Comments on: Why I Am a Calvinist (Part 7) http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/03/28/why-i-am-a-calvinist-part-7/ A Ministry of Shepherds' Fellowship Fri, 04 Jul 2008 20:17:12 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4 by: Gino http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/03/28/why-i-am-a-calvinist-part-7/#comment-103128 Mon, 28 Jan 2008 19:17:59 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/03/28/why-i-am-a-calvinist-part-7/#comment-103128 In this section a logical non-sequitur is asserted. the idea that if we loved God because God loved us and that if despite a general love not all love God back, that then there must be a special love that God has for his elect. This does not follow necessarily. I believe that the Bible teaches that God loves all... but it's obvious that God has a special intimate relationship with his elect... but relationship is not the same as Love. a relationship is Love on a two way street, while love in and of itself is a one way street. it is a verb where a subject enacts love on a direct object. In contrast, a relationship is a connection of love in which a subject loves a direct object, and the direct object loves the subject. as such it makes perfect sense that God loves all but that not all have a relationship with him. In this part he also asserts particular redemption, something that must follow from Calvinism. The mistake made is that it's based on the assumption of unconditional election or unconditional salvation to those unconditionally chosen or elected. if this is true then it must follow that Jesus death was only for those elected and chosen because there is no condition for salvation. since there is no condition, then Jesus death was a sure atonement for only those chosen. but instead we have the Bible teaching that God died for not only our sins, but the sins of the world. since Jesus died for the sins of the entire world but under the condition that the world has faith, there is no logical problem with Jesus dying for the whole world, and the whole world not being saved. It's applied conditionally, not unconditionally as the Calvinist assumes. This is made plain in 1 Timothy 4:10: “We trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.” So God is the savior of all who believe. not those who are irresistibly drawn and called before the foundation of the world... which by the way is not found in any salvific context, it comes from Eph 1:4-5 which refers to good works prepared before the foundations of the world for his sons adopted as he intended to do before the foundation of the world. We never have a specific choosing of who will be believers before the foundation of the world, anywhere in scripture. He goes on to assign causality to something which is merely related in this verse: "Look at our verse again: “We love Him because He first loved us.” John is saying that God’s love for us is the cause—the effectual cause—of our love for Him. Once again, he is not saying merely that God’s love is a motive or an incentive for our love. Rather, John’s point is that God’s love is the actual productive cause of our love." This does not follow. God's love is not effectual. It is a drawing of the father that enables us to come to Christ. and Christ promises that we who come to Him will be raised up in the last day. Calvinism reads far into this verse what isn't there. the rest of scripture shows us how to interpret that verse. especially it's context. I agree with his next arguement: "That speaks of God’s regenerating work, whereby He resurrects us to a state of vibrant spiritual life, enlightens our minds to understand His truth, and makes the glories of His love so attractive to us that we find them absolutely irresistible." the problem with what you believe about this however is that this is before faith, when scripturally it is faith that results in this spiritual regeneration. The new birth is given to those who believe. this is so clear in John 3 that I can't believe I have to remind anyone of it. Nowhere do we have an irresistible grace being taught by scripture. this doctrine of "irresistible grace" is only a logical construct that must exist if a salvific unconditional election exists. You conclude with the doctrine of perseverence... however if you examine the calvinistic doctrine of "perseverence of the saints" it's not an eternal security at all. salvation to you is so totally of God that he has decided if you're elect or not... and if you're not but became a christian and then fell away before your death, then you weren't really elect. But this makes God the person who kicked you out for no other reason but that he hadn't chosen you, even if you had a relationship with God before your apostasy. God is to blame for apostasy, not the Christian who erred. this is entirely foreign to the attitude of scripture. The scriptures instead tell us that Jesus will "by no means cast us out". This is irrefutable proof that so long as we persevere in faith, that we shall never be cast out of God's hands and we shall never be plucked from the former. In conclusion, Calvinism has yet to provide any real scriptural exegesis for any substantial biblical proof of these perverse fatalistic doctrines. Calvinism is indeed a christian form of fatalism. In this section a logical non-sequitur is asserted. the idea that if we loved God because God loved us and that if despite a general love not all love God back, that then there must be a special love that God has for his elect. This does not follow necessarily. I believe that the Bible teaches that God loves all… but it’s obvious that God has a special intimate relationship with his elect… but relationship is not the same as Love. a relationship is Love on a two way street, while love in and of itself is a one way street. it is a verb where a subject enacts love on a direct object. In contrast, a relationship is a connection of love in which a subject loves a direct object, and the direct object loves the subject. as such it makes perfect sense that God loves all but that not all have a relationship with him.
In this part he also asserts particular redemption, something that must follow from Calvinism. The mistake made is that it’s based on the assumption of unconditional election or unconditional salvation to those unconditionally chosen or elected. if this is true then it must follow that Jesus death was only for those elected and chosen because there is no condition for salvation. since there is no condition, then Jesus death was a sure atonement for only those chosen. but instead we have the Bible teaching that God died for not only our sins, but the sins of the world. since Jesus died for the sins of the entire world but under the condition that the world has faith, there is no logical problem with Jesus dying for the whole world, and the whole world not being saved. It’s applied conditionally, not unconditionally as the Calvinist assumes. This is made plain in 1 Timothy 4:10: “We trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.” So God is the savior of all who believe. not those who are irresistibly drawn and called before the foundation of the world… which by the way is not found in any salvific context, it comes from Eph 1:4-5 which refers to good works prepared before the foundations of the world for his sons adopted as he intended to do before the foundation of the world. We never have a specific choosing of who will be believers before the foundation of the world, anywhere in scripture.
He goes on to assign causality to something which is merely related in this verse:

“Look at our verse again: “We love Him because He first loved us.” John is saying that God’s love for us is the cause—the effectual cause—of our love for Him. Once again, he is not saying merely that God’s love is a motive or an incentive for our love. Rather, John’s point is that God’s love is the actual productive cause of our love.”

This does not follow. God’s love is not effectual. It is a drawing of the father that enables us to come to Christ. and Christ promises that we who come to Him will be raised up in the last day. Calvinism reads far into this verse what isn’t there. the rest of scripture shows us how to interpret that verse. especially it’s context. I agree with his next arguement:

“That speaks of God’s regenerating work, whereby He resurrects us to a state of vibrant spiritual life, enlightens our minds to understand His truth, and makes the glories of His love so attractive to us that we find them absolutely irresistible.”

the problem with what you believe about this however is that this is before faith, when scripturally it is faith that results in this spiritual regeneration. The new birth is given to those who believe. this is so clear in John 3 that I can’t believe I have to remind anyone of it. Nowhere do we have an irresistible grace being taught by scripture. this doctrine of “irresistible grace” is only a logical construct that must exist if a salvific unconditional election exists.

You conclude with the doctrine of perseverence… however if you examine the calvinistic doctrine of “perseverence of the saints” it’s not an eternal security at all. salvation to you is so totally of God that he has decided if you’re elect or not… and if you’re not but became a christian and then fell away before your death, then you weren’t really elect. But this makes God the person who kicked you out for no other reason but that he hadn’t chosen you, even if you had a relationship with God before your apostasy. God is to blame for apostasy, not the Christian who erred. this is entirely foreign to the attitude of scripture. The scriptures instead tell us that Jesus will “by no means cast us out”. This is irrefutable proof that so long as we persevere in faith, that we shall never be cast out of God’s hands and we shall never be plucked from the former.

In conclusion, Calvinism has yet to provide any real scriptural exegesis for any substantial biblical proof of these perverse fatalistic doctrines. Calvinism is indeed a christian form of fatalism.

]]> by: Zack Allen http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/03/28/why-i-am-a-calvinist-part-7/#comment-15653 Tue, 03 Apr 2007 04:51:24 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/03/28/why-i-am-a-calvinist-part-7/#comment-15653 "This deep subject of the truth will forever be debated. I appreciate the mild tone of this discussion." ditto much love, >>zack “This deep subject of the truth will forever be debated.
I appreciate the mild tone of this discussion.”

ditto

much love,
>>zack

]]> by: donsands http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/03/28/why-i-am-a-calvinist-part-7/#comment-15594 Mon, 02 Apr 2007 23:09:08 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/03/28/why-i-am-a-calvinist-part-7/#comment-15594 "The comment that “who are we to question God choosing Jacob over Esau” is used to answer the question of why has God now “changed the mode of salvation” to where Jews who now keep the law will no longer be saved by the law, but rather only Christ." I have to disagree here Chris. I suppose we have come to an impasse. At least for me. Perhpas there are others who would want to pick up the spiritual baton of Calvinism. This deep subject of the truth will forever be debated. I appreciate the mild tone of this discussion. May the Lord continue to illuminate our hearts, and renew our minds with His Holy Word. And may we be shaped more and more into the image of the Son of God, so that we can bear fruit for the glory of His name. Amen. “The comment that “who are we to question God choosing Jacob over Esau” is used to answer the question of why has God now “changed the mode of salvation” to where Jews who now keep the law will no longer be saved by the law, but rather only Christ.”

I have to disagree here Chris.

I suppose we have come to an impasse. At least for me. Perhpas there are others who would want to pick up the spiritual baton of Calvinism.

This deep subject of the truth will forever be debated.
I appreciate the mild tone of this discussion.

May the Lord continue to illuminate our hearts, and renew our minds with His Holy Word. And may we be shaped more and more into the image of the Son of God, so that we can bear fruit for the glory of His name. Amen.

]]> by: Chris http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/03/28/why-i-am-a-calvinist-part-7/#comment-15576 Mon, 02 Apr 2007 20:11:42 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/03/28/why-i-am-a-calvinist-part-7/#comment-15576 By "mode of salvation" I, by no means, am implying that faith is not what saved Old Testament Jews. However, Christ's payment was not made available to them until He lead captivity captive. By “mode of salvation” I, by no means, am implying that faith is not what saved Old Testament Jews. However, Christ’s payment was not made available to them until He lead captivity captive.

]]> by: Chris http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/03/28/why-i-am-a-calvinist-part-7/#comment-15575 Mon, 02 Apr 2007 20:04:32 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/03/28/why-i-am-a-calvinist-part-7/#comment-15575 The comparison of Jacob to Esau is important, because this chapter is the very foundation of the calvinist's belief system. It is the chapter that was used to "convert" Sproul and many born again believers to calvinism. Unfortunately, they completely take out of context this comparison. The comment that "who are we to question God choosing Jacob over Esau" is used to answer the question of why has God now "changed the mode of salvation" to where Jews who now keep the law will no longer be saved by the law, but rather only Christ. That is what "seemed unfair" to Paul to the point where he states that he would bear hell if all his brethren could be saved. The Holy Spirit's answer through Paul was as much an answer to him as it was to us. The comparison of Jacob to Esau is important, because this chapter is the very foundation of the calvinist’s belief system. It is the chapter that was used to “convert” Sproul and many born again believers to calvinism. Unfortunately, they completely take out of context this comparison. The comment that “who are we to question God choosing Jacob over Esau” is used to answer the question of why has God now “changed the mode of salvation” to where Jews who now keep the law will no longer be saved by the law, but rather only Christ. That is what “seemed unfair” to Paul to the point where he states that he would bear hell if all his brethren could be saved. The Holy Spirit’s answer through Paul was as much an answer to him as it was to us.

]]> by: Chris http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/03/28/why-i-am-a-calvinist-part-7/#comment-15570 Mon, 02 Apr 2007 19:48:13 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/03/28/why-i-am-a-calvinist-part-7/#comment-15570 We are only His elect according to His foreknowledge. The mental breakdown occurs when we try to comprehend facts like - there is no thought process with God. God has no beginning and has known everything from infinity past. We cannot comprehend this, but we can comprehend some of the effects of this. One of which is there has never been a time when God has not known our choices. Therefore His election is based upon His foreknowledge as scripture clearly states. So if you want to know how God elected you, Don, the answer is according to His foreknowledge i.e. the ability to see all past, present, and future in one glance. We are only His elect according to His foreknowledge. The mental breakdown occurs when we try to comprehend facts like - there is no thought process with God. God has no beginning and has known everything from infinity past. We cannot comprehend this, but we can comprehend some of the effects of this. One of which is there has never been a time when God has not known our choices. Therefore His election is based upon His foreknowledge as scripture clearly states. So if you want to know how God elected you, Don, the answer is according to His foreknowledge i.e. the ability to see all past, present, and future in one glance.

]]> by: donsands http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/03/28/why-i-am-a-calvinist-part-7/#comment-15550 Mon, 02 Apr 2007 17:08:45 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/03/28/why-i-am-a-calvinist-part-7/#comment-15550 I have one thought more. The immediate context is Jacob & Esau. Two individuals. God elect's one over the other. Why? Because that's the way He purposed it, and that's His sovereign choice. He loved Jacob. Why? Only God knows. Why did He choose me? Only the Lord knows that as well. Paul is talking about indiviuals here, as he says in verse 15-16. He has mercy on WHOM He will. Not to HIM, but to God who shows mercy. So I see where many today are going for this corporate election, and that's alright. But I don't see it. And even if that were true, then it would still come down to individuals, wouldn't it? How do you avoid God looking at each and every heart of every human He created, and God electing those to whom He wants to have mercy on. If we back up to Romans 8:33 and then look at 9:11, do you see the correlation of Paul's thoughts here on election? It's all about God's promise, and His election. I'm one of God's elect. When I read Roman's chapter 8:33-34, I am incredibly encouraged. I then read 9:11, and I see that it matters not what man does, but it's according to God's purpose. This is how I see it. Hey I'm no scholar like John Calvin, or so many others. And I can appreciate your thoughts here. But it's a big statement to say Calvin was wrong, and I'm right, not that Calvin was more than any other man, however, he is a proven theologian and scholar of the Holy Word, and a genuine teacher of the Lord. I have one thought more.

The immediate context is Jacob & Esau. Two individuals. God elect’s one over the other. Why? Because that’s the way He purposed it, and that’s His sovereign choice. He loved Jacob. Why? Only God knows.
Why did He choose me? Only the Lord knows that as well.
Paul is talking about indiviuals here, as he says in verse 15-16. He has mercy on WHOM He will. Not to HIM, but to God who shows mercy.

So I see where many today are going for this corporate election, and that’s alright. But I don’t see it.
And even if that were true, then it would still come down to individuals, wouldn’t it? How do you avoid God looking at each and every heart of every human He created, and God electing those to whom He wants to have mercy on.

If we back up to Romans 8:33 and then look at 9:11, do you see the correlation of Paul’s thoughts here on election?

It’s all about God’s promise, and His election.

I’m one of God’s elect. When I read Roman’s chapter 8:33-34, I am incredibly encouraged. I then read 9:11, and I see that it matters not what man does, but it’s according to God’s purpose.

This is how I see it. Hey I’m no scholar like John Calvin, or so many others.
And I can appreciate your thoughts here.

But it’s a big statement to say Calvin was wrong, and I’m right, not that Calvin was more than any other man, however, he is a proven theologian and scholar of the Holy Word, and a genuine teacher of the Lord.

]]> by: Zack Allen http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/03/28/why-i-am-a-calvinist-part-7/#comment-15548 Mon, 02 Apr 2007 16:31:56 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/03/28/why-i-am-a-calvinist-part-7/#comment-15548 The immediate context is of the utmost importance. That is sort of the point of looking at the overall context. If we look at the immediate context without first looking toward the overall context our interpretation of the immediate context will almost always be flawed. The paragraph before what you quoted actually does addresses this issue. "Well, that is the background problem of Romans ix.-xi., and it is vital to realise it in considering any of the foreground statements separately. But besides this, if we are going to interpret truly any of these Pauline statements on the Divine sovereignty,we must keep to the point and the scope of the passage. As to the former, Paul's purpose is to show that (a) the present by-passing of Israel nationally is not inconsistent with the Divine promises(see ix. 6-13); (b) because Israel's present sin and blindness nationally is overruled in blessing to both Jews and Gentiles as indlividuals (see ix. 23-xi. 25); (c) and because "all Israel shall yet be saved" at a postponed climax, inasmuch as "the gifts and calling of God are irreversible" (see xi. 26-36)." and again with the very next sentenced after your quotation... "No, this passage does not comprehend the eternal aspects of human destiny: Paul has already dealt with those in chapters i-viii. It is concerned (let us emphasise it again) with the historical and dispensational." The immediate context is of the utmost importance. That is sort of the point of looking at the overall context. If we look at the immediate context without first looking toward the overall context our interpretation of the immediate context will almost always be flawed.

The paragraph before what you quoted actually does addresses this issue.

“Well, that is the background problem of Romans ix.-xi., and it is vital to realise it in considering any of the foreground statements separately. But besides this, if we are going to interpret truly any of these Pauline statements on the Divine sovereignty,we must keep to the point and the scope of the passage. As to the former, Paul’s purpose is to show that (a) the present by-passing of Israel nationally is not inconsistent with the Divine promises(see ix. 6-13); (b) because Israel’s present sin and blindness nationally is overruled in blessing to both Jews and Gentiles as indlividuals (see ix. 23-xi. 25); (c) and because “all Israel shall yet be saved” at a postponed climax, inasmuch as “the gifts and calling of God are irreversible” (see xi. 26-36).”

and again with the very next sentenced after your quotation…

“No, this passage does not comprehend the eternal aspects of human destiny: Paul has already dealt with those in chapters i-viii. It is concerned (let us emphasise it again) with the historical and dispensational.”

]]> by: donsands http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/03/28/why-i-am-a-calvinist-part-7/#comment-15465 Mon, 02 Apr 2007 11:54:34 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/03/28/why-i-am-a-calvinist-part-7/#comment-15465 "As to the scope of the passage, it will by now have become obvious that it is all about God's dealings with men and nations historically and dispensationally, and is not about individual salvation and destiny beyond the grave [emphasis added]. Now that is the absolutely vital fact to remember in reading the problem-verses of these chapters, especially the paragraph ix. 14-22. John Calvin is wrong when he reads into these verses election either to salvation or to damnation in the eternal sense. That is not their scope." This paper doesn't deal with the immediate context, which I believe is vital to hermeneutics, is it not. I think Calvin is correct, and "A Quest for Balance" is wrong. Thanks for sharing the article. “As to the scope of the passage, it will by now have become obvious that it is all about God’s dealings with men and nations historically and dispensationally, and is not about individual salvation and destiny beyond the grave [emphasis added]. Now that is the absolutely vital fact to remember in reading the problem-verses of these chapters, especially the paragraph ix. 14-22.

John Calvin is wrong when he reads into these verses election either to salvation or to damnation in the eternal sense. That is not their scope.”

This paper doesn’t deal with the immediate context, which I believe is vital to hermeneutics, is it not.
I think Calvin is correct, and “A Quest for Balance” is wrong.

Thanks for sharing the article.

]]> by: Zack Allen http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/03/28/why-i-am-a-calvinist-part-7/#comment-15366 Mon, 02 Apr 2007 07:14:34 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/03/28/why-i-am-a-calvinist-part-7/#comment-15366 I just finished reading one of the best papers I've ever read on this subject. It is called, "The Sovereignty of God and the Responsibility of Man: A Quest for Balance." Incredible. You can find it here... http://www.gracenotebook.com/calvin_or_arminius.htm I just finished reading one of the best papers I’ve ever read on this subject. It is called, “The Sovereignty of God and the Responsibility of Man:
A Quest for Balance.” Incredible.

You can find it here…

http://www.gracenotebook.com/calvin_or_arminius.htm

]]>