"God is not a respecter of persons" and Calvinism

[_roblaine]

Mark,

You filled up a bunch of space with your last post, but you didn't say anything.

1) God does not owe us anything.

MDH wrote:
I suppose this is true, strictly speaking. But would you say that parents do not owe their infant children anything? He brought us into existence. It seems reasonable to expect certain things from Him, such as provision for life until we are able to sustain ourselves (as if that could ever happen), truthfulness, at least an even chance at a happy life, etc.


You wrote:
Are you serious?
Anyone who professes the name of Jesus Christ and yet does not understand grace and mercy, could and would write what you just wrote there.

Grace cannot be expected, demanded or in any way construed by us sinners to be something that should be provided to us.
Your thoughts of man are way too high and your thoughts of God’s grace way too low!

Mike did not say that God owes us grace, Mike was referringg to the notion that God does not owe us anything. Whether God owes us Grace or not is another question all together.

What does this mean? Why do I deserve nothing but wrath (according to the Calvinist system anyway)?

Are you serious? Are we reading the same Bible? Forget Calvinism, you do not even seem to grasp basic Christian theology let alone a systematic expression of it.

Perhaps you could elaborate on the basic Christian theology, or you could answer the question that Mike posed.

MDH wrote:
Did not God decree everything that would ever happen, and am I not totally depraved because of this?

Your wrote:
Total misrepresentation of Calvinism.
I suggest you either study the subject more, and stay out of such conversations until you have grasped the basics of reformed thought.

No Calvinist teaches that we are depraved merely because God decrees everything! How does such a misrepresentation facilitate intelligent reasonable discussion on these issues?

Instead of telling Mike that he is wrong and should study his bible, why don't you explain why he is wrong. Your answers seem to have no content to them.

Mike wrote:
I can understand how you can say that God can do whatever He wants, and He can choose to be wrathful to me if He chooses. And He can choose to bless you if He chooses. But I cannot understand how you can say I deserve the wrath and you do NOT deserve the blessing.

You wrote:
What sort of nonsense is this?

This is your answer? If it is nonsense, you should tell us why.

MDH Wrote:
3) "It is really graciousness beyond all comprehension that He offers even one of us the opportunity to be saved, let alone the multitude of saved souls that John saw in heaven in his Revelation.".

What does this mean? In what way is it "gracious" to decide that the majority of people on planet earth are going to burn forever while choosing to bless the few forever (in order to show His "power" and "justice" as well as His "mercy").


Is this statement meant to convey any meaningful input into this discussion? How about interacting with what we say. Open the scriptures up, exegete them etc

Pot.....Kettle.....Black.....

MDH Wrote:
I have watched the give and take between the Calvinists and the Arminians here, and it just blows me away the talk about "taking verses out of context" and looking at the original languages to determine who is right.

You Wrote:
What on earth are you contributing to this discussion? Absolutely nothing whatsoever.

When some starts loosing argeument they will usually start casting insults. As you can see your answer was a non-answer.

I can assure you that God is snickering at your ignorance of this discussion.

What, more insults? Perhaps SSS was correct when he told us what type of spirit you were motivated by.

People like Mike should thank God that they were not born at a time where they might have been sitting inside the Church of Jonathan Edwards when he preached his famous sermon "sinners in the hands of an angry God!" People like Mike would have run for the Hills me thinks.

Anyone who could read this famous sermon, and thinks Jonathan Edwards was talking about the God of the Bible (who was manifest in Jesus, keep in mind) should have their head examined.


I could certainly go on pointing out how you managed to fill up a page with nothing but hot air and insults, but anyone who reads it for themselvese will see that you are not a deep thinker and are probably in over you head here.

Robin

[Guest]

Hi Robin,

Yes, you are right, the tone in the Calvinism section is getting out of hand. There is too much emotive language and not enough true debate. If this were a formal debate, the moderator would probably walk out.

I am in a hospital right now, and I have access to a CT scanner. I am going to scan my brain right now and if I see any lesions, I will add it to my next post.

I like Johnathan Edwards; I also enjoyed reading Robert Shank. He is not an idiot - I just disagree with him. Let's all rise up.

One comment about the issue of whether God owes us something, anything or nothing - when I posted this statement that God owes us nothing, I meant that there is nothing that I could justly demand from God. Not food, not shelter, not love, not anything. Now you and I know that God provides these things, and we are both grateful for that. But the fact He provides them is not because He owes it to us. When I thank God for feeding me, I am acknowledging that He did not have to. I realize He promised to, but that is a gracious promise and not one where God is reasoning "I had better give these people some food and rain or else I am sinning." If it were owed, I would just eat my food and consider the food delivery to have been on time for that meal.

Mike's reasoning was not totally clear to me, so maybe he will elaborate later, but he seemed to be thinking that if God made us, then He owed it to us to provide for us, and that from this we can assume an Arminian view of God's will. But you see, that assumes that the god that made us is the God of the Bible, in this example. Just Him making us would tell us nothing of His plans for us. Though I do not view God in the manner that I am about to describe, without further information and for all we know, God could just make people to abuse them. Making them implies a purpose, but it does not prove that the purpose is one of love and benelovence. And that is why I challenged Mike's references to common sense; I don't think this is a reliable decipher of the invisible God, since much of what is appealed to as common sense is really inference and presupposition.

[Guest]

Hi Robin,

Yes, you are right, the tone in the Calvinism section is getting out of hand. There is too much emotive language and not enough true debate. If this were a formal debate, the moderator would probably walk out.

Amen! Christian discussion should not be more heat than light.

There has been bad behavior from people in both camps, to one degree or another.

Here's a proposal. When each of us writes a post, we pray, and then wait to post it. Pray that God would instill humility in our hearts, and help us to speak in the gracious, loving manner we are commanded to use.

2 Tim 2:24-26 (ESV)
"And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will."

So, pray for a gracious manner, write your post, and then wait to post it. Come back to it later, and look over it, prayerfully considering whether you wrote anything unnecessarily antagonistic. Edit out any schoolyard taunts or prideful boasts. Post it then, and only then.

If anyone consistently violates these standards of conduct, they should be rebuked by the moderators. To follow the Biblical model, they should be rebuked in private--I suppose through private message. If they continue, rebuke them in the thread. And if they still continue in behavior that the moderators have warned them against, the moderators can ban them from posting. It can be a temporary ban, maybe a week or so. And if they still continue, make it longer. (They may make an argument for why their behavior is OK. If so, it should be considered. But the moderators must make a decision about whether they want the forum to be characterized by that behavior, and must be willing to enforce it.)

Steve, you said you'd never moderated a forum before, and would welcome advice. Here's my thoughts.

[Guest]

Jugulum,

That sounds like a wise suggestion. We should be discussing the text and not each other's motives, especially since most of us have never met each other. I also think we should keep the use of words like "heretic" to a minimum.

One suggestion that I have, although it has its difficulties, is to discuss one text or limit the discussion to a handful of texts on a topic. I realize this can be difficult since it can lend itself to proof texting and perhaps discussing a verse or passage out of context with the rest of Scripture. What often happens in this forum, however, is that the discussion will start off on, say, the extent of the atonement, but then in the process of discussing this, we understandably touch on other related subjects and this offshoots into other side conversations. We often do not get back to the original point.

[Guest]

One suggestion that I have, although it has its difficulties, is to discuss one text or limit the discussion to a handful of texts on a topic. I realize this can be difficult since it can lend itself to proof texting and perhaps discussing a verse or passage out of context with the rest of Scripture. What often happens in this forum, however, is that the discussion will start off on, say, the extent of the atonement, but then in the process of discussing this, we understandably touch on other related subjects and this offshoots into other side conversations. We often do not get back to the original point.

I agree. A constant problem in controversial Bible discussion in general (not just in this forum) is the spontaneous multiplication of topics. We move from one verse to the next, one argument to the next, without giving each individual verse or argument the full, careful, contextual consideration it deserves.

Steve said something like that on one of his shows from April, I think. A caller was throwing out an argument, and Steve would discuss it, and then the caller would move on to another without digging into the first. And the process would repeat. Steve pointed that out to him, and tried to keep things focused.

You're right that there's a danger of prooftexting, or ignoring the broad context of the Bible. You can't read any verse in a vacuum. But we have to take time and stop at a verse, and consider it as fully as possible. If you don't, the discussion will be 5 miles wide and one inch deep.

[Guest]

David,

Well I see my posts have stirred up a hornet's nest. Sorry about that. I hope we can calm things down a bit.

If I was to choose one thing to take out of my posts, I would hope it was that there are many ways of looking at scripture, and that I think we should all (including myself) be humble enough to admit we could be wrong.

I do not think you have yet understood my point about common sense.

What I was trying to say was that to even get to the point of accepting the scriptures as authoritative required reasoning and common sense. That does not preclude God from being involved in the process. I think scripture teaches that we are both involved. God draws, and as we humbly respond, He draws further, if we reject, He hardens and takes away what we do have.

I also believe that when choosing between various interpretations of scripture common sense is required. I pointed out that if one were to do a little research one would find good arguments for all sides of the Calvinist and Arminian (and Christian Universalist) positions. You used to be Arminian and now are Calvinist, others have gone the other way. How is one to choose? Are only those who have wound up with a Reformed perspective been led by the Spirit? Are Arminians and Universalists deceived?

What I have chosen to do is read from all sides and decide what makes the most sense to me. I pointed out that this is a work in process, that my views continue to "evolve" (I hate that word!).

You said that (as Paul did) that the gospel is not "common sense" and exhort me to re-read my Bible. Thanks, I had forgotten to do that

I agree with you that the gospel is not common sense. Otherwise I suspect that many of the world's (man-made) religions would look the same. But that was part of the reason I determined (by "common sense") that the gospel was of God. If God had an idea, it would be better than what man would come up with.

It was a "God idea" to humble Himself and come to earth and demonstrate His love through sacrifice. It was a "God idea" to patiently let the work of the good news of Jesus Christ disseminate (as yeast in a loaf of bread, as a mustard seed grows into a big plant) until the knowledge of the glory of YHWH fills the whole world. It was a "God idea" to not overcome evil with evil, but rather to overcome evil with good.

The more I studied the Bible (and yes, I have!), the more I saw the "God ideas" and reasoned that this was not of man.

You asked about how far I would go with simply taking God at His Word. I notice your argument was that if God gave a plain statement but one that seemed very odd to me, yet it was clear what He wanted, you asked if I would do it? This is not the first time this kind of reasoning has been brought up to a brother or sister.

I think you missed my point. Sorry, communication is not my forte. What I was trying to say was that there are some things that might be in a book that was said to be a holy book that would demonstrate that it wasn't. Witness the people blowing themselves up in Iraq for "Allah".

I was trying to make the point that we have to use common sense before we even accept a book as God's word, not that we should question God's commands. God would not ask you to kill and/or torture your children. Nor would He ask you to blow yourself up in a crowd of innocent people.

I grow weary of typing, and I do not think we will reach an understanding between the two of us. (And TartanArmy I believe is ready to consider me a reprobate) Sorry for interjecting into the conversation. Perhaps someday you will understand that I am not trying to put myself in the place of God, or diminish His place as the sovereign. Rather I think He gave me a brain for a reason, and that if I use it with humility and an honest search for the truth, He can/will bless me. But all for His puposes, not mine. (I just happen to think that those purposes are better than either you or I can imagine or hope!)

Make God Bless you as you seek Him!

Mike

[Guest]

Mike,

I am not sorry that you got involved in this thread. First, anyone, regardless of their views on Calvinism or Arminianism, is welcome to post a comment, so long as it is done in a charitable manner. If someone wants a blog that is dedicated to supporting one view, they do exist, but this is not that type of forum. I think your posts were done in a spirit that is fitting for the forum, so no apology is necessary. Second, your questions are some of the same ones that I myself asked several years ago. You are much kinder to me than I have been in the past to Calvinists. Third, I understand how words get in the way sometimes, especially on a blog. I was not angered by your post, and I suspected that the wording of some of your statements was probably not what you really meant.

I agree that we should strive to think as clearly, cogently, and rationally as we can about doctrine, especially since much of what the Bible teaches may not always be written in the form "Now here is the doctrine...of the hypostatic union....now here is the doctrine of....the Trinity....". When I had mentioned that I do not want to encourage anyone into fideism, this sort of idea that my faith needs know justification or explanation, I meant that. I think when Peter told us to be ready to give a reason for our hope, he had this in mind. We should know what the Scripture says and be able to give an explanation of what we are saying.

The problem comes however when we deal with aspects of God that are beyond the boundaries of our human intellect and our earthly experience. For example, when Paul spoke to the philosophers on Mars Hill and he spoke matter-of-factly about the resurrection from the dead, this seemed ridiculous to his audience, especially since they had never personally seen or experienced this occurence nor could they even understand why or how it should happen. Or, in the case of a Christian audience, how would I explain to someone how it is that God can speak the entire world into existence? I could not make an appeal to common sense that God can do that since this is an ability that transcends my own abilities and my experience. There is much to God that falls in this catgeory, you see.

We need rational thinking when it comes to harmonizing Scripture, but what do we say when Peter makes statements like the one in Acts, where He said that God appointed beforehand that Jesus would die, but that the crowd murdered Jesus? Some of the language that Reformed Christins use, which at times illicits scorn from our Arminian brethren, is not an attempt to borrow Hellenistic philosophy and make it a part of our religion, but it is our best attempt to reconcile the Scriptures in a manner that is true to its plain teaching. Since this idea that God ordained something, that it would happen, but yet the crowd that was involved and apparently ordained to kill Jesus was still guilty of murder, since this is taught in Scripture, I accept it even though I do not fully understand how God's ordination and man's will interact.

You had asked about the large number of faithful Christians on all sides of the debate, and yet I think this is actually a support for my point. The reason this debate rages on is because essentially, the choice is a dichotomy. There is not an endless number of options, though there are varieties of choices in each camp. But in general, you must either be some form of monergist or some form of synergist. The fact that people can continue to disagree tells me that someone (maybe me) is not thinking through the Scriptures carefully and correctly enough. And since none of us set out to deliberately be illogical or non-sensical, then common sense is not enough.

Remember, all of us should remember, that Paul prayed in Ephesians that God would grant his readers a spirit of wisdom and revelation regarding just this topic - election and predestination. Not that my story is inspirational, but God has taught me great patience and humility in that I vehemently fought Calvinists for many years before becoming one. I think He did this to humble me and to remind me (pardon my waxing Reformed) that I did not discover the doctrines of grace because I became such an astute student of the Bible, but God revealed them to me to correct my error.

It is kind of ironic that you brought up the question of killing a child on God's command. Do we have a story from an Old Testament patriarch on this? Hebrews says that Abraham would have killed Isaac, if God had not stopped him, and that his reasoning was that if God had him kill Isaac, God would just raise Isaac from the dead in order to keep His promise to Abraham concerning a seed. May we all learn that kind of faith.

[Guest]

On the matter of common sense in Bible interpretation.

It is quite literally impossible to try to read the Bible and interpret it without using "common sense" in some sense (hah!) of the phrase. We use our minds, we read, we consider the meanings of words, we try to follow the flow of thought, and we evaluate the various possibilities.

The danger, I think, is that we can end up rejecting the teaching of a particular passage, not based on how clearly it is or isn't taught in the Bible, but because it doesn't fit with our philosophical presuppositions. Or to put it more down-to-earth, because we're not used to thinking about things that way, because an idea isn't familiar to us.

This isn't about appealing to mystery.

I want to shout that. This isn't about appealing to mystery!

Sometimes the reason we don't understand something is just lack of familiarity; it's being so used to thinking about something the way our parents or our church or our favorite authors think about it, that we just can't or won't see another way. It's especially hard when we don't want to see it another way.

Of course, there will be some things we'll never resolve to our total satisfaction, like how God can be eternal, how God can be one God but three Persons, why God doesn't stop this or that evil from happening, why God doesn't reveal himself to every human being with the power of revelation the apostles received, and more. Or maybe you think one of those isn't so hard to understand. And that's sort of the point--just because it seems like an incomprehensible mystery to one person doesn't mean it actually is.

For example, there will always be people who reject out of hand the notion that God would ever exercise wrath the way the Bible shows Him exercising wrath. They will say that wrath is inconsistent with the loving nature described in the Bible. They will be as sure as those of you who think that the Calvinist God is inconsistent with the love of God described in the Bible.

A question for you to consider is this: Assuming the Bible did teach TULIP with full clarity, would you reject it anyway?

And yes, that kind of question does cut both ways. I could also ask Calvinists: Assuming the Bible did teach with full clarity that God tries and fails to save some people, would you reject it anyway?

[Guest]

Jugulum,

I think the example of the person who cannot conceieve of a loving God ever feeling wrath is a great example of what you and I seem to be in agreement about.

Too often, appeals to common sense become the vehicle to a smorgasboard approach to the Scriptures, and a means for us to reject doctrines we find distasteful without having to frame our decision in this light. I cannot accuse anyone in the forum of making this error because I do not know their hearts, so this comment is not aimed at Mike or anyone in particular. However, we all know our own hearts to a measure and we know that this happens, because there are times when each of us does this.

[Guest]

Mike,

You said:

If the Bible told you that you should murder your first-born son, and torture the rest of your children, would you still believe it was God's word? Is there nothing it could say that would convince you it wasn't inspired?

But a very similar thing was demanded of Abraham when God told him to sacrifice Isaac. And Abraham, being the man of faith he was, hastened to obey. Where would common sense left him?

We have little problem understanding moral law, which was once called "natural" law, because it is naturally understood, or it makes "common sense". Positive laws, or commands, are right solely on the authority of the lawgiver, and are not related to common sense. The command to Adam and Eve not to eat of the tree is the first example and the scriptures are full of them.

Positive laws test the faith in the way no moral law can. It takes faith to obey when you see no reason why good will come of it. It especially takes faith to obey, as Abraham did, when common sense tells you it is wrong.

I have lived long enough, and learned and experienced enough, to know that common sense and logic can often lead a person astray. In fact, truth sometimes runs counter to common sense; I have seen this too often in matters of this world. Just recently learned when preparing to tile a floor that the harder material (porcelain, slate) require a softer saw blade than plain tile. Who would have thought this based on common sense? Common sense is a very fallibe guide.

I am not a Calvinist but whatever God determines, decrees, or commands is right because of who He is. The question is, what does scriture tell us about Him? He is precisely the same from beginning to end.