March 10th, 2010 @ 11:12 am
Greg,
how do you discount the myriads of verses that speak of God being Jealous, having Zeal, joy? He even lets us experience part of that Joy through the Holy Spirit now!! The fruit of joy is something we experience through God’s Spirit! So if already we taste of his joy that means when we enter his presence having completely done away with this earthly body we will experience joy as we have never experienced before. It seems you strip God of much of what makes Him so beautiful. Namely His Love. If God does not feel emotion that means he doesn’t love. If He doesn’t love that means scripture is false when it says He loved us first and that a vital characteristic of Him is Love. You are pretty much robbing both the Gospel of John and the first epistle of John of God’s Love.
Then we can go through myriads of scripture. In your endevour to understand what God is like, do not superimpose your presuppositions on Him when scripture is clear.
March 10th, 2010 @ 11:15 am
Gregory,
Scripture is sufficient enough to let me know God has emotions.
March 10th, 2010 @ 11:23 am
Greg,
If Scripture does in fact speak of God’s immutability then it is in regard to his eternality and the fact that he always is and his character does not change. We see this in scripture God never goes against his character and he is eternal and so speaks the future from the beginning! However he also feels, if that isn’t so….then you might as well call God a liar Greg. Because He reveals Himself as
“The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness” (Exodus 34:6)
Again he also says:
“The LORD is slow to anger, abounding in love and forgiving sin and rebellion. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation.”
Tell me why have would God be described as being wrathful in both the OT and NT if He didn’t have emotion. Wrath is intense outrage, in the case of God it is intense outrage and anger over human sin.
So many psalms describe God as having love that endures forever!! God has emotions beyond what you and I clearly understand. All we can speak on is what has been said. Not what we can deduce.
As the proverb says :
Trust in the LORD with all your heart
and lean not on your own understanding
I urge you to reconsider your position as it truly is not what the volumes of the books of scripture speak of.
March 10th, 2010 @ 11:25 am
Gregory,
I would advice you to use the Scripture. It sounds like commentaries are more authoritative to you than what Scripture has to say.
March 10th, 2010 @ 11:29 am
Mwiya,
There is a Greg and a Gregory on the forum. To avoid any confusion, it would be best to address him as his full name; Gregory.
March 10th, 2010 @ 1:39 pm
Gregory,
Check out this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_that_I_Am
It states that, “it more literally translates as “I-shall-be that I-shall-be.”
Dr. Brown,
How do you translate this phrase?
Shalom
March 10th, 2010 @ 1:45 pm
Gregory,
I’ll answer your questions once you have answered mine.
Where in the gospels can I find examples of the unchangeable God (Jesus) hating people. If He hated a super majority of people (non-elect) before creation by selecting them for damnation, where can I find an example of this type of hatred in the Gospels? God is immutable and changes not. Therefore, I should be able to witness this type of character in the gospel accounts.
Greg
March 10th, 2010 @ 2:13 pm
Gregory,
You asked:
“Dangerous Bo, do you believe that the NT was written in greek and that the authors of it used Theos, kyrios, etc. for Lord and God, and not Elohim and YHWH?”
My response:
There are different scholarly views concerning this. I can see merit in the three or four views that I have looked into. I think that the Greek manuscripts that we have are at least good translations of the possibly Semetic originals. It can’t make too much difference to me as I speak English and even English translations get almost everything right.
With this said, I still have to go with some very direct statements in scripture. Here are just a couple:
Ex 3:15 God also said to Moses, “Say this to the Israelites: Yahweh, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is My name forever; this is how I am to be remembered in every generation. HCSB
Isa 42:8 I am YHWH: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.
But this is a bit off topic.
Shalom
March 10th, 2010 @ 2:30 pm
Ben KC,
Thanks for that, lol. Much appreciated.
March 10th, 2010 @ 3:03 pm
Bo,
It is possible to translate with “I am that I am,” or, “I am the one who is,” or, “I will be who/what I will be” — among other possibilities. When I read it in Hebrew, I get the “feel” of the verse and it’s hard for me to convey it in precise English.
So, I haven’t landed on a definite “best” translation. Great question!
March 10th, 2010 @ 3:08 pm
Love is not an emotion or a feeling it is obediance to God’s Word that’s all love is, see Rom 13:8, 10, esp. vs 10, and Galatians 5:14.
March 10th, 2010 @ 3:26 pm
Dr. Brown,
What about “YHWH” is it “I cause to be” or “I am” or….?
Shalom
March 10th, 2010 @ 4:00 pm
YHWH is a causative form from h-w-h (which later became h-y-h), hence, “He who causes things to be, He who brings things to pass, He who brings things into existence.”
March 10th, 2010 @ 4:34 pm
Everybody please to read these very, very great articles concerning God and emotions,
http://puritanreformed.blogspot.com/2009/11/god-who-suffers-evaluating-dennis.html ,
http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/impassib.htm . They will inform you alot about the scripture’s teaching on the issue. Please to read them.
Mwiya…When scriptures talk about God’s immutabilty it is talking about His whole being as eternally immutable. Remember God, doesn’t have a body He is Spirit. I am going to have to say this, all that can be logically and properly deduced from scripture are just as much scripture as that which is directly written in God’s Word (see the WestMinister Confession on this point they got this one right) Jesus and the men of God also deduced certain scriptual truths from written scriptures, see eg. Luke 20:27-44 and Galatians 3:16. All scriptures that talk about God’s eternal immutability and omniscience are also saying just as much scriptually and deductively that God don’t have emotions or passions. How can God in His being that is eternally immutable and omniscient have emotions literally in His being? Can you or somebody please explain that to me. Emotions come and go and they changes in a being. How can that be true of God’s eternal immutable and omniscient being. Does God suffer emotionally?
Greg, when Jesus was on earth as a man, as far as where His human nature is concern, I can’t at this moment tell you of any scripture the say that Jesus in His human nature hated anybody or that He loved everybody without exception, do you know of any such scripture that say He love everybody without exception, that there was no one that He hated. Jesus many very harsh words to the religious leaders of His day may suggest to me that He may have hated many of them in His human nature as well. But there are things that may be true of His human nature that may not necessarily be ture of His God nature. So even if (which I see no proof or evidence of) the Jesus loved everybody in His human nature does not mean that it was also so in His God nature too. Romans 9:13, Ps. 5:5, 11:5-6 say that there are people who God hates. Those are the nonelect predestine by God for Hell who God hates. I go with the whole bible and not just the gospel only, the rest of the bible are just as much God’s words as the gospels are.
Dangerous Bo, One of the worst place you can go to for information is wikipedia.org it is too unreliable . I use it too but I don’t bank on it, I don’t put any stock in it neither should you too.
March 10th, 2010 @ 5:38 pm
Gregory,
Do not fret, I almost never go to wikipedia. It was just the first reference that showed the possibility for translating the verse “I shall be what I shall be.” Dr. Brown reconizes that this is also possible.
YHWH’s name meaning “He who causes things to be” coupled together with “I shall be what I shall be” makes me think that He is revealing that He is the creator and that He is sovereign more so than that He is immutable.
I believe that He is unchanging in the ways that the scripture reveals Him to be, but not in some philosophical sense that goes beyond what scripture indicates.
Shalom
March 10th, 2010 @ 6:23 pm
Dangerous Bo, always remember scriptures indicates things directly and indrectly by way of implications, ie. by way of logical deductions as Jesus and Paul showed to us. Always remember that.
By the way the earliest NT manuscripts are in greek using Theos, kyrios, etc. for Lord and God, and not Elohim and YHWH, These greek manuscripts do not bear the marks of been translations, but copies of the original. The manuscripts are the only hard evidence we have to go on concerning the original language of the NT.
March 10th, 2010 @ 6:29 pm
Gregory,
You said, “…there are things that may be true of His human nature that may not necessarily be true of His God nature.”
So is God divided? Was Jesus NOT in total harmony with the Father? This seems to conflict with the idea of Christ being the Rock of our salvation. Christ said a house divided is like sinking sand…
Do you believe that Jesus could express love to someone in His human nature, but hate them in His God nature?
If Jesus told you to your face “I love you Gregory,” but, according to supposed Unconditional Election, hated you from eternity past, would not this behavior seem evil?
Have I misunderstood you?
Greg
March 10th, 2010 @ 6:55 pm
Gregory,
There are early testimonies to Matthew originally being composed in Hebrew. There are some indications in Revelation that show that it could have been translated from Hebrew. The book of Hebrews…what can I say? Y’shua spoke to Paul in the Hebrew tongue. All of scripture came to us through Hebrew speaking people.
The earliest fragments of the Septuagint have YWHW’s name in Paleo Hebrew. The next earliest have it in post Babalonian exile Hebrew. The later copies use Theos and and Kyrios. How do we know that we do not have at least 3rd generation Greek texts (with replaced names) of the New Testament?
It still does not matter to me as I speak English and have found no problems of note in the Greek. And I have the Hebrew scriptures of the Old Testament that tell me that YHWH wants to always be remembered as YHWH not Theos, Kyrios, LORD, God, Baal, etc. If That is what He wanted, “to all generations,” and He does not change (immutable) I doubt that He asked the NT writers to call Him something different. And they did speak Hebrew.
But we are off topic again.
I have no problem with logic being used, though I have trouble using it correctly sometimes, but I do have a problem with using phiosophical and theological statements as a basis of understanding the meaning of scripture. It should be the other way around. The scripture should reign supreme. The logic and implications should be made to bow before the direct statements in scripture.
Shalom
March 10th, 2010 @ 8:10 pm
Dangerous Bo… you said, “The logic and implications should be made to bow before the direct statements in scripture.” Just remember always the logic and implications of the scriptures are just as much scripture as the direct statements.
All that we can go on is the hard evidence and that is the greek manuscripts of the NT, those other early testimonies can be in error. We have no evidence or proof of their truthfulness. And we have fragments of manuscripts of the NT (including of Matthew) from the first century in greek using Theos, Kyrios, Iesous, etc. read the book, The first New Testament by David Estrada Herrero. What you said about the earliest fragments of the Septuagint using YWHW’s name, I have read different, I believe the book was Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New Testament: A Critical Analysis, by Robert H. Countess, or it might of been, The Books and the Parchments: How We Got Our English Bible by F. F. Bruce, where I read differently.
Greg, my statement “…there are things that may be true of His human nature that may not necessarily be true of His God nature” is true. I believe who Jesus love in His human nature He loved in His God nature, and I don’t not see where he loved everbody without exception. And I don’t believe that He could of love a person in His human nature and hate them in His God nature. I believe He hated all the nonelect in His human nature as well.
March 10th, 2010 @ 8:11 pm
You can get the above mentioned books at amazon.com.
March 10th, 2010 @ 8:47 pm
Shalom
March 10th, 2010 @ 8:48 pm
Gregory,
You said, “I believe He hated all the non-elect in His human nature as well.”
I want to strongly encourage you to reconsider this position. I’m genuinely concerned for you. This position is not good.
I do, however, respect your honesty and your unwillingness to water-down the inescapable conclusions of TULIP
Blessings.
March 10th, 2010 @ 8:48 pm
Gregory,
Here is a photo of the Paleo Hebrew YHWH.
Shalom
March 10th, 2010 @ 8:48 pm
Another hyper-Calvinistic statement worth noting at the end of Gregory’s last post: God hates all the non-elect! And to think: According to this theology, God created and formed them for this very purpose: To be hated throughout time and eternity.
How different is the message of John 3:16-17 when read in its simple, straightforward, and contextual meaning.
March 10th, 2010 @ 9:00 pm
Gregory,
I guess my link is unacceptable to this site.
So try this:
1) Search eliyah
2) click on “Eliyah’s home page”
3) go down to “Newer Scripture Studies”
4) click on “Tetragrammaton found in earliest copies of the Septuagint!”
Shalom
March 10th, 2010 @ 9:03 pm
Dr. Brown,
My link would not post. Is something wrong?
Shalom
March 10th, 2010 @ 9:15 pm
Gregory,
No, logic is NOT just as much scripture as scripture itself! The “implications” in scripture are subservient to the direct statements of scripture.
Shalom
March 10th, 2010 @ 10:35 pm
Gregory, according to your views, when someone filled with the Holy Spirit? When they believe, before they believe? Just curious because Romans 8:9 says (NKJ)
“But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.”
So, this whole “elect” idea of God choosing who are “His” before the foundation of the world only works out if someone is filled with the Holy Spirit/the Spirit of Messiah while in the womb. Because as the scripture says, if they are not filled with the Holy Spirit they are not His (guessing that means elect). Maybe I am misunderstanding the text here, possibly you or someone can clear up for me what this scripture is saying.
So if I am reading that correctly my question is, were you always filled with the Holy Spirit, Gregory?
March 10th, 2010 @ 11:29 pm
Bo,
I just spotted your question. I don’t moderate the posts here, and I’m not able to keep up with most of them. I have no idea what happened to your link. You can certainly try to post it again.
March 11th, 2010 @ 1:01 am
Gregory,
When and if you ever experience Divine Love (it is not carnal, not filial, not in the normal range of human emotion), then you will know, with total certainty, that it is paraemotional and definitely “real.” It is something you will feel, but it will be beyond any other “emotion” you’ve ever known in breadth and beauty.
It is a spiritual state of being to be experienced, and it is given. As strange as this may sound to those who’ve never known this, the experience of Divine Love can also have an attendant fragrance which is left with you. There isn’t an earthly counterpart to it; the closest aroma might be like a rose, but it is wider in range of notes and sweeter and deeper. It is really indescribeable with words. If the Love you receive, however, is unshared by you, that is, you hold it in, but you don’t share it with others, it actually will begin to smell like a “stale” version of itself. Because it is meant to be shared.
This is because Love is both passive and dynamic; and it is pure compassion. Compassion in superabundance which will seek an outlet for expression, like water does. But it is also, in fact, the most powerful force, and I’m convinced, the highest reality. It is virtually inresistible.
The few months in which I experienced this phenomena of Divine Love (as a young, naive seeker of God) are unforgettable.
The Holy Scriptures do confirm that “God is Love.” (1 John 4:8) And I would say, Love is God.
For anyone who might be thinking this is too bizarre to be Divine, or “Christian,” I can only say that in the experience of Divine Love, there is no doubt that it is anything other than perfectly pure. And perfection really is the Divine signature.
March 11th, 2010 @ 1:20 am
Gregory,
One thing that I’m thankful came out of the reformation is a return to complete reliance on the Word of God and the illumination of the Spirit in order to understand it. Now I understand that commentaries are and can be useful but I also know that they can be the opposite. So to avoid interpreting other men’s interpretations why don’t we limit ourselves to the Bible.
The scriptures are clear as clear can be that God has emotions you can not deny this. Scripture is clear on the matter. What you are attempting to do is to rationalize this in view of your thinking that God does not have emotions. So you take your ideas and wherever in scripture there is a description of God’s emotions you fit it into your own views. Its not unlike what Catholics do with Marian dogma’s by calling Jesus’ earthly siblings his cousins or referring to the woman of revelations 12 as Mary etc. Clearly they are reading into the text and so are you.
No where in scripture does it say God is totally and whollistically immutable. He has certain things about him that are immutable. But he does clearly change emotions. He can be delighted and clearly unhappy. How do we understand this in light of his eternality and omniscience? How do we understand the emotions of God? That is like asking how do we comprehend the fullness of the mind and heart of God!? We can’t!! Its incomprehensible! He is inexhaustible!
I find it hard to reconcile your views with the great and awesome love of God revealed in his scriptures; the glory of which we see in the face of Messiah. In fact its not possible to truly reconcile your views with the truth of God’s loving character. Why else would God say to us, that we love become he first loved us? This was not some mechanical show by God, especially when he asks for our own love to be genuine! His Love is genuine in truth!
I would kindly urge you to repent of your views and seek the face of God. The Gospel is so much about the Love of God. The Reign and ruler-ship of God is so much about God’s love and Holiness triumphing over death, wickedness and sin.
Gregory, I urge you to repent! If not at least be of an open mind on the issue and seek God over the issue.
March 11th, 2010 @ 2:14 pm
Wow! I am sure for this site this page is setting some kind of record for the number of comments. We are making some sort of history here. That a light note, lol.
Now unto serious matters, Dr. Brown, John 3:16-17, like all other words and passages in the bible they are to be interpretated in context of the whole bible. By the way I have asked this question more than once and I am yet to get an answer for it, does the word world in the passage mean everyone without exception from Adam to last person concevied just before Jesus return? Yes! God before He created anything He hated all the non-elect, Romans 9:13, 22, Ps. 5:5, 11:5-6, proverbs 16:4.
Dangerous Bo, I said, “Just remember always the logic and implications of the scriptures are just as much scripture as the direct statements.” I said, “…logic…of the scriptures…” and not just logic only.
Eric, my understanding of being filled with the Spirit is being under the control of the Spirit in other words the more one is sanctified the more one is filled with the Spirit and there are times one is more filled with the Spirit than at other times. And that it is something that we aught to be praying for continually. What I think you meant is the indwelling of The Spirit, and that is what Romans 8:9 is talking about. We are indwelt by the Spirit at regeneration. The Spirit is who causes christians to be regenerated and then to believe the gospel, this is the logical and causal order of such. In the chronological order they all happen simultaniously. See Dr.Robert Morey’s book “Studies In The Atonement” for a fuller explanation. This happens to God’s elect after their birth in God’s time only John the baptizer (as far as I know) had these and the filling of The Spirit while inside the womb. To best of my knowledge only Jesus was always filled with The Spirit. Christians are always indwelt by The Spirit (once save always save).
Ruth Smith, Love is not a feeling or an emotion it is obediance to God’s word, see Rom 13:8, 10, esp. vs 10, and Galatians 5:14. I experience God’s love when He saved me by His Spirit, caused me to believe His gospel message, made me apart of His family, and to obey His Word, this is how I experiance God’s love with all of His other blessings that He has given me to enjoy. As an elect of God He foreloved or foreknew me from all eternity, see eg. Eph 1, Rom 8:28-30. Emotions and feelings are not apart of love but they may at times be byproducts of love if and when they are present. You have made a very, very, very, serious error “love is not God” repent of it, but yes “God is love”. A dog is a four footed animal, that does not make it correct to say a four footed animal is necessarily a dog. What you said is idolatry making love into God.
Mwiya, I appriciate you keen insight above the others to see that if God has emotions then He is not completely immutable, you are very sharp with that insight and logic and I wished that the rest could see that as well, but you are wrong. God did not say, apart of me, or some of me, or even most of me changes not, Rather He said that He (all of Him) changes not. It is all of Him that is immutable, it is His dealings with His creatures that changes. Remember God is Spirit He does not have a body. I don’t quote commentaries, etc. just for the sake of quoting them, the best of them are still fallible, errant, and uninspired. I believe that they are correct scriptually atleast as far as I am recommending them in relation to a particular subject but it is still up to you to prove all things by God’s Word and hold fast to that which is good according to God’s Word. It is just that I am convinced in this or that particular area in relationship to what I am recommending them for that I believe that they are atleast mostly correct, thats all, and I believe you might profit or get certain insights from them as well.
Also on emotions and God, what is clear to me is that you are taking figurative language literally and thus making wrong conclusions like the rest but atleast only you so far clearly see the implications of saying that God has emotions and what that means concerning His immutabilty.
Dangerous Bo, it might be linguistically possible to translate I AM in Exodus 3:14 as “I shall be what I shall be.” But Dr. Norman Geisler, seems to disagree with that translation, even so that translation don’t make sense to me, in context God is talking about His Being, taking that in context what God shall be that He is not already? Dr. Norman Geisler’s translation “the One Who Always Is” seems alot more better and drives with the context and with what the entire bible teaches about God. Even if the Septuagint earliest copies has YHWH it still don’t matter to me, the only hard evidence that we have to go on are the greek copies of the manuscripts of the NT that show us that that NT was written in greek. Some of these copies surviving as fragments that date back before 70 AD. These are the only hard evidences that we have to go on concerning the original language of the NT. All else are just somebody’s fallible, errant, uninspired theory, why settle for theory over very hard evidence, hard evidence tramps theory any and everytime. Don’t settle for theory when you have hard evidence.
Nevertheless you can still send me the link to my email if you care to, it is gbrookes02@yahoo.com .
March 11th, 2010 @ 2:44 pm
Folks, although, by policy, I am not interacting directly with Gregory until he renounces his exclusivism and recognizes the rest of the Body of Christ, and although I’m only catching a few posts here and there, I did notice his note to Bo, above, “it might be linguistically possible to translate I AM in Exodus 3:14 as ‘I shall be what I shall be.’” As a Hebrew scholar I can assure you that this is absolutely linguistically possible!
March 11th, 2010 @ 3:06 pm
Mwiya wrote:
“No where in scripture does it say God is totally and holistically immutable. He has certain things about him that are immutable. But he does clearly change emotions. He can be delighted and clearly unhappy. How do we understand this in light of his eternality and omniscience?”
I make a simple but perhaps useful distinction that may be helpful here.
I distinguish between God’s character (He is loving, He is personal, etc.) and attributes (He is omnipresent, He is all knowing, etc.) and HIS INTERACTIONS WITH US. His interactions with us are conditional and not absolute (e.g. the blessings and cursings given to the Israelites, If you obey you will be blessed, if you disobey you will be cursed).
While God’s character and attributes never change, his interactions with us, will change. Another example, he will treat you differently when you are an unbeliever, compared with when you are a believer.
Robert
March 11th, 2010 @ 3:18 pm
To be clear, we’re talking about the phrase ehyeh asher ehyeh.
March 11th, 2010 @ 3:23 pm
Dr. Norman Geisler, is a world renown and respected linguistic scholar and I would think much more so than Dr Michael L Brown, it seems to me Dr. Norman Geisler, is in disagreement with Dr Michael L Brown. Of course than don’t make Dr Michael L Brown wrong and Dr. Norman Geisler, right. I am just pointing this out just as a point of intrest. Dr. Norman Geisler, is no little boy in the study biblical languages, again that don’t make him right. I think James White, in his book “The Potter Freedom” has properly and correctly for the most part answered Dr. Norman Geisler, so I am not making him out to be some god. Its just that one should recognise his expertise, of course not to worship him because of it. The dumbest and duncest of person can be right and both Dr. Norman Geisler and Dr Michael L Brown, be wrong.
March 11th, 2010 @ 3:25 pm
Even if the translation is possible does it make sense? It don’t to me and others.
March 11th, 2010 @ 3:42 pm
Dr. Geisler is a colleague and would gladly defer to me in matters of Semitic linguistics.
March 11th, 2010 @ 3:52 pm
Robert, I said God in His dealings with us changes and I mean it in a very limited sense but His being does not change. When God said “I change not” did He mean, some of, part of or most of me (His Being) changes not? Is that your understanding Robert?
A being that is not 100% immutable is simple not immutable at all. Because immutability concerns 100% of the being not 99.999999% of the being. Remember God is Spirit He does not have a body, that says alot, it have alot of implications which all seem to forget, so therefore immutability has to do with 100% of God’s being. How could it be otherwise since God does not have a body?
March 11th, 2010 @ 4:13 pm
Gregory,
Does the Immutable Father still want to be called YHWH?
Shalom
March 11th, 2010 @ 4:57 pm
Dangerous Bo… in logic you have asked me what is called a complex question. I can’t answer your question with a simple yes or no because either one will give a wrong impression. Its like if I am married you ask me if I stop beating my wife when I never ever did. I will not be able to answer that question with a yes or no, I will have to correct the question itself. Likewise if I say yes God does want us to call Him YHWH I will be saying if we don’t use YHWH then we are some how sinning or displeasing God which is not true at all. On the other hand if I answer no meaning God does not want us to call Him YHWH that would imply it is a sin to call Him YHWH or somehow displeasing to Him to call Him YHWH and that is not so also.
I have to answer you this way, it is correct and pleasing to God when the saints refer to to Him using YHWH, Elohim, Adonai, Theos, Kyrious, Iesous, Lord, God, Jesus Christ or whatever is the equivalent in one’s language. The greek NT show us that it is pleasing to God when His saints address Him using the equivalent in their languages and not using the Hebrew at all. That God does not have any hang ups about us not using Hebrew names to address Him.
March 11th, 2010 @ 5:04 pm
Dangerous Bo…it has always been immutably true that the immutable Father has no problem with the saints to use their language to address Him. And that has always been immutably pleasing to Him.
March 11th, 2010 @ 5:40 pm
Gregory,
You only believe YHWH is immutable in the ways you want Him to be. You are guilty of what you have accused us. You are caught in your inconsistency. I did not ask you the type of question that makes you guilty either way.
It is a question that shows you do not fully believe that YHWH is immutable. It shows that you start with the preconceived notion that YHWH does not care what we call Him and thus because of your presupposition the question becomes a double dilemma.
As you can see, logic only works to obtain the truth if we start with the facts. What you mean by the immutability of “God” must be false or you would not be on the horns of a dilemma when it comes to this direct statement of YHWH.
You do this with other direct statements of scripture. You start with a wrong idea and then must change the meaning of the scripture to fit the false idea instead of changing your idea to match the scripture.
You do not know for sure that the NT was written in Greek. No one can know. You assume that it is OK to call YHWH something different than He asked to be called with no direct scripture to back you up.
You are smart, but either you have outsmarted yourself or Satan has tricked you.
We all speak different languages. The world in Moses’s time spoke different languages also, but YHWH asked to be called YHWH. If there was a language that used the word “Satan” for their supreme being would it be OK for them to call YHWH by this name once they became believers? If you asked to be called Gregory is it ok for me to assume that you would not mind being called Adolf Hitler?
But this is a bit off topic. Even so it has shown that your false assumptions make you twist the scripture to you own destruction.
You wrote:
“Dangerous Bo…it has always been immutably true that the immutable Father has no problem with the saints to use their language to address Him. And that has always been immutably pleasing to Him.”
Please give the scripture references for this statement unless you have made it up. Can we really call Him “anything” we want?
Shalom
March 11th, 2010 @ 6:46 pm
Dangerous Bo…If I don’t know that the NT was written in Greek and by the same standard you don’t know the OT was written in Hebrew. How do you know it was written in Hebrew? The same standard that I used to know what language the OT was written in is the same standard that I used to know what the NT was written. I use the hard evidence only the manuscripts the earliest are the greek manuscripts which dates even before 70 AD. Thats during the life time of the apostles, and first century church, how much better can it get than that. Everything else that we have are translations of them. These greek manuscripts do not bear the marks of been translations but copies of the originals. I am not going on theories but hard facts and evidence, ie. the greek manuscripts. If I can’t use them the hard evidence to know what language the NT was written in then what can you use to know that the OT was written in Hebrew?
March 11th, 2010 @ 7:17 pm
Gregory, are you aware of the Aramaic phrases used in the New Testament?
March 11th, 2010 @ 7:32 pm
Gregory,
Greek…Hebrew? That is a side issue. YHWH said what He said. He gave us His name. It is the name He wants to be known by. Even this is somewhat of a side issue.
You are changing the direct statements of scripture to fit your doctrine instead of accepting the plain meaning of the scripture to form your doctrine. Many here have tried to show you this.
In the spirit you have a father type figure standing behind you on your right hand side. You feel pressured by this figure and are being manipulated to live up to this figure’s expectations. You need to be delivered from this influence. You are in bondage to it. You are afraid to do what YHWH wants you to do while this one is looking over you shoulder. Great pride needs to be broken. Intellect needs to take it’s proper place and bow to YHWH and His word, now! Do not be afraid to turn your back and walk away from this bondage. YHWH can and will protect you from it’s threats. Humble yourself now before the mighty hand of YHWH. Allow Him to lead you instead of being driven by this spirit that has had you in it’s power. You need to take action on this soon. It is time to stop arguing.
May you come to know YHWH’s true shalom that does not come from your understanding, it surpasses understanding. Repent now, lay down this heavy burden and find rest for your soul.
Shalom
March 11th, 2010 @ 8:05 pm
Gregory, you wrote to me:
“Ruth Smith, Love is not a feeling or an emotion”
I said Divine Love is paraemotional and beyond the normal range of human emotion.
You wrote: “it is obediance to God’s word, see Rom 13:8, 10, esp. vs 10, and Galatians 5:14. I experience God’s love when He saved me by His Spirit, caused me to believe His gospel message, made me apart of His family, and to obey His Word, this is how I experiance God’s love with all of His other blessings that He has given me to enjoy. As an elect of God He foreloved or foreknew me from all eternity, see eg. Eph 1, Rom 8:28-30.”
I agree with all that you wrote here, Gregory. I feel the same. However, what I was describing in my post as the phenomenon of a spiritual state of Divine Love that I experienced as a fifteen-year-old, is simply not something that you, Gregory, can relate to, having not had the experience of this.
You wrote: “emotions and feelings are not apart of love but they may at times be byproducts of love if and when they are present.”
When you write “apart of love” do you mean “a part of love”? or “apart of love”? In any case, I disagree with you. Divine Love can be felt if it is given as a direct experience from God. Just because you haven’t felt it as a “paraemotion,” or something you can actually “feel,” doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Surely you know there are always many spiritual things that any person will have had no direct experience of. That doesn’t cancel the reality of what another might experience. To think otherwise would be complete egotism.
You wrote: “You have made a very, very, very, serious error “love is not God” repent of it, but yes “God is love”.
Gregory, I absolutely did NOT write that; and if you go back to my post on March 11, 2010, you can read that for yourself. I absolutely said that God is Love! You just misread the sentence. Read it again.
“A dog is a four footed animal, that does not make it correct to say a four footed animal is necessarily a dog. What you said is idolatry making love into God.”
I said, God is Love and Love is God. Actually, Love is a part of God. But God’s love, Divine Love, is far higher than human love, it is a transcendent Love and the closest we have to it is the compassion we feel for others, including our own family. Nonetheless, it really doesn’t compare to God’s Divine Love. God is Love and Love is God is not blasphemy or idolatry. True Love, Divine Love, IS of God and no other. I do believe that there is a Godliness beyond even Love, which is actually a component of God Himself, His overflowing compassion. But it is so pure and way beyond what humans experience. And the only way to know this is to experience some of it.
The Divine Love I experienced and wrote about in my post, Gregory, did not come from me, it came from My Father who is in Heaven. This had nothing to do with any kind of “Marianism” as another person seemed to suggest in his post. I am not a Catholic, nor have I ever been, and I absolutely do not worship Mary! Nor did “Mary” have any connection to my experience. I worship YHWH, the one True God and Creator. And I stand by what I wrote.
That is the truth.
March 11th, 2010 @ 8:32 pm
Eric, yes I am aware of the Aramaic phrases used in the New Testament and atleast most of the time when they are used the very same author translate them in greek which proves the NT was written in greek. I am writting to you in English we are both speaking English. I don’t have to translate English phrases to you in English because I am writting to you an English reader in English, now if I used Russian phrases in this comment I will have to translate them in English, Why? Because I am writting in English to English readers. So likewise the Aramaic phrases when used are translated into greek as the rest of the letters are in greek only show they were originally written in greek to greek readers. Thats a no brainer, I think. It is very interesting how some people try to use the very few Aramaic phrases to prove that the NT was written in Hebrew or Aramaic, and ignore the 98% greek content of the rest of the letters. Why can’t the 98% greek content be used to prove that the NT was written in greek? That seems to be the only sensible way to go.
The OT was partly written in Aramaic, like Daniel.
Dangerous Bo, you are limiting yourself to the 20th and 21st century western world use of the term name to understand the bible use of the term name which was written thousands of years ago in a different culture with a diffrent language, concepts, etc. to ours. And even then we use the word name in different context to mean different things, just take up your dictionary look up name and you will see what I mean. When the police say open in the name of the law name there mean authority.
Likewise when the bible used the word name it mean different things in different context. For God it mean His character, His attributes not a mere label, the meaning of the terms are what is is meant and not the mere label. It is the meanings that tell you who God is, it is the meaning that is His name, ie. His character, His attributes. Go to a bible dictionary look up name and you will see what it means and how it is used in the bible.
March 11th, 2010 @ 8:41 pm
Gregory,
It is not time to argue. It is time for you to be set free.
Shalom
March 11th, 2010 @ 8:51 pm
Ruth Smith…I experience God’s love when He saved me by His Spirit, caused me to believe His gospel message, made me apart of His family, and made me to obey His Word, this is how all saints experiance God’s love with all of His other blessings that He has given His saints to enjoy. As an elect of God He foreloved or foreknew me from all eternity, see eg. Eph 1, Rom 8:28-30. That is Divine love based on the bible. Emotions and feelings are not apart of love be it the love of God (Divine Love) or the love of man, but they may at times be byproducts of love if and when they are present.
March 11th, 2010 @ 9:00 pm
Gregory,
Until and if you ever experience Divine Love in the sense I have described, you simply cannot judge it, and it is not something I will argue over.
Intellectual contructs often melt away during experiential phenomena.
Until you have an experience which teaches you everything you need to know about that experience, you cannot frame it within the context of previous frameworks; you have to adjust your intellectual contructs to accomodate the new experience. Until that happens, we’ve nothing to discuss on this subject.
A’Dios
March 12th, 2010 @ 12:50 am
To Gregory,
I would like to ask for humility for myself and for you because “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.”
The gospel is this and it is first:
1Cor 15:3-11 “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me. Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.”
Notice Paul does not include the truth he wrote in Rom 8, 9, 10. 11, and Ephesians 1 and 2. Those things are true but not of first importance. They are truths that accord with this text but they are not the gospel its self. They are true implications of the gospel
When we are saved from our bondage to broken cisterns that never satisfy to the one true Fountain of Living Water, we do not understand all the implications of the gospel. We just see our need for Jesus and that He is the only satisfaction for our need.
I believe in the beautiful doctrine of God’s unconditional love for His people He elects “out of the World,” (John 17) chosen from before the foundation of the World. I believe this to be as plainly taught in the Scripture as the free offer of the gospel that says, “Come to God through Christ to be saved from blindness and sin and wrath to joy and life forever.” However, the fact that God predestines to salvation an individual does not mean that an individual will come to the full knowledge of the God from conversion, or else Paul would not have prayed for Christians to increase in their knowledge of God in Phil 1.
I would like you to recognize that God saves those who do not understand and embrace God’s special, embracing, and electing love fully as the Scriptures teach it.
I would also like to ask you to explain how God wants us to give the free unconditional offer of the good news to those every human being.
Thank You
March 12th, 2010 @ 1:02 am
Well said, Harold. Exactly what I was hoping for from my Calvinist friends here.
March 12th, 2010 @ 7:31 am
Ruth Smith…I don’t go on experience, feelings or emotions neither should you or anyone else, experience, feelings or emotions is not a teacher, only the bible is our infallible, inerrant, inspired teacher. Depend on and have the bible only as you teacher. Experience, feelings or emotions will always lead you down the wrong path to your destruction.
March 12th, 2010 @ 8:06 am
Gregory,
Paul, encountered not just the head knowledge of Truth, but also had an experience with Jesus Himself at the road to Damascus. When Truth is the foundation, sometimes there is experience, feeling/emotions.
March 12th, 2010 @ 8:25 am
Harold…1Cor 15:3-11 is a summary of the gospel. The authors of the bible said, believe the gospel (100% of it) and you will be saved. They did not say believe part or most of the gospel and you will be save. In 1Cor 15:3-11 the words ‘you’ and ‘our’ in the immediate context and more so in context of the whole bible refer to the elect only, thats the only gospel of the bible, not everybody without exception (whatever that suppose mean because nobody seems to know what it means) which is a works based gospel which is really no gospel at all and can’t save anyone at all so therefore Rom 8, 9, 10. 11, and Ephesians 1 and 2 are also part of the gospel. Remember 1 Cor was written to the saints only. Also Paul said that Christ death is subtitutionary on behalf of who He died for. Knowing what the word subsitutionary means and that most people end up in Hell, how can someone then say Jesus died (subtitutionary) for everyone without exception. One can only reach that conclusion by feelings and the rejection of bible based logic, no wonder there is a hatered here for bible base logic, and that is characteristic of Arminianism.
In the preaching of the gospel in summary I’ll say that God want’s the saints to tell everybody The Lord God Jesus Christ came to seek and to save that which was lost which is in referrance only to God’s elect, He lived (subsitutionary) for them, died (subsitutionary) for them and rose (subsitutionary) for them from the grave on the third day because of their salvation. And that God commands all to repent and believe this only gospel message or they will perish forever in Hell.
On another issue I believe the OT (including Ex. 3:14) should be interpret in the light or context of the NT. When Jesus said, before Abraham was I AM, I don’t think He meant, before Abraham was I shall be, which will not make any sense at all.
March 12th, 2010 @ 8:32 am
Ben KC… Paul interpreted his experiance in the light of Jesus’ words and scriputures only. That is the only how he know the truth of and about all his experiances.
March 12th, 2010 @ 9:19 am
Gregory,
You said, “…God commands all to repent and believe…”
Precisely. Acts 17:30 says, “…God commands ALL men, everywhere to repent.”
Why would God command men to do things they are incapable of doing? “You whom I’ve created for the purpose of eternally condemning & punishing in fire -> repent.”
What’s interesting is that John Calvin had a similar penchant for burning others (Servetus)… Like father like son?
Matthew 5:43-45, “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.
March 12th, 2010 @ 10:08 am
Gregory,
Are emotions sinful?
March 12th, 2010 @ 10:18 am
Greg,
By way of correction, Calvin did not burn Servetus at the stake. He was actually against the burning though he approved the death sentence. You have to understand the cultural context of Calvin to understand why he approved of it. Furthermore, Calvin was not even a citizen of Geneva, so he had no say in Servetus’ fate. Does not make it right? Not necessarily, but it does allow us to be fair in judging Calvin.
Just so you know, Calvin pleaded with Servetus to believe the Gospel before he was burned. Also, they had a correspondence where Calvin tried to correct his doctrinal error – his heresy – throughout the time that Servetus was on the run from all the other governments that were trying to kill him.
My point is be sure to be careful about saints even if they are dead, we do not want to misrepresent them in our conversations.
March 12th, 2010 @ 10:30 am
Gregory,
First of all, where did “[t]he authors of the bible [say] believe the gospel (100% of it) and you will be saved.”
Would it not more biblically be said that a person must believe all truth that they learn of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection in our place for our sin, according to the scroptures.
According to the Scriptures, Jesus died for His sheep for whom He said He laid down His life, those whom He said He loved. I think it is a sad thing to not know yourself loved particularly as you are if you are saved, as Peter speaking by the Holy Spirit said to make our calling and election sure.
The good news enlightened by the Holy Spirit is what saves sinners. The news is basically that Jesus lived, died, and rose to save those who see the goodness of God. We know much good news (gospel) about this glorious event, but some I doubt you or I even know. The cross is so multifaceted that the gospel must be learned daily, and will never be fully known or understood. In speaking of the results that Jesus accomplished on the cross in Romans 11:33, Paul bursts forth saying, “Oh, the depth of the riches both of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!”
Ultimately, the good news of what Jesus accomplished at the cross will not be exausted by our simple minds. So how can you think to say that we must know and believe 100% of the gospel to be saved, and then define good news resulting from the good news of what Jesus did as apart of the gospel it’s self that must be fully known and believed to be saved?
I believe it would be a shame to pass over and not see fully the love that God reveals He has for His people that He loved before the foundation of the world with a special love, but I do not think the Scripture says that we must know all the implications of what Jesus did for the chosen for them to have been chosen and saved.
Again, where do the apostles say that a person must know and understand fully all that Jesus accmplished to be saved?
March 12th, 2010 @ 11:04 am
Greg,
You ask, “Why would God command men to do things they are incapable of doing?”
The answer is that they should be able to do it. It is because of willful sin that the are unable. Jesus says. “He who commits sin is a slave of sin.” And the word slave in the Greek, I understand, refers to one who willingly serves in bondage to to a master, in this case sin.
It is God who makes us alive (Eph 2), opens our eyes to see the kingdom (John 3), made us to be born again (1 Peter 1:3), and set us free (Galations 5:1). Once we are set free, then we can be free indeed to serve God in joy, trusting what He did for us with his life, death, and resurrection (Romans 6:15-23).
God is not obligated to free everyone from the things they want. If God does not save someone, God has given that person exactly what that person wants. Such a person wants to be enslaved to serving his desires for money and its benifits, even though Jesus said, “You cannot serve God and money.”
God either gives someone good justice or grace. Both are intended in the end to show how good God is, He is both just and merciful–just to those who He allows to seek their own desires and merciful to those He amazingly saves (Romans 9).
March 12th, 2010 @ 11:08 am
Gregory,
Sorry I ment to quote Romans 11:33, “Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!”
March 12th, 2010 @ 11:24 am
Gregory’s gospel entails a tremendous amount of work to find out everything you are supposed to believe and then to be absolutly sure that you haven’t missed the smallest percentage then believe it. What if one forgets just one little aspect? This is a works gospel if I ever saw one.
Shalom
March 12th, 2010 @ 11:39 am
“If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels,
but have not love,
I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.
If I have the gift of prophecy
and can fathom all mysteries
and all knowledge,
and if I have a faith
that can move mountains,
but have not love,
I am nothing.
If I give all I possess to the poor
and surrender my body to the flames,
but have not love, I gain nothing.”
“And now these three remain: faith, hope, and love. But the greatest of these is love.”
1 Corinthians 13: 1- 3; 13:13
A heart that is clogged cannot comprehend love.
March 12th, 2010 @ 11:47 am
Psalms 86:15:
“But Thou, O Lord,
art a God full of compassion and gracious,
Slow to anger,
and plenteous in mercy and truth.
O turn unto me,
and be gracious unto me;
Give Thy strength unto Thy servant,
and save the son of Thy handmaid.”
March 12th, 2010 @ 11:52 am
Psalm 78:38:
“Be He, being full of compassion,
forgiveth inquity, and destroyeth not;
Yea, many a time doth He turn His anger away,
And doth not stir up all His wrath.
So He remembered that they were but flesh,
A wind that passeth away,
and cometh not again.”
March 12th, 2010 @ 11:56 am
Psalms 111:1; 111:4:
“I will give thanks unto the LORD with my whole heart
In the council of the upright, and in the congregation.”
“He hath made a memorial for His wonderful works;
The LORD is gracious and full of compassion.”
March 12th, 2010 @ 11:57 am
whoops!
That was, “But He being full of compassion,
forgiveth inquity, and destroyeth not..”
Psalms 78:38.
Not “Be He..” < typo
March 12th, 2010 @ 12:07 pm
To all those who do not embrace the doctrine of God’s unconditional, electing grace,
I would like to ask you not to assume what calvinists mean, but see where they get their theology from the Bible and what is meant, and I wander if you wouldn’t see it to be one of the most beautiful and loveliest of teachings in the Bible.
My experience has been that very often those who do not hold the doctrines of grace often do not do so because they don’t see them for what they are, true, sweet, and comforting.
I hold to these doctrines because, seeing them in the Bible, because they seem to be true, beautiful, and good.
Just thought I’d put my motivation out there.
Thanks.
March 12th, 2010 @ 12:19 pm
I would rather experience God’s love than read about it.
March 12th, 2010 @ 12:47 pm
“For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the FEELING of our infirmities…” Hebrews 4:15 [emphasis mine]
“…That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might FEEL after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us…”
Acts 17:27 [emphasis mine]
March 12th, 2010 @ 2:00 pm
Ruth Smith,
God’s love is sweetest when you hear Him tell you of it.
I should ask you how you can know of His love if you don’t want to hear Him talk to you in His word. I could not say I loved someone because that person loves me if I did not even hear that person telling me about this love.
To know love there must be communication, and the most clear means of talking to us God has used is Scripture through His Holy Spirit. The Spirit speaks with the Word, not without it. The Spirit opens our eyes to see the most astounding and amazing and costly love as we could never do on our own.
So I desire to hear th voice of God in the Scripture, don’t you?
March 12th, 2010 @ 2:03 pm
I do thank God that He does not make Himself distant and unrelatable, but has told us in His Word about how He can relate to us.
March 12th, 2010 @ 2:33 pm
Nathaniel,
Have you read, Stanford Rives book, “Did Calvin Murder Servetus?”
I think this author would disagree with your sentiments.
Greg
March 12th, 2010 @ 2:39 pm
Of course, Harold!
March 12th, 2010 @ 2:44 pm
I am merely responding to the idea which a person posted earlier: that Love is not an emotion nor can it be felt, and all his other denigration of “feelings.”
In no way, Harold, am I denouncing the written Word of Scripture. If you’d read any of my other posts, this would be clear.
But I suppose it’s a common habit for people to only scan the last post or maybe a few before that, and I understand that. Rarely do we have the time to explore any individual’s full positions which they’ve posted, so no problem, I forgive you for misunderstanding me.
Of course I completely agree with all you wrote about the Word in Scripture, and I delight in learning about the Great Work of God as revealed through His written Word. And I delight in the work that God has done and continues to do in my heart through His Holy Spirit.
Peace!
March 12th, 2010 @ 3:31 pm
Ruth Smith,
Sorry for misunderstanding your statements. I’m glad to hear of your delight in the Scriptures.
I would like to mention that I most definitely see the importance of experiencing God as who He reviels Himself to be. Without any truth our emotions are pointless, but to anyone who thinks it is not important to have a genuine experience of God, being emotionally moved, I would like to say that you fail to emotionally experience what God would have for you. I would ask such a person to taste and see that the LORD is good.
Thanks
March 12th, 2010 @ 3:42 pm
Amen, amen.
March 12th, 2010 @ 4:15 pm
And a genuine experience of God is, in itself, revelatory. Something can be revealed by this direct experience of God (and from God) which informs the individual. But some people deny the power of God in the world today, consigning Him only to the pages of the Scriptures, and revelations only to the Apostles. For them, that may be their reality. But for those to whom God has chosen to reveal something by direct experience, these know that it is a revelation of Truth. That it need not be analyzed and scrutinized and discussed among thirty scholars for that individual to know that they have had a direction experience of God which reveals something to them. Some people don’t believe God does this. So He often tends to show things to “babes,” that is, people who aren’t necessarily learned men. He does this to confound the “wise.” But for others, who deny what they have not themselves experienced, and who immediately believe that any manifestation of God’s supernatural power is really not from God but the deceiver of the world; that is, it’s evil, or delusional, or in some way “wrong,” unless they can find the exact same words you use, as a twenty-first century person, in the Bible itself, written in the clearest possible way expressed (so that perhaps a lawyer would have no doubt as to its meaning) these just won’t believe your testimony. And they just don’t understand….A living God is an active God, and He is working and revealing through His Spirit to whomever He wills…
But it’s all okay with me that my testimony was treated as garbage. Because, a) I was expecting that, and b) I have one judge, that’s all I need. And that’s the most important reason that it’s okay with me. And I’m actually done writing today on this thread because I have work to do while the sun yet shines.
But I wish everyone, without exception: Peace, not as the world gives, but as our Lord alone can give
March 12th, 2010 @ 6:20 pm
Greg…God commanding men to do things that they can’t do is nothing that is strange. God commanded Israel to obey His word even though they couldn’t in their unregenerate state, see eg. Acts 15:10. Whether one is unregenerate all are commanded to obey God’s word even though the unregenerate can’t. Read Martin Luther’s book “Bondage of The Will”, and you will see him making the case from the bible that one been commanded by God to do something does not mean they can do such.
Why would God do such. He do it for His glory, for the eternal good and the blessings of His own and for the eternal hardening and damnation of the nonelect. When He commanded all Israel to obey His word to both regenerate and unregenerate, God brought His saints to see and know that man without Him need to be regenerated by Him first before they can obey His word. So they saw that it was all of God and none of them, and to God only be the glory for their obediance to His word.
John Calvin, seems to have been confused about the atonement, in some limited places it seems as though he was for particular redemption while in many more places he advocated universal atonement (whatever that is, nobody seems to know).
God sends the elements on the just and on the unjust for His glory, for the eternal good and blessings of the just (the elect), and for the eternal hardening and damnation of the reprobate (the unjust).
Nathaniel, emotions can be sinful, if lust and covetousness are emotions thats sinful. If a saint is angry with someone with out a cause or happy of or over sins (sinful acts, etc.) thats sinful. All the emotions and actions of the unregenerate are sinful, see for eg. Romans 3:9-19.
You asked, “First of all, where did “[t]he authors of the bible [say] believe the gospel (100% of it) and you will be saved.”
Look at Eph 1:13, Phil. 1:27-28, 2 Tim. 1:10-13, Rom 1:15-17 here the Paul spoke of believing the gospel and been saved by the gospel, not part or some of the gospel, but the gospel. Can you show me in the scriptures which parts of the gospel we don’t have to believe and can still be saved? On what grounds would you say a Mormon, Jehovah’s Witness, etc. that holds to all of their organisations’ teachings are not saved? Dangerous Bo, the questions are for you too.
Harold, when the bible say, “taste and see that the LORD is good” it was not talking about emotions, it is saying obey the Word of God and you will see and know (in that sense experiance) His goodness toward you by His Spirit. Yea, the saints might get certain emotions as well, if the saints do get them they are only byproducts given to the saints by God but you have to interpret them in context and light of God’s Word to know the truth about them and to keep them in check which the saints have and aught to do always whenever they have them. Because emotions can be very dangerous and often times very misleading.
March 12th, 2010 @ 6:31 pm
I just today heard Hank Hanegraaff, on The Bible Answer Man spoke about how unreliable feelings can be, listen to it. Hank, sure got this one right. The website http://equip.org/broadcasts .
March 12th, 2010 @ 6:43 pm
Ruth Smith… the bible tells us to prove all things (by the scriptures) and hold steadfast to that which is good (according to the scriptures), see 1 Thes. 5:21, 2 Tim. 3:15-17.
March 12th, 2010 @ 7:01 pm
Gregory,
I think that I am done conversing with you at this point. I really believe that you are in bondage and need deliverance. I doubt that you see it yet. May YHWH reveal it to you soon. Your false presuppositions coupled with logic cause you to ignore or change the obvious meaning of many, many scriptures. Your gospel is salvation by the works of man.
Romans 10
6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above:)
7 Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)
8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
This is the gospel that Paul preached. It takes humility, not prideful knowledge.
With your gospel, one has to have complete 100% knowledge of what YOU say the scripture means and believe what YOU say it means to be saved. Your salvation is based on man not YHWH. It is based on man’s knowledge instead of YHWH’s revelation. It is based on man’s ability to understand every aspect of how, why, and who YHWH saves. Your gospel is too complicated for even a young teenager to understand and believe let alone younger children. It excludes those with mental disabilities. When it comes down to it…it only includes you or those that are clones of you. You need to be delivered from spiritual pride. Please find someone that can help you get free.
Shalom
March 12th, 2010 @ 7:05 pm
Martin Luther’s, book “Bondage of The Will” scriptually destroy the false teaching of freewill.
March 12th, 2010 @ 7:13 pm
To Dangerous Bo and all others… it is not everything that is in the bible is part of the gospel, alot of things in the bible are not part of the gospel, but the gospel is part of God’s word.
March 12th, 2010 @ 8:27 pm
Regarding Gregory’s doctrine, Dangerous Bo said, “…It is based on man’s knowledge instead of YHWH’s revelation.”
Hallelujah DB. This is very true.
Gregory, may the good Lord set you free from these doctrines. May He bless you with truth & revelation in the knowledge of Him. In Jesus’ name.
Greg
March 12th, 2010 @ 10:25 pm
Greg,
I have not read his book, but there are a plethora of Reformation scholars who would agree with what I posted earlier. That includes many at my school and professors from other schools who I have heard talk about the subject.
March 12th, 2010 @ 10:28 pm
Greg,
Stanford Rives is not even a Reformation scholar. He’s a lawyer.
March 12th, 2010 @ 10:57 pm
Gregory,
The only thing I asked was about emotions. I’m also curious about how you would respond to the way the apostles preached. Peter or Paul throughout the book of Acts never mention election in their call to the unsaved. It was “repent and believe.” How would you respond to how Acts presents the preaching of the Gospel. (btw, I affirm Calvinism)
March 12th, 2010 @ 11:48 pm
Nathaniel,
One of the fathers of the Intelligent Design movement is Phillip E. Johnson a retired Berkeley law professor. Should we reject his conclusions because he’s not a “scientist?”
Truthfully, I haven’t read Mr. Rives’ book either. However, I believe we should consider all of the resources and let the truth speak for itself. Besides, aren’t lawyers well trained in examining and interpreting evidence? Who is more predisposed to bias regarding Calvin, the reformation scholar or the lawyer?
March 13th, 2010 @ 12:40 am
Greg,
“One of the fathers of the Intelligent Design movement is Phillip E. Johnson a retired Berkeley law professor. Should we reject his conclusions because he’s not a “scientist?””
It really depends on what he’s talking about. I would trust an expert cell biologist who is evolutionist over a lawyer on issues of cell biologist, but regarding the philosophy of science the two may stand on equal ground. The same is true for our situation, I would trust a Reformation scholar over a lawyer when it comes to the history of the Reformation.
“However, I believe we should consider all of the resources and let the truth speak for itself.”
I know this is direct, but if this is true, why are you saying anything regarding Calvin and Servetus? Shouldn’t you do your research too? And, though I’m no expert, I’ve heard both sides of the issue.
My point is a man who is a lawyer wrote a book which disagrees with many Reformation scholars on the issue. Because of this, I have every reason to be suspicious of Rives’ book. From the look of it, the book looks to bring nothing new against Calvin. It seems like the same accusations against his character that have been made before. The premise of the book, placing Calvin on trial, seems to involve ripping Calvin out of his context and placing him within ours. From the reviews I’ve read, it looks like the author has no understanding of Calvin’s context. We could take Paul out of his context and place him on trial for sending Onesimus back to Philemon – sending the slave back to his master.
Furthermore, since you’re the one bringing the charge against Calvin, you should probably support your claim…I also recommend before you post (I would welcome a response) to check both sides of the issue. That way, we can avoid covering old ground. I recommend the seminar from RTS iTunes for a defense of Calvin. It’s called “The Calvin I Never Knew” by Dr. James. I will say that I think he plays up Calvin’s good side a lot, but he does not deal with some of the negative things he said. So he doesn’t do the best job, but he does do a good job in addressing some of accusations that are frequently brought against Calvin.
God bless
March 13th, 2010 @ 1:41 am
Nathaniel,
You make a good point regarding the current weakness of my claims. Having said that, I have seen some elementary videos supporting Calvin’s actions regarding Servetus. I have also read a number of comments which were supposedly made by Calvin which if true would be quite damaging to the idea that his character was only moderately questionable in this matter. Nevertheless, I DO need to confirm my observations.
Alternatively, it appears you have argued that an expert cell biologist vs. a lawyer is an equal analogy to a Reformation scholar vs. a lawyer with regard to trusting the conclusions of the respective disciplines. (Ahem) I respectfully disagree!
A cell biologist is significantly more different from the lawyer than the profession of a Reformation theologian.
Certainly, I understand the point that you’re making (The Reformation professor is familiar with the setting and arguments). However, it doesn’t take a physicist to read through documents and make a judgment based upon available evidence. In fact, I think it could be argued that the lawyer is more aptly trained to perform such work.
Finally, I could make the same argument regarding “suspicion” about Reformation professors. You’ve supported my suspicion with your own words regarding Dr. James: “I will say that I think he plays up Calvin’s good side a lot, but he does not deal with some of the negative things he said.”
I appreciate your honesty!
Blessings!
March 13th, 2010 @ 2:16 am
Greg,
“A cell biologist is significantly more different from the lawyer than the profession of a Reformation theologian. ”
Fair enough, but I think you got my point. Context is so important and a scholar would have a better grasp of it than a lawyer in most regards. Also, I think that a scholar would have a better grasp on the character of Calvin, more so than a lawyer just studying evidence for a case.
I would not say that Calvin is completely innocent in the matter. I would just say that our understanding should be better formed by the context of Calvin’s. Most people who bring accusations against Calvin do not regard context. Hence, when they see Calvin making harsh statements in regard to those who denied infant baptism (I’m a Baptist by the way), they do not understand that it was equal to anarchy in the eyes of many in that day. The church was so tied to the state, that any transgression against the church was seen as also against the state. We would distance ourselves from such a radical commitment to the binding of church and state, but we can understand that the comments that Calvin made better understanding what everyone thought of church and state.
Calvin’s letters which say that he thought Servetus should die are more understandable in this light. It should be noted that Calvin never stopped preaching the Gospel to Servetus even up until his death.
March 13th, 2010 @ 2:17 am
Greg,
Blessings to you too!
March 13th, 2010 @ 11:00 am
Harold wrote:
“To all those who do not embrace the doctrine of God’s unconditional, electing grace,
I would like to ask you not to assume what Calvinists mean, but see where they get their theology from the Bible and what is meant, and I wander if you wouldn’t see it to be one of the most beautiful and loveliest of teachings in the Bible.”
This has got to be one of the best examples of the principle “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” that I have ever seen!
The reality is that many, many Christians across the theological spectrum find the Calvinist beliefs to be absolutely ugly and repulsive.
First, regarding those who reject Calvinism, we do not embrace unconditional election because it is a doctrine invented by men first promoted in the Christian church by Augustine and later refined by the Reformers. It leads to an entire system of theology that then causes the bible to reinterpreted and misinterpreted and mangled beyond recognition (e.g. see what happens to John 3:16 when “interpreted” by a Calvinist).
Second, I can fully understand how if you believed that God preselected who would be saved and who would be damned, and if you believed that you had been chosen then you would consider it to be a beautiful and lovely thing! But what about the vast majority of humans who in that system were instead chosen to be damned? They were preselected to be damned, their entire lives prescripted by God so that they would do every act of sin and rebellion that they would commit (all of these things completely in the center of God’s will). They would always and only be doing exactly what God wanted them to do and then at the final judgment they would be designated as “goats” (and then on top of all of this punished eternally for doing the very things that God predetermined for them to do). THAT is not beautiful nor is it a loving thing. In fact I was listening to a Calvinist who carefully laid out John Calvin’s views on reprobation (God damning the unbelievers before birth and ensuring their fate), and the Calvinist said that reprobation was the **most hateful** thing that you could do to a human person. Put another way, by way of analogy, the Calvinistic system leads to a divine lottery game where there are only two kinds of people, “big winners” who are loved and “big losers” who are hated. And they have nothing to do with this outcome, it is done in eternity, and all you can hope for is that you are one of the lucky ones. If you are unlucky you get to be a reprobate.
“My experience has been that very often those who do not hold the doctrines of grace often do not do so because they don’t see them for what they are, true, sweet, and comforting.”
I do not hold to the “doctrines that limit grace”, nor am I **grace-restrictor** because they are unbiblical and gruesome and nasty beliefs. Again, if you get “lucky” in the divine lottery then of course you will think it is great and beautiful and whatever. But most people get unlucky in this game; most people get preselected to be big losers. And the spinning of the wheel is fixed. The one who spins the wheel is spinning a fixed wheel: he could save them all, but he purposely saves only a few and damns the majority.
“I hold to these doctrines because, seeing them in the Bible, because they seem to be true, beautiful, and good.”
They are not true, not in the bible, but read into the bible. Some are outright contradicted by the bible (e.g. irresistible grace, limited atonement, regeneration preceding faith).
Take unconditional election. There is no description in the bible of God deciding to choose this one to be saved and this one to be damned. This concept is not there, though it is fully developed within the Calvinistic system. Many Calvinists will try to proof text from Romans 9, but Romans 9 while discussing God’s sovereignty does not say that God preselects some for salvation and others for damnation. The text in Romans says that God has mercy on whomever he desires to have mercy upon, so He has this right as God. But Calvinists stop there, stop short, ignore the context of Romans 9 which is Romans 9-11 functioning as a unit. Romans 9 says he has the right to have mercy on whoever he desires because He is God. The question then becomes if He has this right, who then does He desire to have mercy upon??? Romans 11:32 says that he desires to have mercy on ALL. Other parts of the Romans 9-11 unit, as well as the rest of Romans make it clear that his mercy is through Christ and given to those who trust Him alone for their salvation. God is sovereign and in **His** plan of salvation He provides an atonement for all which is then applied only to those who trust Him.
Regarding these false Calvinistic doctrines being “true, beautiful and good”. They are not true, not in the bible but read into the bible, they are beautiful only if it is true and you get lucky and are one of the elect, and they are not good as they make God into a person with a moral character very different from the one which He reveals about Himself.
Robert
March 13th, 2010 @ 12:42 pm
Robert,
Have you considered Genesis 24 as an example of how we are to be married to the Lord. In the Calvinist method, God disregards our will and forces Himself upon us.
However, in chpt 24 of Genesis, Abraham (type of YHWH?) sends his servant (evangelist) to get a wife for his son (Son). The servant says, “Perhaps the woman will not be WILLING to follow me to this land. Must I take your son back to the land from which you came?” To which Abraham responds, “…if the woman is not WILLING to follow you, then you will be released from this oath…”
Later, after the servant had proclaimed the offer of a husband, and had paid the price for Rebekah, they called her and asked her, “WILL you go with this man?” And she said, “I WILL go.”
I think this is a beautiful example of how God makes the covenant offer of His Son to “whosoever WILL…”
What would you respect more: If I abducted a beautiful woman and escaped to a 3rd world country in order to marry her against her will, or if I said to her, “I love you and want you to be my bride and she responded affirmatively?”
Naturally, I receive much greater glory by her choosing to marry me than if I lay hold of her against her will. There is zero glory in the alternative – only disapproval.
Additionally, it is from Isaac that the seed of Abraham would be called which gives, in my opinion, greater emphasis to the typology of this example.
March 13th, 2010 @ 3:44 pm
Robert,
You bring up issues that have been answered by Christians who are Calvinists. You may not agree with the responses, but you could do a better job at representing Calvinism.
For instance, you say the “all” in Romans 11:32 means everybody everywhere, and then you say it is more natural reading of all. It’s more natural because of our context and our assumptions that we bring to the text. However, when we look at what Paul says in Romans 8 and 9. Also, in the immediate context, we see that Paul is speaking about Jews and Gentiles, so it actually seems better to take the “all” as referring to Jews and Gentiles – the “all” referring to ethnic people groups not individuals. This is how Douglas Moo argues in his commentary on Romans.
March 13th, 2010 @ 4:51 pm
Nathaniel,
Have you ever noticed how every time a verse says “all” or “every” or “whole world” when it relates to the atonement that Calvinists must interpret it to mean something more limited, but when the identical expressions are found in non-atonement contexts, the natural meaning of the words is accepted?
March 13th, 2010 @ 6:05 pm
Dr. Brown,
It depends on the context. Just because “all” means something in one passage or several passages, does not mean it always means that same thing for all passages. Titus 2 for instance talks about God bringing salvation to all men, there has to be some stipulation in this passage or we become universalists. I take two things into consideration. First, Paul teaches election in Romans 9 and Ephesians 1. Second, he is talking about young and old men and women and slaves and masters. It would seem that what Paul is saying is that salvation crosses socio-economic lines.
On the otherhand, when Paul talks about sin in Romans 3 he says, “Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. We have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin.” What does all refer to here? I would still argue that all refers to sin crossing cultural lines – it includes all groups of people. However, the reason that sin crosses those boundaries is that it is a universal condition as we see in the following verses.
So the reason we say all means different things is that we’re trying to be sensitive to different contexts and make sure we’re not setting Scripture against Scripture. Not that Arminians are not trying to do the same thing. You’re trying to reconcile what you think the word “all” means with election passages. Hence our understanding of Romans 9 should be shaped by our understanding of Romans 11:32.
March 13th, 2010 @ 6:47 pm
In the wilderness, who experienced the benefit of the bronze serpent: Any man, or a select group of men? (Num.21:9)
March 13th, 2010 @ 7:18 pm
Nathaniel, can you point to why we need to understand the word “all”, (as the elect) in Titus 2:11? Also, the only people who would become universalist by this passage if it literally means “every single human being”, would be the people who hold to the doctrine of “irresistible grace”.
March 13th, 2010 @ 7:54 pm
Nathaniel,
Echoing the words of Eric, how in the world can you say that “all” in Titus 2:11 as meaning “every single person” leads to universalism? Based on what legitimate, contextual interpretation of Paul’s words? To limit it to the elect is to actually read a theological presupposition into an otherwise quite clear text.
The same can be said for understanding “the whole world” in 1 John 2:2 to mean the elect. Based on what contextual or exegetical evidence? There really is none, which is why Calvinism has to be read into the text.
That was the whole point I was making in my post.
March 13th, 2010 @ 8:57 pm
Many of these arguments seem to hinge on an understanding of TIME.
March 13th, 2010 @ 9:00 pm
God’s sense of time and our sense of time are different.
I like this analogy: A star has already given its light light-years before it reaches earth. The star’s whole life has actually changed from one state to another, but we are still seeing its light because of where we are in our own time.
When a person prophetically sees into the future, it is because what they are seeing has already occurred and so it is “so,” and they can see it. That doesn’t mean that everyone will be forced to participate a certain way, or that they have no freewill to decide how they will respond to anything. On the contrary, they most definitely have free will. And God most definitely invites everyone to the wedding supper of the Lamb. He invites everyone to repent and be healed and receive forgiveness of sins through His Messiah’s atonement.
But our reality today is happening within our sense of time, which is different from God’s. In God’s sense of time, things are farther along — but we don’t experience His sense of time, so the events we experience now are like the starlight that is with us now (and which also has yet to reach us) but which has already happened light-years before. Someone who is in our time, like Yeshua was, when he entered our time, if they have prophetic sight, which of course, He did, can see the future because it already happened.
This is what is meant in Ecclesiastes 3:1-5:
Whatever is has already been,
and what will be has been before;
and God will call the past to account.”
Any thoughts on that?
March 13th, 2010 @ 10:24 pm
Nathaniel…In the book of Acts, etc. the speeches are not given in full but in certain highlights. Remember as well what is imply in scriptures is just a much scripture as what is directly written, also remember this as well every passage of scripture (including each book) is to be interpreted in context of the whole bible. I say all of that to say this you may not find a direct statement in Acts by Peter and Paul on election likewise you may not find any as well mentioning the subsitutionary nature of Christ death, but statements are recorded with the scriptual logical deduction of election and the subsitutionary nature of Christ death. Acts 2:39 “…whomever the Lord our God will call” is about election. In Acts 5:31 Israel there is not national Israel but all the elect of God, see Rom 9:6, Ps. 115:3, 135:5-6, Isaiah 46:10 All that God wants He brings to pass without exception therefore the Israel spoken of in Acts 5:31 was granted repentance and forgiveness of sins.The Father did what He did to Jesus with the purpose to grant this Israel (the elect) repentance and forgiveness of sins, this is an indirect mention of election. Acts 20:20, 24, 27, 28 say Paul preached the gospel and all else that was for the benefit of the saints and since the rest of the scriptures tell me that the doctrine of election is part of the gospel for the benefit of the saints I have to conclude that passage is saying indirectly Paul taught election as well to everyone.
It is very interesting to see Dr. Brown, convinently did not bother to explain how interpreting “all” in Titus 2:11 to mean “every single person” (whatever that mean which nobody here seem to know) don’t logically lead to universalism, because it does. The verse didn’t say “…offering the possibility of salvation to all men without exception (whatever that mean which nobody here seem to know)”, “all” can mean “all sorts of” or “all kinds of” depending on the context, see 1 Timothy 6:10.
March 13th, 2010 @ 10:31 pm
Anyone have any thoughts on my post?
March 13th, 2010 @ 10:55 pm
God alone knows the future. This is why only the real prophets are given sight into future times by God. This separates true prophets from false prophets. God’s prophets speak of things that do come to pass, because only God knows what “the future” will bring. We can’t know or see the future because we can’t step outside of, or beyond, our own sense of time, unless one should happen to receive that sight from God. And it’s usually just a glimpse.
So when something is known to God already, from the Beginning, this doesn’t mean that people don’t have free will at all. Oh, indeed no! This would certainly violate God’s rule of justice for people, because He wants for man to know he always has free will.
What it means is that God has already seen the outcome of our actions. Even though we don’t know what we will do yet. Even though we are here in present time, and we are acting upon our future, within our own freewill, God’s perspective has allowed Him to already know how everything will turn out.
March 13th, 2010 @ 10:57 pm
Yoh,
Yes, the issue of “time” is very important and your analogies are useful as food for thought. I’m sure others will have more to say.
March 13th, 2010 @ 11:00 pm
Our friend Gregory continues to help prove our points with every new post, giving further insight into the Calvinistic “all” with his most recent post. It’s a real shame, though, that he’s so terribly exclusivistic and judgmental of the Body in his posts. If he could only get past his “only our camp is saved” deception and grow in the grace and knowledge of Jesus, he could engage in some helpful and edifying interaction. I do pray that will happen for our brother!
March 13th, 2010 @ 11:01 pm
Yoh Kovelic…Rom 8:28 (in order for God to work all things for the good of His own He must first be working all things), Rom. 11:36, Eph. 1:11, etc. teaches that all that exist in, take place and happens in God’s creation are by the hand of God it is all of God’s doing and directing. Those above scriptures atleast teaches that much truth, so therefore there no such thing as freewill logically.
If you go back and read all of my previous post you will see that your post is answered already. In essence you are not coming with anything new here, to be quite honest about it. It is still the same Arminian emotional freewill false teaching.
March 13th, 2010 @ 11:12 pm
Nathaniel wrote:
“You bring up issues that have been answered by Christians who are Calvinists. You may not agree with the responses, but you could do a better job at representing Calvinism.”
Two things in response to this, the fact that non-Calvinist’s bring up the same objections against calvinism show they have not been answered adequately at all. And they cannot be answered because in order to accept calvinism one must reject clear and unambiguous scriptures. And not just a few but truckloads of them.
Second, I believe that I represented calvinism just fine. This is a common dodge by calvinists, when you directly challenge the truth and lack of biblical basis for their false doctrines you get the “you just aren’t representing calvinism correctly” disclaimer.
“For instance, you say the “all” in Romans 11:32 means everybody everywhere, and then you say it is more natural reading of all. It’s more natural because of our context and our assumptions that we bring to the text. However, when we look at what Paul says in Romans 8 and 9. Also, in the immediate context, we see that Paul is speaking about Jews and Gentiles, so it actually seems better to take the “all” as referring to Jews and Gentiles – the “all” referring to ethnic people groups not individuals. This is how Douglas Moo argues in his commentary on Romans.”
This is yet another example of how adherence to the calvinist system leads to reinterpreting and evasion of plain and clear meanings of bible verses. Calvinists like to turn “all” into something else in order to escape the clear intended meanings of biblical texts that outright contradict calvinism (texts such as John 3:16, 1 John 2:2, 1 Tim. 4:2, etc. etc.). Calvinists attempt to proof text from Romans 9 to support their false doctrine of unconditional election. But Romans 9 says only that God has the right as God to have mercy on whomever he desires to have mercy upon. It does not say whom God wants to have mercy on in Romans 9. Romans 9-11 function as a unit and so we need to compare scripture with scripture when interpreting the texts of Romans 9-11. So Romans 9 tells us that God desires to have mercy on people, but not specifically upon whom. Paul then develops the idea that God is having mercy on all who respond in faith and trust in Jesus, whether Jew or Gentile. Both are and can only be saved through faith (which is one of the major themes throughout the book of Romans). Romans 9 emphasizes that God is sovereign in His historical dealings with Israel, Romans 10 then emphasizes the importance of faith in God’s plan of salvation, and Romans 11 shows how God’s sovereignty and salvation through faith work out in the experience of Jews and Gentiles. Romans 11:32 is actually the conclusion to the Romans 9-11 section and is then followed by a doxology of praise of God by Paul in 11:32 ff.
Now Nathaniel because he is more committed to the truth of his calvinistic system rather than the biblical text makes 11:32 subservient to the system (rather than 11:32 determining his theological conclusions, he already has his theological conclusions derived from the system of Calvinism and so 11:32 must be made to fit his preconceived system rather than vice versa: so no matter what the text actually presents, it must be made to fit the system, and the system says that God only has mercy on some the elect, so whatever the text says has to be forced to fit this calvinistic claim).
Calvinists usually attempt to evade the intended meaning of “all” by interpretive maneuvers including: (1) all means “all kinds of men”, not all men; (2) all means “both Jews and Gentiles”, not all men; (3) all means “all who are elect both Jews and Gentiles”, not all men; (4) all means “all ethnic groups” not all men.
But look at the text of 11:32 it has two alls in it. It is arbitrary to take one all to mean all and the second all to mean some. And yet this is precisely what the calvinist (and Moo is a calvinist as well so he has to evade the plain and intended meaning of the text of 11:32 just like any other calvinist who wants to remain true to the system) does with the text.
Paul writes: “But God has shut up All men in disobedience, so that He may show mercy to all.” When Paul says that God has shut up ALL men, does he mean just some men have been “shut up”? Does he mean only Jews and Gentiles who eventually become believers (i.e. the elect)? Does he mean just some from each ethnic group, so that some from all ethnic groups have been “shut up” while others from all of these ethnic groups have not been “shut up”? And what exactly does Paul mean when he speaks of “shutting them up”? Is God just telling people to stop talking? Is that really what Paul means here?
N. T. Wright brings out that in the first century, in the Roman legal system, they had a practice that when someone was considered to be so guilty that they were clearly guilty and really had no defense, the prosecuting side would hit them across the mouth “shutting them up” and signifying that they were so guilty as to have no defense for their crimes. With this first century cultural fact in mind, something the readers of Romans would have all been familiar with, Paul is conveying God’s sentiments towards the entire human race when it comes to their guilt for sin. Namely they are all guilty, they have all sinned, God could slap them all across the mouth and declare that they should all “shut up”! When seen this way the text makes perfect sense and has already been foreshadowed earlier in Romans where Paul spent the first few chapters of Romans establishing that “all have sinned and come short of the glory of God” whether Jew or Gentile. The only exception in the entire human race is Jesus who was sinless and so could be the perfect sacrifice for sin. So when Paul says in 11:32 that God has shut them all up, Paul means the entire human race, every one of them (whether they were already dead, living on the earth at the time or not even yet existing). Paul’s gospel message is that ALL are guilty of sin, all are “shut up” by God and yet it does not end there. While all are guilty, the text of 11:32 says that while all are shut up and yet “He may have show mercy to all.” If as the Calvinists argue in order to defend and protect their system, the second all does not really mean all but really means some, then the structure of the verse is destroyed. If the second all only means some, then are we to believe that God has not “shut up” all? Are there any examples of humans (aside from Jesus) that are sinless? That are not guilty of sin? That God has not “shut up”?
Anyone not holding the calvinistic system and understanding what “shutting someone up” meant in the Roman legal system, and having read the earlier chapters of Romans knowing that Paul had argued there to establish the universal guilt of mankind, and then come upon 11:32 would have no difficulty understanding what Paul intended. God shut up the entire human race because of their guilt for sin and yet God has mercy on all. If we then ask and how does God show mercy on all, Paul has made that clear throughout Romans 9-11 (and the entire book of Romans up to that point) as well: mercy is shown through Christ. It is in Christ that we see the mercy of God provided for humanity. An atonement provided for all and applied only to those who trust in Christ alone for their salvation. This is all basic Christianity what the church has proclaimed and espoused and defended from the beginning. It is calvinism which is the new comer on the stage of church history. It is calvinism which denies the plan of salvation of God which the church has taught and promoted from its beginning. It is calvinism which destroys the intended meaning of Romans 11:32 and other biblical texts. All in order to defend, promote and support and unbiblical system of theology.
Robert
March 13th, 2010 @ 11:21 pm
Robert,
In one sense beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but this is only true in the subjective sense. I define what is beautiful by what is true, i.e. what is in the Bible. So yes I first find in the Bible what I have come to believe before I will believe them, so I would appreciate you not making the assertion that what I believe is neither beautiful nor in the Bible without showing so to be true. This is neither helpful nor productive.
I understand you not holding to a Calvinism because you do not see it in the Bible, I would not want you to do so if you do not see it in the Bible.
Ultimately, it is beautiful that God has a people the Word calls, “chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.”
I do not want to believe anything that is not in the Bible. If Calvin and Augustine were teaching something that’s contrary to the Bible, then we should not try to see the beauty of it, nor should we believe it. If Calvin and Augustine were faithful interpretors of the Bible in finding the doctrine of election in the Bible, then we ought to believe it, and should then pray to see the beauty that is truly there.
The issue is, “Is this in the Bible?”
I am not a Calvinist because I’ve got some system all worked out. I see it plainly taught in the Scripture.
Jesus says in John 3:8, “The wind/spirit blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
John 6:44, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.”
John 6:65 “And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
I fully believe all the Scripture and seek to understand it. I should say that I do not see God’s amazing salvation of those who wouldn’t want to be otherwise as equal to His choice to leave people who do not want to be saved.
March 13th, 2010 @ 11:24 pm
Hello Greg,
“Have you considered Genesis 24 as an example of how we are to be married to the Lord. In the Calvinist method, God disregards our will and forces Himself upon us.”
Not really until you brought this up.
“However, in chpt 24 of Genesis, Abraham (type of YHWH?) sends his servant (evangelist) to get a wife for his son (Son). The servant says, “Perhaps the woman will not be WILLING to follow me to this land. Must I take your son back to the land from which you came?” To which Abraham responds, “…if the woman is not WILLING to follow you, then you will be released from this oath…”
Later, after the servant had proclaimed the offer of a husband, and had paid the price for Rebekah, they called her and asked her, “WILL you go with this man?” And she said, “I WILL go.”
I think this is a beautiful example of how God makes the covenant offer of His Son to “whosoever WILL…””
Great observations Greg. Thanks for sharing this with me.
“What would you respect more: If I abducted a beautiful woman and escaped to a 3rd world country in order to marry her against her will, or if I said to her, “I love you and want you to be my bride and she responded affirmatively?”
Naturally, I receive much greater glory by her choosing to marry me than if I lay hold of her against her will. There is zero glory in the alternative – only disapproval.
Additionally, it is from Isaac that the seed of Abraham would be called which gives, in my opinion, greater emphasis to the typology of this example.”
While you are correct that these analogies convey real differences between calvinism and non-Calvinism. We need to always remember what it really comes down to is ***God’s design plan for human persons***. Did God desire to create humans capable of having and making their own choices? Or did he design a world where we never ever have a choice, where he has already made our choices for us and we are simply acting out a prescripted story? The evidence from scripture, including the early chapters of Genesis shows which scenario represents the real world. If you want to see how we were designed to be, look at Adam before the fall. Before the fall Adam had and made his own choices, he was given delegated authority over the entire creation and even when he fell into sin he had a choice.
Robert
March 13th, 2010 @ 11:45 pm
Also, I should say that God’s saving grace is nothing like a lottery. I would have to say the idea of God leaving it to the fallen and sinful will of people to be much more like God sort of rolling the dice and saying, “Hurray, I win with this one!” The election of the Scriptures is comforting because it does not leave our fate in the hands of those who hate God.
I do not believe the Scriptures teach us that God “forces Himself on us” as it were. Rather, Jesus teaches us that because we sin, we are slaves to sin. The reason the elect are saved without God failing is that “God…has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.”
When a person sees this it is just as Jesus said in John 6:45, “Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me.” Everyone who is given ears to hear and eyes to see, is blown away by the beauty of God and comes to Him!
Out side of a person being given eyes to see, ears to hear, and hearts to feel, we would all willingly reject God’s grace and the Holy Spirit. If anyone sees how amazing and glorious God in Christ is then he would never reject God, just as Paul says that if they knew who Christ was, they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory.
Please explain how this is not beautiful that God would save those who wouldn’t want to be saved if He didn’t give them eyes to see.
March 14th, 2010 @ 12:07 am
Dr. Michael L. Brown,
I too am sorry to hear Gregory’s exclusivistic statements, I am most certainly glad that I did not have to understand all the implications of the gospel in order to be saved, but that a basic understanding of what Jesus did in my place for my sin.
Also, I would like to say that I do plan to give the results of my thinking on John 3:16, and the term kosmos. I will do so as soon as I have time.
Thanks.
March 14th, 2010 @ 12:15 am
Hello Greg,
You wrote:
“In the wilderness, who experienced the benefit of the bronze serpent: Any man, or a select group of men? (Num.21:9)”
Interesting that you make reference to this passage as I believe that if you understand the dynamics that were operating in the bronze serpent story, then you can understand the atonement of Christ better. First of all, it is important that in His discussion with Nicodemus in John 3 Jesus makes reference to the bronze serpent story just before we get the wonderful words of John 3:16. This means that Jesus himself was suggesting that if you know that bronze serpent story then you will understand how he would be lifted up on the cross and those who trusted in Him would be saved. I have used the bronze serpent story a few times, describing the story and making sure people understand the dynamics involved and then comparing it with the atonement of Christ.
Consider some things that come out of the bronze serpent story. First of all, the Israelites are discontented and sin. We don’t know how many of them there were precisely but let’s say that there were a million Israelites at that time. Because of their sin poisonous snakes begin biting them and presumably these snakes if they bite you will cause you to die. So we’ve got a lot of people being attacked by a lot of snakes. A picture of sin and its effects that the Israelites would not soon forget! And notice that God himself has mercy on these people by providing a way of escape from the death that would come via snake bite. If God were responding according to strict justice, the biblical principle is that for sin comes death, so they all would have died with no deliverance. But God does not respond with mere strict justice and allow them all to die for their sins. Instead he provides them a way of escape. He tells Moses to fashion a bronze serpent, put it on a pole and lift it up and whoever looks up at the snake will live!
Now look at what is going on here. First, this provision of deliverance, is if for some of the Israelites or all of them? Clearly it is PROVIDED FOR ALL. And consider the way in which God intentionally set it up. If God provides this way of deliverance and you refuse to look up, you just keep looking down at the snakes, will you be saved? No. So in this situation when are you saved? When you look up in faith at the bronze serpent. Could this looking up at the bronze serpent have saved all of the Israelites? Yes if they all looked up. In actuality who would actually be saved by looking up at the snake on the pole? Only those who did in fact look up in faith. Now consider that you had been bitten by one of these poisonous snakes you now have a choice: look up and live or don’t look up and die. Did God provide a way of deliverance or salvation for you? Yes, definitely, the snake on the pole. Will the snake on the pole automatically save you since it was provided for you? No. It will only help you if you choose to look up. And here is something else to notice, would the mere act of looking up at the bronze snake be what heals you of the deadly snakebite? No. So the power is not in you or you looking up at the snake on the pole, the power is in the Lord who saves those who trust Him by looking up at the pole! So if you did choose to look up you would be demonstrating faith in God’s provided method of deliverance and yet the power that actually saves you is not your faith but the Lord who saves those who trust Him.
With these things in mind we can properly understand the atonement.
The atonement of Christ, like the provision of the snake on the pole is provided for all. Yet the mere provision of atonement does not save unless you trust in God’s way of deliverance. So salvation or deliverance is through faith and yet it is not the faith itself that saves you but the power of God which is manifested by God towards those who trust Him. We clearly see here how we can handle all of the atonement passages. The passages that speak of the atonement being provided for all, those speaking of the provision of atonement are universal, they are in fact intended for all. And yet the atonement is designed in such a way that God will only save those who trust Him, those who have faith. So the verses that speak of the atonement actually saving people are always in reference to the fact that all who do choose to trust will be saved by the atonement. And yet even in saying this, it is not the person’s faith itself that saves them, but the power of God that saves them. The power of God to save those who trust Him. Once you understand the dynamics of the snake story, you then take the same dynamics and see them with the atonement of Christ as well. All are bitten by “sin”, none can save themselves from the bite of sin by their own efforts. Only God can save you. And he sets it up so that while it is provided for all it will in fact save or be applied to, only those who trust Him. The cross is exactly the same. It is provided for the world, but will only be applied to those in the world who will trust in God alone for their salvation.
Universalism is wrong because it asserts that the atonement will be applied to all regardless. That is not what the bible says, the bible makes it absolutely clear that it will only be applied to those who trust the Lord. Calvinism is false because it claims the provision of atonement is only for those who eventually become believers. That is not what the bible says either: it makes it clear that the atonement is provided for all, Christ died for all. And yet believing that the provision of atonement is universal does not make you a universalist (a common and false and slanderous charge often made by Calvinists against non-Calvinists). Because while the snake is provided for all of the Israelites, it will only save those who trust the Lord.
I won’t do it now as I have said enough already, however, D. A. Carson clearly sees how making the provision of atonement versus application of atonement distinction allows us to harmonize all of the atonement bible verses without difficulty. Greg if you would like to see it I can cite Carson and show how he sees that this distinction solves a lot of the problems connected to the atonement.
Robert
March 14th, 2010 @ 12:19 am
I would consider myself reformed but I would never say that man does not possess ‘free’ will. I’m not a Biblical expert, but humbly submit the following: Obviously, free must be carefully defined, but such is the case in all senses of the word. It stands to reason from Scripture that the reason that no one comes to God is not that they are all prevented by the Lord, but that man is evil and does not seek for or desire God. They can’t come to God because they won’t come to God. When a Calvinist says that man is unable, he does not mean that he cannot, but for the same reason you won’t eat poison, the natural man won’t receive Christ. The reason a man does in fact come to God is that through regeneration, they accept the offer of Christ and are saved because Jesus has become beautiful and acceptable in their sight.
I’m having trouble sorting through many of the claims of these two parties, but I’m fairly certain this is where I stand at the moment on the basis of Scripture. But beyond all this, I venture to say that should theology not lead to humility, no matter how true it is, it is misplaced in the beholder’s heart, and it would have been better should they have not received it.
March 14th, 2010 @ 12:19 am
This is a different Robert than the above….
I would consider myself reformed but I would never say that man does not possess ‘free’ will. I’m not a Biblical expert, but humbly submit the following: Obviously, free must be carefully defined, but such is the case in all senses of the word. It stands to reason from Scripture that the reason that no one comes to God is not that they are all prevented by the Lord, but that man is evil and does not seek for or desire God. They can’t come to God because they won’t come to God. When a Calvinist says that man is unable, he does not mean that he cannot, but for the same reason you won’t eat poison, the natural man won’t receive Christ. The reason a man does in fact come to God is that through regeneration, they accept the offer of Christ and are saved because Jesus has become beautiful and acceptable in their sight.
I’m having trouble sorting through many of the claims of these two parties, but I’m fairly certain this is where I stand at the moment on the basis of Scripture. But beyond all this, I venture to say that should theology not lead to humility, no matter how true it is, it is misplaced in the beholder’s heart, and it would have been better should they have not received it.
March 14th, 2010 @ 12:27 am
Robert…God also said in Rom 9:18 “…whom he will he hardeneth”, you seem to forgot that. Rom 11 seem to be mostly about God’s elect the true Israel of God and not national Israel, mostly. Vss 26-32 is about God’s elect the true Israel of God not national Israel, at one point or the other, at one time or the other all of God’s elect in their unconverted, unregenerate state were concluded in unbelief by God, children of His wrath by nature but of His love by election.
How does your teaching logically provoke to questions in vs 19 as Paul teaching did, if you are preaching the same thing as Paul did? Explain how. This is one of the ways to know if you are preaching the same as Paul, because you will most definately provoke the same questions. Instead it seems you are on the opposite end saking the same questions that Paul’s teachings provoked. Prove me wrong.
March 14th, 2010 @ 12:35 am
The reason why man can’t come to Christ, is because as the scripture says man is dead in his sins and trespasses, he is dead to righteousness. God is who have to bring (draw) him the Christ by putting His Spirit in Him, regenerate Him, and give him the gift of faith and repentance in Christ Jesus.
March 14th, 2010 @ 12:39 am
I think that is too simple an interpretation, Gregory. What does it mean to be dead? God commands repentance to people he has no intention of regenerating. What does that say about the nature of his heart and by consequently, the nature of his choice?
March 14th, 2010 @ 12:48 am
Where can I find clearly written in the NT an example of regeneration (paliggenesia) preceding faith?
March 14th, 2010 @ 12:49 am
Greg – What is your criterion for clearly written?
March 14th, 2010 @ 12:53 am
Robert,
I really enjoyed your instruction regarding the bronze serpent and would love to hear what Mr. Carson has to say when you have the time.
Thanks,
Greg
March 14th, 2010 @ 1:05 am
Greg – I believe that to interpret John 3:1-10 we need to read the implication of John 2:23-25. The end of John 2 contains people who believe, but are not saved. Enter Nicodemus, who likewise knows that Jesus is sent from God, but Jesus says, that he must be born again. I believe that this is implies that in the sight of clear evidence of Christ, if you are not born again, you will not believe. In other words, if you are not born again, all the seeing of Christ in all his beauty, will not be beautiful to you, unless you have been born again to be inclined to receive Christ. – Robert
March 14th, 2010 @ 1:05 am
Gregory,
I have read plenty of your previous posts.
In your most recent post (to me) you have dismissed my thoughts with your, by now well-known air of arrogance, which in all honesty, is not indicative of someone in whom the Lord lives…
Your attitude: “I’m one of God’s elect: He foreordained me; I had no freewill in that and neither do you. He determines in advance who will Live and who will Die and you are falsely-taught if you think your choice has anything to do with it.” This attitude is quite contrary to the loving, merciful attitude of God. It is contrary, as well, to the point of redemption. If God decided who would be redeemed and who would not before his Day of Judgement, then He is offering a false bait in saying, “Repent” and “Come to Christ.” This is not something God would do and has not done.
God hardened Pharoah’s heart in order to prove a point to the entire world. Thus, his single hardened heart served the purpose of testifying to a great many; it was for instruction to the world. To bring in a greater amount of people through this act. The Pharoahs had exalted themselves to be as if equal to God and many people were convinced of this in the ancient world. God showed his power to be utterly superior to that of the Pharoahs to the world’s peoples.
To this day, the geologic record shows that Egypt was once lush, with considerable rainfall. God said He would make it a desert and He did. This was to prove to the world’s peoples that He alone is God, not the Pharoahs of this once-powerful region. He did this to prove that only He can redeem and save. He broke like a reed the power of these once-arrogant kings. His greater purpose was to show that He alone is God and He alone can save.
Your philosophy flies in the face of one of the most essential features of God’s work: which is that it stems from His desire to save. It is His will that NONE should perish, thus He is working to save ALL. That not everyone will be saved is not because God forbids their salvation! Your philosophy would make God out to be unjust; something believers know to be untrue, and which the bulk of Scripture does not support. Thus, on its face, it does not reflect the mind, heart, and Spirit of God.
That is enough of a testimonial for me. Arguing these points would be tiresome, and I fear, of no avail.
Fortunately, it is not up to you to speak for God…Rather than harden your own heart, humbly ask for better understanding…
March 14th, 2010 @ 1:14 am
Yoh Kovelic – Can you briefly describe what you think the calvinist definition of unconditional election is?
March 14th, 2010 @ 1:16 am
Wow, I’m tired. What I meant was irresistible grace. Whoah.
March 14th, 2010 @ 1:17 am
Robert,
“Second, I believe that I represented calvinism just fine. This is a common dodge by calvinists, when you directly challenge the truth and lack of biblical basis for their false doctrines you get the “you just aren’t representing calvinism correctly” disclaimer.”
Maybe you get this all the time because it’s true? It’s certainly true every time I’ve interacted with you.
I still think you’re reading “every individual” into the text of Romans 11 and you flatten the meaning of Romans 9. There is a specific people mentioned in Romans 9 – those who have been called out of the Jews and Gentiles. They are the ones whom God has elected, and we should read Romans 11 with this in mind.
March 14th, 2010 @ 1:28 am
Robert…to be dead is to be lifeless and separated from someone or something. The unregenerate is completely lifeless spiritually and seperated from God, he is completely under the control, rule and dominion of sin, the flesh, the world and the devil these are his masters that he most gladly and happily serve, fight for and cherish. He is dead to rightouesness, meaning he is completely insensitive to it, he can’t respond positively to it in a God pleasing, God accepting way to it at all in His unregenerate state.
God commanded repentance to people who couldn’t repent just as He commanded national Israel to obey His word but they couldn’t Acts 15:10. All that God do is for His glory, the eternal good and blessing of His own the elect and the eternal hardening and damnation of the nonelect. That is why God does all that He does even commanding people to do what they can’t.
March 14th, 2010 @ 1:30 am
Hello Yoh Kovelic,
“Many of these arguments seem to hinge on an understanding of TIME.”
I believe you are correct about this.
“God’s sense of time and our sense of time are different.”
Yes it has to be He is the creator of time and space we are always within time and space. He must stand in a different relationship to time than we do.
“I like this analogy: A star has already given its light light-years before it reaches earth. The star’s whole life has actually changed from one state to another, but we are still seeing its light because of where we are in our own time.”
I believe that here you are talking about the relativity of time, different reference point different perspective.
“When a person prophetically sees into the future, it is because what they are seeing has already occurred and so it is “so,” and they can see it. That doesn’t mean that everyone will be forced to participate a certain way, or that they have no freewill to decide how they will respond to anything. On the contrary, they most definitely have free will. And God most definitely invites everyone to the wedding supper of the Lamb. He invites everyone to repent and be healed and receive forgiveness of sins through His Messiah’s atonement.”
Good points.
“But our reality today is happening within our sense of time, which is different from God’s. In God’s sense of time, things are farther along — but we don’t experience His sense of time, so the events we experience now are like the starlight that is with us now (and which also has yet to reach us) but which has already happened light-years before. Someone who is in our time, like Yeshua was, when he entered our time, if they have prophetic sight, which of course, He did, can see the future because it already happened.”
God sees it all at once while we only see a small part of it, the part we are directly dealing with, which we call the present. He sees the past, the present and the future all at once.
“God alone knows the future. This is why only the real prophets are given sight into future times by God. This separates true prophets from false prophets. God’s prophets speak of things that do come to pass, because only God knows what “the future” will bring. We can’t know or see the future because we can’t step outside of, or beyond, our own sense of time, unless one should happen to receive that sight from God. And it’s usually just a glimpse.”
Amen to everything you say here. In Isaiah the challenge from God and one of the differentiating factors between the true God and false gods is that he knows the future they do not.
“So when something is known to God already, from the Beginning, this doesn’t mean that people don’t have free will at all.”
Agreed.
“What it means is that God has already seen the outcome of our actions. Even though we don’t know what we will do yet. Even though we are here in present time, and we are acting upon our future, within our own freewill, God’s perspective has allowed Him to already know how everything will turn out.”
I agree with you here as well. He knows the future outcomes, he knows how we will freely choose in the future. He knows it all and yet we are still acting freely.
Good thoughts Yoh Kovelic, thanks for sharing them.
Robert
March 14th, 2010 @ 1:33 am
Dr. Brown,
“Echoing the words of Eric, how in the world can you say that “all” in Titus 2:11 as meaning “every single person” leads to universalism? Based on what legitimate, contextual interpretation of Paul’s words? To limit it to the elect is to actually read a theological presupposition into an otherwise quite clear text.”
What does it mean to “bring salvation?” Bring opportunity or bring actual salvation? You’re reading your theological system into this verse just as much as I am. We cannot avoid our presuppositions. I’m not saying that Scripture is not clear – it is on faith and practice. What I’m saying is we need to continue to work to be aware of them, so that we can be better interpreters of God’s Word. May I also say, that I’m thankful for the many thoughtful challenges brought on this forum. Though I still hold my position, it makes me pray and search the Scriptures diligently.
“The same can be said for understanding “the whole world” in 1 John 2:2 to mean the elect. Based on what contextual or exegetical evidence? There really is none, which is why Calvinism has to be read into the text.”
I actually don’t have any problems with this referring to everyone in the world. The value of Christ’s death is unlimited and in this way he could be said to be atonement for the whole world. However, there is a difference between him dying for his sheep and those who are not his sheep. The difference is in God’s intended purpose for his death, and in this way the atonement can be understood to be limited. (Carson’s Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God is a good resource for this, btw). I will say that there are grammatical similarities between this verse and John 11:51-52, and I think it could legitimately be argued that he’s talking about the people of God through the whole world not every single individual. I lean more towards the former, but I still have no problems with it being other.
God bless
March 14th, 2010 @ 1:34 am
Gregory – You convinced me. Now what?
March 14th, 2010 @ 1:37 am
1 John 5:1 “Everyone who believes (present tense) that Jesus is the Christ is begotten (past prefect tense) by God, and everyone who loves the father loves (also) the one begotten by him”, New American Bible, is a passage where regeration comes before repentance. Also John 3:3 says the same.
March 14th, 2010 @ 1:39 am
I meant to say “…is a passage where regeration comes before faith.”
March 14th, 2010 @ 1:43 am
Gregory,
I think perhaps the reason why election was never mentioned in the evangelical sermons in Acts is because it was not essential to the Gospel. Certainly, it is an essential doctrine – I would never want to diminish it, but when it comes to preaching and believing the Gospel, the apostolic example seems to say that we need to know nothing except “Christ and him crucified” and “repent and believe.”
As we grow, of course, we grow in knowledge of him – that includes Calvinists and Arminians. We all have blindspots, and its only with reading Scripture, communion with God, a humble attitude, and conversations with our brothers and sisters that will help us adjust and become more biblical and more Christ-like. As much as I disagree with Arminians in terms of election, we agree at least when it comes to that essential message preached in Acts. In fact, we agree much more than that. I say this, not to down play the debate, but to remember what is absolutely essential to the faith.
March 14th, 2010 @ 1:47 am
Nathaniel,
Well, I’m glad that at least you accept the plain sense of 1 John 2:2, but I’m sure you’re aware the the vast majority of Calvinists do not. But if you think through the implications, it will undermine your position. Please do give it some prayerful consideration.
As for Titus 2:11, it’s really quite simple, as The Message paraphrase brings out: “God’s readiness to give and forgive is now public. Salvation’s available for everyone!”
It was the forced interpretation of several key verses that began to bother me towards the end of my five years as a Calvinist (our friend Gregory specializes in such eisegesis), making for one of the factors that helped me ultimately give up the TULIP system.
As for 1 John 5:1 (which Gregory just cited, but you did not), it amazes me that the perfectly simple sense of the verse is not immediately grasped: If you are a believer today, then that is the evidence that you are born from above! To make it teach that regeneration precedes faith is to misuse the text.
This, once again, provides a good example of a system being superimposed on the Word.
March 14th, 2010 @ 1:51 am
(Calvinist) Robert said, “Enter Nicodemus, who likewise knows that Jesus is sent from God, but Jesus says, that he must be born again. I believe that this is implies that in the sight of clear evidence of Christ, if you are not born again, you will not believe.”
You said that Nicodemus knew that Jesus was sent by God. Does that mean that he was born-again? Had he been regenerated? Likewise, John the Baptist knew that Jesus was sent from God. Was he regenerated? The disciples? The 70? (pre-resurrection) Also regenerated?
It seems that we have quite the number of people that were not yet reconciled with God, not yet redeemed by God, who were also guilty before God, who believed that Jesus was the Christ. All of these people were, at that time, dead in trespasses and sins.
It has always been my understanding that those who are born-again are redeemed, reconciled, and declared innocent before God. Are you saying that this happened prior to the death of Christ on the cross – before He shed His blood?
Do I have an incorrect view of what it means to be born-again?
Blessings,
Greg
March 14th, 2010 @ 1:58 am
Let me rephrase what I said: Nicodemus says that it is clear that Jesus is from God. I reinforce what this means by drawing on another passage right beforehand, which presents people who ‘believe’ but are not saved. There are several other examples in John of belief that doesn’t lead to salvation. Jesus, when conversing with Nicodemus, in response to Nicodemus saying that he knows (he believes) is that Nicodemus in fact does not believe unto salvation because he has not been born again. Then Nicodemus says, “How do I get born again?” Jesus says, “It happens like the wind…meaning you can’t do it, it happens to you.” Does that help? I would like help refining and challenging my position.
March 14th, 2010 @ 2:02 am
Also, I’m not a Calvinist, mainly because I don’t think the Calvinist camp would own me. Hahaha. Besides, I want to be a Christian, not a Calvinist. Who wants to own a doctrinal position?? I want to own Christ and anyone who will stand for His Name. Don’t you all want LIFE? Theology is supposed to bring a humble heart because it reveals the character and glory of our God. (perhaps off topic…sorry)
March 14th, 2010 @ 2:19 am
RE: irresistable grace.
Yes, the way that God has with our souls, our hearts…It is true that God, as the Bridegroom, does woo the Bride, His ekklesia.
March 14th, 2010 @ 2:22 am
When God applies Himself to courtship, He is the unsurpassed master.
March 14th, 2010 @ 2:22 am
Hi Robert,
“…I want to be a Christian, not a Calvinist. Who wants to own a doctrinal position??”
I understand. I was just trying to differentiate you guys.
I think I understand what you’re saying about Nicodemus, but it still doesn’t answer the points I made regarding the others.
In a nutshell, you have people following Christ and believing He’s the Son of God prior to His resurrection. Thus, I feel like this refutes the idea that you must be regenerated in order to believe because spiritual rebirth could not have occurred until after the resurrection.
March 14th, 2010 @ 2:29 am
Greg – Hmm…It seems to me that regeneration is not peculiar to post resurrection believers. All those who believe have been changed and now seek God. The seeking of any man is fueled by a new desire to follow him. That new desire is what we call the new birth. As for Nicodemus, the whole point rests on the fact that John uses the word belief to categorize two different types of people. There are people who claim to believe but are merely sign seekers, or fair weather fans, or demons who tremble but are not in fact saved, because faith in essence is infinitely more than just a confession; it is a cherishing and a loving of the person of Christ, not just what he is or what he can do for you. The other group are the ones who have this saving type of faith. Jesus, in my reading of the text, identifies Nicodemus as a false believer and he attributes this to the fact that he has not been born again.
March 14th, 2010 @ 2:33 am
Yoh Kovelic…you admit that God hardened Pharoah’s heart, how can God hardened Pharoah’s heart if Pharoah had a freewill?
God is only loving, merciful to the elect.
Robert, my advice to you is to grow in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ by diligent bible study, prayer, obediance to His Word, and be in contact with people of like faith you can email me at gbrookes02@yahoo.com for further communication.
Nathaniel, based on what you said I guess the substitutionary nature of the work of Christ is not essential as well since that too is not directly mentioned there as well. I am understanding you correctly?
A past perfect tense denotes an action completed in the past but has continuing effects. In this case regenration is the completed past action, and faith (believing) is the continuing effect or result of it.
Titus 2:11 did not say Salvation’s available for everyone (bad paraphrase), but bringing salvation to everyone. All that God desires to do the scripture say He will do. So all who God desire to save scripture guarantees that He will, He will accomplish all His desires or pleasures without fail according to scripture. This is another reason why man do not have freewill.
March 14th, 2010 @ 2:35 am
As for irresistible grace, my understanding of it is that God’s grace IS resistible. Want to know how we know? Because the Bible says so.
Dr. Brown should be doing hand stands! 
But, what irresistible grace means that at any time, God can overcome that resistance by causing your heart to form new desires in which you freely choose Christ. The resistance beautifully dissolves from the inside out due to God’s living work of healing and regeneration unto redemption through your embrace of him. As John 3:16 necessitates, you must choose.
Granted: I do not have an answer for the ‘world’ in my understanding of all this. But I would like prayer please. This is challenging for me.
March 14th, 2010 @ 2:41 am
Do believers “succumb” to the irresistible pull of God’s love? Yes.
This has been used to further argument against free will, Robert, as you probably know. But it shows that even something so beautiful, loving, and compelling as Messiah’s love for his Bride, the congregation, the church, will be used to – I’d actually call it “accuse” – God of being a kind of puppetmaster. “He’s using his “irresistible grace!” We have no choice!”
March 14th, 2010 @ 2:43 am
Gregory! Wonderful, and as you have recommended I must embrace all those believers of like faith. But Gregory, how can I fulfill my call to serve the body, if I do not include in the body non-reformed believers? Is not the man on the cross to be in heaven? We must be careful. Paul says that we are not yet perfect and have not obtained it, but that we press on looking to Christ and pressing on to the upward call of God. What if there are little ones who have not accepted what you believe is the consumation of Biblical theology? Are we not to love and serve them and bring them into close living fellowship? I desire to serve and bring life! Join me, brother. Bobby
March 14th, 2010 @ 2:45 am
God is God. He can do anything He wants. But He chooses what He does for the larger reason of bringing all to redemption.
March 14th, 2010 @ 2:47 am
Yoh – What ‘freedom’ is being violated? I will agree that man’s will is violated if and only if man’s will is completely uninfluenced by outside forces and that his desires and inclinations are completely developed ex nihilo. Otherwise, I must submit that my God, creator and sustainer of everything by the word of his power, can and does and indeed cannot help but influence my delights. But I must hold, on the basis of Scripture that man makes a REAL decision. Not just a fake puppetmaster decision. Do I need to understand the incarnation to believe it? The mystery I see is that God freely wills for me to freely receive Christ. – Robert
March 14th, 2010 @ 2:52 am
Yoh – I’ll put it out there that my position seems to suffer from the case of a seemingly contradictory motivated God. One hand I say, he desires all to be saved, while in the same breath say that, aHA!, he doesn’t really want everyone to be saved. I can only say that I am far to immature in Christ to have come to any firm conclusions but can only rest with confidence that it will be revealed by him in time. Yet, at this present moment I can say that the fact that he legitimately desires for all to be saved is embodied in his open call for all to repent and the fact that he bars none from coming to him. Then he does in fact turn around and save some through his regenerating work because otherwise none would be saved. There are many other ways of saying this that are much more satisfying, but this is the crux of where I am at the moment.
March 14th, 2010 @ 2:56 am
So if Pharoah, who exalted himself to be God was therefore brought low by the power of the true God, this alone is righteousness. But moreover, it served to exhibit God’s power on the world’s stage, bringing many to faith.
In Scriptural examples, God ony hardens hearts when it results in the greater good. This is righteousness.
March 14th, 2010 @ 2:56 am
Goodnight, brothers.
March 14th, 2010 @ 2:59 am
Hmmmm…Why must God harden a heart? I’m not saying that God hardens hearts in order to prevent the masses from streaming to him. God himself revealed himself to the world and the world couldn’t grasp him. He lost 5,000 ‘disciples’ in a single day because he said eat my flesh and drink my blood. My position I do not think rests upon this point. But if it does, please show me, really.
March 14th, 2010 @ 3:01 am
Let’s all pray for one another, without exception. We all need help to better understand.
March 14th, 2010 @ 3:03 am
Brother, one thing have I asked of the Lord! I will pray for you.
Bobby
March 14th, 2010 @ 3:09 am
Irresistible grace is just another name for regeneration, born again, or born from above, thats all irresistible grace is.
Yoh Kovelic, man having freewill and God hardening the heart of a man are mutually exclusive it is either one or the other it can’t be both. If you still mentain that it can be both then explain to me how can it be so? And what is your definition of freewill?
Now I must say something freewill has different definitions, as far as where freewill means man’s earthly enviroment don’t determine his choices, his choices are free of his enviroment then in that sense he has a freewill. But to say man’s choices is not predetermine and brought about by God thats where I disagree most strongly.
March 14th, 2010 @ 3:11 am
Everybody, I have to leave for now. God’s willing I’ll check back later.
March 14th, 2010 @ 3:13 am
Trust. We don’t need to have it all “worked out” – all our doctrinal ducks in a row to believe. God reveals more and more in time. This is His way.
Trust. We listen to He who speaks from heaven. We learn to obey. And of our love, we give to Him the utmost. This is the faithfulness of the congregation, or the Bride. Will He not give everything in time to His beloved? Rest in the Love that you know you have received in Him.
And now I must go to sleep. Goodnight my brothers.
March 14th, 2010 @ 3:19 am
Gregory – There is obviously a ‘degree’ of freedom possessed by God that surpasses the degree of our free will. But this is akin to saying that God’s ‘life’ is in a different category than ours. He has life of his own; he was not created, he does not rely on another. But the fact that we don’t have that kind of life doesn’t mean we don’t have a real kind of life either. We do, because he has granted it to us! Likewise, our free will is not libertarian free will. Ours must have a cause. But regardless of all that, the testimony of Scripture has to be really warped and the Holy Spirit really bending the rules when it comes to clarity, for there not to be a significant amount of free will in a man. One of the main reasons Dr. Brown’s position is so intriguing to me is that he basically says, and I tragically (sarcasm) think I agree, that the more free agents and variable involved, the more glory God gets and the more sovereignty and power is displayed.
March 14th, 2010 @ 3:51 am
In a previous comment I meant to say, A past perfect tense denotes an action completed in the past but has continuing or lingering effects. In this case ‘is begotten’ (regenration) is the completed past action, and faith (believing) is the continuing or lingering effect or result of it. For more information on 1 John 5:1 see James White’s,book ‘The Potter’s Freedom’, and The Discovery Bible, treatment of the passage.
If in the passage faith is not the continuing or lingering effect or result of ‘is begotten’ (regenration), then what is in the passage?
That it for now everbody. God’s willing I’ll be back. Oops! My oh my did I say God’s willing.
March 14th, 2010 @ 4:07 am
Robert, man is also get alot of glory too with God because he did it all from his own freewill independant of God in his freewill choice. Thank God freewill don’t exist so man do not get any glory at all. Scriptually how much degree our free will is?
God is in full, total control of the life He has given to us and it is not our life it is all His. He created it, gave it, control it, and it all belongs to Him only like everthing else.
March 14th, 2010 @ 5:24 am
Gregory,
Do you believe God made man like a robot?
March 14th, 2010 @ 7:47 am
Ben KC… God has more control over all H
March 14th, 2010 @ 8:06 am
Ben KC…I just press the botton by mistake, God has more control over all His creation than a man over His robot, yet man make choices and not a robot. Man is responsible, anwerable, and accountable to God, a robot is not to its controller. Man will be punish by God for his rejection and disobediance to God, the others will be saved and rewarded by God because of God putting in eternal love and grace upon them.
The comparison is like an author of a book, the author can do as he feel like with his character, yet he have them to make choices that he will have them to make, he punishes them and rewards them as he wills. The author can make them responsible, anwerable, and accountable to one another, even to himself if he so chooses to write the story. Yet who can fault the author in anyway because he do as he wills with them, his characters. Does the make them robots?
Another comparison is the potter and the clay, the potter can do as he wills with the clay, who can find fault with the potter because he choose to do as he wills with the clay. Is the clay then a robot?
March 14th, 2010 @ 9:27 am
A question was asked now I am going to reverse it, where in the bible does faith precedes regeneration?
March 14th, 2010 @ 10:46 am
I don’t believe in “irresistible grace” in the sense of the “violation of the free will.” This is really taking a great gift of God and turning it into something it isn’t: a disadvantage.
March 14th, 2010 @ 11:01 am
God has spoken through His prophet Jeremiah in Chapter 29:12-13, we read, “And ye shall call upon Me, and go, and pray unto Me, and I will hearken unto you. And ye shall seek Me, and find Me, when ye shall search for Me with all your heart.”
God would never invite and offer and let us know we can find Him if we search with all our hearts if He didn’t exactly mean that.
For anyone that really wants salvation, really wants to “find Him” — they can. It is completely within His will that those who seek will find, and those who knock, the door will be opened to them. The clue is do we do this with our whole heart? Yes, He made the way narrow, but it is open yet to those who really want to enter in.
What really bugs me about people who go on about “only the elect,” “only the elect,” is that they would make everyone feel as though it’s all a predetermined outcome, so why even try? And people begin to doubt and question their own status. Am I one of these elect? Will I be someone whom God has forever not chosen? Or can I be chosen, too? Is there nothing I can do to persuade God that I want what He is offering? And God is looking at our hearts, brothers, and seeing how sincerely we want what He is offering. And I do agree with some readers that we can influence what God is thinking. We can persuade God that we, in turn, love Him. The “wooing” of the Bride and Bridegroom, these are mutual, in my mind. We woo God by our attention, by our desire, by our own love for God as well as God woos us. It is reciprocal to a degree. I say “to a degree” because we’re not on the same level, obviously, as God, and so His grace and mercy will far exceed anything we can give Him. But our love, freely given, this is precious, I believe, to God. That’s why the whole argument some have posted here just doesn’t add up to the bulk of scripture which obviously points to our having free will and God desiring us to use it to seek him with our whole heart. If we didn’t love God out of our free will, He could never be satisfied with that!
March 14th, 2010 @ 11:02 am
I don’t understand the whole notion of God violating anything? Naturalists use the same idea when they say he ‘violates’ the laws of nature when he does a miracle. This seems to be a non-theocentric conception of how the universe operates. Irresistible grace only means that God, when he gives a gift, fills your heart with the DESIRE to have him. Then you use your free will to act on those desires. But now we are entering into speculation. If we simply stick with the Bible I think the case has been made that a man does not desire God and will not come to God despite having knowledge and understanding of him. Consequently, God, changes the desires of the heart in what is called the new birth and the man chooses Christ. I think that in the mind of God there is a sequence, new birth, then faith. But in a temporal sense, people would be hard pressed to find an example where the new birth came after or before.
March 14th, 2010 @ 11:06 am
Yoh – There is no deprivation or exclusion of anyone, ever. If they were barred from his courts, then they would not be without excuse. However, it is a different case altogether if a man, who can freely enter in, does not because he hates God. No one seeks for God. And out of the 100% who do not seek for God because they do not desire God, he gives the desire, such that they seek him.
March 14th, 2010 @ 11:08 am
Read this passage. I’m trying to work through it. Tell me what view prevails. I trust I have represented it fairly, not out of context.
“O sons of Israel, return to the LORD God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel, that He may return to those of you who escaped and are left from the hand of the kings of Assyria. Now do not stiffen your neck like your fathers, but yield to the LORD and enter His sanctuary which He has consecrated forever, and serve the LORD your God, that His burning anger may turn away from you. For if you return to the LORD, your brothers and your sons will find compassion before those who led them captive and will return to this land. For the LORD your God is gracious and compassionate, and will not turn His face away from you if you return to Him.” So the couriers passed from city to city through the country of Ephraim and Manasseh, and as far as Zebulun, but they laughed them to scorn and mocked them. Nevertheless some men of Asher, Manasseh and Zebulun humbled themselves and came to Jerusalem. The hand of God was also on Judah to give them one heart to do what the king and the princes commanded by the word of the LORD.
The last verse is the take home point.
March 14th, 2010 @ 11:09 am
It is 2 Chronicles 30:6-12 by the way.
March 14th, 2010 @ 11:12 am
I can’t say I agree, Robert, that “no one seeks for God.” I know I have.
Whether it was God’s grace that put that desire in my heart, that I have no way of knowing. But I know that there was a time I didn’t know Him, knew that I didn’t, and desired to. You’re saying it was God’s grace that placed the whole desire to find Him in my heart. Well, that may be. I can’t know that for certain. Can anyone?
March 14th, 2010 @ 11:15 am
Yoh – This is exactly where I am right now, we just happen to be at different sides. I want that humility to say, God knows.
Thank you for inspiring me to focus on the point. I was lost, and now I am found. I was dead, and now I live. 
March 14th, 2010 @ 11:20 am
I agree with Theophan that God’s ways are unfathomable.
This was asked of him:
“What is the relationship between the Divine provision and our free will?”
Answer: “The fact that the Kingdom of God is “taken by force” presupposes personal effort. When the Apostle Paul says, “it is not of him that willeth,” this means that one’s efforts do not produce what is sought. It is necessary to combine them: to strive and to expect all things from grace. It is not one’s own efforts that will lead to the goal, because without grace, efforts produce little; nor does grace without effort bring what is sought, because grace acts in us and for us through our efforts. Both combine in a person to bring progress and carry him to the goal. (God’s) foreknowledge is unfathomable. It is enough for us with our whole heart to believe that it never opposes God’s grace and truth, and that it does not infringe man’s freedom. Usually this resolves as follows: God foresees how a man will freely act and makes dispositions accordingly. Divine determination depends on the life of a man, and not his life upon the determination.”
Well, without getting myself tangled up in theological knots; and I have to be getting off my buddy’s computer in the next hour, I’ll say that this answer satisfies me.
All the evidence I’ve seen indicates that God’s foreknowledge, and indeed, so many of His ways, are unfathomable by logic, by reason, by all that we as human beings, can bring to bear upon them.
I believe that Messiah Yeshua taught us to have the simple trust and love of a child. That’s where I am right now. I love and trust and because of that, I know.
May the blessings of the Messiah rest upon us ALL
March 14th, 2010 @ 11:33 am
Yoh Kovelic, Robert and all others read what Romans 3:9-18, esp. vs 11, and Romans 8:7-9 has to say about nonchristians, unregenerate people, and they seeking God, etc.
March 14th, 2010 @ 11:36 am
Shalom, my brothers! It’s been a pleasure to interact with you.
(I won’t be able to return to this site any time soon due to upcoming commitments.)
March 14th, 2010 @ 11:40 am
Also read John 6:37, 39, 44, 63, 64, and 65.
March 14th, 2010 @ 12:04 pm
Dr. Brown,
“Well, I’m glad that at least you accept the plain sense of 1 John 2:2, but I’m sure you’re aware the the vast majority of Calvinists do not. But if you think through the implications, it will undermine your position.”
I actually don’t think it undermines my position. Like I said, D.A. Carson, a 5-point Calvinist, writes about it in Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God. “Plain sense” is actually an ambiguous term. There are many things plain in Scripture, but meaning is complex. That is why I think I can say that there is a sense in Scripture where the atonement is for all men – it is unlimited in value and there are benefits that are given to all men like the staying of wrath of God until he has gathered his elect. There is sense, however, that it is only for the elect of God. Jesus did not die in the same way for all men, his intention was for the atonement to justify and sanctify his church, his elect, his sheep. That is clear in Romans 5 and 8, John 10, Acts 20, Ephesians 5, and the like. It was in the mind of God to buy a particular people not every person.
March 14th, 2010 @ 12:10 pm
Gregory,
No, I don’t think you understood me. It is definitely essential. Did I not say that election is an essential doctrine? I said that it is not essential to preaching and believing the Gospel. As we grow in Christ, we should accept penal substitution because I think that it is taught in Scripture. However, there are Christians who do not believe in penal substitution.
March 14th, 2010 @ 12:29 pm
Yet another classic line from Gregory: “Thank God freewill don’t exist”!
March 14th, 2010 @ 1:00 pm
Gregory said, “Thank God freewill don’t exist!” And, “…yet man make choices and not a robot.”
Hmmmm…
March 14th, 2010 @ 1:06 pm
Gregory said, “A question was asked now I am going to reverse it, where in the bible does faith precedes regeneration?”
Ephesians 1:13
March 14th, 2010 @ 2:22 pm
To Dr. Brown and all,
On John chapter 3 and especially verse 16:
I would like to thank those who have been commenting on this Scripture for your insightful comments.
This chapter is full of some of the most weighty things we could talk about so I want to understand it rightly:
The chapter opens with Jesus’ encredible words to Nicodemus, “Unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of heaven” (v. 3).
This striking because of it’s extent, saying that without new birth you cannot SEE the kingdom of heaven,” let alone enter it. After explaining that that which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit, Jesus answers Nicodemus’ amazment at the fact that one must be born again by explaining how this birth happens by the Spirit. He explains, “The wind (Greek spirit) blows where it wills, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
So Jesus tells us 4 things about the work of the Spirit in making someone born again. 1. The Spirit is completely free to blow where ever He wills. 2. We can only see the results. 3. We don’t know where the Spirit comes from. 4. Nor do we know where He will go.
Jesus had expected Nicodemus to have already known these things being “the teacher of Israel.” He should have known these things because he knew the Scriptures. So Jesus gives the example of Moses in the wilderness, again from the Scriptures.
Verse 14-15 says, “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.”
As others here have said, this happening in the wilderness does give a picture of how Christ is lifted up to the whole mass of humanity. The purpose is that whoever believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life. The serpents who had been eating at the children of Israel when God had Moses lift up a serpent on a poll so that all a person who had been bitten by a serpent had to do was SEE–just LOOK and SEE it, showing faith in Israel’s Divine Healer.
So we come to John 3:16, “For God loved the world in this way: He gave His One and Only Son so that whoever believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life.”
“world”
As I have studied John’s use of the word “world”–kosmos–I do find many various uses such as one that refers to the phosical world (cf. 17:5; 17:24 etc.) The word kosmos can refer to a group that could not possibly include every human being such as where all those who do not follow Jesus or some of those who do not follow Jesus are in view, as in 17:14. However, the normative use refers to the great mass of fallen humanity (Cf. 1:10; 7:7; 14:17; 15:8; 15:19 etc.). Therefore it would not be out of line with the rest of John’s Gospel to say that this world that God loved includes all people everywhere that He commands to repent and believe.
“God loved the world in this way”
This understaning of “world” (Gr. kosmos) taken at this point, we see that we are about to be told in what way God has loved all of this mass of fallen humanity.
“He gave His One and Only Son so that”
He loved fallen humanity in such a way that He sent His Only Son “so that…”
“whoever believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life.”
I take this to truly be anyone who wants to be saved.
Therefore, Jesus died in such a way that we may freely offer Christ to all people who will believe. This is to every human being.
I love this truth and want no one to deny it. I also love the truth that the Spirit blows wherever He wills, giving new life to those who cannot even SEE the kingdom of God so that for the first time they see the serpent, see Christ, and be saved. I don’t want either truth to be ignored.
I know this has by no means been comprehensive, but if you see that I’ve missed something, please ask me about it.
March 14th, 2010 @ 3:25 pm
Harold,
Let me start by commending you for reading John 3:16 correctly in terms of the meaning of “world.” Yes! God loves every human being He created — all of fallen humanity — with a saving love, offering them forgiveness through the cross of His Son, who paid for the sins of the entire human race. Praise God for this incredible truth!
As for the meaning of “see” in John 3:3, it should be understood to mean “experience the reality of,” as opposed to making a mere observation of. And on that point, I think we all agree: We cannot truly experience and/or enter the kingdom of God without being born from above. And we are born from above by believing in and receiving God’s Son, for which we are held responsible by the Father.
The invitation has been given in Revelation 22:17! The Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let him who hears say, “Come!” Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life.
March 14th, 2010 @ 4:44 pm
Nathaniel…nobody is saved and don’t believe in the penal substitution of Christ work on the cross. Remember the speeches in Acts are only given in highlights. The works of the NT were meant to be read out in the churches and they contained the doctrine of election for the unsaved in the midst to hear as well. So where it might not be presented directly in the speeches but it is there in other places for the unsaved in the church meeting to hear as well as part of the gospel message to them. See Acts 13:48.
Greg, if you mean that the word seal in Ephesians 1:13 mean regeneration then you got it wrong listen to what the New Geneva Study Bible has to say here on the word seal “Like the indelible impression made by a king’s signet ring, the Holy Spirit is an inward mark of God’d ownership of His people.” It is talking about the mark of ownership of God people by the Holy Spirit Himself and not His work of regeneration in them aspect of salvation.
Greg, a choice biblically speaking is a mental exercise to go in a particular direction. It has nothing to do with been able to choose freely from a freewill between alternatives. Characters in stories make choices yet they are under the full control of their authors and can’t act independant of their authors, yet they make choices. Do you agree?
March 14th, 2010 @ 4:48 pm
“See” in John 3:3 have to include as part of its definition faith or belief for nobody can experiance the kingdom without faith.
March 14th, 2010 @ 4:54 pm
Yoh Kovelic…how do you define freewill?
March 14th, 2010 @ 5:57 pm
Gregory Said, “Characters in stories make choices yet they are under the full control of their authors and can’t act independant of their authors, yet they make choices. Do you agree?”
I disagree. “Authors” of stories make choices regarding the actions of their characters. For instance, I could choose to have my character go to the supermarket instead of the post office, but it was NEVER the choice of the CHARACTER – they were just mindlessly following the script they were written into. How can Huck Finn, Sherlock Holmes, Nancy Drew, or Jason Bourne ever make a choice?
March 14th, 2010 @ 6:34 pm
Greg…don’t authors ascribe choices to their characters. When they do that are the authors doing something wrong. Haven’t you read works where authors ascribe choice make abilities to their charactors? Yes the authors make the controling choice of their characters and in doing such they ascribe choices to their characters.
March 14th, 2010 @ 6:39 pm
“Yes the authors make the controling choice of their characters and in doing such they ascribe choices to their characters.”
I’m glad you agree. We finally agree on something. Praise God
March 14th, 2010 @ 6:49 pm
Gregory, can I get your interpretation on first Timothy 2:4 please?
Does God truly desire all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth?
March 14th, 2010 @ 7:22 pm
Greg…that was a no brainer, characters don’t write themselves into scripts or books, unless the author is presenting himself as a character.
March 14th, 2010 @ 7:28 pm
Eric… I post you this answer.
Reflections on First Timothy
Vincent Cheung
The Gospel for All Groups
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. (1 Timothy 2:3-4)
There is a strong emphasis in the New Testament that, in a specific sense, the gospel is
for “all men” and that God intends to save “all men.” And it is clear in what sense this is
meant. However, this emphasis has been often misrepresented because many people are
careless and dishonest in handling the Scripture, so that they fail to respect the contexts of
the passages and to take into account the biblical motifs that are relevant to their proper
interpretation.
To illustrate, the Bible teaches that God’s arm is not short. It would be naïve to infer from
this that God has a physical arm, or even a physical body. Such an inference does not
take the text of Scripture seriously, but rather disrespects the whole testimony of
Scripture about the nature of God, that he is spirit, and that he is without physical form
and substance. When the text is read in relation to the whole of Scripture, it becomes
obvious that the expression is only a metaphor to say that God’s power is strong and his
influence extensive.
We are now interested in two details in Paul’s statement. The first is his mention of God’s
desire, and the second is the meaning of “all people.” We cannot settle all the details in
this brief reflection on the text, but we can come to a conclusion that is clear enough to
enable us to grasp its main lesson.
The Bible teaches that God decrees all that he desires, and performs all that he decrees. In
other words, if God desires something, it will surely happen. No one can withstand his
power. Nothing can thwart his plan. Therefore, if God desires to save “all people” in this
sense – that is, in the sense that he decrees it – then “all people” shall surely be saved.
Another possible interpretation for God’s desire in this verse is that Paul is referring to
God’s moral command. A moral command is only a definition of right and wrong, and of
obligation. It does not specify what God has decided shall happen or what he will cause
to occur. When Paul told the Athenians that God now commands all men everywhere to
repent, he did not mean that God now causes all men everywhere to repent, but that God
demands all men everywhere to repent. Of course, repentance had been a demand since
the beginning, but until then God had not caused the demand to be published to all men
everywhere.
Then, there are also two possible meanings for “all people.” Paul could be referring to all
individuals, or every single person in all of history. Or, he could be speaking in line with
the rest of the Bible and thus refers to all kinds of individuals, that is, individuals of each
26
race, gender, class, and other classifications. What he means here also affects the possible
meaning for God’s desire. In particular, if Paul is referring to all individuals, then he
cannot be referring to God’s decree when he says that God desires to save all men. This is
because God’s decree is always effective. If God decrees to save all individuals, then all
individuals will be saved. But many passages of Scripture inform us that thousands upon
thousands of individuals will not be saved; therefore, if Paul is referring to all individuals,
then he cannot also be referring to God’s decree. This combination is impossible.
If Paul is referring to all individuals, then when he mentions God’s desire, that must refer
to God’s moral command. That is, if Paul is referring to all individuals, then he is making
the point that it is God’s command that all individuals believe the gospel. This is true in
itself because God indeed demands every person to believe the gospel. However, the
combination is unlikely in this verse, because this is not the language that Paul uses. He
does not say that God “desires” all men to believe, but that he “desires” all men to be
saved. If he has in mind a moral obligation, then the language of faith and repentance
would be more fitting, and this is the language that he used with the Athenians. Since it is
unlikely that Paul is referring to God’s moral command, it is unlikely that he is saying
here that God now demands all kinds of people to be saved.
The only combination that fits the text is that Paul is referring to God’s decree, not God’s
moral demand, and that he is referring to his decree about all kinds of people, not all
individuals. In other words, it is God’s decree that all kinds of people will be saved and
come to the knowledge of the truth. Because this is his decree, this is what shall happen,
and indeed this is what has been happening since the time of the apostle. This not only
fits the emphasis of the rest of the New Testament, but it is also consistent with the
immediate context. When Paul says that believers should pray “for everyone,” he means
all kinds of people, not only the poor and oppressed, but also “for kings and all those in
authority.” Then, a few verses later Paul writes that he is a teacher to the Gentiles, which
is consistent with his constant emphasis that the truth is not taught only to the Jews.
The New Testament repeatedly opposes the restrictions that people placed on the scope
of salvation, and compels them to enlarge their thinking. They harbored these restrictions
in their minds because of prejudice, elitism, tradition, and so on, but they were not
applied to individuals as such, but to entire groups of people defined by race, gender,
class, or some such thing. In other words, when the Bible teaches about the breath of
God’s mercy, it does not have in mind a “some individuals vs. all individuals” debate, but
a “some groups vs. all groups” debate.
In fact, when it comes to individuals, the Bible insists that God does not desire and has
not decreed to save all individuals. In Romans 9, it even says that God has deliberately
created some individuals for destruction, and has individually decreed their damnation.
So the “some individuals vs. all individuals” contrast is not in consideration in our
passage, and is never in view when it is said that God wants “all” to be saved.
Many people are out of touch with the way that the biblical writers think, and thus
impose their own categories into the text. Their own thinking is always taken up with the
27
salvation of individuals, and they assume that when the Bible says “all men,” it means all
individuals. In hijacking Scripture to advance their private agenda, they subvert its true
intention and meaning, robbing it of its force and wisdom, and all the while think that
they are doing God a service by promoting the false doctrine that he wishes to save all
individuals. On the other hand, the real concern of the apostles is to tear down the
prejudices of men, and to correct their attitude about the kinds of people that God has
decided to save by his Son Jesus Christ.
March 14th, 2010 @ 7:38 pm
Dr. Brown,
Would you not see that one must be born again to experience the kingdom of God at all? I would also ask you your thoughts on what I said about the free will of the Spirit.
March 14th, 2010 @ 7:43 pm
Ignore the numbers 26 and 27 in the text they are the pages numbers, I should of deleted them before posting the article, but I over looked it by mistake.
March 14th, 2010 @ 7:54 pm
man you just playing with words Gregory, you know what the text is trying to say you don’t need a book to interpret it for you.
March 14th, 2010 @ 7:59 pm
The more the hyper-Calvinists post here, the more people will become Arminians!
March 14th, 2010 @ 8:05 pm
Harold,
Yes, we cannot experience the kingdom of God without being born from above, and we are born from above by the exercise of our faith. “What must I do to be saved?” “Believe on the Lord Jesus”! John 1:12, of course, teaches this same truth.
Just to park on this point for one moment, since the jailer in Acts 16 was aware that he needed to be saved and was desiring such (just like the Jewish hearers, under conviction of the Spirit, in Acts 2:37), wouldn’t that prove that, according to your theology, he was already regenerated? Otherwise, as a dead and blind man, with no will to do good, he could not even ask what he needed to be saved with any sincerity. But he did! So, according to your view, then, a regenerated man was asking how to be saved! To believe this is to be guilty of extreme Calvinistic eisgesis.
As for John 3:8, the NLT brings out what Jesus was emphasizing in the text: “The wind blows wherever it wants. Just as you can hear the wind but can’t tell where it comes from or where it is going, so you can’t explain how people are born of the Spirit.” To read into this a doctrine of the free will of the Spirit that would then tie in with unconditional election or something is, once again, to import a foreign theological concept into the text.
March 14th, 2010 @ 8:06 pm
I mean really what is the point of good and evil, if it’s all God? It just doesn’t make sense, and I’m not tryin to say that just because I don’t understand it, it can’t be true.. It’s just the fact that if you say God predestines folks to hell, and doesn’t desire all men to be saved, and did not atone for the whole world… It is all a contradiction to the bible and you have to buy books to interpret these “trouble” passages, because I doubt you would just randomly think oh this doesn’t mean whole world it just means the elect. I don’t think anyone can come to that perspective unless they are taught it.
and hehehe lol at Dr. Brown’s comment.
March 14th, 2010 @ 8:36 pm
“I don’t think anyone can come to that perspective unless they are taught it.”
I fully agree Eric.
I had to be taught it, and I nearly bought it, but the Holy Ghost fought it, and now the truth I have caught it
March 14th, 2010 @ 8:48 pm
Amen Greg, good to hear. I like the rhymes too my brother!
lol
March 14th, 2010 @ 9:15 pm
“I don’t think anyone can come to that perspective unless they are taught it.”
Many people have to be taught the Trinity.
March 14th, 2010 @ 9:27 pm
Nathaniel,
My experience with the Trinity is that people believe the truths of the Trinity but don’t know how to put the pieces together without further explanation; I don’t remember running into anyone who, on their own, had believed in the specific pieces of Calvinism (say, that Jesus died only for the elect, or that regeneration precedes the new birth, etc.) without someone having to explain these points to them.
Do you differ with that assessment? It’s one thing to say that people will believe in some kind of election or predestination just reading the Word, since those concepts are spoken of in the Scriptures (although there are different ways of understanding them), but it’s another thing to say that would hold to other points of Calvinism without someone telling them about them.
What was your experience of becoming a Calvinist? For me, it was reading books about it that first convinced me as opposed to simply reading the Word, and it was staying with the Word that brought me out of Calvinism.
March 14th, 2010 @ 10:06 pm
Eric…Since you use the terms whole world what do you mean by it? I hope that you are not just throwing around terms like all the rest, so show me that you are different. What do you mean by the whole world? Do you mean by it from Adam to the last person concevied before Jesus return, tell me what do you mean? How does you teachings provoke the questions that Pauls teachings provoked in Romans 9:19? I have being provoking the very same questions here that Pauls teachings provoked in Romans 9:19. Why do you think that, that is so? Remember you all believe that man has a freewill.
When I talk about the whole world in relation to the atonement atleast I can define my terms, does it not bother you that you can’t do the same as me? When I say the whole world I mean the whole world of the elect of God from since the world began to the last one just before Jesus return, atleast I know what I mean I just told it to you, but do you know what you mean when you use the same terms? Tell me what do you and all the rest mean by whole world? I would bother to no end I didn’t know what I was talking about, couldn’t define my terms because I am confused as you all now are. When people can’t define their terms it mean that they are very confused and that is Arminianisn which you hold to as well as others here.
In my country there is a saying talk is cheap but wiskey cost money. Anybody can throw around terms, the real test is to define them and defend them, and you all can’t even define them let alone defend them what a shame.
Rom 8:28 (in order for God to work all things for the good of His own He must first be working all things), Rom. 11:36, Eph. 1:11, etc. teaches that all that exist in, take place and happens in God’s creation are by the hand of God it is all of God’s doing and directing. Those above scriptures atleast teaches that much truth.
Ps. 115:3, 135:5-6, Isaiah 46:10 say all that pleases God or is His desire He does, the Arminians say God desires to save all humans without exception, this is His pleasure to do, this is what pleases God to do yet because of man’s freewill some (most) go to Hell. Oh, what fatal contradicting nonsense the Arminians make of the bible.
How do you all answer the above? No one todate has being able to do so. Can you Eric?
Many because they couldn’t handle the truth left Jesus, and the Apostles for lies because the lies felt alot better, the emotions were more highten over the lies and most would choose feeling and emotions any day over truth because people just want to fell very good. Emotions and feelings are like drugs they are very addictive and you all have been overcome by and have settled for feelings and emotions over truth. What a shame.
All that I have been dealing here with is nothing but pure unrestained, unrelenting emotions and feelings. By far most of my questions and scriptual arguments have gone unanswered, ignored by all and sundry.
I have spoken the truth to you all so I am not guilty of anyone’s blood and in declearing the truth to you all it seems as though based on your all feeling and emotions that Isaiah 6:9-10 might just be true of you all here, which says, “And he replied: Go and say to this people: Listen carefully, but you shall not understand! Look intently, but you shall know nothing! You are to make the heart of this people sluggish, to dull their ears and close their eyes; Else their eyes will see, their ears hear, their heart understand, and they will turn and be healed.”
March 14th, 2010 @ 10:23 pm
Dr. Brown,
Yes, actually, and I know several other people who think the same way I do. For us, it just made sense with Scripture and how we thought about God and the world. I remember reading John 6 when it hit me that the only reason I was not in my sin was because God drew me to himself. I grew up in a Pentecostal household (I believe in the continuation of the gifts by the way), so I grew up Arminianish, but monergism always made more sense to me. I held to irresitible grace before any other points (I did not know it as irresistible grace then), and after I became convinced of my total inability (which I later learned was total depravity) it was very easy for me to affirm Calvinism when I heard it explained thoroughly (I had misconceptions of what Calvinism was). Again, it just made more sense with what I read in Scripture. I actually know quite a few people who would say the same thing.
March 14th, 2010 @ 11:07 pm
Nathaniel,
I don’t doubt your story, and I appreciate you sharing it. Obviously, my perspective is very different, as is the perspective of many others posting here, but again, since I recognize Calvinism as a doctrine held by dear brothers and sisters, I can certainly believe that some people came to it on their own — at least, in part.
Again, thanks for sharing your perspective.
March 15th, 2010 @ 12:09 am
Dr. Brown,
Thanks for opening your forum this discussion. It’s been very helpful.
God bless!
March 15th, 2010 @ 12:38 am
Dr. Brown,
To respond to your first comments on my post about on John 3:16, thank you for your comments. I do want to point out the wording of John 3:16. It says that God thus loved the world that He gave His Only Son so that whoever beilieves in Him will not perish but have eternal life–He gives the offer of salvation to every human being. This is to every person. It says if you believe in Him then you will never perish.
My point was that this does not take away the truth that the Spirit blows where He wills, giving life to whom He wills. I must question the NLT’s “so you can’t explain how people are born of the Spirit,” because it simply gives a bad/non translation of οὕτως ἐστὶν, which is “in this way is” or “thus is”. The words “so you can’t explain how people are” do not exist in the original language. So on a simple grammatical grounds it ought to be, “The wind (Greek spirit) blows where it wills, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So (or, lit. In this way) it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”.
Taking the plain meaning of the text, Jesus is telling us “this is the way everyone who is born again is born again. It says that the Spirit blows where ever He wills (or, wants or wishes), and when He does we can only see the effects of His work, regeneration. Also, we see that we neither know from where the Spirit comes or to where He goes.
You say, “we cannot experience the kingdom of God without being born from above, and we are born from above by the exercise of our faith.”
I would first have to say that it seams you are reading your theology into this text because it otherwise clearly says that we are born again rather by the Spirit. It says, “That which is born of (Gr. ek, or “by”) the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of (Gr. ek, or “by”) the Spirit is spirit.” Therefore in this text, one is only born from above/again by the Spirit, not of or by our act of faith.
However, because you say “we cannot experience the kingdom of God without being born from above, and we are born from above by the exercise of our faith” I should ask you about your understanding of faith. Do you not understand faith to be a trust in the Christ one sees?Why does anyone ever choose to come to Christ, but that a person sees how good Christ is and sees how desirable He is as a Saviour and Satisfier of the soul? Well, to be consistent with this chapter, would you not have to describe the seeing of the Kingdom of God as the simple seeing of it, just as those in the wilderness had to see the serpent to be healed?
And as to the jailer, I don’t understand the conflict with the man saying that he wanted to be saved, having already been regenerated. The word regeneration only means to make alive again, and according to John 3:3, one must be born again to see the Kingdom of Heaven and therefore want it. It makes perfect sense therefore to say that a person just given eyes to be able to see the kingdom of God and his own estate would look for a way to be saved from his sin, this is evidence of the circumcision of the heart making his hearrt soft.
Thank You.
March 15th, 2010 @ 1:10 am
Harold,
Time only permits a very brief response.
First, I do not see Jesus’ teaching on the Spirit in John 3 as supporting Calvinism. Rather, as many commentators recognize, the text simply speaks of the mysterious and invisible work of the Spirit — with evident effect — as opposed to a sovereign electing. In fact, everything else that follows in John 3, laying all the stress on human responsibility, vitiates your reading of the text.
Second, the obvious point is beyond obvious: God loves the world in a saving way, giving each human being the opportunity to be saved by faith in Jesus, commanding all people to repent and believe. The love is genuine and the offer is genuine — and that is NOT what Calvinism can truly teach. And really now, when you preach the gospel, you preach is like an Arminian, calling everyone to repent, quoting John 3:16 to everyone, and offering them mercy and forgiveness through the cross.
Third, if you can’t see that it is absurd to say that a regenerated person is still lost and needing to exercise faith to be saved, then I really can’t interact further on this point. If it makes sense to you and is so utterly and completely unbiblical and contradictory to me, I’ll just have to leave things for now rather than get into a protracted interaction here, which neither time nor wisdom would say would be either feasible or worthwhile right now. I don’t mean that in an insulting way, but I’m simply being pragmatic. In short, if to be regenerated means to be made alive, then that person has already passed from death to life and is therefore already in the saved, righteous, child of God category based on the truth represented in many passages. If you read them differently, I leave that to you and God.
March 15th, 2010 @ 2:32 am
Gregory, for someone who doesn’t believe freewill exist your statement (or objection) is in opposition against your own philosophy. IE, “Many because they couldn’t handle the truth left Jesus, and the Apostles for lies because the lies felt alot better, the emotions were more highten over the lies and most would choose feeling and emotions any day over truth because people just want to fell very good.” So as far as your own belief system goes, I don’t see much consistency. Regarding your objections, you’re the one who needs to redefine “whole world”, not me. I just keep it simple and plain so a fifth grader can understand it. When you say “whole world”, you must define it, not me.
“Arminians say God desires to save all humans without exception, this is His pleasure to do, this is what pleases God to do yet because of man’s freewill some (most) go to Hell. Oh, what fatal contradicting nonsense the Arminians make of the bible.”
You understand, the idea of God wanting none to perish, desiring all men to be saved and human responsibility is all Biblical I hope, right? Why are you acting like we don’t get that from the Bible, there are many passages you must ignore or redefine words, in order to have a sound philosophy/theology.
You said, “All that I have been dealing here with is nothing but pure unrestained, unrelenting emotions and feelings. By far most of my questions and scriptual arguments have gone unanswered, ignored by all and sundry.”
Perhaps, some are trying to understand where you are coming from rather than just quote Scripture and ask for your interpretation. It seems like whenever I tried to ask for your interpretation on a passage you would quote someone else’s book, which I don’t see anything wrong with but you didn’t even put it into your own words.
I can’t argue with you any longer Gregory. I hope and pray God will continue to lead us both into the truth.
March 15th, 2010 @ 4:34 am
Dr. Brown – I don’t think a person reading the Bible and thinking deeply about the ramifications of believing in regeneration prior to faith, would ever say that regeneration ever comes temporally prior to faith. That makes no sense for the exact reason you said.
But, the question is, then, why can’t a non-regenerate man desire to be saved? and yet remain unregenerate and without faith? The desire to have faith does not produce faith. Perhaps you see this as a fatal wound to ‘calvinism’.
Can you help explain it to me if time permits in your schedule.
And as for John 3, the fact that other parts of the passage lays stress on human responsibility doesn’t prove that the first part of the passage doesn’t intend to support that antinomy. I see the apparent contradiction as the point of the passage.
As for the actual offer: maybe I’m a completely inconsistent ‘calvinist’ but why is not an actual offer? All who come will be saved. Those who come are the ones who desire to come. No one desires to come. No one is saved. Does that negate the offer? I don’t think so. But, those who have changed hearts, have a desire and thereby enter in by the offer that is open to all.
But like I said, I’m having issues with this whole thing which is why I’m just saying what my ’system’ says and then asking for help tearing it down if indeed it should be torn down.
March 15th, 2010 @ 9:25 am
I want to comment regarding John Calvin since this was brought up earlier by Greg and I did not get a chance to comment about it earlier.
When you examine what scripture says about character and the fruits of the Spirit and contrast that with what the bible says about the works of the flesh, in the case of Calvin you find a very intelligent man but not someone I would consider to be a godly person. Not someone whose character you would want to, or **should** emulate. I am not speaking about whether or not he was a Christian as he professed essential Christianity and that is not my call. However, I can evaluate a person’s character and their actions by comparing what they do and say with what the bible says about Christian character.
Regarding the Servetus affair Calvin was wrong. We are not in a theocracy where a false prophet may be stoned to death. We do not have that right as Christians to execute people who hold false beliefs. And it does not excuse Calvin’s actions to attempt to justify the murder of Servetus due to that time period. If we extend our observations to beyond Servetus the Reformers were engaged in some obvious errors (e.g. Luther’s anti-Semitism, Luther’s siding with the nobles when the peasants were slaughtered, the Reformer’s persecution and mistreatment of the Anabaptists). The Anabaptists held views similar to a modern Baptist such as myself and they were persecuted and literally tortured for their views on baptism by the Reformers. None of these actions on the part of the Reformers is morally justifiable (and saying they did so as children of their time in order to minimize their wrongful actions doesn’t cut it).
Returning to Calvin’s own character from what I have read about him he seems to have been what we today would call a Jerk. He was not good with people, did not exhibit a Pastor’s heart towards others. Instead he was highly educated and intelligent and not a nice person to be around at all. Calvinists might disagree with me, but even the most recent and probably the best biography on Calvin (according to Calvinists themselves) supports what I am saying here.
Bruce Gordon in his biography opens it in the Preface with these words:
“John Calvin was the greatest Protestant reformer of the sixteenth century, brilliant, visionary and iconic. The superior force of his mind was evident in all that he did. He was also ruthless, and an outstanding hater. Among those things he hated were the Roman church, Anabaptists and those people who, he believed, only faint-heartedly embraced the Gospel and tainted themselves with idolatry. He saw himself as an instrument of God, and as a prophet of the Church he brooked no rivals. He never felt he had encountered an intellectual equal, and he was probably correct. To achieve what he believed to be right, he would do virtually anything. Although not physically imposing, he dominated others and knew how to manipulate relationships. He intimidated, bullied and humiliated, saving some of his worst conduct for his friends.” (Bruce Gordon, p. Vii preface, CALVIN)
Ruthless?
An outstanding hater?
Someone who was ruthless and manipulative. By no means can this describe a person with godly character. 1 John says if you love God you will love his people. Calvin hated people especially those who disagreed with him and thought it was acceptable. So while he was undoubtedly very intelligent and educated, he is no example of godly Christian character. Some may be enamored with the Man’s ideas because of their love for exhaustive determinism, but there is no justification for esteeming the character of Calvin. Not when he was such an obvious jerk and acted so contrary to what the bible calls us to, abundantly manifesting the works of the flesh and not the fruit of the Spirit in his conduct.
Robert
March 15th, 2010 @ 10:18 am
Robert said, “why can’t a non-regenerate man desire to be saved?”
What about the account of the Philippian Jailer in Acts 16?
“Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.”
To avoid the problem of regeneration before justification, Calvinists will sometimes use the argument that it’s a “simultaneous” event (though perhaps you would disagree Robert). Clearly, this did not occur simultaneously in this example (nor in other examples of people believing in Christ prior to His resurrection).
I do believe that God draws us and quickens us, but I don’t believe this action is full-blown spiritual rebirth.
March 15th, 2010 @ 10:25 am
Greg – What is your definition of the new birth?
March 15th, 2010 @ 10:33 am
I just found this above:
“And as to the jailer, I don’t understand the conflict with the man saying that he wanted to be saved, having already been regenerated.”
Harold, do you believe that men can be born-again and NOT have the imputed righteousness of Christ which only occurs after believing?
Romans 4:3-5 “3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” 4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. 5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness,”
March 15th, 2010 @ 10:39 am
“Greg – What is your definition of the new birth?”
One who has believed that Jesus is the risen Son of God and is thus redeemed, reconciled, and justified and has, consequently, received the righteousness of Christ.
March 15th, 2010 @ 10:39 am
Eric and others…when people are debating or arguing each party needs to define their terms so as to avoid ambiguity, to show or demonstrate to all that they know and what they are speaking about or of. Its is a very high act of cowardice, and rudeness when a party in a debate or arguement is asked by the other party to define their terms to avoid ambiguity, confussion of terms, to see if they know what they are talking about or of, for the other party to understand what they are talking about, and for the other party to be in the best of position to logically analyse their opponents arguements. Instead what you (and you represent all the rest as well) did you cowardly, shamefully and consistantly refuse to do so hiding shamefully under the cloak of saying that you don’t have to define your terms but the other party is the one that have to so, nonsense, it is the responsibility of all in an agument or debate to define their terms esp. when called upon to do so. When the other party can and did define their terms while you flatly and consistantly refuse to do so only shows that you are just arguing for argument sake, that you are very, very confused and you are only mindlessly throwing around terms (like whole world, all men, etc.) like the rest. Your use of a silly statement to say you don’t have to define your terms but I have to define mine, when it is the responsibility for all to do so, betrays the fact to put it charitable you know not what you are talking about, you are just arguing for the sake of arguing, plain and simple, thats all.
I grow up an Arminian because I never studied the bible I just accepted it based on feelings and emotions only, I interpreted passages and words in isolation of eachother and never in context of the whole bible these are the reasons why and only how I could of grew up an Arminian. This is what you must and have to do to be an Arminian. When I began to study the whole bible in its entire context and came across the doctrines of grace, I put them and Arminianism in the light of whole (not some of) the bible to prove which is true and which is a lie. Based on the whole bible Arminianism was shown to be the lie I was also shown just what it took to be an Arminian, nothing but emotions and interpreting passages and words in isolation and not being able to define words and terms that Arminians are using.
In context of the whole bible how could God wanting none to perish mean other than God not wanting none of His elect to perish, desiring all men to be saved mean anything other than that God want all of His elect men ( from all sorts or kinds of men) out of Jews and gentiles to be saved. One can only reach the Arminian false intentionally undefined conclusions by ignoring (based on emotions and feelings only) to interpret it and all other passages not in context of the whole bible, ignoring such passages as Rom 8:28 (in order for God to work all things for the good of His own He must first be working all things), Rom. 11:36, Eph. 1:11, etc. teaches that all that exist in, take place and happens in God’s creation are by the hand of God it is all of God’s doing and directing. Those above scriptures atleast teaches that much truth.
Ps. 115:3, 135:5-6, Isaiah 46:10 say all that pleases God or is His desire He does, the Arminians say God desires to save all humans without exception, this is His pleasure to do, this is what pleases God to do yet because of man’s freewill some (most) go to Hell. Oh, what fatal contradicting nonsense the Arminians make of the bible. Arminianism tries very hard to make the bible contradict itself while vainly saying the opposite. A preson can only reach Armianism by looking at scriptures in isolation of eachother.
You criticize me for quoting certain works to you including the last one that I posted but to the extent that I quoted them you never ever tried to disprove them scriptually, all you did and can only do is just to critize me for quoting them, what a shame, but this is the trickery of Arminianism. I will not be caught by your Arminian trickery and/or be ever dissauded by Arminian trickery to stop quoting works to the extent that they are scriptual. If you have a problem with that, I don’t. If a quote is clear enough to me I may just present it only as I did above and I have no regret about doing such, so if you have a problem with that , I don’t.
One of the many reason why you and the rest can’t define your all terms, is because if you all attempt the impossible you all know it can be easily demonstrated and proved based on scriptures, that you all are illogical, confused, inconsistant, irrational, and self contradictary as Arminians. So the ‘easy’ way out is to foolishly say I am the one who has to define my terms but not you, what nonsense.
When Arminian say the plain sense of the text what they really mean is what do I feel (what do my emotions say) that this or that passage or word is saying in isolation of the rest of the bible, that is all, the Arminians though they may vainly claim differently. But they use terms like “the plain sense of the passage or word(s)” language as a cover up for emotionally interpreting such in isolation. People repent and believe the gospel or you shall forever perish.
Paul said to the saints to STUDY all of the scriptures that (among other reasons as well) they would best in position to interpret each passage and word of scripture in the context or light of the whole bible (and not in isolation) to get the proper interpretation. And not just go with what you think or seems to you to be the plain sense of a word or passage in isolation, 2 Tim 2:15.
People repent and believe the gospel or you shall forever perish.
March 15th, 2010 @ 10:44 am
Greg – Is there a difference between the new birth and faith?
March 15th, 2010 @ 10:51 am
Gregory – You are saying dangerous things here. You are asking people to study the Scripture that they may see that you are right, but then saying that because they have not, they are therefore not Christians. But Paul himself is addressing believers, not unbelievers. He never says, study that you may because a believer. Rather, being a believer, study. I plead with you to reconsider this position and see the beauty of humbling one’s self to embrace and serve all who name Christ.
Were you saved when you were an Arminian?
March 15th, 2010 @ 10:56 am
Sorry, typo above…. should read
But Paul himself is addressing believers, not unbelievers. He never says, study that you may ***become*** a believer.
March 15th, 2010 @ 10:56 am
Eric wrote:
“People repent and believe the gospel or you shall forever perish.”
Eric, when you write the above, do you mean all people, or just “the elect”?
March 15th, 2010 @ 10:57 am
Robert… I was not saved when I was an Arminian or Calvinist, since then I am now saved as a christian.
March 15th, 2010 @ 10:58 am
Gregory – I don’t doubt you are being sincere. Forgetting the titles for a moment…
What must I do to be saved?
Must I take a course? Must I read the Bible? Must I assent to a doctrinal position? What is the requirement?
March 15th, 2010 @ 11:01 am
Robert…I never said Paul was talking to the unsaved I said clearly that he was talking to the saints, nor did I say Paul, said study that you may ***become*** a believer.
March 15th, 2010 @ 11:04 am
“People repent and believe the gospel or you shall forever perish.”
Why would I need to “repent and believe” if I’m spiritually reborn without ever having done so. Besides, according to your understanding, we can only perform that which has been predestined for us to do. For instance, I have apparently been predestined to firmly disagree with your soteriological beliefs and conclusions, and according to your logic, I don’t meet the requirements for salvation.
However, please expect me to fervently continue performing that which I have been predestined to do –> rejecting Calvinism.
Truly,
Greg
March 15th, 2010 @ 11:04 am
Gregory – I know. I was using that as a touch stone. I am drawing a distinction between your approach and Paul’s approach to Scriptural error. You are calling people to repentance and saying that they cannot be believers unless they adopt a certain position. But Paul says, being believers already, you must study.
Perhaps I have misunderstood you. Please clear this up by answering whether Dr. Brown is a believer. Yes, or no? Or are you unsure?
March 15th, 2010 @ 11:06 am
Greg – I think this is an unsophisticated view of Calvinism. Calvinists would never say that you don’t have individual choice. Your position implies that because God predestines it, you therefore don’t have a choice. You of course have a choice. You choose to do that which God has decreed. How is this a violation of your free will?
March 15th, 2010 @ 11:15 am
Robert, it may be an unsophisticated view of Calvinism with regard to “your” personal beliefs, but I was addressing Gregory and his.
Gotta run for now.
March 15th, 2010 @ 11:18 am
Greg – I’m sorry. I was being impulsive. I retract.
March 15th, 2010 @ 11:19 am
“Greg – Is there a difference between the new birth and faith?”
Faith is the means by which we acquire the benefits of His grace which produces spiritual rebirth.
March 15th, 2010 @ 11:25 am
Also, Eric,
When Peter wrote:
“Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and electure sure. ” 2 Peter 1:10
How does one “make” one’s “calling and election sure” if they are predetermined to be?
Just noticed these comments and am just trying to understand.
March 15th, 2010 @ 11:54 am
Gregory, the reason why I don’t need to define “whole world”, is quite obvious. The neutral position, plainest, simple reading of the text would allow someone to assume that whole world means, the whole world, on top of that I figure you could figure out I don’t take the Hyper Calvinistic perspective like yourself, so I would be taking the opposite position – but if you are still confused concerning my definition, here; every single human being, everyone.
Also Gregory, I have quoted scripture to you, and you reply back by quoting someone else’s book. So what is the point in a Biblical discussion if you will just quote someone else’s work? I don’t see your heart in those type of replies, I can’t either, when you copy someone else.
You said, “In context of the whole bible how could God wanting none to perish mean other than God not wanting none of His elect to perish, desiring all men to be saved mean anything other than that God want all of His elect men ( from all sorts or kinds of men) out of Jews and gentiles to be saved. One can only reach the Arminian false intentionally undefined conclusions by ignoring (based on emotions and feelings only)”
How did you come to that conclusion? Where does the text even slightly suggest this is talking about the Elect, and how is it God desires none of the Elect perish, when the Elect are unable to perish? This is just one more contradiction you must ignore, if you want to say you have a Biblical doctrine.
You also said, “Ps. 115:3, 135:5-6, Isaiah 46:10 say all that pleases God or is His desire He does”… So using your logic here, “God does whatever He pleases” – why don’t you apply that logic to say, Ezekiel 33:11? Where it says God has NO PLEASURE in the death of the wicked. So if God does whatever He pleases, and you say God predestines people to hell, meaning God gets pleasure out of predestining people to hell, YET the Bible says God has NO pleasure in that, can you see the contradictions building up? Yet you think that you can only apply that logic to certain Scripture that you mistakingly think agree with your doctrine.
The logic is not consistent, the theology is not consistent, I don’t see why you consider it biblical, when you have to use books outside of the bible to understand what is “being said”, oh the irony, because in reality, it’s just a way of filtering out the truth with man’s words, now that my friend is sad.
March 15th, 2010 @ 12:06 pm
To Dr. Brown and all,
(Dr. Brown, understanding your limited time, if you do not have the time to respond, I understand. But I think I should respond, if for nothing else, in the interest of others reading the arguments.)
Yes, as I also said, the text points out “mysterious and invisible work of the Spirit,” but it also plainly points out the freedom of the Spirit in verse eight–the free will of the Spirit. This is in the text, to be recognized or not. I would humbly suggest that from what I can see, you seem to be creating the tension between these two truths and not the Bible.
Again, my plea is for people to accept both truths, God is free to save whom He will and He commands all to repent and believe in the Gospel for salvation. The one truth does not contradict the other because (1.) it is in the Scripture and (2.) it makes sense.
When I tell people of Christ, of course I say, “Come all who would desire to have Christ, every man, woman, and child. Come to the living waters.” This in no way negates the free will of the Spirit to make someone alive to see the desirability of Christ. Without the work of the Spirit, that which is born of the flesh remains of the flesh, so no one would come. The Spirit never has to work against someone for a person not to come, this is just the person of the flesh acting according to the flesh. I am trying to remain in the text, which gives only the Spirit as the only one who can make one to be born again.
To close, I would not say “a regenerated person is still lost and needing to exercise faith to be saved,” You say that as you do because you see the exercise of faith as the act that CAUSES salvation generally, and I do not think this is Biblical. Faith, according to the Scriptures, is “from God” (Eph. 2:8). This God-given faith does not cause salvation, it just RECEIVES salvation. So the man who asked what he must do to be saved had of course not yet received the fullness of salvation, but he had obviously been made alive (regenerated) to God, because he demonstrates a desire for the things of God, wanting to be saved.
Would it not seem more absurd to think that a person who has not been made alive to God, who is dead to God, would somehow say, “I want God’s salvation. What can I do to get it?” That’s like saying the spiritually mute, blind, and deaf have to call out to God, see Him, and hear His voice to be saved.
March 15th, 2010 @ 12:11 pm
Everyone interested in the discussion on faith and regeneration and the Philippian Jailer,
Please read my response to Dr. Brown in my above post, beginning with “To close”.
March 15th, 2010 @ 12:20 pm
Eric wrote:
“People repent and believe the gospel or you shall forever perish.”
Eric, when you write the above, do you mean all people, or just “the elect”?
March 15th, 2010 @ 12:25 pm
Also, Eric,
When Peter writes (2 Peter 1:10) to his brothers, “Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure,” I am focusing on the word “make” here. If calling and election are predetermined to be, why would anyone have to “make” it “sure?” This implies a freewill act. Or do you read the Greek to have another meaning other than “make?”
Thanks…just trying to understand…
March 15th, 2010 @ 12:28 pm
I think you are trying to address Gregory/his post, not me. It’s okay though, no worries!
March 15th, 2010 @ 12:30 pm
Dictionary.com provides the meaning of the English word, “make” as:
–verb (used with object)
1. to bring into existence by shaping or changing material, combining parts, etc.: to make a dress; to make a channel; to make a work of art.
2. to produce; cause to exist or happen; bring about: to make trouble; to make war.
3. to cause to be or become; render: to make someone happy.
4. to appoint or name: The President made her his special envoy.
5. to put in the proper condition or state, as for use; fix; prepare: to make a bed; to make dinner.
6. to bring into a certain form: to make bricks out of clay.
7. to convert from one state, condition, category, etc., to another: to make a virtue of one’s vices.
8. to cause, induce, or compel: to make a horse jump a barrier.
9. to give rise to; occasion: It’s not worth making a fuss over such a trifle.
10. to produce, earn, or win for oneself: to make a good salary; to make one’s fortune in oil.
11. to write or compose: to make a short poem for the occasion.
12. to draw up, as a legal document; draft: to make a will.
13. to do; effect: to make a bargain.
14. to establish or enact; put into existence: to make laws.
15. to become by development; prove to be: You’ll make a good lawyer.
16. to form in the mind, as a judgment or estimate: to make a decision.
17. to judge or interpret, as to the truth, nature, meaning, etc. (often fol. by of): What do you make of it?
18. to estimate; reckon: to make the distance at ten miles.
19. to bring together separate parts so as to produce a whole; compose; form: to make a matched set.
20. to amount to; bring up the total to: Two plus two makes four. That makes an even dozen.
21. to serve as: to make good reading.
22. to be sufficient to constitute: One story does not make a writer.
Thanks!
March 15th, 2010 @ 12:31 pm
No, I am addressing you, Eric. Thanks!
March 15th, 2010 @ 12:34 pm
There seems to be a page missing, actually. But I seem to recall I quoted you in my first post today…am I mistaken? Didn’t you write, ““People repent and believe the gospel or you shall forever perish.” ?
March 15th, 2010 @ 12:35 pm
Ruth Smith, I am pretty sure you are trying addressing Gregory as I did not say, “People repent and believe the gospel or you shall forever perish.”
That was a quote from Gregory not me. As I said though, it’s okay! No worries!
March 15th, 2010 @ 12:40 pm
Gregory, please don’t reply to this post.
I have difficulty reading your posts. You may place the blame on me for having the difficulty, I’ll take it.
March 15th, 2010 @ 12:44 pm
Dr. Brown,
Just in case you happen to have a bit of time, I’m wondering about the Greek meaning of “make” as it’s translated here:
When Peter writes (2 Peter 1:10) to his brothers, “Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure,” I am focusing on the word “make” here. If calling and election are predetermined to be, why would anyone have to “make” it “sure?” This implies a freewill act.
Does the Greek meaning of “make” correspond to our English meaning of “make,” or are there other dimensions that most folks wouldn’t catch? Thanks!
March 15th, 2010 @ 12:50 pm
Greg,
To answer you question about regeneration, the imputation of righteousness, and faith,
You ask, “Harold, do you believe that men can be born-again and NOT have the imputed righteousness of Christ which only occurs after believing?”
I believe that any one who is born again receives the righteousness, so there no such thing as a person who is regenerated but never receives righteousness.
However, if you are asking if a person may be regenerated, but not yet have received the righteousness of Christ, I must say that I’ll have to give it further consideration, searching the Scriptures. As of now, I would answer that it seems to be possible for a person not to have actually made an outward profession of faith receiving the righteousness of Christ, and have already been given new life.
The primary thing to be kept in mind is that Salvation is an act of God, not man. In as much as we keep attributing salvation to any action that we preform, we confuse salvation. Any act that we do, we only do as a result of God’s salvation, and not at all causing God’s salvation.
“But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not from yourselves, it is the gift from God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.” –Ephesians 2:4-9
March 15th, 2010 @ 12:59 pm
Ruth Smith,
If I may be of some help, when 2 Peter 1:10 says to make your calling and election sure, it does not say to make sure that it happens, but to make sure that you have been called and elected. That is why immediately afterwards he says, if you do these things you will never fail.
If you are sure that God has loved you with not only the conditional love of John 3:16, but also the unconditional, “great love” of Ephesians 2, then you will never fail because you know that “that He who has begun a good work in you will complete [it] until the day of Jesus Christ” (Phil 1:6).
March 15th, 2010 @ 1:01 pm
Harold said, “You say that as you do because you see the exercise of faith as the act that CAUSES salvation generally, and I do not think this is Biblical.”
Habakkuk 2:4
“Behold the proud, His soul is not upright in him; But the just shall live by his faith.”
Matthew 15:28
Then Jesus answered and said to her, “O woman, great is your faith! Let it be to you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed from that very hour.
The daughter was healed AFTER the woman exercised faith.
Mark 2:5
When Jesus saw THEIR faith, He said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven you.”
Mark 5:34
And He said to her, “Daughter, *your* faith has made you well. Go in peace, and be healed of your affliction.”
First a person exercises THEIR faith – then they are saved, healed, delivered (etc).
I could really quote an abundance of scriptures, but I’ll stop here.
March 15th, 2010 @ 1:07 pm
Harold, Where do you get the idea that God only conditionally loves everyone, and in Ephesians 2, the same Greek word “agape” is used. Yet in one context according to you, it’s conditional, and in the next it’s unconditional? How is it the definition of the word changes from John 3:16 to Ephesians 2:4?
March 15th, 2010 @ 1:09 pm
Harold said, “The primary thing to be kept in mind is that Salvation is an act of God, not man.”
I completely agree. We are saved by God’s grace, which we acquire through faith; just like the examples I mentioned in my previous post.
Were the Israelites saved by the bronze serpent? Yes, but they had to first look up.
March 15th, 2010 @ 1:16 pm
Greg,
Thank for your comments.
As you did not quote what I positively described faith as, I said, “This God-given faith does not cause salvation, it just RECEIVES salvation.”
Of course I believe that faith corresponds to salvation and healing. I simply say that it receives such, and does not cause it.
The righteous by his faith shall live indeed. He lives because he has been given faith, and his faith does not cause his life, but receives it. Only God gives life and healing; faith just receives this healing and salvation.
I will gladly respond as you ask me to any other aspect of those other verses, but I think this may make what I am saying clear:
Paul says the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes. Now is the power in the faith or the Gospel? In one sense the power is in the faith, but only in the sense that it RECEIVES the Gospel. The power is God’s, and it is given through the Good News of what God has done in History, and that is what saves.
I simply mean that faith is the open hand to God, receiving the power, healing, and salvation of God.
Would you agree?
March 15th, 2010 @ 1:23 pm
Also Harold, the word “great” does not add to the word “love”, it’s just an adjective describing love, the Greek word “agape”, in every sense is GREAT, although I am not a Greek scholar and not very educated in Greek at all I have studied this word.
(NKJ)
John 3:16
For God so loved (agape) the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
1 John 4:10
In this is love (agape), not that we loved (agape) God, but that He loved (agape) us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
The propitiation for whose sins?
1 John 2:2
And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.
So God unconditionally loves, not just us, but the whole world. (the human race)
March 15th, 2010 @ 1:28 pm
Eric,
That is an excellent question.
(By the way, yes the Greek word used in both instances is agapē.)
I get the idea that the love of John 3:16 is conditional from the text its self. I plainly says, “For God loved the world such that He gave His One and Only Son, so that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.” This love is a if, then love. It says that God loved you so that if you believe then you will be saved. This is the love with which God loves all people.
However, I understand the love of Ephesians 2 to be unconditional love because God saves unconditionally. God makes alive, gives faith, for-ordains good works, and thus saves. There is no if you are alive to the goodness of God, there is a God making us alive to His goodness. There is no leaving a person at, if you believe, there is a giving of faith so that a person does believe.
March 15th, 2010 @ 1:35 pm
Eric,
I should also say that there is a difference in love, and great love–i.e. ἀγαπάω and πολλὴν ἀγάπη.
Great does describe the love.
March 15th, 2010 @ 1:37 pm
Robert… repent and believe all of the gospel and you will be saved..
March 15th, 2010 @ 1:45 pm
Harold, where are the words “if you believe”, in John 3:16? I don’t see it suggesting God only loves you if you believe, but God loves the world, as it is (human race), God sent His Son to die for the world so, this is the act of love. God unconditionally loving the world by doing this, and possibly you could read it as *if* we believe, we will have eternal life. But not, “if you believe, God loves you”.
Romans 5:18 (NKJ)
Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.
March 15th, 2010 @ 1:45 pm
I would agree with your words, but what is ‘all of the gospel’ to you? I fear that many would error in filling the word ‘all’ with a doctrinal statement that is neither sufficient nor necessary for salvation, but which nonetheless is true. Did the man on the cross believe and understand what you would consider ‘all the gospel?’
March 15th, 2010 @ 1:47 pm
mark 10:21 is a wonderful example of Jesus loving a person who was not saved… i love this passage
March 15th, 2010 @ 1:55 pm
Greg,
Yes grace is received through faith, but do you not see that faith is also a gift given by God and said not to be from ourselves in Ephesians 2:8?
It says,
“For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not from yourselves, it is the gift from God;”
When it says “that is not from yourselves,” the “that” is grammatically the grace, the salvation, AND the faith. It is ALL not from us, and it is ALL given by God–including the faith.
March 15th, 2010 @ 2:00 pm
Ruth and Harold,
Here is the breakdown:
2Pe 1:10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make (5733) your calling and election sure : for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:
“make”= 4160 poiew poieo poy-eh’-o
1) to make
1a) with the names of things made, to produce, construct, form, fashion, etc.
1b) to be the authors of, the cause
TVM: Present 5774, Middle 5785, Infinitive 5795,
It is in the middle voice.
5785 Voice-Middle
The middle voice indicates the subject performing an action upon himself (reflexive action) or for his own benefit. E.g., “The boy groomed himself.” Many verbs which occur only in middle voice forms are translated in English as having an active sense; these are called “deponent” verbs, and do not comply with the normal requirements for the middle voice.
“sure”= 949 bebaiov bebaios beb’-ah-yos
1) stable, fast, firm
2) metaph. sure, trusty
It does not say to make sure you are called and elected. It says to do something to yourself that has the effect of producing the sureness of your calling and election.
March 15th, 2010 @ 2:01 pm
Gregory,
Please reply with a simple answer to a very simple and direct question. Do you agree with Marc Carpenter of the outsidethecamp website when he gives the following assessment concerning me, Billy Graham, C. S. Lewis, John Wesley, and all who do not hold to the specific views laid out in detail on his website: “Their god is a liar when he says that this “Christ” took away the sins of everyone without exception. The blood of their “Christ” is of no effect in and of itself. And they blaspheme the true Jesus Christ by using His Name in their damnable heresy, claiming that the true Jesus Christ of the Bible paid the sin debt for everyone without exception. They hate the true God and the true gospel. They are unregenerate.”
Please answer with a simple “Yes” or “No.”
And do you agree with him that all “tolerant Calvinists” who believe that Arminians are saved are themselves lost and hell-bound? Presumably, that would include people like John Piper, R. C. Sproul, and James White.
Again, simply answer with “Yes” or “No,” since you have made your other views abundantly clear already on this site.
I have already warned you about being a divisive brother and want to take that warning one step further by asking you for a direct response to my questions.
Should you decide not to answer this post but to start preaching again, we will temporarily block your posts until you simply make your agreement or disagreement clear.
March 15th, 2010 @ 2:06 pm
Eric,
The text says, “For God loved the world such that He gave His One and Only Son, so that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.” The love here is a love that directly says that whoever believes will be saved. This means that God loves so that whoever will believe will be saved, and whoever does not believe will be damned. This is called a conditional offer because it has more than one condition or option.
Again, Ephesians 2 has no conditions that are fulfilled by anybody. It does not leave one at a decision of whether or not to be one of the “whoever believes”; it unilaterally, and unconditionally makes alive and gives the faith to believe.
March 15th, 2010 @ 2:09 pm
The text is not suggesting God doesn’t love you if you do not believe Harold. It does says “For God so loved the world”, that is unconditional, “agape” love. Whosoever believes, will be saved. It doesn’t say if you believe you will be loved, but you will be saved. You must believe in order to be saved, not in order to be loved.
March 15th, 2010 @ 2:18 pm
Eric,
Exactly. It would be hard for John/Jesus to have made things any more clear.
March 15th, 2010 @ 2:24 pm
Another “Robert” has been writing in here. I believe that in order to not confuse things those of us who are writing in as Robert ought to add some other detail so that we can distinguish the Roberts posting here!
Since my favorite number is “7” I will post as Robert 777.
The other Robert wrote:
“Greg – I think this is an unsophisticated view of Calvinism. Calvinists would never say that you don’t have individual choice.”
Of course not, a determinist can believe that we MAKE CHOICES, all that they deny is that we ever HAVE CHOICES as normally defined (i.e. I have a choice when I can actualize either possibility that I am considering: e.g. I can choose to lift up my hand and ask a question in a class or I can choose to keep my hand down and not ask the question during the class, I have a choice if I can actualize either of these possibilities).
Now “Robert” writes something that is true about calvinism and yet I found it hilarious!
“Your position implies that because God predestines it, you therefore don’t have a choice.”
This is absolutely true, if God predetermines something and everything He predetermines comes to pass, then whatever he predetermines has to happen. And if God predetermines that I raise my hand in the class, then I will do so and it is impossible for me to do otherwise. By the normal and ordinary understanding of “having a choice” I have no choice in this situation. Likewise if God predetermined for me not to raise my hand in class then it would be impossible for me to do otherwise. By the normal and ordinary understanding of “having a choice” I have no choice in this situation either. The point is that regardless of what you end up doing, whatever choice you make if it is all predetermined, then you NEVER EVER HAVE A CHOICE as ordinarily understood.
“You of course have a choice.”
NOT IF EVERYTHING IS PREDETERMINED.
If everything is predetermined then you ********never ever******** have a choice. You may make choices in such a world, make the choices you were predetermined to make, but you would never ******have a choice******.
“You choose to do that which God has decreed.”
Of course, how could you do otherwise if everything was decreed/predetermined? You would make all the choices that God has already decided that you would make. If you face a temptation as a believer, if God predetermined/decreed that you would sin, then you would have to sin. And this would apply with every choice that you make: God decided you would choose something and that is exactly what you would choose.
“How is this a violation of your free will?”
It is not a violation of “your free will” because you would not have free will!
You can’t have it violated if you don’t have it in the first place!
If the Puppet master pulls the strings of the puppet so that it does exactly what He wants it to do, no more and no less. Then how is the puppet’s free will being violated? It’s not, cause the puppet has no free will to be violated. In fact it only and always does what the puppet master controls it to do.
Robert 777
March 15th, 2010 @ 2:29 pm
Dr. Brown, I agree 100%.
March 15th, 2010 @ 2:51 pm
Robert…777
If your ‘Will’ is what determines things…What determines your will?
March 15th, 2010 @ 2:52 pm
Eric,
I might be more acurate to say that the love of John 3:16 has conditional results, whereas the “great love” of Ephesians 2 does not. My point stands that the love of John 3:16 is indiscriminate but its results are conditional–you may or may not be saved as a result of this love. However, the great love of Ephesians (and many other passages) is what is properly called saving or effectual love because it does not stop at the outward call of the gospel but, as Ephesians 2 says, actually makes alive, thus giving a new nature, and gives faith, thus actually saving and not merely giving the offer of salvation.
March 15th, 2010 @ 2:58 pm
Eric…don’t play games with me, when you say the whole world means “every single human being, everyone.” Do you mean from Adam to the last conceived person just before Christ return, or do you mean all without exception that was living at the time of Christ’s death up to the the last conceived person just before Christ return? What exactly or precisely do you mean? I gave you a most precise definition as to what the terms means, why don’t you do to same and stop play games? Show that you are different to the rest, not just arguing for argument sake.
It don’t matter if I quote someone or I say the truth in my own words. All that matter is that the truth is presented. Unlike Arminians I am not looking for any glory, but even with God Arminians mean that they must get some degree of glory too, because they contributed something of their own freewill. All that matters to me is that the truth is presented. If I quote someone in a positive light does not that automatically tell you that, that is my opinion too?
If you interpret Ezekiel 33:11 to mean everyone without exception (whatever that is suppose mean) then that Arminian feeling based interpretation will only contradict Ps. 115:3, 135:5-6, Isaiah 46:10 if it don’t then show me how your Arminian interpretation do not make those scriptures contradict eachother but harmonise them. This is what I mean when I say Arminians by their feeling interpret passages and words in isolation of eachother and not in the context of the whole bible.
When I say Ezekiel 33:11 mean the elect of God, in whose death God has no pleasure in, then there is no contradiction with Ps. 115:3, 135:5-6, Isaiah 46:10 they all dove tail into eachother with that interpretation. But how can Eric show his interpretation don’t make the scriptures contradict eachother, esp. in this case? Arminians are masterful at interpreting scriptures in isolation based on feelings and end up having the scriptures contradicting eachother. Dr. Gordon Clarke in his book ‘Predestination’ has answer this objection by Arminians. And saddest of all it don’t even bother the Arminians that they make the scriptures contradict eachother because of interpreting scriptures in isolation of eachother based on emotions. And when they are challenged about that they just simply ignore such challenges, pretending that in their system they don’t make the scriptures to contradict eachother when they always do such. So explain Eric, and others.
March 15th, 2010 @ 2:59 pm
Notice the encredible force of the text:
“But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not from yourselves, it is the gift from God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.” –Ephesians 2:4-9
March 15th, 2010 @ 3:00 pm
Gregory – Brother, I urge you to show more respect to Dr. Brown and answer his question in the above post.
March 15th, 2010 @ 3:07 pm
Gregory, I’m not the one playing games here when I say, “every single human being, everyone”, I am being very precise and accurate in my definition. I mean, the ELECT AND everyone ELSE. The whole, everyone, all of them. Yes everyone from Adam every single last one.
I don’t get the whole “interpret based on feelings” argument. I guess you will have to show me how I am interpreting Ezekiel 33:11 on feelings?
The point I was making was, I agree Scripture clearly teaches God does whatever pleases Him, however if He takes NO pleasure in the death of the wicked, and you say He gets pleasure out of predestining people to hell, that is a contradiction. There is no suggestion this is talking about the elect perishing, when according to your own doctrine is impossible for the elect to perish.
March 15th, 2010 @ 3:09 pm
Harold, I disagree that John 3:16 shows a love of conditional results. I believe God still loves people if they die unbelievers. That doesn’t mean they will go to heaven, but I believe God still loves them.
March 15th, 2010 @ 3:11 pm
I do not say this to deminish the love of John 3:16 but only to lift up the great love of Ephesians 2 because so many evangelicalls only know the love of John 3:16, which says God loves you in an amazing way so that you can be saved if you believe. But I think all Christians should know themselves loved with this great, everlasting love that does not save or not save depending on what we do, but saves based upon the simple unconditionally saving love of God. This love actually gives the life to experience the kingdom and gives the faith to trust in Jesus. Oh, how I long for all Christians to know themselves loved in this way.
March 15th, 2010 @ 3:15 pm
Eric,
You say, “God still loves people if they die unbelievers.”
This is true nut does it not show this love has conditional results, because God can love someone in this way and that person still go to Hell. This does not mean that God did not have that love for him, but only that this love of God does not always save.
March 15th, 2010 @ 3:18 pm
Dr Michael L Brown…I just read your post and I am very surprise that at this time you are asking me such questons when you already know my answer to your two questions. Nevertheless my answer to your two questions is YES Marc Carpenter, is 100% correct.
March 15th, 2010 @ 3:21 pm
Gregory, may I ask you why you are fellowshipping with unbelievers by your own definition then?
Should we be speaking spiritually to the spiritually blind? I don’t understand if you believe we are lost, why try to open our eyes when only God can?
March 15th, 2010 @ 3:26 pm
Robert,
“Returning to Calvin’s own character from what I have read about him he seems to have been what we today would call a Jerk. He was not good with people, did not exhibit a Pastor’s heart towards others. Instead he was highly educated and intelligent and not a nice person to be around at all. Calvinists might disagree with me, but even the most recent and probably the best biography on Calvin (according to Calvinists themselves) supports what I am saying here. ”
Now, the question I have is why are reviews from Reformed people still positive about this book and Calvin?
Sean Lucas, Associate Professor of Church History and Vice President for Academics at Covenant Theological Seminar:
“I hope that this book receives wide notice, not only among Reformation specialists and theological students, but especially among educated laypeople. Many of our people in Reformed and Presbyterian churches are woefully ignorant of Calvin’s contribution; the few that know something about him are as likely to idolize him as to understand him. Bruce Gordon’s Calvin is a marvelous corrective to both faults: informative, accessible, and realistic, it is the book to give to interested church members. And read with the eyes of faith, Gordon helps us move from seeing Calvin as a hero to seeing the True Hero, Jesus himself, whom Calvin loved and served.”
I don’t exalt Calvin above anyone else. It seems to me that Calvin was just like any of us – prone to sin deception by our own hearts. But to call him a poor pastor, I think goes too far. For one, some of greatest pastors in history (the English Puritans) were trained in Geneva. Secondly, I’ve heard many Reformation scholars that have said he was very good pastor though he had faults especially with pride. Third, to judge Calvin by the preface of one book is pretty harsh, to judge him by one book -no matter how good the book- is pretty harsh.
I’ll make the point I made before, Calvin was wrong to say that Servetus should die (he was right about Servetus’ terrible theology), and he was wrong about the Anabaptists. But we should also consider his culture and times before we pass judgment on him. There may be things about us several hundred years from now that seem innocuous to us and morally abhorrent to those who live in the future.
There’s no denying Calvin’s contribution to the church, and there’s no denying that Calvin was a Christian who loved God and his Gospel. In an age so apathetic about the Gospel, we should learn from Calvin in that regard. Though we should be careful about setting anyone on a pedestal, we should be careful not to slander them either.
March 15th, 2010 @ 3:26 pm
Has anyone heard of the Phelps family, Fred, Shirley Phelps? The Westboro Baptist Church (WBC)? That is a group that is an almost identical in my eyes at least, to Gregory’s outside the camp group.
March 15th, 2010 @ 3:32 pm
Gregory,
I am very sad to hear of all that you say you believe. You are mistaken sir in you conclusions that even those who do hold the doctrines of grace but believe God has the freedom to save those who do not understand all the implications of the Gospel, are not saved. This is an anti-biblical statement, and you border on giberish trying to defend it because it has no foundation in the Sceiptures. If you believe that God only saves those who know, not only the gospel, but also all the implications of the Gospel, you have an entirely mistaken understanding of God’s salvation.
You ought to seek very hard to understand the difference between an implication of the Gospel and the Gospel its self. On must believe the Gospel but not all the implications ofthe Gospel to be saved.
I, for one, will ask you to refrain from discussing anything else until you have learned what it means to be saved by the work of God and not by the understanding and belief of men.
March 15th, 2010 @ 3:34 pm
Eric,
I would simply ask you to consider my las two above posts.
March 15th, 2010 @ 3:38 pm
Gregory,
Sorry for the mistakes in typing, as I am typing on my iPod, but my point stands.
March 15th, 2010 @ 3:43 pm
Harold, what is the person simply, rejected – pushed away God’s saving love. Possibly, they didn’t want to submit to God and surrender their life of sin. As Romans 1 says “who exchanged the truth of God for the lie”….
They did not want to become servants, therefore they served themselves and ultimately served the devil. God still loves them and wants to save them even though He knows where they will dwell for eternity. That is just the grace, the mercy of God we can not comprehend.
March 15th, 2010 @ 3:45 pm
sorry, if* not is.
March 15th, 2010 @ 3:46 pm
I am thankful for faithful Christians of the past but I want to understand the Scriptures above all. I am a Calvanist because I have come to understand the Scriptures as I have, not at all because I read Calvin, whom I did not until much later read.
So I ask to be taken seriously based upon the Scripture alone, as I hope all others would.
March 15th, 2010 @ 3:53 pm
1 John 2:2
And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.
Bravo! Thank you Eric
Could it be any clearer? NO disrespect meant, but this isn’t just good news, this is GREAT NEWS!
March 15th, 2010 @ 4:04 pm
Thanks for responding, Big Tex. You wrote:
It does not say to make sure you are called and elected. It says to do something to yourself that has the effect of producing the sureness of your calling and election.
That’s how I read this, too:
(2 Peter 1:10) “Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure…”
(Focusing on the word “make” here. If calling and election are predetermined to be, why would anyone have to “make” it “sure?” This implies a freewill act.)
Yes, we have a part to play when we are called. That is, respond and grow in our Lord. And that is a choice.
Now Jonah had a choice…he didn’t want to tell the people of Ninevah what God wanted him to. He knew they didn’t want to hear it, he was sure they’d be hard on him. So he avoided and avoided, in essence, choosing to disobey. So God gave Jonah the consequences of his (Jonah’s) own decision. Then Jonah had a few days to reflect on it. And then he decided it was better to just obey God.
This is completely consonant with the scroll Moses was to have placed in the Ark of the Covenant re: the blessing and the curse. The curse was the consequence of disobedience. The blessing was the consequence of obedience. There is a choice we can make. But there are also consequences. If there were no choices, there wouldn’t be an either/or consequence.
This is very fatherly of God, I think. We’re not controlled, but we have consequences for our actions…
March 15th, 2010 @ 4:06 pm
Eric,
I am not questioning if God will love even the unsaved with the love of John 3:16. He will love even the unsaved with this love.
The point is that it that this love of John 3:16 does not ensure the salvation of anyone because a person may be so loved by God, as you said, and not be saved because the person rejects God. God loves people with this love who actually go to Hell, having rejected God.
What I want to say is there is a greater love in Ephesians 2 (and other passages) that is so great that it comes to the rejecting heart of all those God loves with this love and gets that heart pumping and feeling, He makes it alive with this great love. This great love actually gives those who are loved by it faith to believe, so that no one can be loved with this love and go to Hell. It is not possible because this great love does everything, leaving nothing to the helpless, dead, and poor sinner. It gives the sinner eyes to see, hears to hear, a heart to feel the goodness of God so that the sinner will come without exception to God. This is the love with which Ephesians says that all those who are saved have been loved with.
March 15th, 2010 @ 4:14 pm
So you think God loves someone more once they come into faith? Or once they love God? I see Scripture to the contrary;
1 John 4:10
In this is love, NOT that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
So we have to understand, God loved us and sent Jesus to die for our sins, the question isn’t who God loves unconditionally, it’s rather.. Who did Jesus die for? I believe 1 John 2:2 answers that precisely.
March 15th, 2010 @ 4:22 pm
Gregory,
I just wanted you to state that for all to hear in a clear and unequivocal way. YOU ARE MARKED ON THIS WEBSITE AS A DIVISVE BROTHER.
March 15th, 2010 @ 4:23 pm
Eric,
No I am not saying at all that God loves a person for believing or loving Him.
Exactly the opposite, I say that the great love of Eph 2 loves based upon nothing within the sinner, rather God loves with this great love dispite the sinner. God’s love here fulfills the need for new birth and faith, it gives both. It gives the salvation and the faith that receives it, so that no one may boast. This is whyone cannot be loved by this love and go to Hell. All that in Eph 2 is the greatness of it.
March 15th, 2010 @ 4:24 pm
Nathaniel,
You don’t seem to understand, if someone is prideful and hateful of others and consistently so. And if that person persecutes those with whom he disagrees to the point of killing them and also mistreats people in all sorts of ways, that is not a godly person. It may be a saved person; I do not make that call, but it CERTAINLY IS NOT A GODLY PERSON TO BE EMULATED. And that is precisely the point about Calvin. I did not invent his sinful actions and pridefulness and hatred. Those are documented facts about the man. Gordon provides this throughout his book.
“Now, the question I have is why are reviews from Reformed people still positive about this book and Calvin?’
Simple, because Gordon accurately presents Calvin.
“I don’t exalt Calvin above anyone else.”
You seem to exalt him as do other calvinists. If I described a contemporary pastor as someone who was prideful and hateful and killed his theological opponents and mistreated lots of people. Would you say he was a godly person, a person to be respected and imitated? NO. But when it comes to Calvin, biblical standards go out the window and you calvinists will do whatever you can to defend his character and actions. Simply because it is Calvin. Again, if it were a contemporary pastor you wouldn’t be doing it. And if you would do so with contemporary pastors then that shows you don’t make your evaluations according to biblical standards.
“It seems to me that Calvin was just like any of us – prone to sin deception by our own hearts.”
Sure we are all sinners and all fall short of God’s standards. But the standards for someone in leadership are higher and explicitly stated in the biblical texts. We do not lower our standards because it is Calvin, or anyone else for that matter. Instead we evaluate by what the bible says about leaders.
“But to call him a poor pastor, I think goes too far.”
Have you even read Gordon’s book????
Did you read how he handled those with whom he disagreed????
“For one, some of greatest pastors in history (the English Puritans) were trained in Geneva.”
I am not talking about other people, I am talking about John Calvin.
“Secondly, I’ve heard many Reformation scholars that have said he was very good pastor though he had faults especially with pride.”
A “very good pastor” even though he was extremely prideful? What bible are these people reading? Doesn’t it explicitly say that God HATES PRIDE AND OPPOSES THE PROUD AND GIVES GRACE TO THE HUMBLE??
“Third, to judge Calvin by the preface of one book is pretty harsh, to judge him by one book -no matter how good the book- is pretty harsh.”
I am not evaluating him ***simply by the preface***, I quoted the preface as it makes it real clear what kind of person Calvin was. Check out the rest of the book for ***example after example after example*** that confirms what Gordon says in that preface about Calvin. Again, if I pointed to some contemporary pastor who was extremely prideful and hateful and did all sorts of things to people he disagreed with, to the point of killing them: would you say they were godly people who were demonstrating Christian character? But it’s Calvin so you calvinists go into justification mode. Do whatever it takes to justify his sin and make him seem better than he really was.
“I’ll make the point I made before, Calvin was wrong to say that Servetus should die (he was right about Servetus’ terrible theology), and he was wrong about the Anabaptists. But we should also consider his culture and times before we pass judgment on him.”
Again what he and the Reformers did to Anabaptists and others like Servetus was unjustified torture and murder. That is not justified in any age of Christianity (again we are not in the theocracy of Israel). Now if calvinists were honest and admitted these things were wrong and did not try to justify these evils, I could respect that. But to try to justify these things (Oh he was just a child of his times . . .) and present a picture of Calvin and some of the others as godly men, as men manifesting Christian character is an intentional misrepresentation of the truth.
Robert 777
March 15th, 2010 @ 4:26 pm
Of course, no one is arguing about the soveignty of God.
There are good kinds of authority, however, and bad kinds.
Bad would be like totalitarian governments, or any abuse of power.
Good would be placing boundaries out of love and the desire to protect.
When God acts in His sovereign role of Father, protecting us from harm (all types) and teaching us to trust and obey Him, this is good authority. But if we are disobedient, there has to be a “stick” if you will, otherwise, we will continue to disobey.
So we always have a choice; something we wouldn’t have if God was a control-freak.
March 15th, 2010 @ 4:27 pm
sovereignty
March 15th, 2010 @ 4:28 pm
Harold, what about passages such as “God has no respect of persons”, if what you are saying is true and God does love, say, you more than me. Isn’t that a respect of persons?
March 15th, 2010 @ 4:32 pm
Friends,
Let’s pray for Gregory to come to know the Lord in a much richer and deeper way and for the Lord to grant him repentance for the error of his ways.
March 15th, 2010 @ 4:32 pm
Harold,
Luke 15 and the prodigal son give us a good picture of just what a lost and “dead” person is capable of experiencing and feeling.
March 15th, 2010 @ 4:35 pm
I will agree with you in prayer on that Dr. Brown – I am reminded of 2 Timothy 2:23:26.
March 15th, 2010 @ 4:35 pm
Dr. Brown,
You are right. We all should pray such for him, and I do.
March 15th, 2010 @ 4:36 pm
2 Timothy 2:23-26, sorry – I typed 23:26.
March 15th, 2010 @ 4:39 pm
“Let’s pray for Gregory to come to know the Lord in a much richer and deeper way and for the Lord to grant him repentance for the error of his ways.”
Great idea, Dr. Brown. Let us all pray! In His Holy Name
March 15th, 2010 @ 4:43 pm
Eric,
You say, “if what you are saying is true and God does love, say, you more than me. Isn’t that a respect of persons?”
Most definitely not, because I am saying that God gives no respect to persons whatsoever, but rather saves based upon the goodness of His will alone. I would be saying Vod has respect of persons if I were saying that God saves based upon how spiritual a person is, or how much good someone is, or how spiritually sensitive someone is, but I am not. If you back up from Ephesians 2 to chapter 1 you will see that God chose whom He would save based “according to the purpose of His will”. So it is God’s good will that determines and not the terrible, sinful will of those the Bible calls haters of God in Romans 3.
March 15th, 2010 @ 4:46 pm
Sorry not “Vod” but rather “God** has” etc.
March 15th, 2010 @ 4:50 pm
Yes, God chooses us in the Lord. We are the elect according to foreknowledge (1 Peter 1:2).
I’d still like to stick to the point, I was trying to make before which is – “the question isn’t who God loves unconditionally (which I believe He loves all unconditionally by the way), it’s rather.. Who did Jesus die for? I believe 1 John 2:2 answers that precisely.”
March 15th, 2010 @ 4:52 pm
RE: Bad pastors
Bad pastors can do a lot of damage. I once belonged to a sect which was started in the late 1880’s. This man was charismatic, and passionate, and full of zeal, but he also had serious problems, and one of them was pride. He couldn’t stand opposition and frequently denounced people as going “to hell” — as if it were his decision. He turned out to be a false prophet, too, because what he prophesied did NOT come to pass.
Nonetheless, his followers covered up his history. Even to this day, they deny the facts. But these facts were brought to light in the last 40 years and in a way that is irrefutable. Followers today refuse to even consider them.
One of the things he did was pronounce all other churches as false and declare his branch to be the “only true” church. As a result, more pride set in and people began to look down on others as “outsiders,” outside the grace of God. Self-righteousness began to grow like a cancer.
Right now, the church is actually shrinking, as more and more people question certain man-made rules and the fact that they are supposed to be the “only ones” who will be saved.
So yes, God will still work to save people despite people like that, but there is no doubt that bad leaders do a great deal of damage and need to be seen as they are.
March 15th, 2010 @ 5:24 pm
Harold said, “I simply mean that faith is the open hand to God, receiving the power, healing, and salvation of God.
Would you agree?”
This seems like a reasonable illustration of faith Harold. God extends His free gift of grace and we open our hands to receive it by faith.
Yes, I like this. Thank for your illustration.
Greg
March 15th, 2010 @ 5:30 pm
Hello Ruth,
Reading your comments I am wondering if you even noticed the parallels to your experience and the behavior of some calvinists?
I have done a lot of work with non-Christian cults and one thing that is alarming about some calvinists is that their method of interpreting the bible (i.e. proof texting in order to defend support and promote the Calvinistic system) and their actions are remarkably similar to how non-Christian cults handle things. It is almost as if some of them are like a Christian cult within Christianity.
“Bad pastors can do a lot of damage.”
Yes and their actions should not be excused. Even if their name happens to be John Calvin.
“I once belonged to a sect which was started in the late 1880’s. This man was charismatic, and passionate, and full of zeal, but he also had serious problems, and one of them was pride. He couldn’t stand opposition and frequently denounced people as going “to hell” — as if it were his decision.”
Cultic leaders are often charismatic (personality, not beliefs about the gifts) and prideful people. They are seldom humble people.
And as you state here a common element is that they and their teachings are to be believed and anyone disagreeing or challenging their beliefs needs to be severely dealt with. It is also quite common for them to denounce others who disagree with them or their teachings.
“Nonetheless, his followers covered up his history. Even to this day, they deny the facts.”
This is also quite common among cults, the originators and early leaders are represented in a way very different from what they really were and did.
“But these facts were brought to light in the last 40 years and in a way that is irrefutable. Followers today refuse to even consider them.”
And that is how some calvinists are with Calvin. The facts are coming out and Gordon in his biography does a good job presenting precisely what kind of person Calvin was and what he did. Particularly alarming is the hatefulness and pride and treatment of those with whom he disagreed. And have you noticed how even murder of those who disagree with you is justified as merely him being a child of his times. I have read about the Reformers and though there were things that they did which were good (getting the bible into the hands of the common people, e.g. Luther translating the bible into German), they also had some actions that are absolutely inexcusable (e.g. the treatment of the Anabaptists).
“One of the things he did was pronounce all other churches as false and declare his branch to be the “only true” church.”
Sounds like certain calvinists as well. Some will speak as if they alone are saved, as if a non-Calvinist cannot be saved. As if a non-Calvinist presents a false gospel. As if non-Calvinists are all false teachers and apostates. It should be noted that pride and hatred of others go very well with each other. And yet hatred of others and pride are serious sins that a genuine believer will not be practicing (see 1 John for lots of texts on this).
“As a result, more pride set in and people began to look down on others as “outsiders,” outside the grace of God. Self-righteousness began to grow like a cancer.”
Again, look at some calvinists and you see exactly the same things. For a group that professes belief in the grace of God they can be some of the most arrogant and hateful and self-righteous people that you will ever encounter. They can also be very divisive and causing lots of confusion among believers.
“Right now, the church is actually shrinking, as more and more people question certain man-made rules and the fact that they are supposed to be the “only ones” who will be saved.”
Again, look at many of these Calvinistic churches and you see the same thing. It’s us four and no more!
“So yes, God will still work to save people despite people like that, but there is