The Fallacies of Calvinist Apologeti... 
refreshed
12 y
1,447
J.Crow’s® Lugol’s Iodine
Free S&H.Restore lost reserves.J.CROW’S®Lugol’s Iodine Solut...
Clarkia Extra Strong
Clarkia Tincture 2 oz, 4 oz, 8 oz, and 16 oz
Advertisement
J.Crow’s® Lugol’s Iodine
Free S&H.Restore lost reserves.J.CROW’S®Lugol’s Iodine Solution
A charge typically leveled by Calvinists is that Christians who don’t believe in irresistible grace would have some reason to boast in their faith. John Hendryx concisely expresses this fallacious line of reasoning:
The question we need to be asking ourselves is, “what makes us to differ from other men who do not believe?” … the grace of God in Christ or the will of man? If we say “the will of man” it is a boast and therefore not the kind of faith that is contrasted with works in the Bible. (Hendryx, J., ‘Can Faith Ever Be Considered a Work?’)
We’ll ignore his indirect misapplication of 1 Cor 4:7 for now and focus on his ‘boasting’ claim. To get a clearer picture of the issue, let’s examine what the scriptures tell us:
“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God -not by works, so that no one can boast.” (Eph 2:8-9)
“Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith.” (Romans 3:27)
The Calvinist assertion is that these scriptures would be violated if we have any choice in whether we believe or not, apparently since someone could theoretically boast about having faith. But can this claim stand up to scrutiny? The hollowness of such a claim can first be shown with one question:
Does the Calvinist view make boasting impossible?
Is it actually impossible for Calvinists to make boasts of any sort? Hardly, I’ve seen it happen quite a few times myself. So holding to a monergistic belief doesn’t forcefully stop one from boasting in any way. What about salvation? Could a Calvinist boast about their role in salvation? I don’t see why they couldn’t. They could either employ inconsistency/cognitive dissonance, or follow through with their doctrine until they reach some strange implications (e.g. “Me being saved glorifies God MORE than any of the non-elect!”). So even a Calvinistic view won’t make boasting utterly impossible, in fact no point of doctrine can stop one from making ridiculous boasts. So scripturally speaking, how is boasting ‘excluded’ then? Since anyone can boast about anything for an invalid reason, Paul obviously isn’t implying that it’s literally impossible to boast if one is saved by faith, he’s saying that salvation through faith leaves one with no valid reason to boast of himself with regards to salvation.
Why does faith preclude boasting?
The answer lies in what we have faith in. ‘Faith’ in context of Paul’s epistles is obviously faith in Christ Jesus as our Lord and the One who saves us from our sins. With regards to salvation, what exactly would one be boasting in if one needs a Savior? As opposed to the law, which could make one righteous if he could keep it (which none but Christ could), faith is rather the acknowledgment that our own righteousness is inadequate, and that we need the righteous Christ as our Savior. There would in fact be no need for a Savior if we could do something that would in and of itself secure forgiveness for our sins! Faith in Jesus Christ and His saving work then effectively is an admission that we have nothing worthy of eternal life, and of ourselves deserve only condemnation.
“What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ-the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith.” (Philippians 3:8-9)
Our believing then constitutes nothing meritorious nor inherently worthy of eternal life -not even as ‘partial payment.’ Faith itself isn’t righteousness, but it’s rather because of God’s graciousness that He has accounted the faith of we who believe as righteousness through Christ despite our undeserving sinfulness and lack of any way to atone for ourselves. Thus the arguments that Calvinists such as Hendryx present betray their fundamental misunderstanding of what faith is, as they attribute to it things it can’t possibly possess by pretending that believing could somehow merit God’s gift of eternal life or be some suitable cause to boast about ourselves because of our acknowledging our total dependence upon the merits of Christ! On the subject of the nature of saving faith, Ben cited an reply by Robert Shank against Berkouwer’s charge that synergistic faith “results in a certain amount of human self conceit”, and “self-esteem.”
Shank irreparably shatters the sophist facade:
Conceit and self-esteem for what, Professor Berkouwer? For totally renouncing all claim to self righteousness? For completely repudiating all dependence on good works? For renouncing all claim to personal merit? For abjectly humbling oneself before God as a broken sinner, deserving of death, helpless, unable to save himself? For casting oneself on the mercies of God and hoping only on the merits and grace of Jesus Christ? These are the elements that are of the essence of saving faith, and where true faith exists, there can be no pride or self-esteem. Pride and faith are mutually exclusive. (Shank, R., Elect in the Son, pg. 144)
Whether you freely believe in Christ or not makes a difference only in what you obtain, not what you deserve. But since what you obtain is only what you’ve freely received from God, the One who makes you differ from those with no hope is God, for without His grace and mercy, you’d be no better off than demons who believe. Therefore no flesh can legitimately boast in His sight.
But you did something other people didn’t do!
Much like The Da Vinci Code, the Calvinist argument that Synergists make faith something to boast in looks convincing at first glance, but upon examination, it becomes quite apparent that those who have bought into it have been wholly Dan Browned by its pseudo-logic. Desperate to salvage the polemically effective but badly flawed argument, some have resorted to appeal to comparison: They argue that because believing is something you can say you freely did that other people freely didn’t do (despite being given opportunity), it is therefore something that can be boasted in.
Is there any correctness to this argument? Is my doing something that someone else didn’t do necessarily some cause to boast? Let’s see, Jonas Salk came up with a polio vaccine while his peers didn’t. Could that be grounds for boasting? I suppose it could. But is difference always boastworthy? I wore Nike running shoes today while others wore Keds and ASICS. Does this constitute some reason to brag? Of course not. Simply doing what other people don’t do isn’t in and of itself cause to boast. To argue that one is able to boast about something that one did differently than others, one must necessarily presuppose that what is done differently is something boastworthy. As we’ve established above, faith is in fact not boastworthy for a Christian, and therefore there’s no valid grounds for one who believes to brag about it.
Obedience to Christ and His gospel is what God requires of men before He will save them, not something that somehow makes us worthy of His mercy. Jesus Himself clearly communicates this concept:
“So you also, when you have done everything you were told to do, should say, ‘We are unworthy servants; we have only done our duty.’” (Luke 17:10)
So even following the gospel command to believe, we are still the unprofitable servants of a very gracious Lord, and we would be more than foolish to think we could boast in anything but knowing Him.
Bottom Line:
* No belief makes boasting impossible, when the Bible tells us that boasting is excluded, it’s implying that no one has valid grounds to boast.
* Because faith doesn’t earn or merit eternal life but rather only obtains it by God’s grace, believing isn’t a valid reason to boast. Who does or doesn’t freely believe doesn’t alter that fact.
* Because faith in Christ is an acknowledgment of dependence upon Him and His merits rather than our own, to someone who is consistent, faith and boasting are mutually exclusive.
http://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2010/10/01/the-fallacies-of-calvini...
More
- Compounded Sin refreshed
12 y
1,332
J.Crow’s® Lugol’s Iodine
Free S&H.Restore lost reserves.J.CROW’S®Lugol’s Iodine Solut...
Dr. Clark Shop
Hulda Clark Cleanses
This is a reply to # 2,014,602Fighting For The Angels
"If my understanding of predestination is not correct, then my sin is compounded, since I would be slandering the saints who by opposing my view are fighting for the angels." (RC Sproul, Chosen by God, pg. 14)- Stop the Plague refreshed
12 y
1,304
J.Crow’s® Lugol’s Iodine
Free S&H.Restore lost reserves.J.CROW’S®Lugol’s Iodine Solut...
Dr. Clark Shop
Hulda Clark Cleanses
This is a reply to # 2,014,603John Wesley
"Answer all [the Calvinists'] objections, as occasion offers, both in public and private. But take care to do this with all possible sweetness both of look and of accent...Make it a matter of constant and earnest prayer, that God would stop the plague."- Re: Stop the Plague vektek
12 y
1,322
J.Crow’s® Lugol’s Iodine
Free S&H.Restore lost reserves.J.CROW’S®Lugol’s Iodine Solut...
Dr. Clark Shop
Hulda Clark Cleanses
- Double-Talk From a Double Predestina... refreshed
12 y
1,397
This is a reply to # 2,014,604Advertisement
J.Crow’s® Lugol’s Iodine
Free S&H.Restore lost reserves.J.CROW’S®Lugol’s Iodine Solution
Dr. John Piper recently responded to the question, “What did the death of Jesus on the cross accomplish for the non-elect? Anything?” His reply, oddly, raises more questions than it answers. Despite his views on unconditional election and reprobation, Piper frames his answer in terms of God giving those who aren’t chosen a “chance” at salvation. Ted Kaczynski, aka the Unabomber, was identified partially by his unusual, but correct use of an oft-misquoted proverb that’s very applicable here: “You can’t eat your cake and have it too.”
To understand the issue, the reader should understand that Piper is a 5-point Calvinist, and believes that whether one is saved or not is strictly up to the choice of God, with no input from man or conditions fulfilled by man whatsoever, and that God unchangeably chose or rejected each individual before the world was ever made. He also believes that Christ didn’t die for the ones that weren’t chosen in any sort of way by which they could be saved (this is commonly called “limited atonement”), and that whether one accepts the gospel or not is entirely dependent upon whether he has been “regenerated” by God beforehand (per Calvinism, one who is regenerated inevitably will believe the gospel, one who isn’t regenerated never can). With that said, let’s examine Piper’s response.
In one sense, as soon as we sin we should be punished eternally. We shouldn’t get another breath. There should be no reprieve. There should be no time given to us. So clearly then, in some sense, the time given to us is grace. And grace for a sinner requires some kind of payment or purchase or warrant from a holy God. And Christ would be the one who provides that.
So I’m inclined to say, “Yes, the fact that the non-elect, the unbelievers all over the world are still breathing and have another chance to believe is a gift, just like the offer of the gospel is a gift. And that offer is provided by the cross.”
I’m not sure I agree with that logic. I do believe God, in His just nature, punishes sin; and that atonement is required to escape one’s being punished. But now there has to be some sort of payment for delaying that punishment? I also did a double-take when I read this. The guy who regularly stresses double-predestination just used the phrase “chance to believe?” Read on, it gets weirder.
Now here’s the catch. Romans 2:4 says, “Don’t you know that the patience of God is meant to lead you to repentance? But you, by your hard and unrepentant heart, are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when the righteous judgment of God is revealed.”
So if a non-elect person spurns-which they do-they spurn this grace, the grace itself becomes added judgment. Which makes me wonder, “In what sense was it grace?” In some sense it is. It’s a real offer, it’s a real opportunity. But if you spurn it, if you reject it, it backfires and mounts up with greater judgment.
I would agree with Piper’s sentiment that one who spurns God’s grace opens himself up to harsher condemnation. What’s confusing about his answer is his use of terms like “real offer” and “real opportunity.” Per Piper’s own views, whether you will believe and be saved or not has already been unconditionally and immutably settled before you were ever born.
Previously, Piper insinuated that the non-elect are given a “chance to believe” (“chance” apparently not implying randomness, but being used in the idiomatic sense to convey opportunity). But the only “chance” involved is the [to us] unknown factor of whether you are already one of the chosen ones: If you are one of the elect, there’s no chance that you won’t believe; if you’re one of those who have been unconditionally rejected with no possible appeal or recourse, there’s absolutely no chance that you will. And whatever you are, your position as elect or non-elect can’t and won’t change. It’s not a matter of there being a “chance” of backfire for the unchosen in the Calvinistic view, such “grace” cannot do anything but backfire.
It’s like the more kindness is shown to a person that they resist, then the more wicked they show themselves to be. And the more wicked they show themselves to be, the more judgment falls upon them.
I think the answer is yes. I think real grace, real common grace, real offer of salvation-right now, just watching this-is grace. And if you’re a non-Christian, grace is being offered you at this very moment in my warning you that, if you spurn this, judgment will be greater.
Again, I’d largely agree with the sentiment. The question is how can this kind of statement square with Piper’s divinely fatalistic views? It’s also notable that Piper isn’t just talking about how people perceive things, but about things that God intentionally does.
And that’s a gift to you right now that God may be pleased to then use to awaken you to say, “Whoa. I don’t want to multiply my judgment. I want to respond to this moment of grace.”
That’s what I think the upshot of this conversation should be: respond to the grace. You’re alive! There’s still a chance to believe and be saved.
Again, per 5-point Calvinism, if you’re not among those elected to salvation, tough beans. God hasn’t chosen you, Christ didn’t die for you, and the Holy Spirit most certainly won’t regenerate you. You are lost without remedy, condemned already beyond repair, there isn’t a single ray of hope, and you never had a prayer. The accessibility of salvation to you is absolute zero. Nothing. Zilch. Nada. So how can a person to whom salvation isn’t even remotely applicable have any sort of “opportunity” to be saved?
Put even more simply, if Christ didn’t die for the forgiveness of one’s sins in any sense, then there can never be an “opportunity to be saved” for him, because there is no way to be saved unless Christ died to forgive his sins.
Such doublespeak is strong cause to question Piper’s personal theology. If his determinist views are so repugnant that he has to “balance” them with concepts that flatly contradict his doctrine, then he’s essentially embraced cognitive dissonance. If you reject universalism, but believe that God still genuinely offers salvation to all men, then which is more consistent and less convoluted to believe?
1. Christ died provisionally for the sins of all, such that any who believe in Him will be forgiven.
2. Or Piper’s view, where if you’re not one of the elect, you’re given an “opportunity” that you can’t possibly take, to accept an “offer” of salvation from God that isn’t really His will that you accept, just so you’ll have a “chance” to obtain faith that isn’t even accessible to you, wrought by a Savior who didn’t die to forgive your sins, but whose death fortunately did provide “grace” that will inevitably backfire and condemn you even more. Makes perfect sense. Where do I sign?
http://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2012/07/29/double-talk-from-a-doubl...
More
- Refutes Meaning of 1 John 5:1 refreshed
12 y
1,385
This is a reply to # 2,014,607Biblical Scholar Brian Abasciano Refutes the Popular Calvinist Argument That the Language of 1 John 5:1 Means That Regeneration Precedes Faith
This scholarly treatment of the passage and the language of 1 John 5:1 is long overdue. In light of this article, I don’t see how Calvinists can continue to reference this erroneous argument. You can down load the article from SEA:
Here is the author’s abstract:
A number of scholars have appealed to the Greek tenses of 1 John 5:1 as definitive proof that the verse teaches that regeneration precedes faith. But this argument is untenable. The purposes of the present article are (1) to draw attention to the falsity of the argument and to explain why it is invalid, and (2) to counter the contention that the underlying concern of the grammatical argument (i.e., that 1 John 5:1 implies that regeneration precedes faith) can be rescued by appeal to a pattern in 1 John of indicating the results of regeneration. It is questionable whether the tenses in 1 John 5:1 suggest any chronological or causal relationship between faith and regeneration since some grammarians deny that Greek tenses grammaticalize time, and more importantly, one of the tenses in the passage occurs in a substantival participle, which can be devoid of time significance. If the tenses are temporally related, as seems most probable, then Greek grammar suggests either that believing and being begotten of God are portrayed as contemporaneous, or perhaps more likely, that believing logically precedes being begotten of God. Invocation of statements elsewhere in 1 John indicating the results of regeneration does not rescue 1 John 5:1 as a proof text for regeneration preceding faith because of, inter alia, the distinctive and crucial role of faith in the epistle and Johannine theology.
http://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2012/11/14/biblical-scholar-brian-a...
- Jesus Says The Dead Will Hear Unto S... refreshed
12 y
1,348
This is a reply to # 2,014,608Advertisement
J.Crow’s® Lugol’s Iodine
Free S&H.Restore lost reserves.J.CROW’S®Lugol’s Iodine Solution
I want to recommend Chris Chapman’s article available at SEA called, The Extent of Spiritual Death.
Chapman’s article does an excellent job of demonstrating from Scripture that the spiritual death described in the Bible does not warrant the Calvinist spin that equates spiritual death with the inability of a physical corpse to act in any way. However, his article doesn’t go far enough with regards to a key passage in John 5.
Chapman recounts how Calvinists will often use the Biblical narrative of Lazarus as an example of a corpse having no choice but to come alive when Christ calls, apart from any response of faith. Likewise, Calvinists will often use the illustration of a preacher in a morgue preaching to a bunch of lifeless corpses. They reason that none of the dead bodies in the morgue can hear or respond to the preacher until they are first made alive.
In addressing the Calvinist use of the Lazarus narrative, Chapman rightly notes that Jesus is speaking of physical resurrection in John 11 just as He did in John 5:25-29. Unfortunately, he fails make the very important point that John 5:25 has reference not only to a future resurrection, but to the present spiritual resurrection of those who are hearing Christ’s voice in faith. This simple observation destroys the Calvinist insistence that those who are dead in sin are as unable to hear as a lifeless corpse.
The implications Calvinists draw from the Lazarus narrative and the analogy of the preacher in the morgue are plainly at odds with the words of Jesus in John 5:25,
“Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.” (NASB, emphasis mine)
Jesus makes it clear that the time when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God unto life is “now.” How does this happen? It happens through faith in Christ,
“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.” (John 5:24, NASB, emphasis mine)
Here Jesus plainly describes the initial movement from spiritual death to spiritual life. The one who hears the words of Jesus in faith (i.e. receives them through faith) passes from spiritual death to spiritual life. This clearly marks the transition from death to life and that is a perfect description of what constitutes regeneration. Regeneration is the beginning of spiritual life, and is thereby marked by the initial transition from death to life.
In the oft repeated Calvinist analogy of the preacher in the Morgue, Calvinists insist that one cannot hear or respond to Christ or the gospel until that person is first given spiritual life. This claim is in obvious and stark contrast to what Jesus says in John 5. Jesus tells us that the spiritually “dead” will “hear” unto “life”, and this hearing unto life is the result of faith (verse 24). It is the “hearing of faith” that Paul describes in Galatians by which we receive the Spirit of life (Gal. 3:2, 5, 14, cf. Romans 8:1-12).
So Jesus tells us that the “dead” will “hear” (in faith) unto “life” and the Calvinist tells us that only those who are already regenerated can “hear” unto faith. Jesus says that hearing and faith come before life and Calvinism says that life comes before hearing and faith. Calvinists say that the “dead” cannot possibly hear anything, just like a lifeless physical corpse. Jesus tells us that the “dead” can hear (as God enables them), and this hearing by faith is what moves those who hear from the realm of spiritual death to the realm of spiritual life.
Chapman rightly points out that Jesus is speaking about a future physical resurrection in verses 28-29. In these verses Jesus speaks only of “an hour that is coming”, but in verses 24 and 25, Jesus speaks of an hour that is coming and “now is.” The Jews should not marvel at the authority and power of Jesus’ claim that His words can give spiritual life to those who hear and receive those words in faith (vv. 24, 25), since Jesus has the ultimate authority to judge all of mankind when He calls them out of the grave at the end of time (vv. 27-29).
Jesus is here building on the theme of His authority and power given to Him by the Father. The Father gives Jesus the power and authority to give life to whom He wishes (vs. 21). Jesus makes it clear in verses 24 and 25 that the Father and Jesus wish to give life to believers, those who hear and receive Christ’s words in faith. Spiritually dead unbelievers become spiritually alive by becoming believers (vs. 24). The only way for the spiritually dead to receive the life that Jesus has authority to grant them is to hear His words by faith (vv. 24, 25).
Jesus then moves from this authority and power given to Him by the Father to the authority and power given Him by the Father to resurrect and judge all of mankind, both believers and unbelievers. This authority and power given Him by the Father reinforces Jesus’ central theme in His teaching (and John’s central theme in his gospel) that He belongs to the Father and is from the Father, and “…the Father has placed into the Son’s hands the entire question of human life and death. It is with the Son we all must deal.” [1] The Jews who suppose themselves to have a special relationship with the Father are actually opposing the Father and proving that that they do not know the Father when they oppose Jesus, the perfect expression and revelation of the Father (verses 36-47, cf. John 6:35-58; 8:31-59; 10:24-38).
The difference is clear. In verses 24, 25, Jesus speaks of an hour that is present as well as future. In verses 27-29 Jesus speaks only of an hour that is future. In verses 24 and 25, Jesus is speaking of spiritual life given to believers. In verses 27-29, Jesus is speaking of resurrection life that will be given to both believers and unbelievers when all of mankind is called out of the grave by God’s appointed judge, the Son of Man (cf. vs. 22).
Therefore, one cannot discount the reality of the spiritually dead hearing and receiving spiritual life by faith in John 5:24 and 25 by appealing to verses 27-29.
Conclusion: The Bible everywhere DE CLAREs that spiritual life is received by faith. The Bible nowhere states that spiritual life of any sort is granted prior to faith as Calvinists claim. The Calvinist appeal to passages which refer to spiritual death is erroneous in that they draw conclusions from those passages that the passages simply do not teach [2]. Nowhere is spiritual death or man’s deadness in sin described in terms of the inability of a physical corpse to do anything (like hear or respond in faith) as portrayed in the Calvinist morgue analogy. Rather, Jesus flatly contradicts such an interpretation when He DE CLAREs that the spiritually “dead” will “hear” unto spiritual life.
______________________________________________________
[1] Joseph Dongell, John: A Commentary for Bible Students, page 93
[2] These passages actually work against the Calvinist claims. Ephesians and Colossians both represent spiritual life as being received upon our being united with Christ (Ephesians 2:4-7; Col. 2:13), and we come to be joined to Christ by faith (Eph. 1:13). Ephesians further states that all of the spiritual blessings (Eph. 1:3) that are in Christ, including redemption and regeneration, are received “by grace, through faith” (2:8). Colossians makes the same point, describing our spiritual resurrection as resulting from “faith in the power of God” (Col. 2:11, 12). Likewise, Paul makes it clear that the Spirit of life is received by “the hearing of faith” (Gal. 3:2, 5, 14, cf. Romans 8:11). Paul also tells us that the righteousness of justification brings spiritual life and we know that justification is “by faith” (Romans 5:17, 18, 21; 8:10; Rom. 4; Gal. 3:21-24). We become children of God through faith (John 1:12; Gal. 3:26). All the promises of the new covenant, including new spiritual life, are received by faith as well (Gal. 3:14-22). Many similar passages could be cited. Truly, the Biblical evidence against the Calvinist claims that new spiritual life precedes faith is overwhelming. Perhaps this is why some Calvinist are now moving away from this claim, just as four point Calvinists have rejected the doctrine of limited atonement due to the overwhelming Biblical evidence against it and in support of unlimited atonement.
- “Who maketh thee to differ from anot... refreshed
12 y
1,555
This is a reply to # 2,014,6091 Corinthians 4:7, “For who maketh thee to differ from another?”
The context shows that the apostle was here endeavouring to repress that ostentation which had arisen among many persons in the Church of Corinth, on account of their spiritual gifts and endowments. This he does by referring those gifts to God, as the sole giver, — “for who maketh thee to differ?” or who confers superiority upon thee? as the sense obviously is; “and what hast thou that thou didst not receive?” Mr. Scott acknowledges that “the apostle is here speaking more immediately of natural abilities, and spiritual gifts; and not of special and efficacious grace.” If so, then the passage has nothing to do with this controversy. The argument he however affirms, concludes equally in one case, as in the other; and in his sermon on election he thus applies it: “Let the blessings of the Gospel be fairly proposed, with solemn warnings and pressing invitations, to two men of exactly the same character and disposition: if they are left to themselves in entirely similar circumstances, the effect must be precisely the same. But, behold, while one proudly scorns and resents the gracious offer, the other trembles, weeps, prays, repents, believes! Who maketh this man to differ from the other? or what hath he that he hath not received? The Scriptural answer to this question, when properly understood, decides the whole controversy.”
As this is a favourite argument, and a popular dilemma in the hands of the Calvinists, and so much is supposed to depend upon its solution, we may somewhat particularly examine it.
Instead of supposing the case of two men “of exactly the same character and disposition,” why not suppose the same man in two moral states? For one man who “proudly scorns the Gospel” does not more differ from another who penitently receives it, than the same man who has once scoffingly rejected, and afterward meekly submitted to it, differs from himself; as for instance, Saul the Pharisee from Paul the apostle. Now, to account for the case of two men, one receiving the Gospel, and the other rejecting it, the theory of election is brought in; but in the case of the one man in two different states, this theory cannot be resorted to. The man was elect from eternity; he is no outcast from the mercy of his God, and the redemption of his Saviour, and yet, in one period of his life, he proudly scorns the offered mercy of Christ, at another he accepts it. It is clear, then, that the doctrine of election, simply considered in itself, will not solve the latter case; and by consequence it will not solve the former: for the mere fact, that one man rejects the Gospel while another receives it, is no more a proof of the non-election of the non-recipient, than the fact of a man now rejecting it, who shall afterward receive it, is a proof of his non-election.
The solution, then, must be sought for in some communication of the grace of God, in some inward operation upon the heart, which is supposed to be a consequence of election; but this leads to another and distinct question.
This question is not, however, the vincibility or invincibility of the grace of God, at least not in the first instance. It is, in truth, whether there is any operation of the grace of God in man at all tending to salvation, in cases where we see the Gospel rejected. Is the man who rejects perseveringly, and he who rejects but for a time, perhaps a long period of his life, left without any good motions or assisting influence from the grace of GOD, or not? This question seems to admit of but one of three answers. Either he has no gracious assistance at all, to dispose him to receive the Gospel; or he has a sufficient influence of grace so to dispose him; or that gracious influence is dispensed in an insufficient measure. If the first answer be given, then not only are the non-elect left without any visitations of grace throughout life; but the elect also are left without them, until the moment of their effectual calling. If the second be offered as the answer, then both in the case of the non-elect man who finally rejects Christ, and that of the elect man, who rejects him for a great part of his life, the saving grace of God must be allowed so to work as to be capable of counteraction, and effectual resistance. If this be denied, then the third answer must be adopted, and the grace of God must be allowed so to influence as to be designedly insufficient for the ends for which it is given; that is, it is given for no saving end at all, either as to the non-elect, or as to the elect all the time they remain in a state of actual alienation from Christ. For if an insufficient degree of grace is bestowed, when a sufficient degree might have been imparted, then there must have been a reason for restraining the degree of grace to an insufficient measure; which reason could only be, that it might be insufficient, and therefore not saving. Now, two of the three of these positions are manifestly contrary to the word of GOD. To say that no gracious influence of the Holy Spirit operates upon the unconverted, is to take away their guilt; since they cannot be guilty of rejecting the Gospel if they have no power to embrace it, either from themselves, or by impartation, while yet the Scripture represents this as the highest guilt of men. All the exhortations, and reproofs, and invitations of Scripture, are, also, by this doctrine, turned into mockery and delusion; and, finally, there can be no such thing in this case, as “resisting the Holy Ghost;” as “grieving and quenching the Spirit;” as “doing despite to the Spirit of grace,” either in the case of the non-elect, who are never converted, or of the elect, before conversion: so that the latter have never been guilty of stubbornness, and obstinacy, and rebellion, and resistance of grace; though these are, by them, afterward, always acknowledged among their sins. Nor did they ever feel any good motion, or drawing from the Spirit of God, before what they term their effectual calling; though, it is presumed, that few, if any of them, will deny this in fact.
If the doctrine, that no grace is imparted before conversion, is then contradicted both by Scripture and experience, how will the case stand, as to the intentional restriction of that grace to a degree which is insufficient to dispose the subject to the acceptance of the Gospel? If this view be held, it must be maintained equally as to the elect before their conversion, and as to the non-elect. In that case, then, we have equal difficulty in accounting for the guilt of man, as when it is supposed that no grace at all is imparted; and for the reproofs, calls, and invitations, and threatenings of the word of God. For where lies the difference between the absolute non-impartation of grace, and grace so imparted as to be designedly insufficient for salvation? Plainly there is none, except that we can see no end at all for giving insufficient grace; a circumstance which would only serve to render still more perplexing the principles and practice of the Divine administration. It has no end of mercy, and none of justice; nor, as far as can be perceived, of wisdom. Not of mercy, for it effects nothing merciful, and designs not to effect it; not of justice, for it places no man under equitable responsibility; not of wisdom, for it has no assignable end. The Scripture treats all men to whom the Gospel is preached as endowed with power, not indeed from themselves, but from the grace of God, to “turn at his reproof;” to come at his “call;” to embrace his “grace;” but they have no capacity for any of these acts, if either of these opinions be true: and thus the word of GOD is contradicted. So also is experience, in both cases; for there could be no sense of guilt for having rejected Christ, and grieved the Holy Spirit, either in the non-elect never converted, or in the elect before conversion, if either they had no visitations of grace at all; or if these were designedly granted in an insufficient degree.
It follows, then, that the doctrine of the impartation of grace to the unconverted, in a sufficient degree to enable them to embrace the Gospel, must be admitted; and with this doctrine comes in that of a power in man to use, or to spurn this heavenly gift and gracious assistance: in other words, a power of willing to come to Christ, even when men do not come; a power of considering their ways, and turning to the Lord, when they do not consider them, and turn to him; a power of praying, when they do not pray; and a power of believing, when they do not believe: powers all of grace; all the results of the work of the Spirit in the heart; but powers to be exerted by man, since it is man, and not God, who wills, and turns, and prays, and believes, while the influence under which this is done is from the grace of GOD alone. This is the doctrine which is clearly contained in the words of St. Paul, “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God that worketh in you both to will and to do, of his own good pleasure;” where, not only the operation of God, but the co-operation of man, are distinctly marked; and are both held up as necessary to the production of the grand result — “salvation.”
It will appear, then, from these observations, that the question, “Who maketh thee to differ?” as urged by Mr. Scott and others from the time of Calvin, is a very inapposite one to their purpose, for,
First, it is a question which the apostle asks with no reference to a difference in religious state, but only with respect to gifts and endowments. Secondly, the Holy Ghost gives no authority for such an application of his words, as is thus made, in any other part of Scripture. Thirdly, it cannot be employed for the purpose for which it is dragged forth so often from its context and meaning; for, in the use thus made of it, it is falsely assumed, that the two men instanced, the one who rejects, and the other who embraces the Gospel, are not each endowed with sufficient grace to enable them to receive God’s gracious offer. Now this, we may again say, must either be denied or affirmed. If it be affirmed, then the difference between the two men consists, not where they place it, in the destitution or deficiency on the one hand, or in the plenitude on the other, of the grace of GOD; but in the use of grace: and when they say, “it is God which maketh them to differ,” they say in fact, that it is God that not only gives sufficient grace to each; but uses that grace for them. For if it be allowed that sufficient grace for repentance and faith is given to each, then the true difference between them is, that one repents, and the other does not repent; the one believes, and the other does not believe: if, therefore, this difference is to be attributed to God directly, then the act of repenting, and the act of believing, are both the acts of GOD. If they hesitate to avow this, for it is an absurdity, then either they must give up the question as totally useless to them, or else take the other side of the alternative, that to all who reject the Gospel, sufficient grace to receive it is not given. How then will that serve them? They may say, it is true, when they take the man who embraces the Gospel, “Who maketh him to differ but God, who gives this sufficient grace to him?” but then we have an equal right to take the man who rejects the Gospel, and ask, “Who maketh him to differ” from the man that embraces it? To this they cannot reply that he maketh himself to differ; for that which they here lay down is, that he has either no grace at all imparted to him to enable him to act as the other; or, what amounts to the same thing, no sufficient degree of it to produce a true faith; that he never had that grace; that he is, and always must remain, as destitute of it as when he was born. He does not, therefore, make himself to differ from the man who embraces the Gospel; for he has no power to imitate his example, and to make himself equal with him; and the only answer to our question is, “that it is God who maketh him to differ from the other,” by withholding that grace by which alone he could be prevented from rejecting the Gospel; and this, so far from “settling the whole controversy,” is the very point in debate.
This dilemma, then, will prove, when examined, but inconvenient to themselves; for if sufficiency of grace be allowed to the unconverted then the Calvinists make the acts of grace, as well as the gift of grace itself to be the work of God in the elect: if sufficiency of grace is denied, then the unbelief and condemnation of the wicked are not from themselves, but from God. The fact is, that this supposed puzzle has been always used ad captandum; and is unworthy so grave a controversy; and as to the pretence, that the admission of a power in man to use or to abuse the grace of GOD involves some merit or ground of glorying in man himself, this is equally fallacious. The power “to will and to do,” is the sole result of the working of God in man. All is of grace: “By the grace of God,” must every one say, “I am what I am.” Here is no dispute; every good thought, desire, and tendency of the heart, and all its power to turn these to practical account by prayer, by faith, by the use of the means of grace, through which new power “to will and to do,” new power to use grace, as well as new grace, is communicated, is of GOD. Every good act, therefore, is the use of a communicated power which is given of grace, as the stretching out of the withered hand of the healed man was the use of the power communicated to his imbecility, and still working with the act, though not the act itself; and to attempt to lay a ground of boasting and self sufficiency in the assisted acceptance of the grace of God by us; and the empowered submission of our hearts to it, is as manifestly absurd as it would be to say, that the man, whose arm was withered, had great reason to congratulate himself on his share in the glory of the miracle, because he himself stretched out the invigorated member at the command of Christ; and because it was not, in fact, lifted up by the hand of him who, in that act of faith and obedience, had healed him. (From: Watson’s Theological Institutes, Volume 2)
http://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2012/09/24/richard-watson-on-who-ma...
- God’s Sovereignty refreshed
12 y
1,310
This is a reply to # 2,014,613Advertisement
J.Crow’s® Lugol’s Iodine
Free S&H.Restore lost reserves.J.CROW’S®Lugol’s Iodine Solution
God’s Sovereignty
"God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice, and man from the beginning has fulfilled that decree by making his choice between good and evil. When he chooses to do evil, he does not thereby countervail the sovereign will of God but fulfills it, inasmuch as the eternal decree decided not which choice the man should make but that he should be free to make it. If in His absolute freedom God has willed to give man limited freedom, who is there to stay His hand or say, 'What doest thou?' Man’s will is free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereign could not bestow moral freedom upon His creatures. He would be afraid to do so." A.W. Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy: The Attributes of God- Re: God’s Sovereignty vektek
12 y
1,387
This is a reply to # 2,014,614One last thought before I go,
Refreshed you should let those evil Calvinists at your church know how you really feel about them, lol.
- Re: God’s Sovereignty and perfect kn... grassman
12 y
1,622
This is a reply to # 2,014,616God does not call those who will not come.
God knows who will never come.
The issue is of foreknowledge and is part of perfect knowledge.
When the finite mind of man meets the infinite mind of God it fears the obvious.
So hard to see that fulfillment of purpose is not achevied in calling those who will not hear.Why would God call those that will never come?Is God foolish,is God unable to know the heart of man?
The only issue here is the limited knoweledge of man for it has nothing to do with free will.
This is an argument between the hot/Calvanist and the luke warm spittle of modern humanism.
Most people prefer the spittle do to it being the easiest to live with.
- Re: God’s Sovereignty and perfect kn... vektek
12 y
1,400
This is a reply to # 2,015,702Advertisement
J.Crow’s® Lugol’s Iodine
Free S&H.Restore lost reserves.J.CROW’S®Lugol’s Iodine Solution
"But," says someone, "He foresaw that you would have faith; and, therefore, He loved you." What did He foresee about my faith? Did He foresee that I should get that faith myself, and that I should believe on Him of myself? No; Christ could not foresee that, because no Christian man will ever say that faith came of itself without the gift and without the working of the Holy Spirit. I have met with a great many believers, and talked with them about this matter; but I never knew one who could put his hand on his heart, and say, "I believed in Jesus without the assistance of the Holy Spirit."
Charles Spurgeon
John 3:3
“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
John 3:6
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
John 1:13
who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, BUT of God.
1 John 4:19
We love because he first loved us.
Romans 9:18
18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
Just throwing out a few things here. I don't want to get in a big debate over this.
I just wish those on the Arminian side would at least acknowledge there are some hard scriptures to deal with to hold to "it's all man's choice."
I will acknowledge there are some hard scriptures for those of us that hold the Calvinist view to deal with. But for me, when I came to see that salvation is really of the Lord, I couldn't help but see it on every page then. How could God be sovereign over everything but salvation?
Anyway, no need to go any further with this.
This is an excellent sermon by Charles Spurgeon for anyone interested:
A Defense of Calvinism:
http://www.spurgeon.org/calvinis.htm
- Re: God’s Sovereignty and perfect kn... grassman
12 y
1,601
This is a reply to # 2,015,716Unfortunately many must defend Arminianism in order to defend there churchism.
It is a stumbling block for many and an eye opener for the few who will study the word.Rather than studying the church and its humanistic corruptions.- Re: God’s Sovereignty and perfect kn... vektek
12 y
1,294
This is a reply to # 2,015,837I was really tired last night when I read your message. For some reason I thought your message was partly a defense of Arminianism. Why, I don't know. I reread it and now I get what you were saying.
Yeah, I definitely agree, the church has been corrupted by humanism bigtime. - Re: God’s Sovereignty and perfect kn... refreshed
12 y
1,356
This is a reply to # 2,015,837Advertisement
J.Crow’s® Lugol’s Iodine
Free S&H.Restore lost reserves.J.CROW’S®Lugol’s Iodine Solution
As far as I can tell there are no Arminian style believers on this forum. I know I'm not, but I am midway between the two if I had to give you an idea of what I believe.
Arminianism vs Hyper-Calvinism ...the contrast pinpoints the issues better.
- Re: God’s hyper words of wisdom. grassman
12 y
1,621
This is a reply to # 2,016,011Is this to hyper for the church of compromise?
And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:
Is the word of God to hyper for most humans?Absolutly.
- Re: God’s hyper words of wisdom. grassman
12 y
1,621
- Re: God’s Sovereignty and perfect kn... vektek
12 y
1,294
- Re: God’s Sovereignty and perfect kn... grassman
12 y
1,601
- Re: God’s Sovereignty and perfect kn... vektek
12 y
1,400
- Re: God’s Sovereignty and perfect kn... grassman
12 y
1,622
- Re: God’s Sovereignty vektek
12 y
1,387
- Re: “Who maketh thee to differ from ... trust2009
12 y
1,364
This is a reply to # 2,014,613I will read it more then one time and get energy from God to understand it. we are all children of God and have to Love as Jesus did then we will have the Graze, the input of life and in everything one can know - it is a real way where one ask and really receive and not being left out of that God who gives in the self and others, in the outside as we see the work of God. How can I live without this Faith?
- God’s Sovereignty refreshed
12 y
1,310
- Re: Jesus Says The Dead Will Hear Un... trust2009
12 y
1,347
This is a reply to # 2,014,609What is faith? thanks refreshed, now I see more of my heart clearly what it wants and of others as well. it is the deep desire, the real Love to life, that also Jesus had it and promised us to have it by right and shown it in reality and it was manifested as miracles to the sinners, to those who live in shallow desire that God in them cannot see. They have no Love in them, but the energy from the sins that hates the work of God and the hearing out of it as Jesus did and died for the one who loves sins and who must change the disturbing energy and the forces of evil that send himself to the way of hell rather then to his own salvation. No one can have power and see the way to life without Jesus in him, without that heart in one heart activated in receiving the real desire that comes in real existence to life. The faith, the Loving toleration, that generates the work of God - does each one of us and all feel it, be it a leader, boss, morderator, poster, worker, server, teacher, legeslator, police, solder, hero, lionness, hearer, listener, all that just a man or woman called by titles or names but inside spirits sees in opposition or the same out of that work of His Great Miracles in hands, before the eyes? DO one has eyes? do one hear? What God sees and hear or one has different source, desire? What is men's faith or agenda?
So we can see where there separation starts inside one self and the energy that creates the separation to hell or life.
This is a real God stuff to be aware.
Advertisement
J.Crow’s® Lugol’s Iodine
Free S&H.Restore lost reserves.J.CROW’S®Lugol’s Iodine Solution
- “Who maketh thee to differ from anot... refreshed
12 y
1,555
- Jesus Says The Dead Will Hear Unto S... refreshed
12 y
1,348
- Refutes Meaning of 1 John 5:1 refreshed
12 y
1,385
- Re: Stop the Plague vektek
12 y
1,322
- Stop the Plague refreshed
12 y
1,304
- Compounded Sin refreshed
12 y
1,332
Share:
Translate This Page: