Calvinists, why are you Calvinist?

[JM]

Mr. Grey,

You believe it's all "misrepresentations" and "proof texting." Understood. It's not a conspiracy of misinformation and misdirection. Next you're going to tell me Colonel Sanders is still alive and rules the world with his delicious herbs and spices!

Maybe VanTil can help you set aside your suspicions by comparing worldviews:

Let us now note the difference between the way Mr. White and the way Mr. Grey approach the unbeliever, Mr. Black, with the gospel of Christ.

Let us say that Mr. Black has a toothache. Both Mr. White and Mr. Grey are dentists. Mr. White believes in a radical methodology. He believes that Mr. Black should have all the decayed matter removed from his tooth before the filling is put in. Mr. Grey is a very kind-hearted man. He does not want to hurt Mr. Black. Accordingly, he does not want to drill too deeply. He will, therefore, take only a part of the decayed matter out of the tooth and then fill it.

Naturally Mr. Black thinks this is marvelous. Unfortunately, Mr. Black’s tooth soon begins to decay again. He goes back to Mr. Grey. But Mr. Grey can never bring himself to do anything radical. As a consequence he is never able to resolve Mr. Black’s toothache problem.

Let us now suppose that instead of coming to Mr. Grey, Mr. Black had gone to the office of Mr. White. Mr. White is radical, very radical. He uses the X-ray machine to diagnose Mr. Black’s condition. He drills deeply. All of the tooth decay is removed. The tooth is filled. Mr. Black never need return. This simple illustration points out a basic truth.

The Bible says that man is spiritually dead in sin. The Reformed creeds speak of man’s total depravity. The only cure for this spiritual deadness is his regeneration by the Holy Spirit on the basis of the atoning death of Christ. It is therefore by means of the light that Scripture sheds on the natural man’s condition that Mr. White examines all his patients. Mr. White may also, to be sure, turn on the light of experience, but he always insists that this light of experience derives, in the first place, from the light of Scripture. So he may appeal to reason or to history, but, again, only as they are to be seen in the light of the Bible. He does not even look for corroboration of the teachings of Scripture in experience, reason, or history, except insofar as these are themselves first seen in the light of the Bible. For him, the Bible, and therefore the God of the Bible, is like the sun from which the light that is given by oil lamps, gas lamps, and electric lights is derived.

Quite different is the attitude of the Arminian. Mr. Grey uses the Bible, experience, reason, or logic as equally independent sources of information about his own and therefore about Mr. Black’s predicament. I did not say that for Mr. Grey the Bible, experience, and reason are equally important. Indeed they are not. He knows that the Bible is by far the most important. But he none the less constantly appeals to “the facts of experience” and to “logic” without first dealing with the very idea of fact and with the idea of logic in terms of the Scripture.

The difference is basic. When Mr. White diagnoses Mr. Black’s case he takes as his X-ray machine, the Bible only. When Mr. Grey diagnoses Mr. Black’s case he first takes the X-ray machine of experience, then the X-ray machine of logic, and finally his biggest X-ray machine, the Bible. In fact, he may take these in any order. Each of them is, for him, an independent source of information.

To read the rest please see the following link: http://www.the-highway.com/defense_VanTil.html

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[JM]

I know what the OP states, but it turned into more than that long before I started posting.

"Chuck, tell kanga what he won for playing...."

lol

Thanks. You ignored the op and just kept on keeping on...good Arminian.

 

[kangaroodort]

Mr. Grey,

You believe it's all "misrepresentations" and "proof texting." Understood. It's not a conspiracy of misinformation and misdirection. Next you're going to tell me Colonel Sanders is still alive and rules the world with his delicious herbs and spices!

Maybe VanTil can help you set aside your suspicions by comparing worldviews:

Let us now note the difference between the way Mr. White and the way Mr. Grey approach the unbeliever, Mr. Black, with the gospel of Christ.

Let us say that Mr. Black has a toothache. Both Mr. White and Mr. Grey are dentists. Mr. White believes in a radical methodology. He believes that Mr. Black should have all the decayed matter removed from his tooth before the filling is put in. Mr. Grey is a very kind-hearted man. He does not want to hurt Mr. Black. Accordingly, he does not want to drill too deeply. He will, therefore, take only a part of the decayed matter out of the tooth and then fill it.

Naturally Mr. Black thinks this is marvelous. Unfortunately, Mr. Black’s tooth soon begins to decay again. He goes back to Mr. Grey. But Mr. Grey can never bring himself to do anything radical. As a consequence he is never able to resolve Mr. Black’s toothache problem.

Let us now suppose that instead of coming to Mr. Grey, Mr. Black had gone to the office of Mr. White. Mr. White is radical, very radical. He uses the X-ray machine to diagnose Mr. Black’s condition. He drills deeply. All of the tooth decay is removed. The tooth is filled. Mr. Black never need return. This simple illustration points out a basic truth.

The Bible says that man is spiritually dead in sin. The Reformed creeds speak of man’s total depravity. The only cure for this spiritual deadness is his regeneration by the Holy Spirit on the basis of the atoning death of Christ. It is therefore by means of the light that Scripture sheds on the natural man’s condition that Mr. White examines all his patients. Mr. White may also, to be sure, turn on the light of experience, but he always insists that this light of experience derives, in the first place, from the light of Scripture. So he may appeal to reason or to history, but, again, only as they are to be seen in the light of the Bible. He does not even look for corroboration of the teachings of Scripture in experience, reason, or history, except insofar as these are themselves first seen in the light of the Bible. For him, the Bible, and therefore the God of the Bible, is like the sun from which the light that is given by oil lamps, gas lamps, and electric lights is derived.

Quite different is the attitude of the Arminian. Mr. Grey uses the Bible, experience, reason, or logic as equally independent sources of information about his own and therefore about Mr. Black’s predicament. I did not say that for Mr. Grey the Bible, experience, and reason are equally important. Indeed they are not. He knows that the Bible is by far the most important. But he none the less constantly appeals to “the facts of experience” and to “logic” without first dealing with the very idea of fact and with the idea of logic in terms of the Scripture.

The difference is basic. When Mr. White diagnoses Mr. Black’s case he takes as his X-ray machine, the Bible only. When Mr. Grey diagnoses Mr. Black’s case he first takes the X-ray machine of experience, then the X-ray machine of logic, and finally his biggest X-ray machine, the Bible. In fact, he may take these in any order. Each of them is, for him, an independent source of information.

To read the rest please see the following link: http://www.the-highway.com/defense_VanTil.html

Yours in the Lord,

jm

I thought you were all about Scripture? But instead we get more insulting misrepresentations and what the "Reformed Creeds" say. Are the Reformed Creeds and the writings of Van Til like some sort of Papal authority for you? By the way, I have read quite a bit from Van Til and his disciples, and I understand presuppositional apologetics. I also know that if the law of non-contradiction is not valid, then we can't trust anything anyone says and have no basis for arguments or even interpreting Scripture correctly, which is actually one of the presuppositional arguments for the existence of God. But Van Til (like so many Calvinists) only liked logic when it suited him and poo pooed it when it did not or when logical arguments were pressed against his own view- how convenient. And yet, what do we have here? An attempt at a logical argument. Hmmmm. If logic doesn't matter, then we can just say that Calvinism and Arminianism are both exactly true and perfectly compatible. We can affirm that God knows all things and that there are all sorts of things He does not know. Is that where we are going now? I hope not.

Arminians and Calvinists presuppose the truth of Scripture in their arguments, and presuppose the validity of the laws of logic based on Scripture. We just interpret Scripture differently (and interpreting Scripture does indeed require logic). But this is all so wonderful for the Calvinist because it makes his view impossible to falsify. Logic is their friend until it works against them, then logic is just some sort of "human" construct, just "man made reasoning." They use logic to falsify other views, but if logic is pressed to falsify their views, they just appeal to "mystery" or "tension" or "paradox" and try to shame their opponent for relying on "logic." Gotta love it.

How about we just address the plain language of John 5? Jesus said: "The dead will hear and live" The "Reformed Creeds" (i.e. traditions) say the dead can't hear and need to be given life before they can hear. Who should we believe? Let me know when you are ready to address the specific language Jesus deliberately used in John 5. Until then, I am going to bow out of this discussion. God bless.

 

[kangaroodort]

Amazing Post! Love the picture, I am a visual learner...

And we receive the Spirit by faith (Gal. 3:2, 5, and 14). And those who are led by the Spirit are the sons of God (Rom. 8:14), and we come to be sons of God through faith (Gal. 3:26). See what I mean by prooftexting? When we look at all the Bible has to say on the subject and view these passages in their proper context, we see that they actually work against the Calvinist contention rather than support it.

 

[JM]

I thought you were all about Scripture?

Of course and you claim the same.

But instead we get more insulting misrepresentations and what the "Reformed Creeds" say.

Yes, the church has confessed the faith for 2000 years. Deal with it. The spineless EvanGellyfish hate confessions because it runs contrary to their libertarian freewill but scripture tells us to confess the faith.

Are the Reformed Creeds and the writings of Van Til like some sort of Papal authority for you?

Nope. Is Arminius yours?

By the way, I have read quite a bit from Van Til and his disciples, and I understand presuppositional apologetics. I also know that if the law of non-contradiction is not valid…

Good for you. Now read a book on logically fallacies to help round out your argumentation.

How about we just address the plain language of John 5? Jesus said: "The dead will hear and live" The "Reformed Creeds" (i.e. traditions) saythe dead can't hear and need to be given life before they can hear. Who should we believe? Let me know when you are ready to address the specific language Jesus deliberately used inJohn 5. Until then, I am going to bow out of this discussion. God bless.

Wow, a show stopper. Since you can’t wait until I’m finished posting Why I am a Calvinist (you know, the subject of this thread), here you go.

In John 5 we read, "And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man. [28] Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, [29] And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation."

You just got nailed for proof texting.

John 5 is speaking about resurrection and judgement. Not regeneration. Christ will draw all men (John 12) to Him for judgment.
What you do not find in this passage is an offer of salvation only a generation resurrection of the dead and that, "shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation."

Dang, that must’ve hurt.

No, I will not visit your website. It contains a virus. The deadly Arminian virus that convinces men they can contribute to their own salvation by agreeing to be saved.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[JM]

Just wrapping things up folks.

WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES ABOUT REPROBATION:

Webster’s Dictionary of 1828 defines reprobation thusly;

REPROBA”TION, n. [L. reprobatio.]

1. The act of disallowing with detestation, or of expressing extreme dislike.

2. The act of abandoning or state of being abandoned to eternal destruction.

When a sinner is so hardened as to feel no remorse or misgiving of conscience, it is considered as a sign of reprobation.

3. A condemnatory sentence; rejection.

Set a brand of reprobation on clipped poetry and false coin.

Biblically speaking, reprobation should be understood as the justice of God toward the wicked, keeping in mind that all we are ever owed is justice. Salvation is a free gift to the undeserving sinner. The only acceptance we have with God is in Christ Jesus. Outside of Christ there is no salvation, no offering for our sin and no mediator between God and mankind. Those who God shows mercy to will be saved from their just penalty.

God’s determination to destroy the wicked.

And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. (Gen 6:5-7)

God’s justice toward wicked sinners due to their sin.

For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the LORD; and the LORD hath sent us to destroy it. (Gen 19:13)

God raised up Pharaoh with the purpose of destroying him, God showing His power over the wicked, so that it would be “declared throughout all the earth.”

And in very deed for this cause have I raised thee up, for to shew in thee my power; and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth. (Exo 9:16)

Without Christ the continued wickedness of sinners sparks God’s righteous anger toward them.

Then my anger shall be kindled against them in that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide my face from them, and they shall be devoured, and many evils and troubles shall befall them; so that they will say in that day, Are not these evils come upon us, because our God is not among us? (Deu 31:17)

God only forgives those who belong to Him through Jesus Christ our covenant head. Eli’s house was not to be forgiven even if they followed the Law.

And therefore I have sworn unto the house of Eli, that the iniquity of Eli’s house shall not be purged with sacrifice nor offering for ever. (1Sa 3:14)

Those in Christ, the “Lamb slain before the foundation of world,” are not viewed as wicked sinners. Their sins have been forgiven because of Jesus Christ who is our surety. Surety means our “security or safety.” (Websters 1828)

God is angry with the reprobate.

God judgeth the righteous, and God is angry with the wicked every day. (Psa 7:11)

Pharaoh was created with a purpose to “to show my power” that it would be declared all over the world. We see the “wicked” were “made” for the “day of evil.”

The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil. (Pro 16:4)

The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth. (Psa 11:5)

God owes us nothing. That is the foundation of Gospel grace. The best we can expect is justice and for those who the “Son chooses to reveal himself” will received grace because of Jesus Christ. Those who remain in the flesh will be “destroyed.”

Because they regard not the works of the LORD, nor the operation of his hands, he shall destroy them, and not build them up. (Psa 28:5)

We often forget how the Gospel, not only saves, but hardens the hearts of reprobate sinners. This is the case in Isaiah 6 where the Prophet is sent to “make the heart of this people fat” to condemn them “lest they see with their eyes, and hear” and be “converted and be healed.”Isaiah is preaching to them for their continued reprobation.

And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed. Then said I, Lord, how long? And he answered, Until the cities be wasted without inhabitant, and the houses without man, and the land be utterly desolate, (Isa 6:9-11)

The Lord lead Egypt astray. This is divine reprobation.

The LORD hath mingled a perverse spirit in the midst thereof: and they have caused Egypt to err in every work thereof, as a drunken man staggereth in his vomit. (Isa 19)

Those Lord actively set out to close the eye of those He rejected. The “Lord hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes.”

Stay yourselves, and wonder; cry ye out, and cry: they are drunken, but not with wine; they stagger, but not with strong drink. For the LORD hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes: the prophets and your rulers, the seers hath he covered. And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed: And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned. (Isa 29:9-12)

The Lord our God does in fact reject people for salvation.

Reprobate silver shall men call them, because the LORD hath rejected them. (Jer 6:30)

The Prophet gives instructions not to pray for the reprobation. This supports my interpretation of 1 Tim 2 offered in a previous post and exposes the Arminian free will understanding. We are not to pray for “all men everywhere” as if God is hoping to save them, no, we are to pray for all kinds of people including those in authority.

Therefore pray not thou for this people, neither lift up cry nor prayer for them, neither make intercession to me: for I will not hear thee. (Jer 7:16)

Christ approves of the ministry of Isaiah and continues in the same vain, preaching the Gospel to call the elect while also reprobating and hardening the hearts of the rest of humanity.

And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. (Mat 13:14-15)

Not everyone who hears the Gospel is given the ability to understanding it. The result is a further hardening of the sinner against God.

And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand. (Luk 8:10)

The reprobate will not understand the Gospel only Christ’s sheep will believe.

But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. (Joh 10:26)

God is described in the Old and New Testaments as the divine potter who does what He likes with His creation. The Bible teaches that God created “vessels of wrath fitted to destruction.” That is divine reprobation.

Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: (Rom 9:21-22)

The elect will obtain salvation in Christ by the power and work of the Holy Spirit. The rest will be “blinded.” Literally this means the “rest” were literally hardened against God.

What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded (Rom 11:7)

The biblical text teaches that God will “send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.” Believing this lie was to make sure they were “damned.” This echoes the events that took place in Isaiah 19 where God lead Egypt astray.

And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. (2Th 2:11-12)

For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. (Jud 1:4)

Divine reprobation is biblical doctrine, albeit, a difficult one. All doctrine should humble us and make us look to Jesus Christ alone for salvation bringing to light our helplessness and hopelessness without Him.

 

[JM]

WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES ABOUT SIN IN SUMMARY:

This is where we need to begin…again. We must understand what it cost God to send His son to die in our place. Sin is not something that makes you sick but kills you. It murders and is murderous. We cannot allow Arminian tradition to downplay how devastating sin actually is. So, to summarize the biblical teaching we must understand that the same death Adam experienced passes upon us all (Romans 5:12) making it necessary for God to quicken us (Ephesians 2:1-3), to make us alive (Colossians 2:13) because the thoughts of our hearts are evil continually (Genesis 6:5). Like David we are sinners from our conception (Psalm 51:5), wicked from birth (Psalm 58:3) and continue in evil (Genesis 8:21, Ecclesiates 9:3). For this reason it is necessary to receive the gift of regeneration from God the Holy Spirit to even see the spiritual offer of the Gospel (John 3:5-6). Don’t trust the traditions of man or the inclinations of your own heart (Jeremiah 17:9) for all evil comes from a depraved heart (Mark 7:21-23). Humanity loves darkness rather than light (John 3:19), for in the flesh, the natural mind is at enmity (that means extremely hostile to) toward God (Romans 8:7-8). I cannot emphasis this enough, the unregenerate cannot understand spiritual things (1 Corinthians 2:14) due to their sin making them total unable to understand (Ephesians 4:17-19). All of us were once in this state (Ephesians 5:8) and performed the devil’s will (John 8:44), willingly following the him. (Titus 1:15). Therefore Doctrines of Grace aka “Calvinism” is in fact the correct exegesis of scripture.

I would like to finish up this series of posts with a word to those who have not heard the Gospel or have not had the Gospel presented clearly.



THE BIBLICAL GOSPEL

Jesus answered them, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.”

We have many ideas about what a person has to do to get to heaven. Some believe we must follow the “Golden Rule,” and do good deeds which will eventually outweigh the bad we have done, tipping the scales in our favour….after all, we are all basically good people…right?

If we assume we are good people we are also assuming a standard for what we consider good. Since we assume there is an absolute standard for what is good there must be an absolute standard giver. The Bible repeatedly states that God has given mankind a holy, universal Law, that is written on our hearts and our conscience bears witness to this Law. This Law is revealed and summarized in the Ten Commandments. When we look at God’s Law, we must understand that we have all sinned in some way or another; remember, you don’t have to break all Ten to be guilty of breaking the Law. The Bible warns, “For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it.”

“… it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment” Hebrews 9:27

Let’s look at a few of the Commandments and see how we fare:

“You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.” Have you ever taken God’s name in vain? If you have, you are a blasphemer and can not enter the Kingdom of God.

“Honour your father and mother.” Have you always honoured your parents in a respectful manner? In a way that God would consider honouring?

“You shall not steal.” Have you ever taken something that didn’t belong to you (irrespective of its value)? What do you call someone who takes something that doesn’t belong to them? A thief – You cannot enter God’s Kingdom.

“You shall not bear false witness.” Have you ever told a lie? Just one? What do you call someone who told a lie? A liar. The Bible warns that all liars will have their part in the Lake of Fire.

You and I are guilty of sinning against God by breaking His Law, and because we have a conscience, we have sinned “with knowledge.” Isn’t it true that when you steal, lie, etc. you know that it’s wrong? Does the fact that you have sinned against God bother you? The punishment for breaking God’s Law is Hell. Eternal Death.

“Almost every natural man that hears of hell, flatters himself that he shall escape it; he depends upon himself for his own security; he flatters himself in what he has done, in what he is now doing, or what he intends to do. Every one lays out matters in his own mind how he shall avoid damnation, and flatters himself that he contrives well for himself, and that his schemes will not fail. [from a sermon by Jonathan Edwards titled, Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God]

WHAT MUST YOU DO TO BE SAVED FROM THE PENALTY OF BREAKING GOD’S LAW?

There is good news, there is a GOSPEL. God the Father has given us a mediator in Jesus Christ who is the incarnation of God. Jesus took upon Himself man’s nature, becoming subject to the Law of God, and perfectly obeying the Law in thought and deed for His entire lifetime on earth. While on earth Christ took the sins of His people upon Himself, and suffering the punishment due to all their sins paid the penalty by dying on the Cross, “…for the wages of sin is death.”

By dying in place of His people Jesus Christ became the mediator between God and man and revived in His people the righteousness, holiness and true knowledge lost as a consequence of sin.

As we find ourselves before a holy God we are convicted for breaking His righteous Law. The Holy Spirit moves in the soul to bring us to acknowledge our guilt and brokenness before God and His righteousness. We come to hate sin and find Jesus Christ precious. The Holy Spirit convinces the broken sinner of the shamefulness of sin and then brings the offender to a place where they can, “repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord.”

If you feel the weight of sin on your heart and have come to see the blackness of your soul in the light of God’s Law…if you have been brought to a place where you dread the judgement of the trice holy God, BELIEVE THE GOSPEL! If you believe that Jesus Christ paid the penalty for your sins the Bible assures us that, “whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved.”

_____________________________________

Now that I've answered the question Why are you a Calvinist the answer should be clear. Because the Bible teaches Calvinism.

Arminian: "whosoever" "man's freewill" "man's synergism" "man cooperates" "man, oh man, oh man!"

Calvinist: We are saved by Christ along through faith alone.

Unsubscribed from this thread. I was having lovely discussions with some friendly Anglican and Eastern Orthodox folks. ​

 

[mikedsjr]

I know I dealt with John 5. It says what it says.

Let's take the invalid first. Did the Invalid have any choice in his healing? Did he freely choose the gift of healing? Was it given to him despite his will?

John 5:21

For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will.

Do dead people have a free choice in their resurrection? Did Jesus have choice in His resurrection?

John 5:23

that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him.

Yes, a choice is presented here. Those who do not honor the Son.

John 5:24

Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

Yes. A choice is presented here. Whoever hears Jesus' words and believes.

Who heard his words audibly? Who believed him?

John 5:25

“Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.

Does the dead refer to the spiritually dead?

 

[kangaroodort]

In John 5 we read, "And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man. [28] Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, [29] And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation."

You just got nailed for proof texting.

Not at all. You just failed to pay close attention to language and overall context. Too bad you never bothered to read the post I referred to more than once in this thread because I deal with this exact attempt to avoid the implications of this passage for Calvinist theology as follows (especially note the paragraphs in bold underline)

______________________

“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 Himwho 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.

______________

You just got nailed for proof texting.

John 5 is speaking about resurrection and judgement. Not regeneration. Christ will draw all men (John 12) to Him for judgment.
What you do not find in this passage is an offer of salvation only a generation [sic.] resurrection of the dead and that, "shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation."

Interesting. First, Jesus is plainly giving a demonstration of physical resurrection power in raising Lazarus from the dead, yet we are told by Calvinists like you that this certainly serves as an object lesson for regeneration preceding faith (which has been reinforced by the many cute Memes we have seen posted along those lines as well). In this passage you now want to say that it has nothing to do with faith and regeneration because it is about final physical resurrection (even though the part I was focusing on was not about final physical resurrection, and the differences are clear based on language and context as I just demonstrated above). Really? Sorry, you can't have it both ways.

Second, we are now treated to a second case of prooftexting, where you suggest that John 12 has reference to Jesus drawing all men to Him for judgment. Really? Where do you find that in the context?

Dang, that must’ve hurt.

Yeah, must've ;-)

I am out of time for now but will address the rest when I get some more time.

God Bless.

 

[kangaroodort]

Wow, a show stopper. Since you can’t wait until I’m finished posting Why I am a Calvinist (you know, the subject of this thread), here you go.

Sorry, it is hard to predict how long it will take for you to complete your book (and I could be wrong, but I am guessing the OP wasn't looking for that, but for some simple straight forward answers). How many more installments are coming?

 

[kangaroodort]

“Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.

Does the dead refer to the spiritually dead?

Yes. Please see my recent comments to JM on this passage for more detail. So according to Jesus the spiritually dead will hear unto new life, while according to Calvinism the spiritually dead cannot hear and must be given life first before they can hear: the exact opposite of what Jesus says in John 5. Who should we believe on this, Jesus or Calvinism?

God Bless.

 

[kangaroodort]

Yes, the church has confessed the faith for 2000 years. Deal with it. The spineless EvanGellyfish hate confessions because it runs contrary to their libertarian freewill but scripture tells us to confess the faith.

Yes, the church has confessed the faith for 2000 years, but the faith they confessed was not Calvinism. Full Calvinism (which includes inevitable perseverance for the regenerate) did not surface until the 16th century. Luther didn't hold to what would later be the "P" in TULIP and neither did Augustine. In Augustine we see the seeds of what would later become Calvinism, but only in his later writings. So even if we want to say that Calvinism started with the Catholic Augustine (minus the "P" of TULIP), that is still some 400 years before any teachings that resemble Calvinism became in any way acceptable in the church. Prior to that time, such features (like irresistible grace, determinism, and unconditional election) could only be found in the heretical Gnostic sects.

"Although the Calvinist author above [Loraine Boettner] intended to say that Augustine discovered a lost teaching of the apostles, his words serve to confirm that (1) unconditional election first emerged in the church about 400 years later than the apostles (2) that unconditional election can be traced to a single influential individual (Augustine), and that (3) unconditional election went “far beyond” the teachings of all those who went before. His words should also prompt one to ask, “How did free will become the universal teaching of the church for the first 400 years, in the first place?” Indeed, what would it take for “free will” to overcome the alleged lost teaching of unconditional election so that free will became the universal teaching of the church for 400 years? And where is the evidence that something like that even happened? What, for example, are the names of the champions of unconditional election (before Augustine) who initially opposed this alleged free will heresy? And who is the leader of the free will movement that caused unconditional election to become lost for 400 years? Why is it one can not find any single individual to blame for the teaching of free will in the church? And why is it one can only find an entire church that teaches free will? And why is it that even Augustine himself taught free will from the time of his conversion until the time he “discovered” his new teaching? And why is it that Augustine, “discovered” this lost teaching alone in his private study, with no sects there already holding out for a return to unconditional election long before Augustine began his study? In short, there is no historical evidence that unconditional election was ever taught before Augustine! There is only evidence that it started with Augustine. The only “proof” that unconditional election was lost by the church for four centuries and then found by Augustine, if it can be called proof, is Augustine’s own newly discovered interpretation of scripture! And that is not “proof” since every passage in question is capable of a conditional, free will, interpretation...."

"In sum, the Calvinists have their interpretation of this or that verse but they do not have proof that their interpretations are required. On the other hand, the historical evidence shows that the early church teaching on free will was not the result of a movement that overcame unconditional election, but that free will was simply the teaching of the church from its very beginning. The beginning of free will in the church cannot be traced to any specific time, place, person, or movement. Yet, the time, place, person, and the movement that started unconditional election can all be specifically traced to Augustine. Yes, Mr. Boettner, Calvinism was first taught by Augustine!" (Church History and Calvinism, this article was written at a time when Calvinism had severely dwindled, unlike today where it is enjoying a resurgence and some of the comments in the article reference that fact).

This is incontrovertible historical fact. You can keep on pretending that it isn't, but that doesn't change reality. Calvinism is an innovation in the History of the church and is not representative of the historical Christian faith going back to the earliest Christian writers, some of whom knew the Apostles or were taught by those who knew the Apostles, and many of whom knew Greek as their first language (unlike Augustine).

For more on this see:
Prereformation Church History and the Calvinist/Arminian Debate

Jack Cottrell: Did the Early Christian Fathers Teach Calvinism?

Calvinism: Free Will and the Early Church

And I could easily add a dozen more links to the same effect. I would also recommend David Bercot's book: "A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs" and "Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up?"

Arminianism is not a return to Rome, but a return to Historical Christianity before it became corrupted by the Roman Catholic Church. Calvinism is Augustinianism (Augustine being a Catholic Theologian and convert from a Gnostic Sect) revived, systematized and taken to a greater extreme (Calvin relied heavily on Augustine and his writings and Luther was an Augustinian Monk). I know that might not sit well with you or your attempts at revisionist history, but it is still true. To quote you: "Deal with it."

 

[PrettyboyAndy]

Two Parallel truths,

God's Sovereignty and Humans Responsibility -

The system of truth is not one straight line, but two.

No man will ever get a right view of the gospel until he knows how to look at the two lines at once. I am taught in one book to believe that what I sow I shall reap: I am taught in another place, that "it is not of him that willeth nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy."

I see in one place, God presiding over all in providence; and yet I see, and I cannot help seeing, that man acts as he pleases, and that God has left his actions to his own will, in a great measure. Now, if I were to declare that man was so free to act, that there was no presidence of God over his actions, I should be driven very near to Atheism; and if, on the other hand, I declare that God so overrules all things, as that man is not free enough to be responsible, I am driven at once into Antinomianism or fatalism.

That God predestines, and that man is responsible, are two things that few can see. They are believed to be inconsistent and contradictory; but they are not. It is just the fault of our weak judgment.

Two truths cannot be contradictory to each other. If, then, I find taught in one place that everything is fore-ordained,that is true; and if I find in another place that man is responsible for all his actions, that is true; and it is my folly that leads me to imagine that two truths can ever contradict each other.

These two truths, I do not believe, can ever be welded into one upon any human anvil, but one they shall be in eternity: they are two lines that are so nearly parallel, that the mind that shall pursue them farthest, will never discover that they converge; but they do converge, and they will meet somewhere in eternity, close to the throne of God, whence all truth doth spring.

http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0207.htm

 

[Albion]

So even if we want to say that Calvinism started with the Catholic Augustine (minus the "P" of TULIP), that is still some 400 years before any teachings that resemble Calvinism became in any way acceptable in the church. Prior to that time, such features (like irresistible grace, determinism, and unconditional election) could only be found in the heretical Gnostic sects.

"Although the Calvinist author above [Loraine Boettner] intended to say that Augustine discovered a lost teaching of the apostles, his words serve to confirm that (1) unconditional election first emerged in the church about 400 years later than the apostles (2) that unconditional election can be traced to a single influential individual (Augustine), and that (3) unconditional election went “far beyond” the teachings of all those who went before. His words should also prompt one to ask, “How did free will become the universal teaching of the church for the first 400 years, in the first place?”

I'm coming late to reading into this discussion, but it seems that the idea here is that what was taught (in theory, at least) must be correct, even if the early church was still sorting out its beliefs.

It's that theory of "Holy Tradition" at work again.

If it were relied upon, we'd have no salvation for those who backslid after being baptised and a belief in universal salvation...IF, that is, we were to adhere slavishly to what the early church believed, period.

But in fact, we believe that God's word is what counts, and it can at times be misunderstood by even church leaders. That means that if 4 or 5 point Calvinism is virtually unavoidable if we understand the whole of Scripture, it doesn't really matter when that dawned on the Christian community.

 

[kangaroodort]

I'm coming late to reading into this discussion, but it seems that the idea here is that what was taught (in theory, at least) must be correct, even if the early church was still sorting out its beliefs.

It's that theory of "Holy Tradition" at work again.

If it were relied upon, we'd have no salvation for those who backslid after being baptised and a belief in universal salvation...IF, that is, we were to adhere slavishly to what the early church believed, period.

But in fact, we believe that God's word is what counts, and it can at times be misunderstood by even church leaders. That means that if 4 or 5 point Calvinism is virtually unavoidable if we understand the whole of Scripture, it doesn't really matter when that dawned on the Christian community.

There were differences in opinion in the early church on a variety of issues, just as there are today. They also speculated on certain matters, without being dogmatic (just as we do today). But when the early church universally holds to a certain view (like free will) and universally rejects an opposing view (like determinism) that should not be ignored. But if you look back at the thread and what I am specifically addressing, it is the claim that Calvinism represents the historic faith of the church, and anything other than Calvinism is at odds with what the Christian church has always believed. That is demonstrably false and a clear case of revisionist history. That is the point, not that we need to accept every single thing that the early church writers wrote about or that the earliest church writers were infallible. They were not infallible, but they certainly were not Calvinists either. And it is also very important to remember that the Reformers were not infallible either, nor were their eventual "confessions." They were just as prone to over-reaction and extremes and logical fallacies and improper exegesis as anyone else.

My comments were also for the reason of pointing out that just because Arminius (and other Reformers) held to libertarian free will, that does not constitute a "compromise" with Rome. Because such common Christian beliefs in no way originated with the Roman Catholic church. That would be akin to saying that the Reformers belief in the Trinity or the Deity of Christ is a "compromise with Rome."

 

[mikedsjr]

Yes. Please see my recent comments to JM on this passage for more detail. So according to Jesus the spiritually dead will hear unto new life, while according to Calvinism the spiritually dead cannot hear and must be given life first before they can hear: the exact opposite of what Jesus says in John 5. Who should we believe on this, Jesus or Calvinism?

God Bless.

Ok. So lets do this
v19
the Son can do
1. nothing of his own accord,
but
2. Only what he sees the Father doing.

v20
the Father
1. loves the Son
2. shows the Son all he is doing
the Father will
1. show the Son greater works
c: so you can marvel

v21
The Father
1. raises the dead
2. gives life to the dead
the Son
c1: gives life to who he will

v22-23
The Father
1. judges no one
and
2. All honor the Father
so
c1/3. Father gave judgement to the Son
so
c2: all may honor the Son
thus
All who don't honor the Son
c3: dont honor the Father

v24
whoever
1. hears my word
2. believes him who sent me
c1: has eternal life.
c2: He does not come into judgment
c3: has passed from death to life.

v25
The dead
1. will hear the voice of the Son of God
thus
c: the dead live

I don't mind if someone decides correcting of my method. Just throwing this out.

I don't have any issue with my Reformed/Lutheran-esque stance and these verses. I'm not quite sure why you seem to think I should.

 

[kangaroodort]

That God predestines, and that man is responsible, are two things that few can see. They are believed to be inconsistent and contradictory; but they are not. It is just the fault of our weak judgment.

Or it is because we have not carefully Biblically defined one or the other of these concepts.

Two truths cannot be contradictory to each other. If, then, I find taught in one place that everything is fore-ordained,that is true; and if I find in another place that man is responsible for all his actions, that is true; and it is my folly that leads me to imagine that two truths can ever contradict each other.

But contradictions reveal error, and if this is our approach the Bible and truth, we can affirm all sorts of things that plainly contradict each other. For example, the Bible certainly depicts God at times as being ignorant of certain things or gaining knowledge at certain times. Those are the passages that Open Theists like to cite. The Bible also declares that there is nothing God does not know (which is the classical view of exhaustive foreknowledge). Now it simply cannot be true that God knows everything and there are all sorts of things God does not know. So we need to revisit these texts and see where the misunderstanding is. Logic is a reflection of God's truth, the One who is the truth and defines truth. The word "logic" comes from "Logos" the same Greek word that is used to describe Christ in John 1 (usually translated: "the Word"). Can we use logic improperly? Of course. But if something is clearly illogical it cannot reflect God's truth because God's truth is the basis of logic and the laws of logic (primarily the law of non-contradiction or excluded middle). The idea that God irresistibly causes us to do something and at the same time we are truly free not to do that thing is illogical, an obvious contradiction, which reveals error, and that will not change in eternity either.

Now the Arminian absolutely affirms God's sovereignty, but recognizes that sovereignty does not mean "exhaustive determinism." It doesn't mean that in any other context and it doesn't mean that in the Bible either. In fact, you won't find the word "Sovereignty" in the Bible with respects to God. Sometimes "adonai" is translated that way when compounded with "YHWH" since English translations typically translate both "adonai" and "YHWH" as Lord. So instead of the redundant "lord LORD", they make it "Sovereign LORD." And that gives us a good clue as to how the Bible sees sovereignty. It is about God being Lord, meaning that He is the ultimate authority in the universe and has the absolute freedom to exercise His authority as He pleases. That certainly does not mean that God must exhaustively determine all things in order to be "Sovereign". If anything, that would strike against His divine freedom to create free agents and hold them accountable (as Lord) for their choices and actions. So Arminians both affirm God's sovereignty and providence and that God has given His creatures a measure of free will and will hold us accountable for our choices and actions. A.W. Tozer does a good job of explaining this:

"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)

These two truths, I do not believe, can ever be welded into one upon any human anvil, but one they shall be in eternity: they are two lines that are so nearly parallel, that the mind that shall pursue them farthest, will never discover that they converge; but they do converge, and they will meet somewhere in eternity, close to the throne of God, whence all truth doth spring.

But this is just a dodge and assumes that truth and error can somehow become compatible given enough time. Even eternity cannot make sense of nonsense. Now this does not mean there is not Biblical mystery. There is, but that is never an issue of embracing contradiction as truth. The Trinity is a mystery and beyond our comprehensions, but it is not illogical. Saying that an eternal decree dictates our actions so that we cannot do anything but what the decree dictates we do, while also maintaining that we do have the freedom to do otherwise than what the decree dictates we do is plainly illogical and reveals error, not mystery. This is not an "apparent" contradiction, it is an "obvious" contradiction. If this can be an "apparent " contradiction, then any contradiction can likewise be just an "apparent" contradiction. It is like saying that the decree is both fully irresistible and fully resistible. It is like saying we can choose when we have no choice. Those are not parallel lines, those are blatant contradictions. Otherwise, we might just as well say that everything the Bible says is both true and false. I understand that these sorts of discussions can make one want to throw up his or her hands and say "maybe both things are true", but the simple fact is that both things cannot be true, at least not in the way you describe it (though they can both be true if sovereignty is not defined in such a way that necessary excludes libertarian free will).

And that gets back to proper interpretation of the key passages.

 

[kangaroodort]

Ok. So lets do this
v19
the Son can do
1. nothing of his own accord,
but
2. Only what he sees the Father doing.

v20
the Father
1. loves the Son
2. shows the Son all he is doing
the Father will
1. show the Son greater works
c: so you can marvel

v21
The Father
1. raises the dead
2. gives life to the dead
the Son
c1: gives life to who he will

v22-23
The Father
1. judges no one
and
2. All honor the Father
so
c1/3. Father gave judgement to the Son
so
c2: all may honor the Son
thus
All who don't honor the Son
c3: dont honor the Father

v24
whoever
1. hears my word
2. believes him who sent me
c1: has eternal life.
c2: He does not come into judgment
c3: has passed from death to life.

v25
The dead
1. will hear the voice of the Son of God
thus
c: the dead live

I don't mind if someone decides correcting of my method. Just throwing this out.

I don't have any issue with my Reformed/Lutheran-esque stance and these verses. I'm not quite sure why you seem to think I should.

Not sure what you are saying, so I am not sure what to correct. And if I misunderstood your earlier responses or got you confused with someone else, I apologize. I thought you were saying that these passages do not say that the dead can hear and that life results from that hearing in line with the Calvinist argument that those who are "dead" in sin cannot hear or respond to the Gospel anymore than a physical corpse could. If that was not your claim, then I apologize, that is why I brought this passage up to demonstrate the Biblical problem with that line of argumentation. God bless.

 

[Albion]

But when the early church universally holds to a certain view (like free will) and universally rejects an opposing view (like determinism) that should not be ignored.

I'm not sure we can say that in this case, though.

But if you look back at the thread and what I am specifically addressing, it is the claim that Calvinism represents the historic faith of the church, and anything other than Calvinism is at odds with what the Christian church has always believed.

That would be incorrect, I agree.

My comments were also for the reason of pointing out that just because Arminius (and other Reformers) held to libertarian free will, that does not constitute a "compromise" with Rome. Because such common Christian beliefs in no way originated with the Roman Catholic church. That would be akin to saying that the Reformers belief in the Trinity or the Deity of Christ as a "compromise with Rome."

Understood. My point was more along the lines of saying that this discussion seems to me to highlight the difference between those Christians who make "What the Early Church believed/did" or "That's what the Church has always believed" their all in all, as contrasted with those who argue that our ultimate authority--the Word of God--says X or Y, period, even if part of the Church or part of our history didn't always have it right.

 

[kangaroodort]

I'm not sure we can say that in this case, though.

Well, feel free to investigate that further.

Understood. My point was more along the lines of saying that this discussion seems to me to highlight the difference between those Christians who make "What the Early Church believed/did" or "That's what the Church has always believed" their all in all, as contrasted with those who argue that our ultimate authority--the Word of God--says X or Y, period, even if part of the Church or part of our history didn't always have it right.

Well, I actually said exactly that when I first responded to these claims by JM that Calvinism essentially represented the historic Christian faith and suggested that Luther was a Calvinist (he was not) and that any deviation from strict Calvinism or any affirmation of libertarian free will is a "compromise with Rome." I made it clear that the matter must ultimately be settled by the word alone (and he claimed that as well, right after his erroneous history lesson). However, it was still important to correct his errant claims about church history, which I did. Sadly, he responded by just repeating those same claims again, suggesting that Calvinism and Calvinist Confessions represent Christian faith for the last 2000 years.