Calvinists, why are you Calvinist?

[kangaroodort]

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


That would be incorrect, I agree.


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.

Here are JM's initial comments that I was responding to. Notice the parts in bold as the parts I was particularly taking issue with:

JM: "Once it is understood that modern Evangelicalism has a tradition wedded to Arminianism the debate breaks down into monergism and synergism. The free will Arminian tradition is very similar to Roman Catholicism. In fact, Arminius like Philipp Melanchthon before him, softened the Protestant doctrine moving Lutherianism [sic] toward the Roman church. When I say Protestant I refer toMartin Luther, Huldrych Zwingli and John Calvin. All there [sic] Reformers held to what is now called “Calvinism.” This is a remarkable fact considering the Reformers lived in different geographical locations.
The Reformers and Bible believers before them were monergists.

 

[mikedsjr]

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.

I agree with the Calvinist/Reformed/Lutheran stance that scripture says we are dead spiritually dead and can not make a choice to save ourselves. We're looking at the verses you gave. I went through the verses and I'm not clear why you believe there is an issue. V25 says the dead will hear the voice of God, as I broke it out. It seems the question is "when the dead will hear" or "those/[the dead] who hear" mean. Is that correct?

 

[kangaroodort]

I agree with the Calvinist/Reformed/Lutheran stance that scripture says we are dead spiritually dead and can not make a choice to save ourselves. We're looking at the verses you gave. I went through the verses and I'm not clear why you believe there is an issue. V25 says the dead will hear the voice of God, as I broke it out. It seems the question is "when the dead will hear" or "those/[the dead] who hear" mean. Is that correct?

Arminians also agree that we are dead in sin. But this does not equate to the inability of a corpse to do anything. Being dead in sin means that our sins separate us from the source of spiritual life, which is Christ. Through faith we are joined to Him and receive His life as a result. But Calvinists want to say that being dead in sin means we are just like a physical corpse so that we cannot hear or respond to the Gospel unless we are regenerated first. So this understanding of "dead in sin" gives them Biblical support for the idea that regeneration precedes faith, rather than faith joining us to the source of life.

Calvinists say that preaching the Gospel to those dead in sin is as useless as preaching to a bunch of corpses in a morgue and expecting the dead corpses to hear and respond. They can't hear the message or respond to to it because dead people can't do those things. So they say the corpse must first be brought to life before they can hear and respond. So they draw a strict parallel to the Bible saying we are dead in sin and say this means that just like a corpse we cannot hear the Gospel or respond to it unless God first regenerates us. That is where John 5:24-25 comes in, because Jesus says that the spiritually dead will "hear" unto life. That is the opposite of the Calvinist claim and demonstrates that the Calvinist is misunderstanding what it means to be "dead in sin" in the Bible. This also means that God's enabling grace (the grace that enables a faith response) is not regeneration. So John 5 supports the Arminian understanding of prevenient enabling grace and what it means to be dead in sin and the fact that faith precedes regeneration (reception of new spiritual life results from faith in Christ since faith joins us to the source of life- Jesus, cf. Eph. 1:13), while contradicting the Calvinist claim that regeneration precedes faith and causes faith. Make sense?

In a nut shell, the Calvinist says the "dead" must be first given new life before they can "hear" or respond to the Gospel, but Jesus says that the dead will hear and this hearing precedes and results in life.

 

[kangaroodort]

For those who suggest that the Reformation Theology of Luther was built on nothing but Scripture alone and was just restoring the pristine historical Christian faith, consider the following:

Methodius, a Christian Martyr, writing near the end of the 3rd century:

"Those [pagans] who decide that man does not have free will, but say that he is governed by the unavoidable necessities of fate, are guilty of impiety toward God Himself, making Him out to be the cause and author of human evils." Methodius The Banquet of the Ten Virgins discourse 8, chap. 16

Luther appeals to the pagans and heathens to support his doctrine of determinism:

"But why should these things be so difficult for we Christians to understand, so that it should be considered irreligious, curious, and vain to discuss and know them, when heathen poets, and common people themselves, have in their mouths in the most frequent use? How often does Virgil [a pagan Roman poet] alone make mention of Fate? "All these things stand fixed by unchangeable law." Again, "Fixed is the day of every man." Again, "If the Fates summon you." And again, If you will break the binding chain of Fate."

"The aim of this poet is to show that in the destruction of Troy, and in the raising of the Roman empire, fate did more than all the devoted efforts of men....From which we could see that the knowledge of predestination and of foreknowledge of God was no less left in the world than the notion of divinity itself. And those who wished to appear wise went so far into their debates that their hearts being darkened became fools (Rom. 1:21, 22). They denied, or pretended not to know those things which their poets, and the common folk, and even their own consciences, held to be universally known, most certain, most true." Luther, Bondage, pp. 43,44.

_____________

So here is an admission from Luther that his doctrines were more in harmony with what the heathens and pagan Roman poets have believed, than what the early church believed. And the implication is that since the pagan poets agree with Luther, that must mean that this was a universally revealed truth from God in line with what Paul has to say in Romans 1! What about the other things pagans believe? Why aren't they included as universally divinely revealed truths?

As Methodius notes, and as is evidenced all through the earliest Christian writings, the early church was born in a culture that was saturated with fatalism and deterministic ideas, and yet all of the earliest Christian writers rejected divine determinism and strongly defended free will. You won't find any of them defending determinism on the basis that it was revealed to the Gnostics and pagans of their time in accordance with Rom. 1. If determinism was so clearly taught in the Scriptures and by the Apostles, and if the culture itself was so friendly to deterministic ideals, why would the early church so strongly and consistently oppose determinism and affirm free will?

It was suggested here that Arminius' rejection of determinism was just a return to "Rome". If that is the case, we could just as easily say that Luther's determinism was a return to "paganism" and "Gnosticism." Does this mean that Calvinism cannot possibly be true? No. But it does reveal the major problem Calvinism has with regards to historical precedence in the church, and it contradicts the common Calvinist refrain that Calvinism and the Reformation was just a return to true historical Christianity in it's affirmation of determinism, irresistible grace, limited atonement, inevitable perseverance, etc. (though, again, Luther did not hold to limited atonement or inevitable perseverance, so he was not a Calvinist).

 

[Sovereign Grace]

Well thats funny cos I independently read the Bible too and lots of scripture doesn't support calvinist views. So..I guess it depends if you read the Bible with the calvinist view (which, if you search scripture can support anything when verses are taken out of context) or you just plain read the Bible.

I beg differ. I was a non-Cal/Arminian for the first 6+ years of my walk with God. I had a bias towards the bible when I read it. It was when I earnestly prayed for Him to allow me to read and study His with without any bias, Cal or Armin, the DoGs just leapt out to me.

 

[Sovereign Grace]

Arminians also agree that we are dead in sin. But this does not equate to the inability of a corpse to do anything. Being dead in sin means that our sins separate us from the source of spiritual life, which is Christ. Through faith we are joined to Him and receive His life as a result. But Calvinists want to say that being dead in sin means we are just like a physical corpse so that we cannot hear or respond to the Gospel unless we are regenerated first. So this understanding of "dead in sin" gives them Biblical support for the idea that regeneration precedes faith, rather than faith joining us to the source of life.

Calvinists say that preaching the Gospel to those dead in sin is as useless as preaching to a bunch of corpses in a morgue and expecting the dead corpses to hear and respond. They can't hear the message or respond to to it because dead people can't do those things. So they say the corpse must first be brought to life before they can hear and respond. So they draw a strict parallel to the Bible saying we are dead in sin and say this means that just like a corpse we cannot hear the Gospel or respond to it unless God first regenerates us. That is where John 5:24-25 comes in, because Jesus says that the spiritually dead will "hear" unto life. That is the opposite of the Calvinist claim and demonstrates that the Calvinist is misunderstanding what it means to be "dead in sin" in the Bible. This also means that God's enabling grace (the grace that enables a faith response) is not regeneration. So John 5 supports the Arminian understanding of prevenient enabling grace and what it means to be dead in sin and the fact that faith precedes regeneration (reception of new spiritual life results from faith in Christ since faith joins us to the source of life- Jesus, cf. Eph. 1:13), while contradicting the Calvinist claim that regeneration precedes faith and causes faith. Make sense?

In a nut shell, the Calvinist says the "dead" must be first given new life before they can "hear" or respond to the Gospel, but Jesus says that the dead will hear and this hearing precedes and results in life.

Study Ezekiel 37 and John 11. What power/ability did those 144,000 ppl's jumbled bones and Lazarus' body have to choose one way or the other. Only God can make the dead hear. He told Ezekiel what to say, and through his words, those bones came to life again. Jesus' cried 'Lazarus come out!', and he came out. Those that hear shall live...Isa 55:3, John 5:25.

 

[mikedsjr]

Arminians also agree that we are dead in sin. But this does not equate to the inability of a corpse to do anything. Being dead in sin means that our sins separate us from the source of spiritual life, which is Christ. Through faith we are joined to Him and receive His life as a result. But Calvinists want to say that being dead in sin means we are just like a physical corpse so that we cannot hear or respond to the Gospel unless we are regenerated first. So this understanding of "dead in sin" gives them Biblical support for the idea that regeneration precedes faith, rather than faith joining us to the source of life.

Calvinists say that preaching the Gospel to those dead in sin is as useless as preaching to a bunch of corpses in a morgue and expecting the dead corpses to hear and respond. They can't hear the message or respond to to it because dead people can't do those things. So they say the corpse must first be brought to life before they can hear and respond. So they draw a strict parallel to the Bible saying we are dead in sin and say this means that just like a corpse we cannot hear the Gospel or respond to it unless God first regenerates us. That is where John 5:24-25 comes in, because Jesus says that the spiritually dead will "hear" unto life. That is the opposite of the Calvinist claim and demonstrates that the Calvinist is misunderstanding what it means to be "dead in sin" in the Bible. This also means that God's enabling grace (the grace that enables a faith response) is not regeneration. So John 5 supports the Arminian understanding of prevenient enabling grace and what it means to be dead in sin and the fact that faith precedes regeneration (reception of new spiritual life results from faith in Christ since faith joins us to the source of life- Jesus, cf. Eph. 1:13), while contradicting the Calvinist claim that regeneration precedes faith and causes faith. Make sense?

In a nut shell, the Calvinist says the "dead" must be first given new life before they can "hear" or respond to the Gospel, but Jesus says that the dead will hear and this hearing precedes and results in life.

In a sense, I can agree to the dead corpse example as being a bit wrong from the standpoint you gave. But I don't accept man has free will and that's requirement to say "yes I agree".

I heard this recently and think this really fits the issue, but it's coming from my side of free will belief. You might not agree:

If a person has the choice between God's good news gospel for salvation or reject it, then they don't have free will. It's in bondage to sin. Only a will that chooses to repent and believe in the gospel is truly free, because only a will aligned with God's will is truly free.

John 5:24,25 is interesting. Jesus has not died on the cross for sins yet. He hasn't finished is perfect life yet. He hasn't commissioned them yet to go into the world yet. In light of this, yes faith comes by hearing from God and believing. And they will live. We are in agreement. Where we disagree is in vs 25. Free will-ers say one thing and dead in sin-ers say another.

 

[OzSpen]

Prevenient grace is absolutely a feature of Classical Arminianism and in no way originated with Wesley. In fact, Arminius said it was at the dead center of the debate. This confirms a major problem that often comes up in debates with Calvinists. Often, the only thing they know about Arminianism is what they have read from Calvinists. Very few Calvinists have read Arminius, yet they are quite sure they know what he taught and what Arminianism is all about. That is why the link to the FACTS was given earlier, because it does a good job carefully explaining what Arminianism teaches. But it doesn't seem that many here have bothered to read it. While Calvinists often cry "misrepresentation" and "straw man" they so often have no idea what Arminianism really teaches and have usually not bothered to read what Arminian scholars have to say (including Arminius). And they routinely lump Arminians with non-Calvinists of any stripe. That sort of ignorance makes fruitful discussion difficult. And of course, many non-Calvinists do not rightly understand Calvinism either, so the problem can certainly go both ways.

Just glancing to my left on my book shelf I can see books like "The Potter's Freedom" by James White, "Still Sovereign" edited by Schreiner and Ware, "Why I am Not An Arminian" by Williams and Peterson, "Against Arminianism" by Michael Horton, "Debating Calvinism" by White and Hunt, "The Five Dilemmas of Calvinism" by Calvinist Craig R. Brown, "Chosen by God" by R.C. Sproul, "The Providence of God" by John Calvin. These are just some of the Calvinist books I own and have read (some I have read more than once). I can't help but wonder how many books written by Arminians line the book shelves of those here who seem very sure about what Arminius taught and what Arminians believe. Or are we getting all of our information from Calvinist sources? And sadly, it seems that many here have read my post "Debate Tips For Calvinists".

kangaroodort,

My experience with my TULIP, evangelical Presbyterian pastor a few months ago was as you stated. He claimed from the pulpit that Arminius did not believe in total depravity. At the end of the service I challenged him on the content of his sermon and he said he would make a correction the following Sunday if he could be shown he was wrong.

I asked him if he had read Arminius to gain the knowledge if Arminius believed in total depravity. He would not reply.

Next day I sent him by email a quote from Arminius that stated that Arminius believed in total depravity. This proved his pulpit statement wrong, but he did not correct it the following Sunday. He is obtaining his information about Arminians filtered through Calvinistic writings.

It's sad to have Arminius' views misrepresented like this.

Oz

 

[kangaroodort]

In a sense, I can agree to the dead corpse example as being a bit wrong from the standpoint you gave. But I don't accept man has free will and that's requirement to say "yes I agree".

I heard this recently and think this really fits the issue, but it's coming from my side of free will belief. You might not agree:

If a person has the choice between God's good news gospel for salvation or reject it, then they don't have free will. It's in bondage to sin. Only a will that chooses to repent and believe in the gospel is truly free, because only a will aligned with God's will is truly free.

John 5:24,25 is interesting. Jesus has not died on the cross for sins yet. He hasn't finished is perfect life yet. He hasn't commissioned them yet to go into the world yet. In light of this, yes faith comes by hearing from God and believing. And they will live. We are in agreement. Where we disagree is in vs 25. Free will-ers say one thing and dead in sin-ers say another.

In the first part, you are simply using freedom in two different ways. In your comments on John 5, I am not sure what point you are trying to make. God bless.

 

[kangaroodort]

Study Ezekiel 37 and John 11. What power/ability did those 144,000 ppl's jumbled bones and Lazarus' body have to choose one way or the other. Only God can make the dead hear. He told Ezekiel what to say, and through his words, those bones came to life again. Jesus' cried 'Lazarus come out!', and he came out. Those that hear shall live...Isa 55:3, John 5:25.

I have already addressed these passages and claims in detail in this thread. Feel free to look at the previous pages. As for Ezekiel 37, that passage isn't very helpful to your cause either. First, the "dry bones" respond to the "prophecy" before they are given life (not as a result of being given life). Breath and life only enters them at the very end. So even if we take this woodenly, it doesn't fit the Calvinist claim at all. Second, the vision is explained in vss. 12-14. In those verses God makes it clear to Ezekiel that this is a reference to the Spirit indwelling His people, which looks forward to the new covenant (as I explained with regards to Ezek. 36 here). And we know that the Holy Spirit is received by faith (Gal 3:2, 5, 14). So the dry bones vision actually contradicts the Calvinist ordo salutis (just as every other Calvinist prooftext does when language and context are carefully examined).

 

[kangaroodort]

I beg differ. I was a non-Cal/Arminian for the first 6+ years of my walk with God. I had a bias towards the bible when I read it. It was when I earnestly prayed for Him to allow me to read and study His with without any bias, Cal or Armin, the DoGs just leapt out to me.

Appealing to personal experience is always tricky in these debates. Often, later developed convictions can color our perception of past events, and that can go both ways. However, I struggle with claims of "reading the Bible without bias" and coming to strictly Calvinist conclusions. While there are certainly some passages that can seem to align with Calvinism, it seems a little hard to believe that anyone would read passages that talk about falling away from faith, shipwrecking faith, believing for a while and then falling away, as well as warnings to believers about being cut off from the Vine (Christ) which results in withering and being burned, being broken off from God's people if they do not continue in God's kindness by continuing to "stand by faith", and the many passages that use specific and deliberate universal language to describe the scope of the atonement and then somehow draw the "unbiased" conclusion from such passages that no true believer can ever fall away and that the atonement was only made for "some."

I also struggle with the claim because it would suggest that prior to Calvin, nobody in the church read the Bible in an unbiased manner, since nobody in the church prior to Calvin found limited atonement or inevitable perseverance in the Bible (and it is a topic of debate whether or not even Calvin held to limited atonement). And you will be hard pressed to find unconditional election prior to Augustine. So that's some 400 years of church history before Augustine's unconditional election (which he didn't hold to until later in life) and some 1500 + years of church history before Calvin's inevitable perseverance and maybe limited atonement (for more on this, see my response to JM here). But suddenly, after the widespread influence of Augustine and Calvin (and his theological followers), all these things are now easily found in Scripture when read "without bias."

 

[Skala]

But this does not equate to the inability of a corpse to do anything.
.

Please, start listing the things a corpse can do.

"Arminians also agree that we are dead in sin."

But to Arminianism, spiritual deadness doesn't actually mean anything or do anything.

To the Bible, and to Calvinism, you have to be spiritually alive in order to do "spiritual activities". The way a person must be physically alive to do physical activities.

It's taught quite plainly in places like Romans 8 and John 6

 

[Skala]

I also struggle with the claim because it would suggest that prior to Calvin, nobody in the church read the Bible in an unbiased manner, since nobody in the church prior to Calvin found limited atonement or inevitable perseverance in the Bible (and it is a topic of debate whether or not even Calvin held to limited atonement).

Irrelevent. The time in which the church officially established doctrine (ie, packaged together the things the Bible systematically teaches) is not important.

For example, the doctrine of the Trinity was not nicely laid out for us in a neat package until such and such date. Does that mean the Trinity is false? Nope. It's true no matter how long it took the church to formulate doctrine around it.

Another example would be the deity of Christ.

Typically, doctrine is formulated as a result of controversy. It's not like everything we hold as important, even essential (to salvation) was believed by the church from the very moment Christ ascended. Doctrine is formulated over time.

 

[kangaroodort]

Please, start listing the things a corpse can do.



But to Arminianism, spiritual deadness doesn't actually mean anything or do anything.

To the Bible, and to Calvinism, you have to be spiritually alive in order to do "spiritual activities". The way a person must be physically alive to do physical activities.

It's taught quite plainly in places like Romans 8 and John 6

Skala, I don't have time to respond to these challenges tonight, but I would ask you to look back through the thread since I have already addressed why the "spiritual corpse" view is not Biblical and what spiritual corpses can in fact do. It's all there if you take the time to look. God bless.

 

[kangaroodort]

Please, start listing the things a corpse can do.



But to Arminianism, spiritual deadness doesn't actually mean anything or do anything.

To the Bible, and to Calvinism, you have to be spiritually alive in order to do "spiritual activities". The way a person must be physically alive to do physical activities.

It's taught quite plainly in places like Romans 8 and John 6

BTW, if you are interested in why I do not think Romans 8 is really relevant to the issue of inability specific to conversion, see my post on Ezekiel 36 here.

As far as John 6 (since this passage is so often brought up by Calvinists), here are a variety of comments culled from different posts I have written and interactions I have had with others on this subject. For that reason, some of them can feel like coming into the middle of a conversation, but it still shouldn't be too hard to figure out what is being discussed,

_______________

“However, I do think the issue of why the Jews specifically rejected Jesus is a main concern for John. John’s gospel was written very late at a time when the church was shifting heavily to being primarily a Gentile church. I think John is addressing a major concern taking place at the time of his writing. The concern for the Jews would be to help them see why the Jews who knew Jesus rejected Him, which also explains why many Jews at the time of John’s writing were still rejecting Christ as their Messiah. No doubt many Jews were wondering why, if Jesus was the Messiah, did the Jewish leaders largely reject Him? Likewise, Gentiles would also be wondering why, if Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, did the Jewish leaders reject Him, and why are so many Jews still rejecting Him? Is their rejection an indictment on Christ’s claims?

If that is the case, then John is very focused on showing that the Jewish leaders and many of the Jews who encountered Christ rejected Him, not because He wasn’t from God, but because they (the Jews) were not “of God.” They pointed the finger at Christ saying that He was not of God, but the reality was that Christ was of God (one with Him, in fact), and the reason they didn’t recognize it was because they didn’t know God (were not in right covenant relationship with God). I believe that is the primary issue being addressed in Jesus’ confrontations with the Jews in John (chapters 5, 6, 8, and 10 especially). Look at this verse,

“For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.” (John 3:20, 21, NASB)

If we interpret this as Calvinists (and some Arminians) do as a simple passage on depravity, we run into a serious problem. The text says that “whoever does what is true comes to the light”.

Coming to the light, in this context, is coming to Christ, i.e., putting faith in Christ. So this text is saying that those who “practice truth” come to Christ. That doesn’t sound like a biblical description of someone who is depraved. Someone who is totally depraved in the Calvinist sense is not someone who can be characterized as “practicing truth.” But if John’s point is the same as being described in John 10 (as well as in John 5, 6, and 8) that those who know the Father come to Christ, and those who do not know the Father reject Christ, then this passage makes perfect sense.

But if we universalize this passage to all people we run into the same difficulty. How is it that Gentiles who know nothing of God can be characterized as “practicing truth” prior to coming to Christ? It doesn’t really fit with that paradigm. But it does fit with the idea of faithful Jews submitting to the claims of Christ because they already know God (have a relationship with Him). It could, however, extend to Gentiles like Cornelius who knew God as well, prior to hearing the message preached by Peter. But his faith was based on his knowledge of God from the Jews. He was one of those “other sheep” who already knew God and would automatically recognize the Shepherd and His voice (which is the voice of the Father as well).

Another good one is John 7:17,

“If anyone is willing to do His will, he will know of the teaching, whether it is of God or whether I speak from Myself.”

Here we see this principle being plainly described by Christ. The one who truly wishes to do the will of the Father (i.e. truly knows the Father and thereby “practices truth”) will immediately recognize that Jesus is speaking the words of the Father. Such people will be given, by the Father, to the Shepherd as His sheep. They recognize His voice, listen to Him and follow Him, just as they followed the Father.

The secondary application is simply that those who are willing to hear from the Father (however He may teach them) will be drawn by the Father to Christ. In our situation, this happens by the conviction of the Holy Spirit and the preaching of the gospel. The principle is similar, but it is a different time and a different situation. We come to the Father through the Son, while in a very real sense the Jews of Jesus’ time came to the Son through the Father and were then able to take part in the new dispensation when only those joined to the Son can remain in right relationship with the Father. Here are a few things I wrote on drawing that might help shed light on what I am saying (how there is both a primary and secondary application),

“Not of God” [in John 8] simply means that these Jews were not in right covenant relationship with the Father when they encountered Christ and His claims. Since they didn’t know the Father they naturally would not recognize the perfect expression of the Father in the Son, nor would they recognize the Father’s teaching in the Son’s words (John 8:19, 20, 42, 54, 55, cf. John 5:37-40; 7:16, 17 12:44, 45). As long as they reject the Father and refuse His teaching, they will reject the Son and His teaching (which is also the Father’s teaching, John 12:49, 50) and will not be given to the Son (John 6:37, 44, 45).

None of these passages say anything about an unconditional eternal election being behind the description of these Jews as “not of God.” Such an idea is only read into these passages by Calvinists…. Second, as mentioned above, their inability to hear was not because God wasn’t working, but because they were resisting that working. Clearly, Jesus is still trying to reach them (8:27-31, 36, cf. John 5:44; 10:37, 38), which would be senseless if He viewed them as hopeless reprobates. This is especially evident in Christ’s statement to the same sort of resistant Jews in John 5 where Christ both declares their inability and yet tells them, “…not that I accept human testimony, but I mention it that you may be saved”, vs. 34. This is especially relevant to my point since the “testimony” Christ refers to is the prior testimony of John the Baptist. Christ then points them to other “testimonies” like His miracles, the Scriptures in general, and Moses, obviously implying that through the acceptance of these testimonies they may yet be enabled to “come to” Him and be “saved”, cf. vss. 39, 40; Luke 16:27-31).

Jesus’ method of discourse is actually a rather common teaching technique used for the purpose of admonishment in order for the “students” to fully realize their situation with the hope that in realizing it (coming to grips with this important revelation) they will be spurred on to change (i.e. repentance). I work in schools daily and see this type of teaching technique used all the time. It is similar to a Math teacher saying, “how can you expect to do division when you haven’t even learned your times tables? You can’t do division while you remain ignorant of multiplication.” Such instruction is not meant to highlight a hopeless state. It is not meant to express that the student can never do division. Rather, it is intended to get the student to re-examine the reality of their current state and how it makes further progress impossible, with the hope that they will learn what is required in order to move forward (e.g. John 5:41-45).

Likewise, Jesus is actually using much of what He says for the purpose of getting those who are listening to re-examine their present relationship to the Father and thereby realize that they are not in a proper position to be making such judgments about Christ and His claims, with the hope that they will yet “learn” from the Father so that they can come to a place where acceptance of Christ and His words is possible (e.g. John 5:33-47; 10:34-39, cf. John 6:45, etc). Had they already learned from the Father (been receptive to God’s grace and leading through the Scriptures, the prophets, the ministry of John the Baptist, the miracles of Christ, etc.), they would have immediately recognized that Jesus was the Son of God, the promised Messiah, Shepherd and King of God’s people, and been given to Him. Yet, not all hope is gone, for they may yet learn if they stop resisting the Father’s leading.

Christ’s teaching on drawing in John 6:44, 45, therefore, is not just descriptive, but for the purpose of admonishment, that they might be careful not to spurn and resist this drawing and miss eternal life and the promise of resurrection. God’s working in prevenient grace and drawing can be complex and operate in different ways depending on the person and the situation. God approaches us from a variety of angles. These passages illustrate that. Yet, we dare not assume that because the operation of prevenient grace on the human heart and mind doesn’t necessarily reduce to a simple equation or formula, God is not still working. Indeed, God is always working (John 5:17).”

************************************************

“The Calvinist might object that verse 25 [of John 10] is not in harmony with the above interpretation due to the fact that Jesus tells the Jews that they do not believe because they are not His sheep. It could be argued that verse 25 refers to a predetermined and unconditional election: The sheep are those who were elected by God prior to creation and then given faith to believe in Christ. The problem with this suggestion is that there is nothing in the text to indicate that Jesus is describing a pre-temporal election of certain individuals for salvation. Such an eternal decree must be first assumed and then read into the text.

A more plausible interpretation is to understand Jesus’ words in John 10:27-29 in the context of the unique historical situation taking place at the time of His ministry with regards to the transition from the old dispensation to the new. The passage has a secondary application to believers of all ages (as described above) but the primary application concerned only the Jews who were alive during Christ’s ministry and were specifically being addressed in this and other similar chapters in John (John 5:24-27; 6:37, 40-44, 65; 8:12-59). The “sheep” in this context are the Jews who are currently living in right covenant relationship with the Father during the time of Jesus’ ministry. The Jews that Jesus is addressing in this discourse and others like it throughout John’s gospel are not in right relationship with the Father during the time of Christ’s ministry. Since they do not know the Father (are not “of God”) they cannot recognize the perfect revelation of the Father in the Son (Jn. 7:16, 17; 8:19, 42-47). They reject the Son and refuse to trust in Him because they have rejected the Father. Therefore, they are not Christ’s sheep and cannot be given to the Son (John 6:37). If they had known the Father they would have recognized the Son as their Messiah and would have been given to Him.

So the primary application still addresses the issue of faith but not in the same way as we would tend to apply it today since our situation is different from that of the Jews and we are not living at a critical time in history where the faithful Jews were being given, by the Father, to their Shepherd and Messiah. For them it primarily involved the transition from one sphere of believing (in the Father) to another (in the Son). Those faithful Jews recognized the Father in the Son and as a result listened to Him and followed Him as their long awaited Messiah. In either case the “sheep” are those who are “listening” and “following” and the passage gives no indication that one cannot cease to be one of Christ’s sheep by later refusing to listen and follow.” (from here)

_____________

And for another article which takes the same approach but is much longer and more detailed (esp. with regards to the Old Testament), I highly recommend: The Order of Faith and Election in John's Gospel: You Do Not Believe Because You Are Not My Sheep

 

[kangaroodort]

Irrelevent. The time in which the church officially established doctrine (ie, packaged together the things the Bible systematically teaches) is not important.

But that was not the point. Nothing was said about the "church officially" establishing doctrine. The church has never "officially established" Calvinism, because the Church has never universally held to Calvinism (and neither did all of the Reformers, including Luther) and for most of its history flatly rejected all of the features of what would later become known as Calvinism.

For example, the doctrine of the Trinity was not nicely laid out for us in a neat package until such and such date. Does that mean the Trinity is false? Nope. It's true no matter how long it took the church to formulate doctrine around it.

This is not really analogous to things like unconditional election, determinism, limited atonement, irresisitible grace or inevitable perseverance, since belief in the Trinity was held by the earliest Christian writers long before it was formally established by way of councils, etc. Not so with the theological features of what would later be known as Calvinism (as listed above). At the same time the earliest Christians writers were explaining the Trinity, they were also repudiating anything that was even remotely close to Calvinism as features of the heretical Gnostic sects alone.

Another example would be the deity of Christ.

Another bad example, that is (for the same reasons as mentioned above about the Trinity)

Typically, doctrine is formulated as a result of controversy.

While this has some truth in it, I would say it is simplistic. I think it would be more precise to say that doctrine is formulated through the study of Scripture and at times honed or made more precise, and also, at times, pronounced as established Christian doctrine in response to various controversies. But to say that doctrine is only formulated in response to controversies is simply not accurate. But with regards to the main features of Calvinism, that is simply not the case (since again, the main features of Calvinism were unheard of in the church, except in the Gnostic sects, prior to the later writings of Augustine, later to be refined and hardened by Calvin).

It's not like everything we hold as important, even essential (to salvation) was believed by the church from the very moment Christ ascended. Doctrine is formulated over time.

Which "we" are you talking about here? And please do not miss the main point. The main point was that if one is claiming that an unbiased reading of Scripture will most likely result in an obvious awareness of Calvinism, that would imply that nobody read the Bible in an unbiased manner prior to the later writings of Augustine, and that only Calvin read the Bible "without bias" (with regards to inevitable perseverance, for example) for the first 1500 + years of church history. Sorry, I find that very hard to swallow.

The mantra of the Reformation was "always reforming", which is ironic considering those who call themselves "Reformed" Calvinists will not permit any further "development" or "formulation" with regards to their main Calvinist tenets. That is a sacred cow that nobody is allowed to touch or "reform", which again implies that the Reformers could not have possibly got things wrong. For me, Calvinistic Creeds and Confessions and respected Calvinist writers and Theologians carry an almost papal authority among Calvinists, an authority that simply cannot be allowed to be questioned or challenged. And this results in things like "inevitable perseverance" or "limited atonement", two very late theological innovations in the church (i.e. in certain church traditions), being considered the test of Orthodoxy for many Calvinists, which I find ridiculous.

Now is it possible that Calvinists have stumbled onto previously hidden truths through a purely "unbiased" reading of Scripture? Sure. I just find it highly unlikely. And when I examine the claims of Calvinism against Scripture, I personally do not find those claims convincing. Now does that mean my reading of Scripture is purely "unbiased"? Not at all. But I still find it unlikely that an "unbiased" reading of Scripture would lead one to hold to things like "inevitable perseverance" or "limited atonement", and I think Christian history largely bears this out as I have outlined here and in other comments related to this issue.

But I still maintain that Calvinism could be true. In the end, it is a matter of Biblical interpretation. And on that score, I still think Calvinism is in big trouble (though you obviously disagree). God bless.

 

[Skala]

a bunch of stuff

Your entire post can be responded to with a simple statement:

All I intended to argue for was that *when* a doctrine is packaged up and give a label is not important. All that matters is: does the bible teach it?

if so, it doesn't matter if it took Christians 100 years or 1000 years to start talking about it and give it a name. What's true is true.

 

[kangaroodort]

Your entire post can be responded to with a simple statement:

All I intended to argue for was that *when* a doctrine is packaged up and give a label is not important. All that matters is: does the bible teach it?

if so, it doesn't matter if it took Christians 100 years or 1000 years to start talking about it and given it a label. What's true is true.

But that continues to miss the point. Again, it is not a matter of a doctrine being "packaged up" or "given a label" with regards to the main tenets of Calvinism. Rather, it is a matter of there being no such doctrine at all in the church for 100's or, in the case of inevitable perseverance, well over a thousand years. I carefully explained that important distinction in the "bunch of stuff" I wrote above. God bless.

 

[kangaroodort]

Only God can make the dead hear.

Agreed, but most Calvinists say the spiritually dead cannot hear (since corpses can't do anything) until they are first given spiritual life (regeneration). But then it would not be the dead hearing, but the living. You referenced John 5 and I used John 5 earlier to make the same point. In John 5 the "dead" hear unto life, but the typical Calvinist claim is exactly the opposite: God makes us alive first, so we can then "hear" and believe.