Mark,
You said:

I don’t think you can separate all these things all the time Cheryl. You seem to want to completely separate salvation from faith all the time.

No, I don’t want to separate salvation from faith, because there can be no salvation without faith. But what is separated is who does what. Salvation can never be done by us since it is a work that we are incapable of doing. But we can have faith just as we are required to have. If faith was merely God’s gift to us, then God would be unwise to command us to have faith. He would just give it to us.

Sure we can boast if we work for our salvation, but surely there is room for boasting if I believe and you don’t, if faith isn’t a gift.

There can only be boasting if I am capable of believing and you aren’t. If God created me with the elect position and granted me the ability to believe (after gifting me with faith) then I could boast that I am in and you are not and God planned me to be “in” from the very beginning. But the fact is that both of us have been given the ability to believe if we will turn from our sin and fear God.

There is heaps of room for boasting.

The only time that there is room for boasting is if one person is privileged and the other is not. If we are equal in our ability and neither of us can earn our salvation there is no cause to boast.

The fact is that if we are not picked to be in a higher class than others, we have no reason to boast. Salvation is a free gift offered to all.

The verses do not lend themselves to such seperation like you have done. Salvation, grace, faith are all gifts, so that we may never boast of anything of ourselves.

Gift is singular not plural in the passage. It is salvation that is the gift (singular).

I think you had a cheap shot a Piper there Cheryl. Any of us are vulnerable to pride not just Calvinists.

It is the Calvinists who say that Calvinism is the only pride-destroying system. The fact is that it is not and those who claim the name of Calvinist have been some of the most arrogant people I have ever met. I am not saying this about you for you are here in a humble manner dialogging with me. I don’t think that Calvinists do well by claiming that their theology produces humility more so than non-Calvinism.

I’m sure if you or I are ever in a position like Piper or anyone like that we would struggle. It is a good thing that Piper has realised this, he takes sin seriously and I praise God for that.

Well I praise God for that too, but unfortunately Piper didn’t take time away before his pride over took him. There are many non-Calvinist pastors who have not fallen to this kind of pride. Maybe that’s why I am predestined not to be a Calvinist. If I thought that I had been created by God to be loved and saved, while the majority of humanity had been created by God to be hated and destroyed in hell, I am not sure if I could keep the pride down. It would be so good for the ego to know that one is in the special class picked unconditionally. How many people can really handle that? It seems to me that if this really was the truth, the best thing that God could do is to tell us when we are in Heaven when we are not subject to pride.

Being a Calvinist does not negate nor increase one’s possibility of being proud- this is something we all struggle with.

Man I have heard so many sermons about Calvinism being pride-destroying that one would think that it is practically impossible to have pride while being a Calvinist.

But I reject that reformed theology increases people’s pride. That is just a cheap shot. It is illogical.

It isn’t illogical. I would feel very tempted to be proud if I was a Calvinist. After all I am so special (for whatever reason) that Jesus died for me and all the other special ones that God loves.

If I believe that God’s elect are purely chosen by God’s choice and mercy (Rom 9) how can I boast- it has nothing to do with me.

Because I am one of God’s “choices”. It wouldn’t matter why He picked me. The fact that I am in the special class and most are in the hated class – well how wonderful.
‘

I don’t believe that God loves me more than others- reformed theology doesn’t believe that.

It is a “special” love – a saving and special love. Goodness, we had to sit there and listen to our Calvinist pastor tell us how much God loves the elect and how special the elect and how much God hates the reprobate. And you say that Calvinism doesn’t teach that God loves you more than the reprobate?

he doesn’t take pleasure in the death of the wicked (Eze 18). But God also chose to save some and not others according to his pleasure and his will.

This is a contradiction. To say that God doesn’t take pleasure in the death of the wicked but it is His pleasure not to save them (so that they die) is just plain contradiction.

It has nothing to do with us or that he loves us more. You are misrepresenting reformed theology saying those sorts of things.

If you say that this is a misrepresentation, then explain how saving love one given to one group and withheld from another group is not “more” love?

Perhaps you should read Calvin! Please don’t also describe Calvinists as some sort of ‘elite’- this is unhelpful.

I didn’t say that Calvinists are some sort of “elite”. I said:

While you may not know the reason why He chose you, the fact that He chose you and you are one of the elite elect chose out of all humanity makes you have lots to boast amongst those that God doesn’t love.

I was talking about all of the elect here as Calvinism describes them as being the ones loved from all of eternity by God. That would be an elite group – not just the Calvinists. Trouble is that I don’t believe that there is a group of people that God has unconditionally picked as a people to love while hating all the other reprobate people that He would create. You believe in this class. I don’t.

Perhaps you should read Calvin!

I am reading Calvinist literature as much as I can stomach. I prefer to get my spiritual nourishment from the Bible .

You obviously have not understood me at all. Let’s try again. Saving faith is not a work ONLY because it is a gift of God. Once you remove the fact that it is a gift, it no longer is something from God, it is something from man therefore it becomes a work.

The bible never says that saving faith is a gift and any other kind of faith is a work and not from God. Please prove your point from the Scripture, because I have never once seen faith described as a work. Please show it to me instead of just giving a philosophical answer.

Your view( although you say you believe grace alone through faith alone) have made the ‘faith’ part into a man’s work because you deny it is something that God gives us.

Prove this from the Scripture.

Do you see the difference. I have stated this several times now.

No. The Bible never calls any faith a work of man. It is not Scriptural.

Yes faith is a response, but even a response is a work (because it is something we do) UNLESS it is a gift of God.

This is where you greatly err. Doing something doesn’t make it a work. Cashing a cheque is not a work.

This is a work:

exertion or effort directed to produce or accomplish something; labor; toil.

It is impossible for believing God to be a work. If I am wrong, then stop arguing with me and show me this from the Scripture.

You are struggling to accept Calvinism because you don’t understand it.

I have some very good resources and explain Calvinism and I cannot accept something that contradicts the Scripture. The explanations that they give and what you give contradict Scripture.

That’s why I keep recommending you read Calvin, not me, not any other ‘Calvinists’.

If Calvinism is the truth, one would not need to read Calvin. One could be instructed by reading the Bible. Books on Calvinism that are recommended by Calvinists are sufficient. Calvin has been made out to be an icon that one cannot understand the Scripture without him. That really goes against the grain.

Then see if what Calvin saids squares with the Bible.

I have already quoted Calvin about the false faith that God gives to some of the reprobate. Where does that “square” with the Bible?

Mark,
You said:

We needed God to do something to make us not-dead.

We are buried with Christ and resurrected with Him. How many times are we dead?

Ok I think I am getting closer to understanding your view…maybe! So God ‘draws’ everybody (however that works) and this is how God helps?

God does draw everyone and we cannot come to Him without this “work”.

But when the decision needs to be made then it is solely up to the person…correct? God does not help that person actually believe, he just draws them in however you understand that.

Of course He helps them to believe by giving them the unadulterated truth.

No I don’t know anyone who wants to separate Calvinists from non-calvinists. I don’t think that is anyone’s intention in our churches.

I have met more than enough Calvinists who want to charge me with heresy (semi-pelagianism) and who want to push Calvinism as if one cannot be a mature believer without it. And wasn’t it you too who called me a semi-pelagian? Calling someone a heretic is how people separate believers.

I simply want to know the truth. I want to know that if the act of saving faith is not something God gives to us, how can we say that we are therefore not adding something of our own to salvation?

Salvation is a miracle work and we cannot work this miracle. It is God’s work alone.

I can’t see how God draws every single person to himself when clearly not everyone knows about Christianity.

It is because drawing is not the same thing as coming.

I can’t see how as sinful people with a dead corrupt nature we can be expect people to accept Christ unless he opens their eyes to the message.

Of course God opens their eyes to the message, but opening one’s eyes is not a resurrection. The only resurrection that we experience is where we are buried with Christ and we are raised with Him. Can you please show me more than one spiritual resurrection?

“This is illogical. You are defining faith as having nothing at all to do with us.”

No, not at all, but I think we are at least getting to the heart of the matter- how free-choice and God’s sovereignty work together. Faith is our action, it has to be since people who don’t believe are condemned.

How can faith be our action if it is a “gift” given by God?

We believe because it is very much our decision to believe, yet we believe because it is very much God’s action to make us believe.

Believe is the action word. It is what we do. Where does the Bible say that God makes us believe?

This is where people stumble because they can’t handle it.

We can’t handle it because the Scripture doesn’t say that God makes people believe. If it isn’t Scriptural, then I am not going to believe it.

But like I pointed out with Romans 9- it is not human will or exertion, but’s God’s mercy which saves us.

And as I pointed out, our believing (our action not God’s), is not what saves us. Salvation is both the gift and the work of God.

More to come.

Mark,
You said:

I agree. An ungenerate person is one who is dead in sin. A regenerate person is one who has been born again. Your still looking at born again as only salvation, and this is where I think you are wrong.

Being born again has to be salvation since one has God’s seed within them and there is nothing else said to be needed after our rebirth. Our rebirth is our salvation. If you do not believe that it is, then show me how it is possible for God’s spirit to indwell a person who is not saved?

I wonder why you didn’t quote these verses? Is it because they are so obvious about a future judgment and a future entering into the kingdom that they cannot even be twisted to be about the here and the now?”

“Now Mark, I have carefully gone through this piece by piece to show that the action of God which is the verb salvation is the “gift”. The rest only explains how the action is gifted to us “by grace” and “through faith”.

Cheryl, I disagree with your exegesis. Logically we must say then that ‘grace’ is not even a gift then.

Grace is the means to the gift.

Col 2:13 also talks about us being dead in our sins and uncircumcised sinful nature? If we are by nature because of our sinful nature passed down from Adam, dead in sin, how on earth can we possibly have the ability to have faith in God.

Mark,
You said:

Let me see if I understand your view.
1. Jesus draws every single person in the world to himself
2. But not everyone comes to the Father
3. Those who come to the Father are those who are seeking/fear God and therefore believe.

3 is not right. Although all those who fear God will be brought to the covenant, God still calls those who don’t fear God and they can obey God when He calls them.

I have a problem with this. Even in my own experience this doesn’t work.

You probably should have checked first before find a problem with your misunderstanding.

God doesn’t reward those who are seeking him more than those who are not.

Malachi 3:16–18 (NASB)
The Book of Remembrance
16 Then those who feared the LORD spoke to one another, and the LORD gave attention and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before Him for those who fear the LORD and who esteem His name.
17 “They will be Mine,” says the LORD of hosts, “on the day that I prepare My own possession, and I will spare them as a man spares his own son who serves him.”
18 So you will again distinguish between the righteous and the wicked, between one who serves God and one who does not serve Him.

Mark, it looks like you are contradicting God who rewards those who fear Him by making a difference between the righteous (those who choose to fear God) and the wicked who refuse to fear God. I choose to believe God.

This view gives us room to boast. I got salvation because I was seeking type of idea.

No room to boast since we cannot earn salvation. Those who fear God are not the ones who are boasting, but they are humbled by their recognition of their need for God.

We are saved purely by the mercy and grace of God. But maybe this isn’t how you see it/ Let me know

We are not saved by fear, but God promises to bring those who fear Him to salvation. It is purely by God’s grace. Read the passage above again and see what you think. What is God saying? Is God lying to us or does He really make a difference between those who fear Him and those who do not.

Hi Frank,
Unfortunately glitches can happen if you use MS Word to transfer comments to my blog. If you copy them and past them into Notepad first and then copy and paste from Notepad back to the blog, the bad formatting should disappear. The blog for some reason doesn’t always like MS Word formatting. ):

Mark,
You said:

It is interesesting that you do not believe that free-will and God’s sovereignty do not go hand in hand.

I didn’t say that. God Sovereignty gives Him the right to allow people to chose while He decides the ultimate outcome. It is God’s way.

Let me ask who sold Joseph and sent him to Egypt.

Joseph’s brothers sold Joseph, but God sent him to Egypt. God sent the men who bought Joseph and He Sovereignly had Joseph delivered there.

OR again, who crucified Christ?

God Sovereignly delivered Jesus up to be crucified.

According to the gospel many people used their ‘wills’ to kill Jesus. >

These ones wanted to kill Jesus many times, but Jesus merely walked away from their trap. It wasn’t until it was God’s time, that the God allowed them to finish what their evil hearts had started. God did not put murder into their hearts, but allowed them to do what He willed.

So Cheryl, you are wrong. Men were guilty in both cases for their free-will, but clearly in both cases it happened according to God’s sovereign will and plan.

What you have forgotten is that God uses evil for His purposes, but He does not entice people to do the evil. God is able to direct the evil so that it accomplishes His purpose.

This is why it is indeed a ‘mystery’, but the raw facts of the Bible teach the tension.

It isn’t a mystery now. It has been revealed.

Pinklight,

I really do want you or Kay or Cheryl to use scripture to show me your doctrines. Rather than just criticising what i am saying, how about you guys share your theology and see how ‘consistent’ with the Bible it is.

It is an amazing thing that you don’t pay any attention to all the Scripture that I have used, and you have many questions you have not answered. To say that I don’t use Scripture to prove my point is really a bad move. It makes your eyes look like they have been blinded to everything but your own view.

Kay’s definition of sovereignty is not even in the Bible, mine is. Cheryl didn’t even give her definition,

I did give you my definition but since I have been behind, it may not have been as quick as you would like.

Mark,

“But again I mentioned that Romans 3 is a quote from the OT where the context is the fool who says there is no God. Paul would not illegally use an OT quote to mean the opposite of what God inspired as Paul supported Scripture. He did not twist Scripture to his own use.”

Maybe after John 6 we can go through Romans and actually look at the context right from 1:18 through to the end of chapter 3. Then perhaps you might see Paul’s point in relation to sin.

I would be happy to do that. That might take us into the next year or so, eh?

There is no hint what so ever that Paul is only addressing ‘the fool who saids there is no God’. Indeed, Paul includes himself in the quote using the 3rd person plural ‘we’. Your exegesis is flawed and wrong. The context in Romans denies the possibility of your interpretation.

Sorry, my friend, but you are wrong. Paul speaks about we and they and you must be very careful to distinguish and know who the “they” are. Otherwise you won’t understand the passage. No, Paul did not contradict the OT by taking a passage that applies only to the fools who say that there is no God and applying this to Abraham, Isaac, Job etc. There is a difference between believers and those who say there is no God.

Mark,

” To have a person remain as an unregenerate person and without faith and without being a child of God and call them “born again” is completely foreign to Christian terminology. Calvinism has taken classical Christian terms and re-written their meaning. I find that incredibly sad.”

WHen did i ever say that Cheryl? I have never said a person can be born again and stay without faith.

Read again what I said. I didn’t say that you said a person can be born again and stay without faith. What I am saying is that Calvinism teaches that at the very moment that a person is born again he is without faith because being born again has nothing to do with faith. It is after that the born again experience that he is given the ability to understand the gospel and God gives him a gift of faith. It is an absolute fact that the moment of being born again the person is without faith. If you deny that, you are not reading your own Calvinist material.

Being born again is part of the process of coming to faith is what i have said. Anybody who is born again WILL ALWAYS immediately follow it by faith.

Faith in what? The person has to hear the gospel. Calvinists have admitted that it is possible that a person can be born again for a period of time before they hear the gospel and are given the “gift” of faith. Are you are saying that it must immediately be followed by the gift of faith?

Your attack on clavinism here again clearly shows me once more that you are not engaging wiht the actual teaching but your ‘view’ of the teaching.

Not true. The definition of being born again has always been that one is born with the seed of God and become a child of God. One cannot be a child of God without being saved. But Calvinism teaches that salvation is not accomplished until after the gift of faith is given. It is not an attack on Calvinism to reveal the revision to the term.

You need to be more careful to show me that you actually understand the ‘calvinistic’ position. Thus far it is clear you do not.

The Calvinist position is that a person must be born again in order to believe. A person then does not believe to be born again in the Calvinist position. So at the very moment of being born again, the person is not yet a believer but will follow with belief.

The issue of which comes first is very important to Calvinism. It is not an issue of being born again and believing at the same moment or it could look like a person is born again by believing. Rather there is an order that has to come. So when is a person’s sins forgiven? Are they forgiven when a person is born again? Or are they forgiven when they believe?

Mark,
You said:

“Isaiah 53:6 sums up my view quite nicely. It says that we have all sinned and gone to our own ways. It does not say that all of us are totally depraved people. Man, if all people were totally depraved you couldn’t walk outside your door in the day time, let alone the night time.”

You have again not represented the doctrine correctly. It’s hard to discuss with you, when you don’t understand what you oppose.

I wasn’t trying to represent Calvinism. I said that Isaiah 53:6 doesn’t say that all of us are totally depraved people.

In fact “total depravity” is a very bad misnomer for your doctrine. Most choose to call it “total inability” because the other term doesn’t properly represent Calvinism.

Let me quote from a position to see if you agree with it:

That man could not obtain saving faith of himself or by the strength of his own free will, but stood in need of God’s grace through Christ to be renewed in thought and will.

Is this what you believe?

Sorry for butting in on your conversation with Kay, but your comments that God does not choose to limit Himself was to tempting to bypass. Jesus as God chose to limit Himself to become human. It is a God-thing to have choices. If we tell God that He cannot chose one way or the other, then we have limited God and taken away His Sovereignty.

Mark,
You said:

First of all, there is not one passage in Scripture that saids God ‘chose’ to limit himself when he created the world.

There are two parts to the equation. If God gives free will and free choice without making the choice for us, then God allows us within limits to act with freedom as He acts. The only way that He can give free choice is to accept our choice otherwise it really isn’t a choice but an ultimate decision made by Him.

Mark,
You said:

I honestly can tell you that since i have looked into these doctrines, my faith has grown, my joy has grown, not the reverse. Although i know that some in this world are not of God’s sheep or elect i also know that God is fatihful, good and Holy in His actions.

My faith has grown in the understanding of who God is and His revelation to us. His Word is so clear that He is love and merciful and that He gave Jesus for all. If I were to take human reasoning and say that I love people and deserve them to be saved while God Himself doesn’t desire their salvation nor does He have an speck of saving love for them, then I would have more love and mercy for that person than God does. How on earth we can accept a doctrine that makes us more loving in some areas than God and more merciful than God in some areas just beats me. It is amazing that the Merciful God can be outdone by a mere human all for the sake of a doctrine of men that is only clearly found in the books written by men.

The sadness of this all amazes me. That there are people in the Christian world who are happy and content that they are of the elect and they do not care that their doctrine teaches that God deliberately and unconditionally creates people to go to hell.

Mark, Mark, Mark,
You have got to let me finish catching up. Or how will we ever get to John 6?

What is the atonement? Is it not Jesus taking the ‘punishment’ we deserve for our sin. If therefore Jesus took the ‘punishment’ for every single person in the world, how therefore are they sent to hell.

They are sent to hell because they did not have the payment applied. But just because the payment wasn’t applied doesn’t mean the the payment wasn’t made.

Two examples:

1. If I buy you a very expensive gift certificate for your favorite store and I give you that certificate, have I paid the price for it? Is the money out of my pocket and is my bank account now a lot lower? Of course! But what if you refuse to cash in that certificate? Will it benefit you? But if you refuse to cash in the certificate does that mean that I didn’t pay the price?

2. All of the examples of atonement in the OT are always two fold. The requirement was the death of the animal and the second part was the application of the blood. When God told Moses that the people needed to sacrifice the lamb at the first passover in Egypt, was it okay to kill the lamb and eat it without applying the blood to the door?

The fact is that every example of the physical atonement was for the price to be paid and the blood to be applied.

Let me ask you, why was it necessary for Jesus to apply His blood into the holy of holies in Heaven after He had already died for our sin?

Arlene,
Anytime we attach anything to the gospel we are in serious danger. I know that there are pastors who can see this but have not yet publicly said anything. I appeal to their love of the Lord and their love of the gospel to make a stand. There is a greater judgment when we say we can see and yet we do exactly what the Bible says not to do. And when we stand by and let others do this to the gospel, what will the Lord say to us? Adam stood silently by while his wife was being deceived. He was not deceived so he knew the truth. Yet he said nothing. When good men say nothing and allow the error to thrive, they will be held accountable for that. We must hold to the truth no matter how much we have to go against the crowd. Surely the fear of man should not be greater than our fear of God.

Mark,
You said:

I don’t think you should doubt Jesus. But I don’t think taking universal language the way you do is correct. After all Romans 5 says that Jesus justified ‘all’ men. Should we take that to mean every single person. Now I know your not a universalist so I’m sure you don’t, therefore why do you take Jn 12 to mean every single person in the world?

What you fail to see is that Jesus paid the price for all men and justified all men by His sacrifice but the price had to be applied before that justification can be put on our behalf.

Let me ask you…did Jesus pay for your justification on the cross? When was that payment made on your account? Was it made when Jesus died or was it placed on your account when you believed? Or when?

Romans 5 shows that God reconciled all of His enemies through the cross. The justification happened at the cross. But the application was yet to be applied. The fact is that Christians are those who have had that payment and the justification put onto their account.

I am sure that you also believe in a two part justification with the price paid and the price applied. Why should that be any different from those who had the price paid but who refuse the payment?

Not only that but how does Jesus draw all the people in the world who have never heard about Him.

Jesus is God. He is able to work in the hearts of people to draw them to Himself even if they do not know Him as God. He worked on my heart through the Holy Spirit before I became saved. He draws them to Himself through the revelation that He has already given them.

Have you not heard of cases where God has drawn people in lands that have not heard of Him and yet they were waiting and ready for when the missionaries came and they received the gospel with joy. To say that God is limited in drawing people to prepare their hearts for the gospel would be a sad revelation of your view of the Sovereignty of God.

Why should we bother reaching the unreached if Jesus has already drawn them? See the problem?

Because drawing people doesn’t save them. They still need the gospel. What drawing does is prepare them to hear the gospel.

We need to be careful when the bible uses universal language and not just pick and choose to fit our theology.

May I respectfully say that we should be very careful when universal language is used and interpret it to mean only a few.

Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him.

Do you think John’s intention here is that every single person in the world did not recognize or know Jesus. Surely not because we know from the gospels that people did. This is the problem with basing a theology on universal terms- you come across so many contradictions.

You have missed the point of the verse. John is saying that it was Jesus who was the Creator of the world and the world did not recognize Him as Creator. In fact it wasn’t until Jesus died and was resurrected that the disciples recognized Him as the Creator. The first clear response to His evidence that He was the Creator God was from Thomas after Jesus’ resurrection:

John 20:27–28 (NASB)
27 Then He said to Thomas, “Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing.”
28 Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”

Where is such a clear recognition of the Creator made while He was here living as a mere human? They did not recognize Him. But they did recognize Him for all that He is after the resurrection.

So once again the universal language shows that the Scriptures are true. We do not take universal language and remake the universality to mean just a mere few.

Now also about Jn 12:32 look closely at verse 33
Joh 12:32 And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.”
Joh 12:33 He said this to show by what kind of death he was going to die.

If Jesus said this about his death, how can he draw every single person unless his intention was that his death brought atonement and salvation for every single person.

He did bring atonement and salvation for every single person. But not all people accepted His gift. You see, this is where you and I differ. I accept the Bible for the inspired words and I work hard not to reinterpret these prophetic utterances to make them mean far less then the full truth.

This simply is not the case because not everyone is saved.

The price paid has nothing to do with how many people are saved. Jesus paid the price whether it was accepted by all or not.

I don’t believe this verse supports your argument at all. John is particularly a writer who uses universal language a lot, and many people bring contradictions into the text by adopting wrong conclusions on universal language.

This again is your problem. You do not believe. No offense meant, but I see that you have been bewitched to believe a doctrine that contradicts Scripture. The doctrine that you hold on to and love causes you to reject the prophesies of Jesus on the atonement.

I could never love a doctrine that would force me to reject the clear teaching of the Scriptures in context and force me to reinterpret the teachings in order to make the doctrine true in my eyes. It is my sincerest desire to follow God and to lay aside my preconceptions to accept the Scripture’s testimony. I could never face God with such clear Scriptures saying that Jesus died for all men and that He draws all men and tell God that I just couldn’t believe that.

Mark,
You said:

I agree that God is rich in mercy- none of us deserve to be saved, we have all fallen short of the glory of God have we not? But still only a limited number of people are saved. Even you believe this because you are not a universalist. You can’t discredit Calvinists because they believe that a limited number are saved. Any evangelical believes that, reformed or not.

I will agree that there are few who are saved, but this is because few put their faith in Christ and accept God’s free gift. It isn’t because God has predestined the majority to be created unconditionally to go to hell without the price paid for them by Jesus on the cross. But to charge God with deliberately and willfully and unconditionally creating people to go to hell, is not the God of love and the God who is filled with mercy to the many.

If we say that fearing God saves us and that it is in our own strength, then yes it is works based.

I have already told you that we cannot save ourself. Our fear cannot save us and our faith cannot do the work of creating a clean heart and giving us eternal life. Only God can save us as His work alone saves. However God who has free choices, has the freedom to give His free gift with a condition of faith. Claiming that faith is a work in this instance is akin to claiming that cashing a welfare cheque is work! One who cashes their welfare cheque is accepting a free gift and they cannot claim that they have worked for the money.

David is a great example of all this. He was a God fearing man, he worshiped God, he loved God. Yet he continually asked that God would enable him to do this.

David didn’t ask God to “enable” him to fear or “enable” him to worship or “enable” him to love God. Rather he asked God to teach him, given him understanding and lead him. The passage that you quoted does not say that fear is a gift. Instead David says that the ungodly don’t fear because of their own sin, not because God hasn’t “gifted” them with fear.

Psalm 36:1 (NASB) Transgression speaks to the ungodly within his heart; There is no fear of God before his eyes.

God acts so that all may fear Him, but never does the Scripture say that God drops fear as a gift in a person’s heart. Fear is what we do as a response to what God does.

Psalm 67:7 (NASB)
7 God blesses us,
That all the ends of the earth may fear Him.

David didn’t trust in his own fear or faith or ability.

No one is saying that we are to trust our fear. What I am saying is that our fear shows our obedience to God and it is not a gift that God drops into our heart without any repentance on our part.

He knew all these things were the gift of God.

David never says that his “fear” is a gift from God.

He prayed to his Father that God may continue to bless him with those things.

The thing that David is asking God to bless him with is God’s promises.

This is the reformed position in a nutshell.

So the reformed “Calvinist” position is that the fear of God is a “gift”? How sad that although Scripture never says God gifts people with fear, that we are expected to wait for fear to be dropped into our heart as a “gift” instead of responding of our own free will. I have never seen such a system in Christianity that read so much into the words of Scripture in order to prove their own doctrine. It sure does remind me of Paul’s words to the Galatians in Gal. 3:1. I wonder how many books they had to read to believe in the additions to the Scripture? I am not trying to put you down at all. I am just amazed at how “gift” can be read into anything without so much as the word being used in the passage or the thought expressed. And where else is this “gift” of fear expressed? What man of God in the Bible ever called the fear of God a gift?

But we dare never look to our own strength and ability nor should we think we know who God bestows his gifts too.

God has clearly spoken that He has paid the price for all for salvation is an unmerited “gift” offered to all who will accept His condition.

Anyway I need to take a break. I’l let you catch up before I comment again.

Thanks! You must have more time on your hands these days as it has been difficult for me to catch up to you. I want to finish shortly and then start John 6 and we can stick with it until we are done.

Frank,
Thanks for your extensive comments especially regarding cultural pressure, the Trinity and the harm of gender specific rules in opposition to Spirit-giftedness. There is much to think about.

Karen, thanks for your encouragement.

Mark,
You said:

I have agreed with you all along that we are all called to seek after God. But how can we as sinners.

God gives us all common grace to seek after God. He has promised everyone that if we seek for Him with all of our heart we will find Him. If this was impossible then it would make God a liar. The fact is that God wants all to seek Him so He enables all who will fear God and seek Him.

Again Romans 3 says none seeks after God.

But again I mentioned that Romans 3 is a quote from the OT where the context is the fool who says there is no God. Paul would not illegally use an OT quote to mean the opposite of what God inspired as Paul supported Scripture. He did not twist Scripture to his own use.

God demands that we seek him, but in our sinfulness we don’t.

There is a huge difference between we “don’t” and we “can’t”. The fact is that God enables us to do what He longs us to do and if we don’t it isn’t because we can’t. Many have repented and feared God and went on seeking Him. That is God’s empowerment. Otherwise it really makes God out to be one who really doesn’t mean what He says.

Joh 6:65 And he said,…

We will get to this shortly as we will be going through John 6 so I will leave it for now.

Matt 13:11-17 is very similar to John 6 so I will deal with that shortly when we start talking about John 6 verse by verse.

A few important things here. He spoke in parables so people WOULD NOT understand, lest they turn.

Again this all relates to John 6. Just hold on a little bit longer and we will deal with this together.

Here is my conviction because you seem confused. Saving faith is a gift therefore faith is not a work. When we deny that saving faith is a gift, then we make it into a work. See the difference? Faith becomes a work for those who reject it as a gift of God.

We could say that a house is a dwelling place therefore it is a gift. I would say that a house is not a gift and you say that if I deny that a house is a gift then I must be denying it is a dwelling place. Your words are not logical and using this kind of reasoning doesn’t convince anyone. How about we stick to the Scriptures and use it to defend our view.

So here is the deal. Calvin said that there would be those who would be given faith but not saving faith and God gives them this faith in order to condemn them. So please show me this kind of “faith” in the Scriptures that is not saving faith and since it is apparently not saving faith, please show me where the Scriptures calls faith as “works”. I will be waiting with baited breath.

Semi-pelagianism was condemned, that is reality. It denied that our salvation was fully the work of God. It denied that faith, repentance etc are the gracious gifts of God. It maintained that we as fallen people still have the capacity (with a little bit of God’s help but not all) to come after and seek God. It is the same old problem that the church has faced.

Pelagianism said that people can come to God on their own without God. They were able to work their way to God and it is considered a heresy. You have been sold a bill of goods that “semi-pelagianism” is what all non-Calvinists believe. Hog wash.

In Semipelagian thought, man doesn’t have such an unrestrained capacity, but man and God could cooperate to a certain degree in this salvation effort: man can (unaided by grace) make the first move toward God, and God then increases and guards that faith, completing the work of salvation. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-Pelagianism

However the Scriptures never say that man can make the first move toward God without God drawing him. Salvation is not a work between God and man. Salvation is a full work by God alone and man believes God after God has drawn Him and revealed truth to Him. Do you not see the difference? It is a real insult to call a Christian a semi-pelagian and I won’t let that kind of insult be committed on my blog. If this is not understandable, then perhaps do some reading on the internet and educate yourself on the difference between the heresy and orthodox Christian faith.

How free-will and God’s sovereignty go hand in hand.

They do not go hand in hand in works. Saving faith is not a work.

Maybe you can clearly outline how you see salvation works?

This is a very simplistic version: God draws the sinner to Himself and the sinner responds. When a person then comes to the place of repentance after God’s Holy Spirit has been working on his heart, he responds to God in faith and God then works the miracle of salvation in his heart. The miracle is done by God alone and is a work that could only be attributed by God. It is a miracle that takes a blackened heart of sin and cleans the heart and creates a brand new spirit within that person that is from God Himself. The person then is born from above as a child of God and God lives within him/her. The person has responded with faith but none of the work that takes to make the person a new creation, a clean heart or a new spirit, with the person as a child of God can be attributed to the person. We have no power or ability to do these things. They are done by God alone. All we can to is respond to the work of the Holy Spirit and repent and believe God. God says that this is faith and He says it is not a work. Mark, if you didn’t understand any of this before you became a Calvinist, it is no wonder that you went onto that pathway. You just didn’t understand the process of Salvation from the Scriptures.

That is all I can do right now. Time for me to work on a few more things before I head off to bed. I’ll see what I can finish and whatever I can’t finish tomorrow, I’ll just leave for now as we work on John 6. Okay?

Mark,
You said:

Now about being a child of God. I have agreed with you that we are children of God once we believe. However like I said Romans 8 and Eph 1 also talk about this being God’s choice or plan before the foundation of the world. So although we were enemies of God before believing, we were always planned to be children of God. Our union with Christ has been layed down from the beginning. Do you understand what I mean?

I understand your doctrine, but it a “theory” that has no Biblical basis. The Bible doctrine has us believing God and only believers are ever predestined to be conformed to Christ. It is God’s choice to offer salvation because only He can offer and only He can create new life. But God is not restricted so that He cannot offer salvation conditioned on faith. God has choices and He has shown us His choice in the Scriptures.

You still haven’t answered how you pray for your un christian friends- you dodged it.

I did answer that question in this thread although I didn’t answer it right away. Sometimes busyness causes me to be behind in answering questions. I don’t ever “dodge” questions. If I don’t know the answer, I just say so. I actually quite like questions. I am not saying that you “dodge” questions but you have so many questions that you haven’t answered, that if we were going to speculate on the dodger in our midst, I think you’d get a few votes. Now, I am not speculating on that. But perhaps you should have a little more patience with me too, eh?

Also please explain your idea of God’s sovereignty? Do you believe God is sovereign in that he made himself vulnerable in creating the world like many do?

I believe that God has full and complete Sovereign choice to do anything that He wants to do that is not against His nature. He can create a world where He gives man the ability to choice between several options that God sets up for man. That is God’s Sovereign choice and I am amazed whenever someone states that God cannot do certain things as if they can control and limit God. I don’t think that God can be controlled and limited by anything other than His own nature and His own choice. Do you agree?

You said “No it is not. Being born again is a miraculous work that transforms and renews and brings God’s life to a heart that was separated from God and lost in sin. It is opening of the eyes. It is a transformation.”

Now the funny thing is I agree with this. We are lost in sin, we are dead. We are totally seperated from God. Therefore how do we accept the message of salvation. It is interesting that you say it is opening of the eyes. Look what I said just before you said ‘No it is not”
Being ‘born-again’ is God opening their eyes to the message of the cross.

Sorry, I mistyped. What I meant to say that “No it is not opening of the eyes. It is a transformation.” I guess I should always reread what I have typed because sometimes the fingers are faster than the brain (or is it vice versa?)

Being born again is a completely miraculous even where a person becomes a new creature and they are born of God’s seed and born from above into God’s kingdom. It is never called having their eyes opened.

Inconsistency??? You can’t say to me I’m wrong and then in your definition say the same thing. I’m confused.

Sorry about that bloke. I missed a word in typing. I wasn’t meaning to twist around your head. Still friends?

You keep saying that being born again before faith is unscriptural yet you have not dealt with Jn 3. Perhaps we should discuss that more?

John 3:6 …that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Being born of the Spirit is the seed of God. I have already dealt with this and you have not answered. Having the seed of God is being in the family of God. It is impossible for a person at the moment of being born again to be unsaved. The Spirit does not give birth to one who is not a child of God.

Let me get something straight. You agree that Romans 14 is saying in the context of believers that everything not done in faith is sin? Yet you disagree that unbelievers (who have no faith in Christ) are not doing everything in sin.

The context is about a believer partaking in something that is going against his/her conscience. There is nothing in that passage that would make this being about unbelievers.

Here is my opinion for what it is worth. Everything any of us does is sin unless God gives us grace. It is only be grace that unbelievers do good things.

This is a hypothesis but it isn’t going through the Scripture to see what it says. Sorry bud, but opinions will never equal to the inspired Word. Why don’t you just go through the passage carefully and figure out what the text is exactly saying?

I don’t believe God hates unbelievers.

Well it is good to know that you have not believed the teaching that God has created people that He has chosen to unconditionally hate.

More in the next comment box.

Mark,
I am just going through some comments/questions that I have missed catching in the last week.

You said:

Why stop at verse 27 Cheryl…let’s keep going
Rom 1:28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.
Rom 1:29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips,
Rom 1:30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
Rom 1:31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
Rom 1:32 Though they know God’s decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

Surely you and I have both coveted, surely we have both been slanderers and gossips and boastful etc. This is the nature of humanity not just one specific group.

There is a huge difference between occasional sin and God “giving them up to a debased mind”. I don’t know about you, but I don’t have a debased mind and God has not given me up to live out these sins.

Sexual sins are just one aspect of our fallen humanity. We are depraved creatures- totally.

No we are not. The fact is that the ones that God “gives up” to a depraved mind are much more depraved than the rest of us. In fact even your next door neighbour who is not saved is likely a really likable guy who doesn’t act depraved, and helps out the neighbours who are in need. Most people have unsaved neighbours like that. We are not “totally” depraved creatures and the Bible never says that although I understand that it is a “theory” of Calvinism.

Isaiah 53:6 sums it up nicely- we all like sheep have gone astray and turned to our own ways.

Isaiah 53:6 sums up my view quite nicely. It says that we have all sinned and gone to our own ways. It does not say that all of us are totally depraved people. Man, if all people were totally depraved you couldn’t walk outside your door in the day time, let alone the night time.

I can’t show you that Cornelius was born again- I don’t deny that. But not every conversion in the bible says ‘and they were born again before they believed’.

The fact is that there is not even one conversion in the Bible that says that the person was “born again” before they believed.

We don’t always have every detail for every occasion.

That may be so, but you’d think that such an important detail as being born again before faith would show up at least in one place. But it is never there in any of the accounts. It is just another reason to see the “born again before faith” as a “theory” not as a Biblical fact.

The problem is though to say that we don’t need to be born again contradicts Jn 3, and contradictions are not acceptable.

My friend, I never said that we don’t need to be born again. I said that being born again comes after faith. I believe that all of us must be born again to enter the kingdom of Heaven.

You have swept it away be changing what born again means and what the kingdom is.

It is not me who has changed the meaning. The classical meaning of born again means:

The phrase “born again” literally means “born from above.” Nicodemus had a real need. He needed a change of his heart—a spiritual transformation. New birth, being born again, is an act of God whereby eternal life is imparted to the person who believes (2 Corinthians 5:17; Titus 3:5; 1 Peter 1:3; 1 John 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1-4, 18). John 1:12,13 indicates that “born again” also carries the idea “to become children of God” through trust in the name of Jesus Christ.

Throughout the gospel age the term born again has meant that the person has received eternal life and has believed the gospel and has become a child of God. To have a person remain as an unregenerate person and without faith and without being a child of God and call them “born again” is completely foreign to Christian terminology. Calvinism has taken classical Christian terms and re-written their meaning. I find that incredibly sad.

More comments coming up.

e pogue, welcome to my blog!

Those are some great Scriptures you have quoted. Which ones are you intending to apply to John Piper?

Gazza,
You said:

Thanks for your response to my last post #146. Unfortunatly I was not clear enough – ever a danger with analogies. The roast dinner/ carcus was not meant to represent any individual sin but rather choosing between everlasting life (the roast) or death (the carcus). It was meant simply to highlight the fact that even our choice to follow Christ in faith is one that we are unable to make until He opens our eyes through changing our nature. Once He has done this there is no other choice for us to make, we still have free will to reject Christ and choose the carcus but we no longer desire to do so…

While I do understand that Calvinism teaches that one cannot answer the call of God to choose unless God first resurrects them to life and gives them a new nature, the question is whether this is Biblical or not. Yes, analogies can fail to represent what we believe, and this is why I try hard to stick to Scripture as much as possible. I believe that if we do not have clear Scripture but only analogies, then it makes me wonder why Scripture is not clear.

The Bible is clear that there are people that God chooses for leadership and for certain tasks and/or privileges.

Numbers 17:5 (NASB)
5 “It will come about that the rod of the man whom I choose will sprout. Thus I will lessen from upon Myself the grumblings of the sons of Israel, who are grumbling against you.”

In Numbers 17:5 God clearly states that the leader of the people is one that He Himself has chosen. So is it clear in the OT that God must resurrect a man to life before he can choose life?

Deuteronomy 30:19 (NASB)
19 “I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants,

In Deut 30:19 God clearly “sets before” Israel life and death, the blessing and the curse and He tells them to “choose” life. If they couldn’t choose life without being resurrected to life first, then God made a serious error in actually setting before them both life and death. It would seem rather that God is mocking them because they did not have a choice.

Also in Jeremiah 8:3-5 God shows that there is a choice, but that the “evil family” has chosen death, not that God has chosen for them that they have no power to fail to chose or fail to chose the other option.

Jeremiah 8:3–5 (NASB)
3 “And death will be chosen rather than life by all the remnant that remains of this evil family, that remains in all the places to which I have driven them,” declares the LORD of hosts.
4 “You shall say to them, ‘Thus says the LORD,
“Do men fall and not get up again?
Does one turn away and not repent?
5 “Why then has this people, Jerusalem,
Turned away in continual apostasy?
They hold fast to deceit,
They refuse to return.

When I test the teaching that one must be resurrected to life before one can choose to seek God, this teaching just isn’t found in the Scriptures. It is well articulated by Calvinists, but a good story that is not substantiated by the Word is just a good story.

You said:

In Post 185 you say
No they are not. They are condemned because God chose them for destruction without any conditions. ‘Apparently He made them to go to hell so it isn’t their rejection of the gospel that sends them there.

This is exactly the thinking I was trying to anticipate with my analogy. The choice of life is there right beside the choice of death but they reject it because of their sin nature.

But that is not what I was saying. I wasn’t saying that they chose destruction because of their sin nature. I said that the choice was made for them by God. If they were chosen unconditionally to go to hell, then their rejection of the gospel isn’t want sends them to hell. They go there because God pre-determined that they were one of the ones who would be created to go there. If they were created to go to hell unconditionally then it cannot also be said that they go to hell because of ….. (whatever reason) for God alone decides their fate without their own actions.

When someone tells them the baked dinner is better they regect them because of their sin nature(in our sin nature we do believe the carcus to be better).

Gazza, here you are dealing with a symptom instead of the direct reason why someone rejects good food. The rejection is because they were ordained to go to hell, if Calvinism is correct. The problem is that this teaching makes the multitude of passages about our own choice to fear God or not to fear God is nothing more than a sham and an intentional fraud for the cover of God’s pleading with the wicked to repent and turn to him, covers over the reality that He desires that they do not turn and repent for He has preplanned their journey to hell.

Some Calvinists will take these inconsistencies and say that they are a “mystery” and God alone knows why His call for repentance can both be a true call and yet a determined-in-advance and unconditional rejection of the reprobate. How God can long for the lost to come to Him and at the same time not long for them to come to Him because they have been unconditionally determined to be rejected is a huge problem for Calvinism and why so many reject this theory for the solid truth of Scripture that God actually longs for all of the unregenerate to turn from their wicked ways and that He does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked.

Ezekiel 18:23 (NASB)
23 “Do I have any pleasure in the death of the wicked,” declares the Lord GOD, “rather than that he should turn from his ways and live?

You said:

Certainly God did not open their eyes to show them the folly of their choice but this is at Gods discretion(indeed it is the corrupt nature of sin that they would not want God to do any such thing) – it is still a choice they have made and are accountable for it.

The problem is that there are many who did turn and repent and nowhere in the OT does it say that God resurrected them to life first before they could turn to Him.

Like I said, Calvinism has a great deal of holes in that theory and I choose to follow the consistent revelation of Scripture rather than a theory. At the same time I appreciate my brothers and sisters in Christ who are Calvinists for their love for God and their desire to live for His glory. I too have this great desire.

Hannah,
Sorry that your comment did not appear earlier. For some reason it went into my blog’s spam box.

You said:

The bible states she was deceived, hook winked, conned, whatever you want to call it. She admitted the error or deception afterwards when addressed. Adam did not, but blameshifted over to Eve.

Yes, you are right. Adam was not deceived but put the blame on the back of a deceived woman. Eve was deceived and she admitted that she had been deceived and rightfully blamed the serpent.

I guess his responsibility would have been to say something at the time when he was handed the apple, or when he knew she was being deceived.

I see it as the watchman allowing the enemy into the camp and watching as the enemy went about his work to kill, steal and destroy. Adam was to keep the garden safe from intruders and since he had been there with God watching the final part of creation, he was in a position to recognize what was from God and what was a threat. He didn’t stop the serpent from entering the garden, he didn’t stop the serpent from lying to his wife and he didn’t lift one finger to educate his wife on the lies that he recognized. I also think that if he had said something after his wife had already eaten and was giving to him, it would have been too late. But the one who had the knowledge of the lie let his wife be deceived, he took the fruit from her hand and he willingly ate in full rebellion and in full knowledge to God’s command without being deceived. No wonder God calls this an act of treachery.

That to me would be the thing to do, but it doesn’t seem to have anything to do with headship.

Mark was hinting that “headship” was instituted at creation as Adam’s authority over his wife. He has no such evidence of such a thing, but he is saying that Adam’s responsibility to protect the garden is a “hint” that Adam was also responsible to take authority over his wife.

The facts do not show that Mark is right. Rather the Bible is consistent in showing that to the one who has been given much, much is required. Adam had a privilege to see the Creator at work that Eve had not seen since she was the one created last. Adam’s knowledge of the unique Creator was a responsibility that must be used for the glory of God and for the protection of the innocent. Adam’s failure to use that knowledge to protect his wife from being deceived was appalling and worthy of condemnation.

Mark,
You said:

I almost got the sniff though of a comp theology in there, especially when you contrast Jesus faithfulness to stand up to Satan verses Adam’s failure to. It almost sounded like the comp argument that Adam did not fulfill his role in protecting and guarding the garden and his wife.

Adam was not given the directive to “guard” his wife. But he was given the directive to “guard” the garden. When he let evil in unopposed it was treason just as God considered it treason when a watchman on the wall failed to warn the citizens of the enemy’s approach.

Surely Eve knew the lie aswell if God had given her the direct prohibition as you claim.

Eve knew the truth because she was able to speak the truth to the serpent but she did not recognize the lie otherwise she would not have been deceived.

Why couldn’t she ‘correct the error’?

She couldn’t correct the error, because she didn’t recognize it. The serpent was speaking of things that she did not have experience with as Adam did. She had not seen the Creator in action as the unique Creator and so she believed that lie that she could become like God. She also believed the lie that God’s prohibition was given out of jealousy to stop them from becoming like Him.

And what exactly is Adam’s ‘responsibility’, i thought there was no headship in the garden?

There was no ruler of one human over another in the garden. Adam’s responsibility as a watchman on the wall is consistent with the responsibility that God gives to all who know the truth and recognize the lie. He was responsible to defend the truth and expose the lie. Since he alone recognized the lie, he was responsible for exposing the lie so that the serpent could not kill, steal and destroy.

The rest of your article i found helpful though, thankyou.

You are welcome!

Karen,
Thanks for the good words!

Kay,
You said:

All of this indicates that the “son” in question is no mere child but, rather, a youth at least in his middle teens or older. The law is not talking about naughty children but about seriously delinquent young adults.

Good work!

Mark,
You said:

I agree with you that context is important, but the question remains- how far do you take it? To me the context is the whole Bible. Does the verse or the passage contradict the rest of biblical teaching.

A verse cannot contradict another verse elsewhere in the Scriptures, however the context can’t be the whole Bible as the Bible is not one book. It was written over a period of thousands of years and with many human authors. The context then has to be limited by the book it was written in at the most. Usually the complete chapter would be the immediate context but the context can spill over to the surrounding chapters since chapter division is not inspired. That should be sufficient but there are times when the entire book needs to be the context. I do agree with you that one passage will not contradict another passage in the Scripture, but defining the entire Bible as the “context” is overstating the definition of context.

context: discourse that surrounds a language unit and helps to determine its interpretation

the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect: You have misinterpreted my remark because you took it out of context.

You said:

None the less i look forward to engaging with John 6- it’s a great chapter.

Me too!!

I have to disagree that you don’t proof text. For example you have often cited Hosea 6:7 without ever relating to it’s context in the book of Hosea.

Again, you seem to clearly misunderstand what proof texting is. Here is a definition:

the use of individual scripture texts to produce apparent support for a doctrinal position without adequate regard for the contexts of the individual texts which may indicate differences and nuances.

To charge me with “proof texting” you would have to show that my exegesis of the verse is opposed by the text surrounding the verse. In my explanation of Hosea 6:7 I have not claimed that it said anything that can be refuted by the verses surrounding the text. This is very important to understand, for if you cannot understand what is being claimed and you do not understand what qualifies as a “proof text” that is contrary to the surrounding text, then how can we even communicate?

You have just used it as a ‘proof’ text to support your notion of only Adam being in rebellion and not Eve.

Hold the bus on this one, buddy. I have not used Hosea 6:7 to prove that Eve was not in rebellion. Eve is not even mentioned in the passage. I have used Hosea 6:7 to prove that Adam was in rebellion. I have used other passages to prove that Eve was not in rebellion. Therefore there can be no charge of “proof texting” unless you can prove from the Hosea passage that Adam’s rebellion is not found in Hosea 6:7. Is this what you are claiming?

In fact even in this post you quote stand alone verse not addressing the context in which they lay.

Oh really? Where is your proof? It is not illegal to quote a stand alone verse. It is only illegal if what one quotes a verse to say something when the passage refutes the application of the verse.

So let me say again- we all proof text.

Well, my friend, I would hope not. Are you saying that you take a verse out of its context by applying a meaning to the verse that is contrary to the meaning of the passage? Is you do, why do you do that? Is that the way that God wants His Scripture used? Proof texting is bad. Again – quoting a single verse that is quoted accurately and interpreted accurately from the passage is not bad. Quoting a single verse is only bad when one is misusing the quote.

Mark,
You said:

Again you are convincing me more that you don’t actually understand the people you oppose-namely reformed Christians. No one i know who holds to a reformed doctrine would come to the conclusion that we don’t need to pray or that it is synergism.

You did not read me right. I am not representing this as what most Calvinists believe. I am saying that this is the consistent outcome of the doctrine. You yourself commented that some Calvinists do nothing because of their beliefs. I am just grateful that most Calvinists do not take their doctrine to its logical conclusion. I have yet to hear anyone explain why our prayers for people could have any influence on God regarding their salvation. If God ordained all either to salvation or to reprobation before they were born and He did so without the influence of any human, then it is logical to say that people will either go to Heaven or Hell whether a single person prays for them or not since their destiny is already ordained. If my understanding of the “set” nature of the ordaining of the elect to Heaven and the reprobate to hell is not really “set”, then please explain where I see the conclusion in a wrong way.

Again, I am not representing what normal Calvinists believe. I am thankful that most do not take their doctrine to its logical conclusion. But some have seen the hopelessness of praying for anyone’s salvation when they believe that it is already set in stone. Again, this is part of the inconsistency of Calvinism that makes me scratch my head.

God has instituted prayer as one means by which faithful people can pray that God might open people’s eyes.

Mark, if you are going to be perfectly honest here, you would need to say that God instituted prayer as a means that God uses to bring the elect to a place where He resurrects them so that they can have their eyes opened. But the fact is that prayer is essentially unnecessary in this situation if God has already ordained that that person is one of the elect and it is an affront to the Sovereignty of God in the Calvinist sense that God would “need” people to do His work.

The things that you write are how non-Calvinists see God’s work and the importance of prayer. We believe in the importance of prayer because God has not unconditionally ordained all to either salvation or reprobation. Therefore we believe that God really does hear us and our prayers move Him.

Sure that person may not be elect, but we do not know that- only God does. But clearly God has told us to pray and witness to ALL people.

So if God knows that He has unconditionally ordained most to eternal destruction, then what reason does He have for us to pray for their salvation?

If God chooses to use prayer to fulfill His will that is fine. ( but that is not synergism which said people have the ability in themselves to seek salvation)

I don’t believe it is “synergism” either, but because the term “monergism” (Greek mono meaning “one” and erg meaning “work”) is one person alone doing the work, then isn’t our prayers as being necessary for the salvation of another person by Calvinist definition also a synergistic act? If not, please explain how your work is not synergistic in bring a person to faith, while a person’s own faith is called synergistic? It is another area that makes me scratch my head.

However God may choose not to answer a prayer because it is not in alighnment with His will. THis parody stands with every aspect of our christian life, not just salvation.

But this is not the issue. The issue is not whether God can choose to answer a prayer or not, but whether He needs our prayers for the salvation of another person. Does He needs our prayers or not? If He needs our prayers for a person to become saved, what is this not synergistic according to the Calvinist definition? And if God doesn’t want to appear to have a synergistic work with humans, and He alone unconditionally decides who will be saved and who will not be saved from eternity past, then why would He require our prayers? Please explain.

Your point makes no sense- your conclusion doesn’t fit. Otherwise you think every time we pray God answers it- but that is simply not the case because we do not know what his will is.

Again, this is not the question. The question is why God needs our prayers for the lost before they can become saved?

That is why calvinists in the past have been wrong- that actually didn’t hold to the teaching of calvin nor the Bible. The logical conclusion of calvinism is not ‘do nothing’. THat is a wrong understanding of calvinism or as some say ‘high calvinism’.

I do not agree with ‘high calvinism’ but I do see the logic of their conclusion. You have not explained how their logic does not follow the ‘facts’. For if God really has unconditionally ordained election either to salvation or damnation, then how is it possible for our prayers to affect any difference in the person’s outcome? It can’t change a single thing if Calvinism is correct. That seems as obvious to me as the nose on my face.

Okay on to dealing with another comment.

Mark,
You said:

No issue with John 6 and surrounds, but please don’t compare me to a JW.

I am not comparing you to a JW. You have to understand one thing – my ministry since 1988 has been caring for JW’s and ex-JW’s and bringing them to the Lord. It is the experience that I live, so if I share the way I do things with the JW’s because the practice is an important one that brings to light the complete context, it is not because I see you as a JW. It is explaining why I do what I do in the context of my life work. You are even lucky that I can speak to you without talking about the JW’s with every second sentence.

When I was first called to this ministry I had dreams of witnessing to the JW’s for 18 months straight. And that is every single night! And every night I would remember my dreams even sometimes waking up in the middle of a dream. In my dreams I would be chasing the JW’s down the street trying to share Jesus with them. Those were amazing dreams back then because I was SO shy, I could hardly look a person in the eyes.

Even when the dreams finally stopped, my passion for the JW’s did not stop and I had to share with everyone, whether they wanted to hear or not, the joys of sharing Jesus with the JW’s. I am finally able to move on to other subjects, but I still see the reason why I do things as touching the ministry to JW’s. It isn’t meant to offend anyone. It is just the love for these people that comes out especially when I explain why I do certain things. Does this make sense to you?

I have seen you over and over again proof text aswell- it’s just inevitable in this sort of dialogue on theologies. The issue is whether a proof text contradicts a clear teaching on scripture- that’s where it is dangerous.

Sorry, my friend, but I don’t do that. You see “proof texting” is not finding a text that appears to contradict another passage, but it is taking one particular text outside of its context so that it is in contradiction to the passage where it resides. So that if one gives a meaning for a verse that is refuted by the context of the passage that the verse resides in, that is a “proof text”. That is why I push for the context, not just one verse. Greg Koukl an apologist has a teaching on this called “Never read a Bible verse”. He says that one must read the entire passage that the verse is in and if we did that instead of taking a verse outside of its context, much of the confusion would disappear.

I’ll leave you to introduce the context if you like with John 6. You never know we might actually agree on something- let’s hope hey!

Yup, I’m sure we can work on agreeing on several important things. I will try to get to that tomorrow.

By the way, i would also like to apologise if i have offended you or others in any of my comments in the past. PLeaer continue to rebuke me if you feel like i overstep the mark. After all, we should all be striving to holiness and sanctification and helping each other to do that.

What a great remark! I accept your apology and I appreciate the spirit with which you brought this up. Thanks! Hopefully any others who may have been offended will understand your heart a little bit better as we all strive to know and understand the Lord Jesus better so that we can be molded into His image.

Bedtime for me. It is only 11 pm but the late nights have taken their toll. I’ll try to catch up some more as I am able tomorrow. I’ll answer the more recent comments first before I start John 6. Then maybe we could just go through that passage and leave aside the unanswered comments/questions until we have finished the passage. Is that a reasonable plan?

G’Night 😉

Mark,
You said:

If you think ‘calvinist’ are sheep in wolves clothing, you should say that outright.

Believe me, if I believed this, I would say it outright. I do not believe that Calvinists are for the most part sheep in wolves clothing. I do believe that the system is false when compared by the Bible, and I do believe that my brothers and sisters that are Calvinists have been misled in this area, but I do not believe that they are not brethren in Christ. I count them as dear brothers and sisters in Christ and those who love the Lord Jesus as I do and who love the brethren as I do will enter heaven together so I dare not call my brother a heretic or a wolf in sheep’s clothing unless there was evidence elsewhere that my brother was not a believer but a wolf. I do not take that kind of judgment lightly.

Maybe also you can outline further this comment and cite where Calvin saids this.

“Calvin taught that one could be deceived by God into believing that they are saved when the faith they have is not saving faith.”

Sure.

XI. I know that it appears harsh to some, when faith is attributed to the reprobate; since Paul affirms it to be the fruit of election. But this difficulty is easily solved: for, though none are illuminated to faith, or truly feel the efficacy of the Gospel, but such as are pre-ordained to salvation; yet, experience shews, that the reprobate are sometimes affected with emotions very similar to those of the elect, so that, in their own opinion, they in no respect differ from the elect. Wherefore, it is not at all absurd, that a taste of heavenly gifts is ascribed to them by the apostle, and a temporary faith by Christ:(d) not that they truly perceive the energy of spiritual grace and clear light of faith; but because the Lord, to render their guilt more manifest and inexcusable, insinuates himself into their minds, as far as his goodness can be enjoyed without the Spirit of adoption. If any one object, that there remains then no farther evidence by which the faithful can certainly judge of their adoption: I reply, that although there is a great similitude and affinity between the elect of God and those who are endued with a frail and transitory faith, yet the elect possess that confidence, which Paul celebrates, so as boldly to “cry, Abba, Father.”(e) Therefore, as God regenerates for ever the elect alone with incorruptible seed, so that the seed of life planted in their hearts never perishes; so he firmly seals within them the grace of his adoption, that it may be confirmed and ratified to their minds. But this by no means prevents that inferior operation of the Spirit from exerting itself even in the reprobate. In the mean time the faithful are taught, to examine themselves with solicitude and humility, lest carnal security insinuate itself, instead of the assurance of faith. Besides, the reprobate have only a confused perception of grace, so that they embrace the shadow rather than the substance: because the Spirit properly seals remission of sins in the elect alone, and they apply it by a special faith to their own benefit. Yet the reprobate are justly said to believe that God is propitious to them; because they receive the gift of reconciliation, though in a confused and too indistinct manner: not that they are partakers of the same faith or regeneration with the sons of God; but because they appear, under the disguise of hypocrisy, to have the principle of faith in common with them. Nor do I deny, that God so far enlightens their minds, that they discover his grace; but he so distinguishes that perception from the peculiar testimony, which he gives to his elect, that they never attain any solid effect and enjoyment. For he does not, therefore, shew himself propitious to them, by truly delivering them from death, and receiving them under his protection; but he only manifests to them present mercy. But he vouchsafes to the elect alone, the living root of faith, that they may persevere even to the end. Thus we have refuted the objection, that if God truly discovers his grace, it remains for ever: because nothing prevents God from illuminating some with a present perception of his grace, which afterwards vanishes away.
Calvin, J., & Allen, J. (2010). Vol. 2: Institutes of the Christian religion (23–24).