Big Picture

[Guest]

In response to Homer, Paul T wrote "I believe this is a misrepresentation of the Reformed position. Perhaps you’ve heard the term, “but there for the grace of God go I...”?"

Didn't I essentially say this to Homer and explained a more precise understanding of the reformed view?

Perhaps, but what I saw was more disinformation.

PaulT continued "...The Reformed position postulates that man in his fallen state is an enemy of the one true God and will not chose God, his will is “enslaved” a term I herd Gregg confirm, to sin. Reformers don’t think Ro 3 is hyperbole. Therefore when man evaluates the evidence of God he will always view the evidence through a self-authenticating, self-sufficient basis and as such will not chose God...."

Okay then. If this is true, then what exactly is the purpose for the existence and work of the devil to "blind the minds of those who don't believe" (2 Cor. 4:3) if they will not believe anyway, regardless of his deceptive activity? I mean, supposing the Reformed postulation on this issue (the nature of fallen man) is true, then those who are not unconditionally chosen for eternal life wouldn't believe even if the devil did not exist. However, Jesus seems to have placed some blame on the devil, when He said "When anyone hears the word of the kingdom, and does not understand it, then the wicked one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart. This is he who received seed by the wayside." I percieve this to be a role of the wicked one in the life of those who are unbelievers after they hear the word of the kingdom and do not understand it. The implication seems to me that the wicked one snatches away the word to keep the power behind the word at work in the heart from coming to full potential, which would essentially be a comprehension of the message which would direct and move the unbeliever to turn from sin and believe in the Lord Jesus. Now if the Reformed position on Romans 3 is correct, why does the devil work in this way, if those who are not chosen for eternal life will not believe anyway?
Troy

“Purpose of Satan”, I’m sorry I’m missing your point. Evidently then you must think Satan is omnipresent or at least has the ability to be in more than one place than at the same time, are you suggesting the Gospel is only preached to one person at a time in one location across the globe. Methinks the passage is discussing the blindness that has come upon the Jews, (go back to chapter 3:14), who fought against Paul in the spreading of the Gospel message, that Satan was battling Christ during His ministry and worked evil among the Jews to bring about the crucifixion wouldn’t seem to me to therefore imply that man in his unnatural state is not God’s enemy, nor militate against the Reformed view of Paul’s very clear teaching in Ro 3. No doubt Satan was used by God to enable the events that were required to take place so that His people could be saved, but I don’t see how this then implies man is neutral with Satan sitting on one shoulder removing or placing seeds of doubt while man evaluates the evidence. Like I said, unless I missed something somewhere Satan is an angel who can only be in one place at one time, a bit of a problem for your view unless you only think the Gospel is preached to one man at a time across the globe.

You kind of lost me on that last sentence where you said "when man evaluates the evidence of God he will always view the evidence through a self-authenticating, self-sufficient basis and as such will not chose God"

Are you telling me that the unbeliever can evaluates the evidence, (which I presume you to mean the gospel presentation and things related)? I thought there is none who seeks God, in consequence of the nature of the unbeliever? So the unbeliever who is said to be "dead" in sins can evaluate the evidence and presentation of the gospel?
Thanks Paul,
Troy

Surely, the unbeliever who is dead in sins is still a rational man. Methinks your confusion is attributed to the straw-man I’ve seen and heard bantered about on this web-site regarding the depravity of the mind. Evaluation of the evidence doesn’t mean one seeks God. A classic example of this that perhaps you’ve seen me point out is the Darwinist who while recognizing the evidence indicates God nevertheless discounts the evidence and postulates a naturalistic theory. So while the rational man evaluates the evidence because he is spiritually dead to the things of God he will always evaluate the evidence through his preconceived bias.

You continued: ...The Reformed view states that God allows men to go to Hell while enabling some to recognize their condition which then leads to repentance ... it is not that God will not allow men to repent, men don’t want to repent due to their bias that is the result of their sin nature...

I'm confused, so perhaps you could help me out a bit. I was of the understanding that Calvin believed there was no distinguishable difference between saying God allowed something and saying that God decreed something.

Calvin writes,

“why shall we say ‘permission’ unless God so wills?...I shall not hesitate, then, simply to confess with Augustine that ‘the will of God is the necessity of things,’ and that what he has willed will of necessity come to pass...” Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. J. T. McNeill, tran. F. L. Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960) 3.23.8.

Is the Reformed position not the same as Calvin's position, or are you misrepresenting Calvinism here?
Troy

Do you understand in the Reformed viewpoint there is both the passive and active will of God? God decreed man’s nature would include the capacity to sin. God decreed that the punishment for rebellion would be eternal damnation. When God permits man to follow through with the desires of his heart this is an example of the passive will of God. This is not inconsistent with what Calvin wrote. But just to make sure you understand I’m not representing Calvinism lets take a look at what the Reformed Baptist Confession of Faith has to say on the subject, the same Confession Spurgeon one of those “evil” Calvinists had to say on the subject,

Chapter 9: Of Free Will
1._____ God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty and power of acting upon choice, that it is neither forced, nor by any necessity of nature determined to do good or evil.
( Matthew 17:12; James 1:14; Deuteronomy 30:19 )
2._____ Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom and power to will and to do that which was good and well-pleasing to God, but yet was unstable, so that he might fall from it.
( Ecclesiastes 7:29; Genesis 3:6 )
3._____ Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able by his own strength to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.
( Romans 5:6; Romans 8:7; Ephesians 2:1, 5; Titus 3:3-5; John 6:44 )
4._____ When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, he freeth him from his natural bondage under sin, and by his grace alone enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good; yet so as that by reason of his remaining corruptions, he doth not perfectly, nor only will, that which is good, but doth also will that which is evil.
( Colossians 1:13; John 8:36; Philippians 2:13; Romans 7:15, 18, 19, 21, 23 )
5._____ This will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to good alone in the state of glory only.
http://www.vor.org/truth/1689/1689bc09.html

Is it I that is misrepresenting Calvinism or is it you that lacks understanding of the position whether that misunderstanding be due to your own lack of study or misrepresentation by those whom you listen to, I do not know.

It seems to me that if God indeed ordains all things, speaking in terms of what God “allows” or “permits” is an equivocation, as Calvin admitted. If this is indeed true, then it appears that you are trying to soften the harshness of this as it relates the destiny of all those who are not chosen by saying that God “allows” men to go to hell.
Troy

Evidently the Reformed Baptists equivocated Calvin’s position, eh? The Westminster confession of faith says essentially the same thing the Baptists does so they must have backed off of Calvin’s position too, at least according to you. Methink’s the issue is that you haven’t read Calvin’s institutes in full and therefore don’t understand his point.

PaulT

[Guest]

The Reformed Baptist Confession of Faith
Chapter 9: Of Free Will
1._____ God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty and power of acting upon choice, that it is neither forced, nor by any necessity of nature determined to do good or evil.
( Matthew 17:12; James 1:14; Deuteronomy 30:19)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mat 17 (NIV)
10The disciples asked him, "Why then do the teachers of the law say that Elijah must come first?"
11Jesus replied, "To be sure, Elijah comes and will restore all things. 12But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but have done to him everything they wished. In the same way the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands." 13Then the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist.

Yes, the teachers of the law exercised free choice in not heeding the preaching of John the Baptist.

Note that Jesus was not teaching anything about "What kind of will are people born with?" or whether they are predisposed from the time of birth to do good or bad....

James 1 (NIV)
12Blessed is the man who perseveres under trial, because when he has stood the test, he will receive the crown of life that God has promised to those who love him.
13When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; 14but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. 15Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.

The Baptist Confession apparently uses verse 14 to describe that "unbelievers choose to sin" as a prooftext in what follows in its other points, definitions, and theology.

This is a good example of taking a verse out of context.

James was writing to believers, warning them about being drawn into sin; that they could, thus, forfeit their [eternal] life. Verse 15b reveals that Christians can allow evil desires to grow into evil action which then "gives birth to death" (elsewhere Paul wrote "the wages of sin is death"). James 1:14 in context is against Eternal Security (and/or Perseverance of the Saints).

De 30 (NIV)
15 See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction. 16 For I command you today to love the LORD your God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commands, decrees and laws; then you will live and increase, and the LORD your God will bless you in the land you are entering to possess.
17 But if your heart turns away and you are not obedient, and if you are drawn away to bow down to other gods and worship them, 18 I declare to you this day that you will certainly be destroyed. You will not live long in the land you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess.
19 This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live

These verses aren't describing what kind of will God endowed humanity with at Creation: They're commands urging the exercise of [free] will---to make the right choices!

In context: We know some of the Jews did go into idolatry and were destroyed by the Lord. These verses are applicable to Christians today. We're challenged with the same choices the Jews had: life or death, perseverance or apostacy; the latter of which brings the loss of salvation (James 1:14-15).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When texts are quoted for support; be it a "Confession" or anyone: Texts can't be taken out of context with the expectation that what they mean can be something other than what they say/(said: authorial intention and meaning, which never changes).

I may, or may not, get to the Confession's second point...(busy here).
Thanks.

[Guest]

Here is a section of the Westminster Catechism,

3:3 By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels (Matt 25:41; 1 Tim 5:21) are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others fore-ordained to everlasting death (Prov 16:4; Rom 9:22, 23; Eph 1:5, 6).

3:4 These angels and men, thus predestinated and fore-ordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number is so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished (John 13:18; 2 Tim 2:19).

The reformed position does indeed say that some men were fore ordain to eternal destruction, not because of the fall, but because God ordained it. This is one of the things that made me leave Calvinism.

Butch.

The confession doesn’t say, “He has predetermined they will not and are to be eternally damned.”, nor does it say, “the One commanding repentance simultaneously will not allow most to repent” God decreed man would be made in a certain way, he decreed they would have a nature, IOW he didn’t decree they would be incapable of sin. Having the capability to sin and then acting on it is fundamentally different than predetermining man to sin. True God fore-ordained those that rebel will go to eternal damnation, but He didn’t fore-ordain them to rebel, He just fore-ordained for them to have the capacity to rebel. Also allowing one to act within his nature is not disallowing repentance, the point is man in his un-natural state, separated from God and in a state of sin doesn’t want to repent, God just doesn’t step into to change what it is they will to do.

This is born out in section 6 of the confession,
Chapter VI
Of the Fall of Man, of Sin, and the Punishment thereof
I. Our first parents, being seduced by the subtilty and temptations of Satan, sinned, in eating the forbidden fruit.[1] This their sin, God was pleased, according to His wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to His own glory.[2]
II. By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion, with God,[3] and so became dead in sin,[4] and wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body.[5]
III. They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed;[6] and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation.[7]
IV. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good,[8] and wholly inclined to all evil,[9] do proceed all actual transgressions.[10]
V. This corruption of nature, during this life, does remain in those that are regenerated;[11] and although it be, through Christ, pardoned, and mortified; yet both itself, and all the motions thereof, are truly and properly sin.[12]
VI. Every sin, both original and actual, being a transgression of the righteous law of God, and contrary thereunto,[13] does in its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner,[14] whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God,[15] and curse of the law,[16] and so made subject to death,[17] with all miseries spiritual,[18] temporal,[19] and eternal.[20]

Do you see in paragraph 1 where God “permitted” man to sin? If the folks who had written what you posted intended it to mean that man was programmed to sin they would not have then used the term “permitted” here. What they meant and what is born out if you read the stuff in context is that God allowed, "permitted" man to act within the nature he was created.

As I stated Homer’s charge is a misrepresentation of the position and has several logical fallacies regarding the who and what of God, the who and what of man along with the act of creation and what God will’s to do.

PaulT

That shows that section six, shows yet another contradiction in the Westminster.

Butch

[Guest]

That shows that section six, shows yet another contradiction in the Westminster.

Butch

Perhaps the contradiction is that you don't understand the terms, if you don't understand what was meant by the terms used you may believe there is a contradiction when if fact there is not.

PaulT

[Guest]

That shows that section six, shows yet another contradiction in the Westminster.

Butch

Perhaps the contradiction is that you don't understand the terms, if you don't understand what was meant by the terms used you may believe there is a contradiction when if fact there is not.

PaulT

I was a 5 point Calvinist, I know the contrdictions.

[Guest]

I was a 5 point Calvinist, I know the contrdictions.

Great, the fact the confessions contradict you would seem to suggest perhaps what you thought may not be accurate. Either that or men like John Gill and Charles Haddon Spurgeon were inconsistent in their theology, for me, well I would tend to think Gill and Spurgeon got it right and you didn't understand.

PaulT

[Guest]

PaulT,

I notice you didn’t address your red herring. The Gospel can only be heard by ears that hear, no?

Well, I think it can also be read.

“Impotent”, did not Christ say that they didn’t hear him? Were Christ’s words impotent? Do you think he was suggesting they were deaf?

Yes, no, and no.

Truly it is the Spirit of God that removes the bias from the depraved man’s mind enabling him to understand.

What about the man who is partially depraved?

Why would a Calvinist need show, “Calvinist, can you show that any one person was ever regenerated where the gospel has not gone?”?

Are you saying that regeneration never occurs prior to hearing the gospel, or upon hearing the gospel? In other words, is it your position that regeneration is independant of the gospel message? Or does the Spirit and word work together?

Evidently you presuppose the Calvinist suggests God uses a different method of spreading his word than what is prescribed in Scripture.

Not sure what you mean. What method do you think I "presuppose", and what method do you think is prescribed in scripture?

Arminian, can you show why a fully functioning rational individual would over-ride the clear evidence for God denying Him forever casting his soul into eternal damnation? Why would Richard Dawkins a clear thinking man when after evaluating the evidence within the cosmos and understanding the precision the cosmos was made in write the book the “Blind Watchmaker” recognizing the precision he sees as a scientist could only be explained by a designer yet still denying the designer? Would you consider this a rational decision? Perhaps he didn’t get enough evidence, eh?

Generally, I think people believe what they want to believe.

Could you inform us what is meant by Paul when he ascribes saving power to the gospel?

Do you believe that people must be regenerated before they can believe the gospel? Paul places faith after hearing the gospel:

Romans 10:14 (New King James Version)

14. How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?

So it would appear you have the order like this: 1. regeneration 2. hear the gospel 3. belief (faith). Thus it would appear that you have regenerated unbelievers, unless you are going to maintain that they are regenerated at the point they hear the gospel. I understand there are some who believe infants are regenerated when baptized. Is this your belief? Can you establish from scripture just when unbelievers are regenerated? Or even that they are?

[Guest]

I notice you didn’t address your red herring. The Gospel can only be heard by ears that hear, no?

Well, I think it can also be read.

Agreed, but for your response to be read you have to provide one. Remember you wrote, “But the Calvinist insists the One commanding repentance simultaneously will not allow most to repent.” Do you have some support for your allegation? I’ve provided the Baptist Confession of Faith, the Westminster Confession of Faith along with Calvin’s explanation of Adam’s free will from the Institutes. All of these documents indicate something other than what you wrote. Not allowing and withholding are 2 different concepts are they not? Your choice of words presupposes a viewpoint that is not found in Calvinism that is that all man want to come to the Lord. When you claim a viewpoint, yet presuppose a viewpoint the position does not hold you are building a red herring.

“Impotent”, did not Christ say that they didn’t hear him? Were Christ’s words impotent? Do you think he was suggesting they were deaf?

Yes, no, and no.

Your criticism of the Calvinist position was that it makes the Gospel impotent, yet you don’t apply the same standard to Christ’s words when they didn’t hear him?

PaulT,

Truly it is the Spirit of God that removes the bias from the depraved man’s mind enabling him to understand.

What about the man who is partially depraved?

That is like being ½ pregnant, either they are for or against. How do you get “partially” depraved out of Ro 3, that is assuming you don’t buy into the hogwash that the Apostle’s writings are hyperbole. “There is none righteous no not one there is none that seek after there is none that understand” doesn’t sound like it leaves open the possibility of partial anything. I not sure, did you happen to see my question regarding the word you suggested was in the text, “It simply says that the natural man does not persistently seek God, not that he cannot, at a point in time, seek God.” My translation doesn’t happen to have the word “persistently” in the text, which translation are you using.

PaulT,
Why would a Calvinist need show, “Calvinist, can you show that any one person was ever regenerated where the gospel has not gone?”?

Are you saying that regeneration never occurs prior to hearing the gospel, or upon hearing the gospel? In other words, is it your position that regeneration is independant of the gospel message? Or does the Spirit and word work together?

What does this have to do with your question for the Calvinist? Frankly I’ve never contemplated the timing, perhaps I should but I really don’t understand the reason to contemplate the concept.

PaulT,
Evidently you presuppose the Calvinist suggests God uses a different method of spreading his word than what is prescribed in Scripture.

Not sure what you mean. What method do you think I "presuppose", and what method do you think is prescribed in scripture?

Well did you ask, “Calvinist, can you show that any one person was ever regenerated where the gospel has not gone?” God’s method as I understand it is the preaching of the message.

PaulT,
Arminian, can you show why a fully functioning rational individual would over-ride the clear evidence for God denying Him forever casting his soul into eternal damnation? Why would Richard Dawkins a clear thinking man when after evaluating the evidence within the cosmos and understanding the precision the cosmos was made in write the book the “Blind Watchmaker” recognizing the precision he sees as a scientist could only be explained by a designer yet still denying the designer? Would you consider this a rational decision? Perhaps he didn’t get enough evidence, eh?

Generally, I think people believe what they want to believe.

Exactly my point, depraved man will always believe in his self-authenticating bias until that bias is removed.

PaulT,
Arminian, can you show why a fully functioning rational individual would over-ride the clear evidence for God denying Him forever casting his soul into eternal damnation? Why would Richard Dawkins a clear thinking man when after evaluating the evidence within the cosmos and understanding the precision the cosmos was made in write the book the “Blind Watchmaker” recognizing the precision he sees as a scientist could only be explained by a designer yet still denying the designer? Would you consider this a rational decision? Perhaps he didn’t get enough evidence, eh?

Generally, I think people believe what they want to believe.

Could you inform us what is meant by Paul when he ascribes saving power to the gospel?

Do you believe that people must be regenerated before they can believe the gospel? Paul places faith after hearing the gospel:

Romans 10:14 (New King James Version)

14. How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?

So it would appear you have the order like this: 1. regeneration 2. hear the gospel 3. belief (faith). Thus it would appear that you have regenerated unbelievers, unless you are going to maintain that they are regenerated at the point they hear the gospel. I understand there are some who believe infants are regenerated when baptized. Is this your belief? Can you establish from scripture just when unbelievers are regenerated? Or even that they are?

I’m not suggesting the removal of bias is faith, my point is simply that for them to hear the Gospel the inherent bias within man, what the Reformed view calls Total depravity must be removed or else man will always process the information through his self-authenticating bias. Without the removal of bias man will operate under the basis of false sense of truth, discount the Gospel message and continue down his path to damnation, like you said, believe what they want to believe. I don’t know about infants, I’m not sure the Bible comments on their status other than to indicate they enter the world in a state of sin. Sure, Eph 2:1, I would suggest the “quickened” or made alive is the removal of the bias that is the result of man being spiritually dead, and I didn’t even have to add a word to the text.

Tell me do you believe truth is derived from God or exists independently apart from God? BTW, I didn't see your answer for why a rational man would chose damnation. Suggesting that they believe what they want to believe doesn't deal with the question of why a rational man, someone who understood the implications of his actions the penalty so to speak would nevetheless continue down the path of destruction. Why would a resonable person procede to walk off the plank when he had an option to receive eternal life?

PaulT

[Guest]

I still don't understand how it wouldn't glorify God even more to have a system where His people who actually had a choice turned to Him. If I lock my loved one in the basement, how much glory to I receive by their staying with me? If I love them, set them free.... (sorry, Sting). If they come back to me, what awesome glory I receive.

What makes you think this is the reformed viewpoint?

PaulT

You have a valid point -- it's a bit of a caricature, I guess, but I was just showing the contrast between the views. It's not a terribly unfair characterization, I don't think, since that's sort of the way I see irresistable grace. It's still compelled love, it seems, rather than love freely given. If people in their natural state can't love God, and God does something they can't resist that causes them or enables them irresistably to love Him, then how is that materially different to my example?

Thanks but I have to disagree I think it is a terribly unfair characterization. You don’t understand man post fall is not in his natural state, Adam was created in his “natural” in perfect harmony with God. Why would a rational being upon giving the chance to understand truth resist?

How is your illustration different than reality? Well 1st God didn’t lock His people in the basement, the folks of their own volition because they didn’t believe Him opted to go into the basement on their own and then lost track of the truth, the lights went out. The folks living in the basement were fat dumb and happy because the basement was all that there was and all they knew until one day for no reason the door gets unlocked and they are enabled to come upstairs breath fresh air and wow, see what they have been missing. As a result of them recognizing what they have been missing they never want to go back into the basement.

PaulT

[Guest]

Thanks but I have to disagree I think it is a terribly unfair characterization. You don’t understand man post fall is not in his natural state, Adam was created in his “natural” in perfect harmony with God. Why would a rational being upon giving the chance to understand truth resist?

I understand that -- the way I used "natural" was intended to be the way Paul did -- post-fall man.

I don't know, but it does seem to be the case -- even among Christians and Calvinists, both groups ask the same thing -- how is it possible that Calvinists resist such plain truth? That doesn't seem to prove much other than recognize a clear reality in our humanity.

How is your illustration different than reality? Well 1st God didn’t lock His people in the basement, the folks of their own volition because they didn’t believe Him opted to go into the basement on their own and then lost track of the truth, the lights went out. The folks living in the basement were fat dumb and happy because the basement was all that there was and all they knew until one day for no reason the door gets unlocked and they are enabled to come upstairs breath fresh air and wow, see what they have been missing. As a result of them recognizing what they have been missing they never want to go back into the basement.

Did He not form us knowing we would fall and knowing the result and our natures and decree all this? If so, how is it that He didn't put us in the basement, metaphorically?