Mark

Cheryl,

First of all i never called you a semi-pelagian. I asked you to show me how your view is not semi-pelagian, there is a difference.

From what you have written it seems that we somewhat are closer to agreeing than perhaps first thought. You have admitted that we need God to open the eyes of believers, which i think is good.

So we both agree that God draws, calls, opens eyes, soften hearts all before people accept the message of Christ. But yet i guess we still disagree that faith is a gift. I’m quite surprised actually that you don’t even believe grace is a gift. But i guess at least you are being consistent with how you read Eph 2. But honestly it’s a bit far when you say that God’s grace to us is not even a gift, is it not? Can i ask is repentance a gift or not?

Also you did not define your view of God’s sovereignty. You simply asked me if God had the ability to make choices. IF you believe as Kay does, show me from the Bible. If not, i suggest you stop promoting an unbiblical view of God’s sovereignty.

Why is it people will go to such lengths when Romans 9-11 is so clear. You want me to reject the reformed position and accept a view that is not even found in the Bible. Come on now.

With regards to the limited atonement, i wonder how you understand John 10, when Jesus himslef declares that he lays down his life ‘for his sheep’. Maybe you think God’s sheep is everybody, i dunno?
I wonder if you feel that the OT sacrifices atoned for the whole world? Is this what you believe, or was it limited? Nothing in scripture teaches that Jesus atoned for the sins of every single person except the passages that use universal language. Now we can have a more thorough discussion on that terminology but i think we both know the danger in placing a theology on universal language. After all, this is precisely what universalists do.

You can’t have Jesus saying he only died for his sheep (limited) and that he died for the whole world (unlimited). One of them must not be as you might think on the surface. Clearly universal language is the more ambiguous, since the analogy of sheep and goats is quite clear. Where as universal language is not. I have already shown one example from John to disprove the universal language assumption, but there are plenty more.

Ok i will stop now, unless Kay or pinklight respond. John 6 here we go!

Gazza,
I agree, Cheryl’s analogy is worthless.(why is it Cheryl you used an analogy anyway after slamming Gazza’s earlier) That is precisely why i said her view of the atonement is also limited.

Cheryl,

i haven’t got time right now to respond to your last 2 posts, but i am eager too.

Food for thought in the meantime. 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. After all their sins are ‘atoned for’, or in other words forgiven. Even if they choose not to believe, they are still atoned for that sin right? This is the problem.

I limit the application of the atonement to the elect. You limit it’s ability to be a complete atonement.

More soon

Kay

About Eph 2. Look again at what we are predestined for. It is not simply that the way to salvation is predestined (as Arminius taught) but us.

We are chosen in Christ before the creation of the world (Eph 1:4)

Now what are we chosen for? The rest of verse 4 tells us “to be holy and blameless in His sight”. Now let me aks you, how do we become holy and blameless in God’s sight. Hopefuuly we agree, that it is by being justified in Christ that we receive this status.

Therefore this verse is clear that we are chosen before the world to be justified and thus made holy and blameless.

Verse 5 expands this. We are predestined to be adopted as sons through Christ. Now again how is this done- justification is it not. So we are predestined to be justified. And to finish it off Paul says in verse 5 that this is done how? “in accordance with His (God’s) pleasure and will”.

It is clear that we are chosen to be sons, to be adopted, to be holy and blameless ALL before the creation of the world and ONLY according to GOD”S pleasure and will. There is nothing at all here that saids because of our free-will to choose him like you said.

It is you who is reading something into the text. I am letting the text speak for itself. This is clear in the fact that you say it “is a leap of logic’. I’m not interested like I said in philosophical reasoning. I’m only interested in what the Bible says. Please do justice to the text not your reason or logic on these issues.

Now you also addressed Romans 11 and asked this
“If the election is ordained from before time, how is it possible that the ‘elect’ should become ‘reprobate’ and the reprobate could become elect? Moreover, how could “unbelief” be a condition of severance, while “continuing in His goodness” be a condition of blessing, if there are no conditions?”

You have missed the whole point of Romans 9-11. Let me refer you back to 9:6, not all Israel are Israel. Paul is not saying that the ‘nation’ of Israel receives salvation. ON the contrary it is the remnant. So the elect have not become the reprobate, because as Paul’s argument shows, they were never the elect to salvation to begin with. It is clear that you don’t actually understand Romans 9-11.

Also no one saids that you don’t have to believe to become a child of God. Entry into the kingdom requires faith in the atoning work of Christ. The question is has God chosen before the world who he would give the gifts of faith and repentance too. The Bible says yes. So entry into the kingdom is of course conditional on faith, but election as recipients of this grace is unconditional on God’s choice before the world began.

Kay, let me challenge you to actually accept what the Bible teaches although you think it contradicts with your ‘reasoning’. We are all post enlightenment people and the effects of humanistic reasoning have damaged proper interpretation of the Bible. Our job is not to use or reason to contradict the Bible, but the preach the truth of the scriptures. You need to look beyond philosophy. I challenge you to do that (this is also in brethrenly love)

Kay,

Again let me commend you for addressing Romans 1. Can you state though at what point you disagree with me. Are you saying you agree that Romans 1:18-3:20 should not be used to support total depravity?

Let me ask you to read over the entire pericope, Romans 1:18-3:20

After outlining the Pagan world in chapter 1 Paul opens chapter saying that ‘you’ (Roman Church) therefore have no excuse to judge others, why? Because as Paul says, you who do pass judgement do the SAME THINGS. Here Paul is addressing the ‘gentile’ CHRISTIAN audience of the Roman church because we see in 2:17, he switches to address the Jews about the law.

In chapter 3 Paul asks if there is any advantage in being a Jew then above a gentile, now that Christ has come. By the time we reach verse 9 Paul has concluded that we ought not to increase our unrighteousness in order to increase God’s righteousness.

Verse 9 is extremely important because Paul asks the questions “What shall we say then? Are WE any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and gentiles alike are all under sin. As it is written…”

So just in case the Jews think that are somehow more superior than the gentiles or Pagan world, he tells them no. We are all under sin. He then uses various Old Testament quotes (to show the Jews from THEIR scriptures) the nature of them aswell.

Now there is nothing in the surrounding contexts at all to tell us Paul is only addressing people who do not fear God. After all Paul s writing to a CHRISTIAN church not God haters.

Also remember the more immediate context as Paul is addressing the law (2:17-3:20). And we know that no righteousness is obtained from the law. That is why Paul begins in 3:21 to address God’s righteousness found in faith not the law. Paul I sshowing the jews from their scriptures that 1) righteousness is not found in the law and 2) they are no better than the gentiles- that is we are ALL totally depraved.

Therefore application of these chapters is easy. The whole pericope should be understood to apply to all people, because that is Paul’s conclusion. We are all alike under sin. Paul has simply used a gentile argument and then a jewish argument to come to the same conclusion. That is why I reject the claim of Cheryl’s that I am using of these verse out of context. If Paul’s intention is not meant to be understood universally, then of course there is no application to these chapters because it simply applies to these various groups. But since Paul is addressing a congregation of gentile and Jew Christians, and correlating these Christians to Pagan people, and Old Testament people, the conclusion is clear. The Romans are the same, as are we. Total depravity is true and correct.

Again this is a brush through the pericope. You really need to study the context Kay as does Cheryl.

Kay,

Let me say first of all thankyou for actually addressing a text. But let me say I am unconvinced of your exegesis. After all if Paul here is talking ONLY about the nation of Israel being elect why does Paul expect backlash and ask those rhetoric questions. Why would what he says be offensive? The Jews know they are his elect nation.

However, I disagree that Calvinists begin in verse 15. That is totally wrong. Let’s go back over it.
At the end of chapter 8, this famous passage confirms something for the Roman believers “nothing can separate us from God”. If this be true (which I believe it is), then what has happened to the Jews? Has God seperated himself from the elect nation?

Paul’s answer is no! He outlines all the blessings given to Israel (9:1-5). He says he wishes he could be cut off for their sakes. They had the patriarchs, covenants, promises… so how is it that these are the very people who have rejected Christ? The answer comes, to show how it is that God’s word has not failed.

“For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel”

Now let me ask what does this mean to you? From the context it is clear that although the nation of Israel had all the things outlined in verse 1-5, that does not mean they received individual salvation. Only ‘true’ Israel receives salvation. This is the crux verse for the interpretation of Romans 9. If Paul is only interested in ‘nations’ it makes no sense of this verse. Paul is interested in showing how God’s word has not failed PRECISELY because not all of national Israel are true Israel (individual salvation). This themes is constantly expanded throughout the next 2 chapters aswell, when Paul is discussing the ‘remnant’- that is, those within the nation ho were actually saved into eternal life.

Paul then uses 2 Old Testament example to prove his point. First, Abraham! Issac was chosen not Ishmael purely on God’s mercy. But of course the objection could be raised about these 2 children of Abraham having different mothers. So Paul uses example 2- Isaac’s children. Both of Isaac’s children have the same mother and indeed both are conceived at the same time, yet God in his sovereign mercy, chose Jacob and not Esau. Paul then quotes various Old Testament references showing his point from the scriptures- the older will serve the younger, Jacob I loved, Esau I hated.

Now it is clear that this would upset people. If this is true about God’s pure sovereign choice of one over another, then how is that fair? In fact, how can we be judged if we are just fulfilling God’s predetermined plan for our lives (sounds familiar does it not?). Paul answers those objection in verses 14-21. God has mercy on who he wills. He hardens whom he wills. Election does not depend on HUMAN WILL or effort, but on the contrary, God’s mercy. It makes no sense to go with your interpretation and understand either verse 6 or verses 14-21. If Paul’s intention was purely ‘national’ verse 6 lies, and there would have been no objections to his teaching. After all the Jews already knew they were God’s chosen nation.

Romans 9:27 deals with the remnant
Romans 9:6 deals with the remnant
Romans 11:5 deals with the remnant
Frankly, nothing in these chapters gives the indication that Paul means nations, unless of course you want to say that the remnant is a nation!

In chapter 11 Paul again asks the question whether God’s word has failed. On the contrary he quotes again from the Old Testament when God had a remnant of ‘faithful individuals’ when the nation was in apostasy during Elijah’s time. He further expands that what Israel sought to obtain it failed because salvation is by faith not works which is what the ‘elect’ recieved. He also further enhances from the scriptures again how God has hardened to Jews in the present age to bring in the gentiles.

Again let me say that exegetically (and I only brushed through it all) the only possible way to read these chapters is what I have outlined. God has elected individuals purely on his mercy from both the Jews and gentiles. If this seems unfair to some, they need to come to terms that God is God. He is the potter, we are the clay.

To read it purely nationally does not do justice to the text exegetically. Not only that, but how is it still not unfair that God chooses a nation over other nations. It seems hypocritical that you can say God can choose a nation but not individuals.

Finally I totally disagree that the passage is showing how the nation of Israel brought forth the messiah. That is a massive interpolation into the text. Nothing in Romans 9-11 is dealing with how Jesus descended from Abraham. You have totally changed what the text is dealing with. Paul no where deals with ‘messiah’, ‘Jesus’, lineage or any other such notions. This is precisely the problem with rejecting the reformed view- it has to ignore the grammer, the intention of the passage, and include things that are not there.

But again let me say, that at least you tried to deal with a text. Perhaps now you can attempt to show me where our faith is foreknown by God, therefore that is why we are predestined unto salvation.

“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. Paul’s argument flows from the pagan world in Chapter 1 to the jews. Just in case the Jews (or you Cheryl) think we are any better, Paul asks a thetoric question “Are we Jews any better off” His answer is NO, because both Jew and Greek are alike…he then quotes from various Psalms to prove his point. It seems plain here that you have not allowed context to determine the use of the quote. 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.

I wonder if Calvin had the parable of the sower in mind in the quote you gave. Don’t some grow for a period then die, where as the true seed grows and lives. Sounds biblical to me.

It is interesesting that you do not believe that free-will and God’s sovereignty do not go hand in hand. Let me ask who sold Joseph and sent him to Egypt. OR again, who crucified Christ? With Joseph his brothers by their ‘wills’ sent him off. According to the gospel many people used their ‘wills’ to kill Jesus. But what else does the scripture, since we both want the Bible to speak

“I am your brother, Joseph, whom you sold into Egypt. 5 And now do not be distressed or angry with yourselves because you sold me here, for God sent me before you to preserve life.
8 So it was not you who sent me here, but God.

22 “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know— 23 this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.

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

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. Kay’s definition of sovereignty is not even in the Bible, mine is. Cheryl didn’t even give her definition, but i assume it follows Kay’s definition by what she wrote. I look forward to yours. No-one has dealt with Romans 8-11, Eph 1 or any other teaching on predestination. All i have heard so far is critiques of mine by humanistic reasoning, not the word of God. If any of you believe that our ‘predestination’ is governed by God’s foreknowledge of what we choose- show me the scriptures which say this. I’m hearing alot of critiques but not much alternatives.

” 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. 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. IF you like it is part of the ‘calling’. drawing process. A person will never accept the message until the veil is removed by the Spirit. 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. You need to be more careful to show me that you actually understand the ‘calvinistic’ position. Thus far it is clear you do not.

Cheryl
“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.”

Here again you have not understood the doctrine. Total depravity does not say people will always do evil things. In fact i have said already about God’s common grace in which you agreed. Total depravity saids that every aspect of our nature has been corrupted because of sin, if i can try to summarise it. That is, our will, minds, soul etc are totally depraved in that they are corrupted by sin. Sin seperates us from God, does it not, therefore we in all our nature are seperated from God. You have again not represented the doctrine correctly. It’s hard to discuss with you, when you don’t understand what you oppose.

Kay,
Thankyou for at least defining your definition of God’s sovereignty. I have heard this attempt before by those who reject the reformed position and frankly i am unconvinced.
First of all, there is not one passage in Scripture that saids God ‘chose’ to limit himself when he created the world. Like i said this is philosophical reasoning and not based foremost on the Bible. Please highlight scripture to support a doctrine like this.
Second, this makes God changeable. If God can choose to be some sort of ‘less’ God, what stops us from saying that God has chosen to make himself vulnerable, reliant on people and so forth. Oh, wait a minute, this is exactly were theology has lead with ‘open theology’ who use philosophy instead of scripture to say God doesn’t actually know the future! This is where an emphasis on free-will gets exaggerated and simply contradicts the scripture.

Acts 17: 24 The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, 25 nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. 26 And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place,

Either God has determined the plan of this world (including us) or he hasn’t. This text along with a lot of others said God has determined everything in this world. Kay, I am willing to change my view, but only if scripture can show that to me. Please show me scripture to support your definition of God’s sovereignty or ‘chosen’ vulnerability.

Cheryl,

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.

The issue you need to deal with is in relation to salvation. Sinful people by nature do not know God. THat is, their sin seperates them from God. Now can they find their way back to God? Reformed theology saids no. THey need God to show grace upon them. God has instituted prayer as one means by which faithful people can pray that God might open people’s eyes.

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. 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)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. We may ask God to make us well if we are sick, but he may choose not to answer that prayer- it’s up to His plan and will for our lives.

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. This is no different with the elect. We are to pray for people but if they are not God’s elect he will not answer our prayer since that is not in his will.

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’.

Cheryl,

I understand that you are busy, that is fine.

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

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. You have just used it as a ‘proof’ text to support your notion of only Adam being in rebellion and not Eve. In fact even in this post you quote stand alone verse not addressing the context in which they lay. You have by definition done the opposite of what your apologist friend says. So let me say again- we all proof text.

Also i appreciate your concern, however i do not feel like i am robbed of joy and peace. For me, once i grew in my understanding of sin, i grew in my understanding of grace. The more we realise what we deserve becasue of our sin, the more we appreciate and enjoy the gracious act of God to save us. To me, a weak view of sin= a weak view on grace.

Also the doctrine of predestination (unconditional) also emphasises God’s grace. Nothing we do or can do will save us. It is merely according to God’s pleasure and will that some are saved.

Rom 9:15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”
Rom 9:16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.

The problem i see with people who reject this doctrine, is that often the arguments come from what we (as sinful human people) think is ‘fair and just’. But we have to remember that we see ‘but a poor reflection’ of God, and some things are kept to his secret will. And also the doctrine of predestination is a glorious one according to the apostle Paul

Eph 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places,
Eph 1:4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love
Eph 1:5 he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,
Eph 1:6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.

Exegetically a conditional predestination does not hold. So i feel it far better to go with what the Bible says rather than try to understand the mind of God and what we consider to be fair.

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. This doctrine brings us to our knees as it should. We ought to have fear and reverence for our God.

If you reject this doctrine maybe you can explain for me how you view the Bible’s teaching on election and what scriptures bring you to this conclusion. See to me the test is in the scriptures, not in philosophical reasoning!

Kay,

Sure i agree about the passage in Deut. The point i was making though, was that for us- that is still a harsh punishment. Imagine now if countries introduced that kind of law- half of the Australian adolescents would be killed. But we know from the text that the reason that punishments were so severe is because the Israelites were to get rid of the ‘evil’ from among them. This is about a community of God honouring people. They were essentially to ‘kill’ any evil- we see the same thing with the conqering of the land do we not?

Now in relation to Calvin, why did he do those things we consider ‘horrible’? He was applying almost the same principle. Now don’t here me wrong that i am applauding what he did- i do not. The Israelites had an imperative from the Lord to do such things, Calvin did not. Jesus shows us in the NT how we should live- based around love. However many in Calvin’s time were trying to sanctify the people. In order to do this they ‘purged’ the evil from the Church (in this case false teaching).

So although i do not recommend we act the way Calvin did, i can see why he did it. Do you understand what i am trying to say?

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

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.

Cheryl,

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

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.”

Cheryl,

You asked why i pray the way i do. To answer simply, because we are told to pray and care for people, both saved and unsaved. God has appointed prayer as the means to communicate with Him. He has aslo appointed prayer as the means to to bring his will to come about- we know this from Jesus example. It is amazing that God uses human agents to fulfill his will.
It seems that you haven’t fully grasped what election teaches. Althought the Bible teaches Unconditional Election, that does not mean therefore that we do nothing- quite the opposite. God uses us to fulfill his purposes and will. When we preach the gospel faithfully, God will use that to bring people to himself. Likewise when we pray, God will answer our prayers (as long as it is His will of course) to fulfill His purpose and will. To sit back and do nothing (as some calvinists have done before) is not correct- that is not obeying the clear teaching to pray and witness.
The reason i pray for my children is because i know that they are sinful. I know that because of their sin they are in rebellion to God and a broken relationship. I know that they can’t fix that, therefore i ask God to show His mercy upon them.
That said the Bible teaches that God has mercy on whom he wishes and hardens whom He wishes, i’m not denying that. That is the harsh truth of the Bible which Paul outlines in Romans 9.

Kay,

I appreciate your comments and concerns. There are no doubt that Clavin made mistakes in his lifetime. No one denies that. In fact i don’t agree with all of Calvin’s teaching, that is why i don’t like being labelled or labelling myself a ‘calvinist’. I try to follow the bible not men. Calling people calvinists or arminians or any other theological brand name, really doesn’t help in good dialogue. It just puts us into little ‘buckets’ of pre-conceived ideas.

However to deny the significance of the man’s teaching would be silly. His influence into reforming the Christian church back to it’s biblical roots was enormous. Following a doctrine of clavinism is not about following the man John Calvin. He of all people would be disgusted at the way we label people after his name. HIs concern was purely in magnifying the truth of the bible and glorifying God, not himself.

It is sad that you reject anything the man said because of some things he did. I have had a man in my church say the same thing to me. However if we took the bible seriously we would see that all theologians and teachers are sinful people. After all looking at someone in unrighteous anger is equivalent to murder in Jesus eyes. I’m sure most of our modern theologians would therefore be murderers in God’s eyes. We need to look past those sorts of things. Calvin had a firm grasp on scripture and that is why i enjoy reading him. Although i utterly reject the way he dealt with Servetus and others.

It might also help to remember the culture of his time. We should be wary being to criticle from our culture looking back. After all we have numerous references in the bible where things deserve the death penalty- even as small as a child disobeying their parent. THere are many things from other cultures which seem disturbing to us in the 21st century western societies.

Also Kay about judging whether people are saved is not a helpful thing- i’m sure we would both agree on that, even if you diagree with the doctrine of perserverance of the saints. Calvin simply taught what the bible says- Jesus will lose none of his sheep, those who perservere to the end will be saved, the Holy Spirit is a deposit guarenteeing our salvation. I’m not willing to speculate on who and who isn’t saved. SImply put, those who repent, ask for forgiveness, accept the free gift of Jesus salvation are saved, and we know the sincerity of a person’s commitment by their sanctification in this life and ultimately there persistence in faith until the very end of their life. THis is what the bible teaches, therefore we should teach it, without speculating on who is saved and who isn’t- that is not for us to do. God has revealed the way to salvation, so we should simply preach it.

Rejecting reformed theology causes many contradictions in the Bible, which simply can’t be explained exegetically as those who try to do. THis is why i believe much of what it teaches it true to the Bible. I am open to the Spirit teaching me otherwise, and i hope He does if it is not correct, but thus far in my Christian walk i have gone the other way- from rejecting calvinism to accepting it.

Also about my children i agree with you that it is hard to comprehend- i have seriously struggled with that. But my hope lies in GOd’s faithfulness, not on my children’s ability. GOd is just and righteous and will never do any wrong either to me or my children. IF they choose to reject Him God will have done me no wrong to punish them eternally. However i pray desperately for my children asking God to be merciful on them as sinners. I also teach my children the truth of the bible- that they must accept Jesus as Lord and Saviour. I will never reject any hard truth of the Bible simply becasue it makes me uneasy about my family. After all Jesus has told us that if we love them more than Him, we are not worthy of Him. IF the Bible teaches unconditional election (which i think it does) then i would be far wiser to accept the Bible’s teaching, rather than reject it because of my kids. BUt that said i would be lying if the biblical doctrines of providence at times did not bring me to my knees in anguish.

Cheryl thanks for the post.

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. For example you said…

“But the first Adam had no care to expose the lie. The serpent told lies to his wife and it certainly “was not so”, but the first Adam did not take responsibility to correct the error. He remained silent and in silence he allowed the lie to stand without opposition.”

Surely Eve knew the lie aswell if God had given her the direct prohibition as you claim. Why couldn’t she ‘correct the error’? And what exactly is Adam’s ‘responsibility’, i thought there was no headship in the garden?

Just food for you to think about in your descriptions. The rest of your article i found helpful though, thankyou.

Cheryl

“Job wasn’t corrupt and sinful.”

Are you saying Job did not have the inherited sinful nature of Adam or that he was a sinful man?

“therefore I (Job) despise myself,
and repent? in ?dust and ashes.” Job 42:6

Why repent if he wasn’t corrupt and sinful? Sure Job is described as righteous and upright, but to therefore conclude he was not sinful is wrong, the bible shows that. It is in precisely the same way that we as God’s people are declared righteous yet we sin continually and must repent and seek forgiveness. Being described as righteous does not mean that he wasn’t sinful or by nature had a corrupt heart in need of God’s enlightening.

“But the Scriptures never teach a predestination to salvation of the wicked without the condition of faith. There is a predestination to earthly work but never a predestination to salvation without condition.”

“For those whom he ?foreknew he also ?predestined l?to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be ?the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also ?justified, and those whom he justified he also ?glorified.” Romans 8:29:30

Here we are presestined to be conformed to the image of Jesus (thus we must be saved) not an earthly work. Also note our predestination comes before justification (and therefore faith). Now where does the bible say we are predestined conditionally.

“In love ?he predestined us? for ?adoption through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,” Eph 1:5

Here again we are predestined for adoption through Jesus, by God’s will NOT because he foreknew what we would choose.

Not to forget all of Romans 9 which is clearly dealing with individual salvation not just ‘earthly work’. After all the Jews would never have been offended by the truth of Romans 9 if Paul was simply talking about earthly work. Not only that but the whole premise of Romans 9 hinges on verse 6b, where Paul said that not all Israel (earthly communal election) are true Israel (those predestined to salvation). This he saids becasue the question is raised whether God’s word has failed with the Jews. So Cheryl, the Bible does clearly teach UNconditional election. THis is the sovereignty of God.

I would seriously like to hear your definition of God’s sovereignty?

sorry about all the question marks in the texts, something went wrong there.

Kay, can i ask if you accept or reject the doctrine of Original Sin?

Kay,

I’m not sure i follow your point. Noah was a man declared righteous because of his faith. I would have thought we agreed on that?

“By faith ?Noah, being warned by God concerning ?events as yet unseen, in reverent fear con-structed an ark for the saving of his household. By this he condemned the world and became an heir of ?the righteousness that comes by faith.”- Heb 11:7

It is faith that make some righteous not what they do. This is the case with Noah. This doesn’t mean though that we was exempt from the sinful nature of Adam and his offspring. By nature (Noah) and us have a sinful nature. Our hearts are stone, sinful. Sin is evil is it not? IF our hearts are by nature sinful, then we by nature are evil in relation to a Holy God. See also

The heart is deceitful above all things,
and desperately sick;
who can understand it? Jeremiah 17:9

3 For I know my transgressions,
and my sin is ever before me.
4 ? Against you, you only, have I sinned
and done what is evil ?in your sight,
? so that you may be justified in your words
and blameless in your judgment.
5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
and in sin did my mother conceive me. Psalm 51:3-5

This is why we need a new heart (Jer 31:31ff). We need the law written on our heart, not stone. We need the indwelling of the Spirit. In other words we need God to give us something we can’t do ourselves. We cannot be righteous in and of ourselves (or our actions). If we as humans are not born corrupt in need of help, then what is the significance of the atonement, we would not need it.

Finally a vital text

“And even ?if our gospel is veiled, ?it is veiled only to those who are perishing. 4 In their case ?the god of this world ?has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing ?the light of i?the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 5 For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ?ourselves as your servants? for Jesus’ sake. 6 For God, who said, ? “Let light shine out of darkness,” ?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 4:4ff

Unbelievers are blind! The gospel is veiled to those who are perishing. But God has shown light in believers hearts. He has opened their eyes from darkness to light, from being dead to being alive. Just as what is promised in the prophecies of the Old Covenant.

by the way, just a few more verses to show you that the kingdom was inaugurated in Christ’s coming

Luk 17:20 Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, he answered them, “The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed,
Luk 17:21 nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you.”

Mat 12:28 But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.

thoughts??

‘Is Paul contradicting Jesus? Jesus calls them sick. And His words are recorded twice. Where is a second witness that sinners are “dead” and in need of a resurrection?’

I’m not sure why you are trying to play Jesus words off against Paul as if the red letter parts of the bible are more authoritative. But just so you are aware here is a second witness to being dead in sin apart from Eph 2:1

Col 2:13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses,

John 6 sounds great. What parts? What have you got in mind?

Sorry, my friend, you said that Eph 2 proves that the unregenerate are dead in sin and this means that they cannot seek for God and cannot do good.

No, my point was that good does not equal faith. Roman 14 says anything not done in faith is sin. Therefore it may be good becasue of God’s common grace, but it is still sinful because they are not doing it in faith in the God who enables them to do good- this is the difference. People of themselves are corrupt and evil (Gen 6:5), any good is becasue of God’s grace to them, but it is still sinful becasue what they do isn’t in faith.

Here’s an example- When people build a hospital it is a good thing becasue it helps people etc etc (God’s common grace), however if those poeple who built that hospital do not build it in faith in God, they are sinning. THis is the issue and the nature of our humanity

Wow Cheryl i cant keep.

Let me make a proposal because there are some real issues here. Why don’t we slow down and actually look at passages exegetically and in context rather than just proof texting.

After all one cannot claim that we can seek God if Romans 3 is correct that none can (unless of course Romans 3 is not as clear as it seems as you suggest)

Likewise one cannot say God has ordained some to salvation and others not, if there are passages which contradict that.

At least maybe this way we will be more faithful to scripture rather than proof texting all the time, and that way we can slow down a bit and actually discuss the bible, not theologies or presupposed ideas.

Ill leave it up to you. You can even choose the passage if you want. How’s that!

“but I have the freedom to give my best and know that God is able to take my mistakes and use them for His glory.”

So you are expecting God to open the eyes of unbelievers, you no longer are saying that it is their own strength which saves them.

“Name me one person that the Bible says was predestined to salvation.”

Abraham was chosen purely by God’s grace. Moses was chosen purely by God’s grace. So was Isaac, so was Jacob. So was Paul since he was persecuting Christians until God changed him. IT sure wasn’t Paul’s concern for seeking Jesus.

Maybe you can clarify if you at all believe that people are predestined to salvation? Oh I almost forget, it seems Paul thought the Ephesians were predestined to salvation.

Eph 1:4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love
Eph 1:5 he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,
Eph 1:6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.
Eph 1:11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will,

1. “Do you really? Do you believe that God can change any person if that person is a reprobate that was chosen from eternity past to be lost?
   Yes I do believ God can change any unregenerate person according to his will and purpose as Paul’s says. IF it is not according to God’s will, then no it will not happen. Everything happens according only to God’s will and mercy not our own as Romans 9 states.

“It would be wrong to think that non-Calvinists believe that we are praying to God as an “abstract figure” or that God cannot change a person by creating events that will bring them face to face with their sin and God’s judgment.”

Ok I see. So you only ask God to ‘create events’ that will bring these people into a certain position. So you ask God for an opportunity to say something, but you don’t actually ask God to open your friends eyes right?

Final point, I have said and shown you from the bible why I believe God loves all people. Please don’t insistently keep saying God loves some more than others. You are hardly being fair to people who disagree with you. Don’t distort people’s views who disagree with you.

“Nope, you are wrong. This isn’t me. I am very happy that God made me like this and I do not see this as an injustice on God’s part.”

Cheryl, this is exactly you, because you think it is unfair that God’s ordains all things as you have said before. My guess though is that you have re-interpreted Romans 9 aswell to make it say something it isn’t.

“And God has no way to direct you to the elect and to stay away from the reprobate? Why would He be interested in you preaching the gospel to anyone who has not been picked by Him?”

We are told in the bible to make disciples of all nations- to tell all about Jesus. When people reject this they are condemned. We would all be condemned if God by His Spirit did not open our eyes and soften our hearts. By preaching, God’s elect are saved by belief and those who reject the message are condemned.

You are right that God sent prophets to people who he knew would not repent. We see this with Isaiah early on. We see it in Acts when only those destined to believe are saved. We see it in 1 Peter when those who reject the stone, stumble because that is what they were destined for. Surely you believe that people are either destined to believe or not, unless of course you hold to some kind of open theology. Even if you are an Arminiam you believe this, because Arminians at least believe in God’s foreknowledge.

Cheryl

Do those people who do ‘good’ things get them in a right relationship with God? No of course not.

We are talking about an ability to come to God and recieve salvation. In terms of our nature and sin we are dead. This is precisely what Eph 2 is talking about, not about doing good things, so i actually think it is ou who does not understand the passage.

It is irrelevant if people can do good things because this has nothing to do with salvation which Eph 2 is talking about. IN terms of our nature and relationship to God, becasue of our sin we are Dead, not just sick.

Jesus uses the term ‘sick’ because he is contrasting wiht the ‘healthy’. You are importing foreign ideas into Eph 2. Pauls interest is between being dead in sins, and alive in Christ, not sick and healthy. Also notice the last contrast of JEsus- he did not come for the righteous but the sinners. It is clear that healthy= righteous, and sick=sinners in Jesus account. You are completely distorting both passages.

Cheryl,

I don’t disagree with any of your scriptures. I agree that we are to fear God. I agree that people fear God. Where i disagree is that we can do this before we are saved or before the supernatural help of the Spirit. This is the issue. None of your scriptures say anything about people having to be God fearers before they come to God. Cornelius was a god fearer as a member of the Old covenant. THis was the description for those who converted to Judaism but would not get circumcised. This was not a requirement for him to be saved. He was already a partaker in the Judaism of the day.

You also need to keep in mind that the early chapters of Acts is when the message was spreading amongst the Jews. They already knew Yahweh adn his covenants. THis is not the same situation as Joe Blow down the street who has never heard about 1st century Judaism or Jesus Christ.

Regarding #157,

Cheryl and Kay,

You have both clearly shown that you don’t actually understand reformed theology. It is clear by the comment “The Calvinists “inability” to understand that even though we are fallen people, we still have a measure of free will is puzzling to me.”

No Calvinist denies we have free will. The question is how far has our free will been corrupted because of the fall. If you think Calvinist don’t believe in a free-will then you are wrong. We do! But as the bible saids our nature is now corrupt from the fall. Remember the threat of the garden if they ate- death! Both physical and spiritual. Spiritually we are dead, seperated from God as were Adam and Eve after the fall. We are in broken relationship with God. Our ‘free-will’ therefore is also dead. It no longer seeks after the right thing. It loves darkness, it loves sin. This is where the difference lies. Calvinist take Eph 2 seriously- we are dead in sins. Cheryl’s view makes us just sick not dead. If we are dead we need to be made alive and only God can do that. IF we were just sick, then sure we might have the ability to do it ourselves.

“If I am predestined not to be a Calvinist, because God predestined everything, then why try to convert me? Wouldn’t that be going against God’s predestination? And wouldn’t there be no hope of conversion if God had predestined me not to be a Calvinist?”

This made me laugh! Maybe you should read again Romans 9 when Paul expects these responses.
Rom 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means!
Rom 9:19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?”
Rom 9:20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?”

Maybe it will be helpful to also remember how Jesus taught us to pray- that God’s will will be done, not ours. The fact is no-one knows who God’s chosen people are except God. That is why we preach the gospel to every single person we meet. God’s uses the faithful proclamation of His salvation to draw his people to himself. There is a great difference between us. See I believe in the power of grace and the power of God. I believe that God can change any person. I do not just sit back and pray to God as an abstract figure, who will or cannot change the hard hearts of people. Yes I believe that God has predestined some to salvation and not others- the bible teaches that. But this does not negate the need for evangelism, it actually encourages it. If I did not believe that it was God who changed people then I would feel immense pressure on what I did. Did I say it right? Was I good enough, clear enough? This is the difference between a Calvinist and Arminian- who they rely on to change people.