Norman Giesler and what he says about Calvinism

[bling]

Too many times, I have asked questions that go unanswered, because the obvious answer would expose the errors of those who think they know what Calvinism teaches, when they demonstrate very clearly that they do not know it correctly, and refuse to be corrected in that understanding.

How is it humbling to have salvation as a “birthright” from your physical birth and having to do nothing to get it?[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']

[/FONT]Are all kids that are born into rich families automatically humbled by the experience?[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']

[/FONT]If forgiveness is only obtained by correctly humbling accepting it from God as unconditional, undeserving gift (charity), mean you will be humbled by the experience? [FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']

[/FONT]Is it humbling to have to correctly accept “Charity” from a giver that paid a huge price?[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']

[/FONT]From Matt. 18: 21-35 we see that the transaction of true forgiveness is not completed if the receiver does not accept the gift as charity (he was just asking for more time to pay it back). If it had been correctly received the servant would have Loved much (…he that is forgiven much Loves much…) and not attacked another servant of the King he loved and the debt would not be owed the King.)
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']Did the father in the prodigal son story do as good of a job as a human could be made in a short story to be like God’s Love? [/FONT]

 

[heymikey80]

Both illustrations are equal, and equally damning. Both illustrations have a supreme God who chooses to save some for no reason of anything they did, but then refuses to save others for no reason of anything they did.

It may be useful to demonstrate this second point: "but then refuses to save others for no reason of anything they did." I don't consider it demonstrated.

What is the reason in the illustrations (by that plural, do you mean two of White's, or one of White's and one of Geisler's?) for a refusal to save?

 

[bleitzel]

Except for the fact that what Geisler claims to be Calvinist beliefs are not, in fact what Calvinism teaches. White's refutation is to correct that error.

I would submit that perhaps you did not listen to the video clip? Nowhere does Geisler make any false claims on what Calvinism believes. White himself admits that the only error, if any, would have been that Geisler did not quite paint man's sins against God as strong enough. Not that Geisler painted what Calvinism teaches God's actions to be as inaccurate just that Geisler didn’t quite capture the full depravity of sinful man. But really, what's the point of us arguing this? This is essentially what the OP argued, but is really a straw man.

The alternative is that God does save people based on what they do, and refuses to save others based on what they do, which makes God a respecter of persons, and no better morally than the most moral human, born of Adam. My point is that Scripture specifically teaches that God's Salvation is of His Grace, and as such is not predicated on the actions or inaction of the objects of that Grace.

And this really is the crux of the matter anyways. If by “what they do” you mean humble themselves and accept his grace and mercy, then yes, God does save people according to what they do. But if by “what they do” you mean any other actions meant to garner themselves eternal life, i.e. works salvation, then no, of course God does not save people based on what they do. But that distinction is essential. Humbling oneself is the antithesis of one who is trying to act to EARN salvation. Humbling is the opposite of earning, it is the essence of saying I can not earn it, yet you offer it to me. Our humble obedience is also contrary to God being the respecter of persons because humility engenders the opposite response from respect.

God’s salvation is of His grace and is not predicated on man’s action. Yet that grace is not fulfilled unless we empty ourselves of worth and accept that He is God and we are not.

The natural tendency of man is to believe that anything that comes our way is somehow a result of something we have done. Even something that is a gift gives rise to the idea that in some way, we deserved it.

To a man who has not learned humility, perhaps. But to anyone who has realized his worth compared to the almighty God of the Universe nothing could be further from the truth. To such a man God’s gift of mercy seems nothing like a worker’s wage.

 

[bleitzel]

It may be useful to demonstrate this second point: "but then refuses to save others for no reason of anything they did." I don't consider it demonstrated.

What is the reason in the illustrations (by that plural, do you mean two of White's, or one of White's and one of Geisler's?) for a refusal to save?

The one of Geisler's (farmer) and the one of White's (king).

In both parables the subjects deserve punishment for their sins and in both God supposedly chooses to show his mercy by choosing to save some of the perishing. His choice comes as a result of nothing from those subjects. Neither something more beneficial on the side of those whom He chose to save, nor something more detrimental on the side of those whom He chose not to save.

 

[heymikey80]

The one of Geisler's (farmer) and the one of White's (king).

In both parables the subjects deserve punishment for their sins and in both God supposedly chooses to show his mercy by choosing to save some of the perishing. His choice comes as a result of nothing from those subjects. Neither something more beneficial on the side of those whom He chose to save, nor something more detrimental on the side of those whom He chose not to save.

I still don't see it. Maybe it's this word, "charis", that represents the difference. It means "unmerited favor". In order to be unmerited, "charis" must not be rooted in the actions or attitude of the subject. And "charis" is the basis for God's mercy.

The subjects' actions in both cases justify God's refusal to save those He doesn't save in either event. This works for two reasons: first, all the subjects both have offended God by their actions: no one can be justified by their actions. But there's something else that seals their lack of self-justification: God's mercy need not extend to an obligation to save, just because He's capable to save. God is under no moral obligation to save anyone. His mercy need not extend to everyone -- or anyone.

So to the point, I would rather say the point is indeed not demonstrated. God is perfectly justified in not saving those He chooses not to save. In fact, God is perfectly justified were He not to save those He chooses to save. When it comes to justice -- for declaring us "justified" based on our works -- we all lose.

 

[bleitzel]

I still don't see it. Maybe it's this word, "charis", that represents the difference. It means "unmerited favor". In order to be unmerited, "charis" must not be rooted in the actions or attitude of the subject. And "charis" is the basis for God's mercy.

The subjects' actions in both cases justify God's refusal to save those He doesn't save in either event. This works for two reasons: first, all the subjects both have offended God by their actions: no one can be justified by their actions. But there's something else that seals their lack of self-justification: God's mercy need not extend to an obligation to save, just because He's capable to save. God is under no moral obligation to save anyone. His mercy need not extend to everyone -- or anyone.

So to the point, I would rather say the point is indeed not demonstrated. God is perfectly justified in not saving those He chooses not to save. In fact, God is perfectly justified were He not to save those He chooses to save. When it comes to justice -- for declaring us "justified" based on our works -- we all lose.

Heymikey, I completely understand your stance on this, and that this is indeed the stance of Calvinism. Also, I would argue that both A and B are true, all men deserve death and God is under no compulsion to save all men. I, of course, would add that there is a C, that it would be unjust for God to save some and not others if the decision was completely within himself and not based on the subjects themselves.

But all that is besides the point in this thread. We should argue this in another. This thread was supposed to be about White's treatment of Geisler's parable.

 

[heymikey80]

Yeah, you've hit it, but I think it's very relevant to the general subject of the OP.

It's important to note that in White's view the break with the old economy slices completely through the core of "doing to get" (this is shared with Dordt and Calvin's Calvinism). The economies are so, so different that it isn't there.

On the other side, the question is a good one as to whether God has to be egalitarian to save on such a basis. I've had that question in the past, too. What I came down to was that, while God made "doing to get" agreements with Israel, they were broken, leveling the playing field (Rom 9-11, esp. 11:26-eoc). That left God free to choose anyone.

Matthew 20 describes essentially God compensating people for what they'd done -- but then rewarding others through His own unmerited favor. The vineyard owner in the parable didn't have to reward everyone the same with "something extra". In fact the parable now shows an ominous allusion to Israel only getting "what they deserved", being first-in to the vineyard.

To Paul, the people who get this grace are those "chosen": "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace. What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened." Rom 11:6-7

 

[bleitzel]

What I came down to was that, while God made "doing to get" agreements with Israel, they were broken, leveling the playing field (Rom 9-11, esp. 11:26-eoc). That left God free to choose anyone.

To me, this doesn't sound at all like anything Paul would have written or Jesus would have said. God gave covenants not agreements, and they aren't broken, they were just misunderstood by people. Paul wrote that God's covenants still stood. Jesus said He was there to fulfill them.

I don't think God was 'free to choose anyone' different, I think God had chosen the Jews one way (which they thought they understood) but He had also all along choses the Gentiles, just in a different way. To be revealed at a later time, the time of Chirst. All were chosen.

 

[cygnusx1]

You've selected some terrific texts.

In Romans 9 Paul is addressing (as he so often did) the idea that whereas the Jews thought that they alone were God's beloved people (all of them, by birth) now it had been shown by the Christ that the Gentiles were also God's children (all of them, by adoption, as it were.) Paul's teaching here is precisely what I was saying, God did NOT arbitrarily pick the Jews alone to be His people. Paul knew what the Jews knew, such a God could not be all loving. Rather, Paul taught that it could now be seen that God chose to offer eternal blessings to all His children, Jew and Gentile.

John 1 is again portraying that all who received Christ became sons of God, it did not rely on their birth as a Jew as was thought. Gentiles were now incuded. That was God's plan.

In John 10 Christ is explaining that He does dutifully fulfill His role and the tasks that the Father has given to Him. In this case, the Father draws all men (as we've just seen from your other two examples). Those that respond He gives over to the Son to hold until the last day, of which the Son will lose none.

If you have any questions on any other scriptures, like Ephesians 1, let me know.

this understanding of Romans 9 just doesn't work .

To see why it doesn't have any credit , attempt a verse by verse exposition of the entire chapter , it will soon become obvious that many verses simply do NOT fit with this Arminian interpretation .

 

[heymikey80]

To me, this doesn't sound at all like anything Paul would have written or Jesus would have said. God gave covenants not agreements, and they aren't broken, they were just misunderstood by people. Paul wrote that God's covenants still stood. Jesus said He was there to fulfill them.

Has not Moses given you the law? Yet none of you keeps the law. John 7:19

You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you. 52 Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who announced beforehand the coming of the Righteous One, whom you have now betrayed and murdered, 53you who received the law as delivered by angels and did not keep it. Ac 7:51-53

I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. Gal 5:3

For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. Jas 2:13
​

I don't think God was 'free to choose anyone' different, I think God had chosen the Jews one way (which they thought they understood) but He had also all along chooses the Gentiles, just in a different way. To be revealed at a later time, the time of Christ. All were chosen.

The issue was not choice (intent) but the extension of mercy. And Paul says it that way. God's choice is free -- but God's extension of mercy must be right. Paul says it's God's consignment to everyone as disobedient, that rightly permits His ability to show mercy to all.

30For just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, 31so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy. 32For God has consigned all to disobedience, so that he may have mercy on all. Romans 11:30-32
​

 

[bleitzel]

this understanding of Romans 9 just doesn't work .

To see why it doesn't have any credit , attempt a verse by verse exposition of the entire chapter , it will soon become obvious that many verses simply do NOT fit with this Arminian interpretation .

Do you really think we could not give you a verse by verse explanation of Romans 9? Not only does this explanation shed much better light on Paul's thoughts, it ties Romans 9 in much more clearly with the rest of the entire book of Romans and with all the rest of Paul's writings as well. The errors of Arminianism and Calvinism are quite often born out of a misunderstanding of the scope of Paul's ideas and an attempt to break down his letters into a line by line interpretation because of a lack of comprehension on behalf of the teacher. But I digress.

 

[bleitzel]

Has not Moses given you the law? Yet none of you keeps the law. John 7:19

You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you. 52 Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who announced beforehand the coming of the Righteous One, whom you have now betrayed and murdered, 53you who received the law as delivered by angels and did not keep it. Ac 7:51-53

I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. Gal 5:3

For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. Jas 2:13
​

You've given quite an accurate defense of the accusation against man keeping the law. But my accusation was against your claim that God had decided that since man did not keep the law He was free to change the covenant...completely different argument.

The issue was not choice (intent) but the extension of mercy. And Paul says it that way. God's choice is free -- but God's extension of mercy must be right. Paul says it's God's consignment to everyone as disobedient, that rightly permits His ability to show mercy to all.

30For just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, 31so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy. 32For God has consigned all to disobedience, so that he may have mercy on all. Romans 11:30-32
​

Well, I for one do believe He shows mercy to all. But I was sure you said that He chooses to only show mercy to some. Disconnect?

 

[cygnusx1]

Do you really think we could not give you a verse by verse explanation of Romans 9?

yes !

 

[bleitzel]

yes !

Ok then, stand by for a new thread...

 

[bling]

yes !

You have to read and include Romans 10 with Romans 9 to understand Rms. 9.

 

[bleitzel]

Sure, and it doesn't hurt to know Romans 1-8 either.

 

[cygnusx1]

Ok then, stand by for a new thread...

standing by , and looking for consistancy and verse by verse explanation of Romans 9 and what Paul is saying . try not to read a theory into the text .

 

[heymikey80]

You've given quite an accurate defense of the accusation against man keeping the law. But my accusation was against your claim that God had decided that since man did not keep the law He was free to change the covenant...completely different argument.

You asserted that the covenant was never broken. It was.

The earth is defiled by its people; they have disobeyed the laws, violated the statutes and broken the everlasting covenant. Is 24:5
Both the house of Israel and the house of Judah have broken the covenant I made with their forefathers. Jer 11:10
​

Well, I for one do believe He shows mercy to all. But I was sure you said that He chooses to only show mercy to some. Disconnect?

Paul:

So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. Rom 9:18
... has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy Rom 9:22b-23
​

 

[bleitzel]

You asserted that the covenant was never broken. It was.

No, again, my assertion was that man may have broken the covenant but that did not cause God to abandon his promises. Maybe we should stop talking about this one.

Paul:

So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. Rom 9:18
... has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy Rom 9:22b-23
​

? That doesn't contradict my point that I beleive he shows mercy to all. He's speaking to Jews who thought God only showed mercy to them, and he's telling them that actually God showed mercy to the Gentiles too, He can show mercy to whomever he wants, Jew AND Gentile. You're making my case for me, not defeating me.

 

[heymikey80]

No, again, my assertion was that man may have broken the covenant but that did not cause God to abandon his promises. Maybe we should stop talking about this one.

Mmm. It depends on what you mean. A covenant includes promises and stipulations. A broken covenant releases God's obligation to grant His promises in exclusion. Romans 11:26ff seems to be based on a broken covenant.

? That doesn't contradict my point that I beleive he shows mercy to all.

Ah. So God's preparation for destruction is His mercy. Hm. That contradicts Paul, too. It's quite clear Paul is pointing to two purposes: one for dishonor, one for honor. Tough to put those two identifications together. Then in the next verse he identifies them as vessels of wrath, and vessels of mercy.

Some vessels of wrath, some vessels of mercy. Paul's thinking not everyone is a vessel of mercy.

He's speaking to Jews who thought God only showed mercy to them,

No, he's not limited to speaking to Jews ... in a church ... in Rome .... He's talking about the Jewish mistake, sure. He's not addressing Jews who thought God only showed mercy to them. He's answering the question, "Who resists His will?"

and he's telling them that actually God showed mercy to the Gentiles too, He can show mercy to whomever he wants, Jew AND Gentile. You're making my case for me, not defeating me.

Some vessels of wrath, some vessels of mercy. Paul's thinking not everyone is a vessel of mercy, therefore, this being God's preparation, God does not intend everyone to receive mercy. Q.E.D. If you like that victory (destruction qua mercy), I'm fine with it. Paul contrasts the two.