Passages challenging Calvinism

[Hammster]

I think I'm starting to see. I try as much as possible to be objective in interpreting Scriptures. It seems this passage goes against total depravity, but I've also learned that total depravity can be understood something differently than I thought. I still have some questions, but I'm starting to see I could be wrong with using this passage as a proof text.

In regards to this passage being reconciled with Reformed Theology, probably the biggest problem is that the stony-ground hearers not only "receive the word with joy" but "believe" (Gr. pisteuo, the verb form of pistis, "faith"). We're saved by faith (c.f. Eph. 2:8-10), so it appears they were saved. This is what the devil prevented for the wayside hearers, "lest they should believe and be saved" (v. 12, emphasis mine). The stony-ground hearers' problem doesn't seem to be insincerity but that they "have no root, who believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away" (v. 13, emphasis mine).

Doesn't it seem that they did have faith, meaning they became Christians, but didn't have the root to endure it? I could be wrong.

I actually had a question on that, as well. You can see my thread here, but you cannot post because of the forum it is in.

 

[Kilk1]

I actually had a question on that, as well. You can see my thread here, but you cannot post because of the forum it is in.

It looks like your question is related to mine. My question is less about how a blind person could be blinded, however, and more on how a depraved person could believe. The word translated "believe" is pisteuo, the verb form of pistis, "faith." We're saved by faith (c.f. Eph. 2:8-10), so it appears they were saved. I could be interpreting this wrong, but doesn't it appear that they had faith and thus were saved, but only temporarily?

 

[Hammster]

It looks like your question is related to mine. My question is less about how a blind person could be blinded, however, and more on how a depraved person could believe. The word translated "believe" is pisteuo, the verb form of pistis, "faith." We're saved by faith (c.f. Eph. 2:8-10), so it appears they were saved. I could be interpreting this wrong, but doesn't it appear that they had faith and thus were saved, but only temporarily?

But what did they believe? I would think if it was in Christ, they’d have roots and fruits.

 

[Kilk1]

But what did they believe? I would think if it was in Christ, they’d have roots and fruits.

That makes sense in Reformed Theology anyway. However, without that assumption, it's possible to believe in something/someone without that belief being permanent. After all, Satan prevented the wayside hearer, "lest they should believe and be saved" (v. 12). The passage doesn't speak against the object of their belief but against the fact that the belief was temporary; the stony-ground hearers "believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away" (v. 13). Fall away from what?

 

[Hammster]

That makes sense in Reformed Theology anyway. However, without that assumption, it's possible to believe in something/someone without that belief being permanent. After all, Satan prevented the wayside hearer, "lest they should believe and be saved" (v. 12). The passage doesn't speak against the object of their belief but against the fact that the belief was temporary; the stony-ground hearers "believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away" (v. 13). Fall away from what?

Fell away from the truth.

 

[Kilk1]

Fell away from the truth.

In that case, wouldn't the thing in which they "believe[d] for a while" be the truth? If not, what else in the text could the belief be in reference to?

 

[Hammster]

In that case, wouldn't the thing in which they "believe[d] for a while" be the truth? If not, what else in the text could the belief be in reference to?

There’s is, I think, a difference between believing and trusting. Believing something is true doesn’t necessarily mean that you trust it for your good.

 

[Kilk1]

There’s is, I think, a difference between believing and trusting. Believing something is true doesn’t necessarily mean that you trust it for your good.

The word translated "believe" is pisteuo, the verb form of pistis, "faith." We're saved by faith (c.f. Eph. 2:8-10). Does the fact they believe combined with the fact that they "receive the word with joy" suggest they're trusting for their good (though only temporarily)?

 

[Hammster]

The word translated "believe" is pisteuo, the verb form of pistis, "faith." We're saved by faith (c.f. Eph. 2:8-10). Does the fact they believe combined with the fact that they "receive the word with joy" suggest they're trusting for their good (though only temporarily)?

Again, I don’t think so. Remember, I’m not coming at this as if the passage is isolated. I’m trying to look at the whole. So if I see scripture that says

For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus.
— Philippians 1:6

then I can believe that the soils were representative of true converts.

 

[Kilk1]

Again, I don’t think so. Remember, I’m not coming at this as if the passage is isolated. I’m trying to look at the whole. So if I see scripture that says

For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus.
— Philippians 1:6

then I can believe that the soils were representative of true converts.

Of course, I could go the reverse direction, starting with my conclusion in Luke 8 and understanding Philippians in light of that. For example, the text doesn't say that the "good work in you" is a direct operation of the Holy Spirit leading to their salvation. Combining verse 6 with verse 5, it could refer to the work of the Philippians supporting Paul. God performing the work "in them" could mean "within them" or, alternatively, "through them."

However, my main reason for bringing up Luke 8 was for total depravity, not perseverance of the saints. For this part of the TULIP (as well as for unconditional election), Romans 11 was the main passage I had in mind. We probably should move our discussion there now that we're primarily discussing perseverance of the saints. For you convenience, I'll post my notes on it from the OP below:

Romans 11:16-24
While Romans 9 talks about election, Calvinists and non-Calvinists commonly argue about whether it's an election of specific individuals (what Calvinists believe) or an election of a corporate entity (Israel or the church). Chapter 11 compares God's people to a cultivated olive tree (vv. 16-24). Many (but not all) Israelites (i.e., the branches) were cut off from the tree. Instead, new branches from a wild, non-cultivated olive tree (representing Gentiles, the class who weren't God's people) were grafted into the cultivated one.

The individual Gentiles (i.e., the branches that were grafted into the cultivated tree) could become thrilled that they're in (v. 19). However, Paul explains: "Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear" (v. 20, emphasis mine). The new standard of becoming God's chosen people would be determined by faith vs. unbelief, instead of being a Jew vs. Gentile.

Paul clearly intends this to warn those grafted in. "For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either" (v. 21). Again, they were grafted in "by faith" (v. 20), and yet there's a possibility that they wouldn't be spared (v. 21). God will only bring "goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off" (v. 22). And those who were cut off could become believers and be grafted in again (vv. 23-24).

Does this suggest 1) that God elected the body, the cultivated tree, and 2) that it's possible for individuals (branches) who stand "by faith" (v. 20) to lose their faith (and thus, salvation), not being spared (v. 21)? Thanks!

 

[Hammster]

Of course, I could go the reverse direction, starting with my conclusion in Luke 8 and understanding Philippians in light of that. For example, the text doesn't say that the "good work in you" is a direct operation of the Holy Spirit leading to their salvation. Combining verse 6 with verse 5, it could refer to the work of the Philippians supporting Paul. God performing the work "in them" could mean "within them" or, alternatively, "through them."

However, my main reason for bringing up Luke 8 was for total depravity, not perseverance of the saints. For this part of the TULIP (as well as for unconditional election), Romans 11 was the main passage I had in mind. We probably should move our discussion there now that we're primarily discussing perseverance of the saints. For you convenience, I'll post my notes on it from the OP below:

Romans 11:16-24
While Romans 9 talks about election, Calvinists and non-Calvinists commonly argue about whether it's an election of specific individuals (what Calvinists believe) or an election of a corporate entity (Israel or the church). Chapter 11 compares God's people to a cultivated olive tree (vv. 16-24). Many (but not all) Israelites (i.e., the branches) were cut off from the tree. Instead, new branches from a wild, non-cultivated olive tree (representing Gentiles, the class who weren't God's people) were grafted into the cultivated one.

The individual Gentiles (i.e., the branches that were grafted into the cultivated tree) could become thrilled that they're in (v. 19). However, Paul explains: "Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear" (v. 20, emphasis mine). The new standard of becoming God's chosen people would be determined by faith vs. unbelief, instead of being a Jew vs. Gentile.

Paul clearly intends this to warn those grafted in. "For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either" (v. 21). Again, they were grafted in "by faith" (v. 20), and yet there's a possibility that they wouldn't be spared (v. 21). God will only bring "goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off" (v. 22). And those who were cut off could become believers and be grafted in again (vv. 23-24).

Does this suggest 1) that God elected the body, the cultivated tree, and 2) that it's possible for individuals (branches) who stand "by faith" (v. 20) to lose their faith (and thus, salvation), not being spared (v. 21)? Thanks!

I think part of our issue here is the compartmentalization that you are doing. It’s understandable that you’d do this, especially because of the TULIP acronym. It’s not so much ingredients in a cake as it is the cake itself. And just as there’s a logical reason for mixing the ingredients in a certain way, it’s really the cake that’s important.

So let me try to sum it up so that we are looking at the whole cake.

IF we are radically deprived, then there’s no way we would ever come to Christ in our natural state. And IF that is true, then something needs to happen to us first. First, God would need to choose us. We believe that the reason for His choice is not because of anything we do, but for reasons known only to Him. And IF that is true, then the sin issue needs dealt with. So we have the atonement which is either limited to who He died for, or who it’s applied to. We believe that it’s limited to who He died for since it’s not logical or just to condemn someone to hell who has had their sins atoned for. And IF all of that is true, then God needs to do a work on that person so that their affections change. That’s why we are given a new heart (regenerated). With this new heart, we freely chose to love and follow Christ. And IF all of THAT is true, it would then make sense that He would take care of His children as a loving Father, or take care of His sheep as a Good Shepherd.

So they are all inextricably linked together. That’s why when one point is challenged, it’s logical for us to jump to another point and use that to show how it’s illogical to challenge that point on its own.

 

[Kilk1]

I think part of our issue here is the compartmentalization that you are doing. It’s understandable that you’d do this, especially because of the TULIP acronym. It’s not so much ingredients in a cake as it is the cake itself. And just as there’s a logical reason for mixing the ingredients in a certain way, it’s really the cake that’s important.


So let me try to sum it up so that we are looking at the whole cake.


IF we are radically deprived, then there’s no way we would ever come to Christ in our natural state. And IF that is true, then something needs to happen to us first. First, God would need to choose us. We believe that the reason for His choice is not because of anything we do, but for reasons known only to Him. And IF that is true, then the sin issue needs dealt with. So we have the atonement which is either limited to who He died for, or who it’s applied to. We believe that it’s limited to who He died for since it’s not logical or just to condemn someone to hell who has had their sins atoned for. And IF all of that is true, then God needs to do a work on that person so that their affections change. That’s why we are given a new heart (regenerated). With this new heart, we freely chose to love and follow Christ. And IF all of THAT is true, it would then make sense that He would take care of His children as a loving Father, or take care of His sheep as a Good Shepherd.


So they are all inextricably linked together. That’s why when one point is challenged, it’s logical for us to jump to another point and use that to show how it’s illogical to challenge that point on its own.

A lot of this depends on the IFs, which are all interlinked. The fact that the points of the TULIP are tightly woven together only adds greater danger to the whole system, the way I see it. If all the parts are needed and some are shown to be false, then by reductio ad absurdum, the whole system is false. It would be like taking key ingredients out of the cake; the entire recipe would be ruined. So if, hypothetically, a passage contradicts core pillars of the doctrine, then the doctrine as a whole is placed in ruin.

I thought Luke 8 might be such a passage, and it may still be, but I'd have to think about it more after discovering my definition of total depravity may not have been accurate. However, I still feel that Romans 11 is such a passage, so I'd prefer to hear your understanding. Again, here's what I've written:

Romans 11:16-24
While Romans 9 talks about election, Calvinists and non-Calvinists commonly argue about whether it's an election of specific individuals (what Calvinists believe) or an election of a corporate entity (Israel or the church). Chapter 11 compares God's people to a cultivated olive tree (vv. 16-24). Many (but not all) Israelites (i.e., the branches) were cut off from the tree. Instead, new branches from a wild, non-cultivated olive tree (representing Gentiles, the class who weren't God's people) were grafted into the cultivated one.

The individual Gentiles (i.e., the branches that were grafted into the cultivated tree) could become thrilled that they're in (v. 19). However, Paul explains: "Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear" (v. 20, emphasis mine). The new standard of becoming God's chosen people would be determined by faith vs. unbelief, instead of being a Jew vs. Gentile.

Paul clearly intends this to warn those grafted in. "For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either" (v. 21). Again, they were grafted in "by faith" (v. 20), and yet there's a possibility that they wouldn't be spared (v. 21). God will only bring "goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off" (v. 22). And those who were cut off could become believers and be grafted in again (vv. 23-24).

Does this suggest 1) that God elected the body, the cultivated tree, and 2) that it's possible for individuals (branches) who stand "by faith" (v. 20) to lose their faith (and thus, salvation), not being spared (v. 21)? If so, these passages would go against core, vital elements of Calvinism, as far as I can tell. Thanks for listening!

 

[sdowney717]

A lot of this depends on the IFs, which are all interlinked. The fact that the points of the TULIP are tightly woven together only adds greater danger to the whole system, the way I see it. If all the parts are needed and some are shown to be false, then by reductio ad absurdum, the whole system is false. It would be like taking key ingredients out of the cake; the entire recipe would be ruined. So if, hypothetically, a passage contradicts core pillars of the doctrine, then the doctrine as a whole is placed in ruin.

I thought Luke 8 might be such a passage, and it may still be, but I'd have to think about it more after discovering my definition of total depravity may not have been accurate. However, I still feel that Romans 11 is such a passage, so I'd prefer to hear your understanding. Again, here's what I've written:

Romans 11:16-24
While Romans 9 talks about election, Calvinists and non-Calvinists commonly argue about whether it's an election of specific individuals (what Calvinists believe) or an election of a corporate entity (Israel or the church). Chapter 11 compares God's people to a cultivated olive tree (vv. 16-24). Many (but not all) Israelites (i.e., the branches) were cut off from the tree. Instead, new branches from a wild, non-cultivated olive tree (representing Gentiles, the class who weren't God's people) were grafted into the cultivated one.

The individual Gentiles (i.e., the branches that were grafted into the cultivated tree) could become thrilled that they're in (v. 19). However, Paul explains: "Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear" (v. 20, emphasis mine). The new standard of becoming God's chosen people would be determined by faith vs. unbelief, instead of being a Jew vs. Gentile.

Paul clearly intends this to warn those grafted in. "For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either" (v. 21). Again, they were grafted in "by faith" (v. 20), and yet there's a possibility that they wouldn't be spared (v. 21). God will only bring "goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off" (v. 22). And those who were cut off could become believers and be grafted in again (vv. 23-24).

Does this suggest 1) that God elected the body, the cultivated tree, and 2) that it's possible for individuals (branches) who stand "by faith" (v. 20) to lose their faith (and thus, salvation), not being spared (v. 21)? If so, these passages would go against core, vital elements of Calvinism, as far as I can tell. Thanks for listening!

Romans 11 Paul is speaking not of individuals but entire groups, the jews versus the gentiles especially so from v11 onwards.
That God hardened or say blinded the jews to save the gentiles, and in a future time, God will unblind the jews and save them.

11 I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles. 12 Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness!

You can see how Paul does this jew versus gentile comparison in the whole chapter. But again its not about called individuals.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

The first type of soil, the wayside (vv. 5, 12), is the closest to sounding totally depraved in the sense that it doesn't receive the word.

For my part, what I lacked in good soil was made up for with the dung of depravity. For the remembrance of our sins leads us to back to redemption by his blood.

 

[Kilk1]

Romans 11 Paul is speaking not of individuals but entire groups, the jews versus the gentiles especially so from v11 onwards.
That God hardened or say blinded the jews to save the gentiles, and in a future time, God will unblind the jews and save them.

11 I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles. 12 Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness!

You can see how Paul does this jew versus gentile comparison in the whole chapter. But again its not about called individuals.

Thanks for the reply and apologies for not replying sooner. I agree that the focus of Romans 11 (in fact, chapters 9, 10, and 11) are about the relationship in Christ between Jews and Gentiles. That being said, I have a question about the specific tree-branch analogy used in the chapter. Notice verses 16-18 (NKJV):

For if the firstfruit is holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root is holy, so are the branches. And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you.

We read here of branches being broken off a wild olive tree to be put in a cultivated olive tree. Verse 24 tells us, "For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, who are natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?" Does the cultivated olive tree represent Israel while its natural branches represent individual Jews? And does the wild olive tree represent the Gentile world while its branches represent individual Gentiles? Thanks!

 

[sdowney717]

Thanks for the reply and apologies for not replying sooner. I agree that the focus of Romans 11 (in fact, chapters 9, 10, and 11) are about the relationship in Christ between Jews and Gentiles. That being said, I have a question about the specific tree-branch analogy used in the chapter. Notice verses 16-18 (NKJV):

For if the firstfruit is holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root is holy, so are the branches. And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you.

We read here of branches being broken off a wild olive tree to be put in a cultivated olive tree. Verse 24 tells us, "For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, who are natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?" Does the cultivated olive tree represent Israel while its natural branches represent individual Jews? And does the wild olive tree represent the Gentile world while its branches represent individual Gentiles? Thanks!

Paul warns the gentiles this, "do not boast against the branches." because the root supports them, meaning it was God's choice to break off the other branches and graft them (gentile nations ) as a wild olive tree onto the root. But God did not break off the entire cultivated tree, just some of the branches, the ones broken off would be jews that did not believe.

Does the cultivated olive tree represent Israel while its natural branches represent individual Jews? And does the wild olive tree represent the Gentile world while its branches represent individual Gentiles?

I does not get so specific as to distinguish individuals as individual branches regarding the gentile nations, the branches are represented as the wild olive tree as the whole tree.
as it says this,

and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree,

Individual salvation does not just come an go so casually, not anywhere in scripture is that idea supportable. Believers only are saved, and unbelievers are condemned.

Romans 11 is showing God's grace for salvation extended to the whole gentile world, not just the Jewish nation. And that God is not done with the jews, when the full number of the gentiles come into the kingdom, God will extend His grace again towards them at the end.

For by grace are you saved through faith not of yourselves, this is the gift of God lest anyone should have grounds for boasting.

 

[Kilk1]

Paul warns the gentiles this, "do not boast against the branches." because the root supports them, meaning it was God's choice to break off the other branches and graft them (gentile nations ) as a wild olive tree onto the root. But God did not break off the entire cultivated tree, just some of the branches, the ones broken off would be jews that did not believe.

Does the cultivated olive tree represent Israel while its natural branches represent individual Jews? And does the wild olive tree represent the Gentile world while its branches represent individual Gentiles?

I does not get so specific as to distinguish individuals as individual branches regarding the gentile nations, the branches are represented as the wild olive tree as the whole tree.
as it says this,

and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree,

Individual salvation does not just come an go so casually, not anywhere in scripture is that idea supportable. Believers only are saved, and unbelievers are condemned.

Romans 11 is showing God's grace for salvation extended to the whole gentile world, not just the Jewish nation. And that God is not done with the jews, when the full number of the gentiles come into the kingdom, God will extend His grace again towards them at the end.

For by grace are you saved through faith not of yourselves, this is the gift of God lest anyone should have grounds for boasting.

You said that "the ones broken off would be jews that did not believe." Would it follow that the branches grafted in are Gentiles who did believe? Thanks!

 

[Kilk1]

For my part, what I lacked in good soil was made up for with the dung of depravity. For the remembrance of our sins leads us to back to redemption by his blood.

Hello. Are you a Calvinist?

 

[sdowney717]

You said that "the ones broken off would be jews that did not believe." Would it follow that the branches grafted in are Gentiles who did believe? Thanks!

Do you realize that the Jews who were broken off who did not believe where born as jews? So yes they were broken off from the true vine as they did not believe. The OC was obsoleted, their is no OC anymore. But there cant be any gentiles broken off as they were never jews of the OC ways who had been having their sins forgiven by animal sacrifices, the ones who did live in the OC, also did have faith.

You cant escape this, Jews thought themselves the chosen ones of God, but they were broken ff because of unbelief in Christ, they never did believe when God made the transition in the NC.

But all those saved in the NC are eternally saved as they wont give up their faith if they were truly saved at all before.

If you view the being broken off as people groups, jews and gentiles, who do not believe, then the gentile nations who fall away due to apostasy could be considered being broken off due to the great apostasy that is coming and seems to be here today proceeding the revealing of the Antichrist figure.

I dont think your ever going to understand that God knows those who are His, they will remain faithful to the end, as He chose them from the beginning for salvation and they will persevere in faith, it is the P in the TULIP.

2 Thessalonians 2
13 But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth, 14 to which He called you by our gospel, for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.

16 Now may our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and our God and Father, who has loved us and given us everlasting consolation and good hope by grace, 17 comfort your hearts and establish you in every good word and work.

God has given them everlasting consolation and good hope by grace, as they have been chosen by Him from the beginning (before the foundation of the earth, read Ephesians 1), for salvation through sanctification and belief in the truth.

And this NC established by Christ in His blood functions totally different than the OC with the Jews who had to offer continual sacrifices for their sins, and God did not write His laws into their hearts and minds so that they would know Him and not leave Him which many of the Jews did throughout their histories.

Hebrews 8

A New Covenant
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. 8 Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. 12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.”

13 In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

And besides all this, if your still reading, no one who is saved in the NC can sin, note v9.

1 John 3:8
He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil.

1 John 3:9
Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.

And if you don't know what this means, and pop up objections contrary to v9, I am not sure you are a New Creation in Christ, but I hope you are.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Hello. Are you a Calvinist?

Worse. I'm the dreaded universalist!