Blog | Reproach of Men

Playing a Game – Part 3

So then, Not only do we find that the Calvinists/Reformed adherents believe that God intended for evil and sin to exist, but that He intentionally created a person who is highly intelligent, beautiful, powerful, very capable in music, with an unparalleled ability to persuade: for the express purpose of rebelling against God. Moreover, this was done so that the glory of God, His holiness, righteousness, mercy, longsuffering, lovingkindness and grace would be glorious in its contrast to the wickedness and evil of the creature(s) who rebelled.

So are we here to understand that God cannot be glorious without some wicked, evil thing to contrast His Righteousness and Holiness against?

Are we also to understand, as Jonathan Edwards tells us:

So evil is necessary, in order to the highest happiness of the creature, and the completeness of that communication of God, for which he made the world; because the creature’s happiness consists in the knowledge of God, and the sense of his love. And if the knowledge of him be imperfect, the happiness of the creature must be proportionably imperfect.

And as Joseph Smith confirmed, concerning man:

2 Nephi, Chapter 2 (Book of Mormon)
22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

23 And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.

24 But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things.

25 Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.

If we compare the thought pattern of Jonathan Edwards (and John Piper, for he agrees fully with Edwards) to that of Joseph Smith, the author of the Book of Mormon, we can plainly see that both men believe that it is not possible for knowledge of righteousness and holiness to exist and be understood, (and even going so far as stating righteousness and holiness cannot exist) without the existence of evil and wickedness. Both men plainly state that “evil is necessary” either by direct statement or by reasoning, like Smith’s “Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.” in which it is plain that we could never know, nor appreciate the righteousness and holiness of God, and the joy such knowledge imparts — except we become evil wicked creatures, upon which “God” could bestow “his” mercy. Indeed, both men also acknowledge that man was innocent, but without comprehension of the happiness and joy of the knowledge of “God’s mercy.”

However, the most egregious part comes from the statements of both men, in which they say all this was accomplished:

“in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things.”

And:

“Thus it is necessary, that God’s awful majesty, his authority and dreadful greatness, justice, and holiness, should be manifested. But this could not be, unless sin and punishment had been decreed;”.

This John Piper agrees to totally by stating:

“Rather he “wills that evil come to pass . . . that good may come of it.””

Which is also no different that Baal Shem Tov’s:

“Nevertheless, evil that exists has an inner power giving it life. And this [inner power] is total goodness. So if you look at the inner aspect of evil, you will only see the good in it.”

This is really no more that the philosophy of “Unity of Opposites” and is expressed in various different ways, with artificial distinction, depending upon the perspective of the person. Under one philosophy it is called Taoism and is expressed thus:

Taoism
The Yin Yang symbol:
This is a well known Taoist symbol. “It represents the balance of opposites in the universe. When they are equally present, all is calm. When one is outweighed by the other, there is confusion and disarray.” ((Taoism))

And if the person’s point of view is materialistic, then it is expressed this way:

Dialectical Materialism (the root of Communism)
Fredrick Engels — Dialectics of Nature ((Dialectical Materialism))
“Motion is the mode of existence of matter. Never anywhere has there been matter without motion, or motion without matter, nor can there be.”

Though the words may vary, and the focus different, all that has been done with Augustinian/Calvinist/Reformed/Sovereign Grace/Primitive Baptist doctrine is take the idea and thought processes of the ancient philosophy of “unity of opposites” and try to make the Scripture conform to it.

Should we be so surprised? After all, Augustine, though raised to be a “Christian” chose a heathen system of belief as his own (underlining and emphasis mine):

Unfortunately, his faith, as well as his morals, was to pass though a terrible crisis. In this same year, 373, Augustine and his friend Honoratus fell into the snares of the Manichæans. It seems strange that so great a mind should have been victimized by Oriental vapourings, synthesized by the Persian Mani (215-276) into coarse, material dualism, and introduced into Africa scarcely fifty years previously. Augustine himself tells us that he was enticed by the promises of a free philosophy unbridled by faith; by the boasts of the Manichæans, who claimed to have discovered contradictions in Holy Writ; and, above all, by the hope of finding in their doctrine a scientific explanation of nature and its most mysterious phenomena. Augustine’s inquiring mind was enthusiastic for the natural sciences, and the Manichæans declared that nature withheld no secrets from Faustus, their doctor. Moreover, being tortured by the problem of the origin of evil, Augustine, in default of solving it, acknowledged a conflict of two principles. And then, again, there was a very powerful charm in the moral irresponsibility resulting from a doctrine which denied liberty and attributed the commission of crime to a foreign principle.

Once won over to this sect, Augustine devoted himself to it with all the ardour of his character; he read all its books, adopted and defended all its opinions. His furious proselytism drew into error his friend Alypius and Romanianus, his Mæcenas of Tagaste, the friend of his father who was defraying the expenses of Augustine’s studies. It was during this Manichæan period that Augustine’s literary faculties reached their full development, and he was still a student at Carthage when he embraced error.

His studies ended, he should in due course have entered the forum litigiosum, but he preferred the career of letters, and Possidius tells us that he returned to Tagaste to “teach grammar.” The young professor captivated his pupils, one of whom, Alypius, hardly younger than his master, loath to leave him after following him into error, was afterwards baptized with him at Milan, eventually becoming Bishop of Tagaste, his native city. But Monica deeply deplored Augustine’s heresy and would not have received him into her home or at her table but for the advice of a saintly bishop, who declared that “the son of so many tears could not perish.” Soon afterwards Augustine went to Carthage, where he continued to teach rhetoric. His talents shone to even better advantage on this wider stage, and by an indefatigable pursuit of the liberal arts his intellect attained its full maturity. Having taken part in a poetic tournament, he carried off the prize, and the Proconsul Vindicianus publicly conferred upon him the corona agonistica. ((St. Augustine of Hippo, From his birth to his conversion (354-386) ))

And of course, when converted, his “conversion” was to utterly corrupt Catholicism. But even the Catholics admit:

Augustine gradually became acquainted with Christian doctrine, and in his mind the fusion of Platonic philosophy with revealed dogmas was taking place. ((St. Augustine of Hippo, From his conversion to his episcopate (386-395) ))

To be continued . . .

Playing a Game – Part 1

One of the most prominent features of Calvinist doctrine is their view of the “Sovereignty of God.” It is an interesting view that is best described in their own words, and then carried out to its logical conclusion using the express statements of Scripture, if we are to truly understand the full ramifications of who they declare God to be. Those holding Calvinist/Reformed theology are not shy concerning their view of the Sovereignty of God, and spare no opportunity to put it in your face. The problem is, their view of sovereignty and how it relates to God raises some troubling issues.

In addressing this, the following quotes from Calvinists themselves are used so there is no mistake about what they believe.

That Calvin regards everything that occurs as embraced in the eternal decree of God lies on the face of his teaching at every point where he finds occasion to reflect on this subject. While repudiating the Stoic doctrine of necessity, arising from a perpetual intertwining and confused series of causes contained in nature, he is insistent that God is the arbiter and governor of all things “who, of his own wisdom, from the remotest eternity, decreed what he would do, and now by his own power executes what he has decreed. Whence we assert, that, not only the heaven and the earth and inanimate creatures, but also the deliberations and volitions of men are so governed by his providence that they are directed exactly to their destined end”3 and thus nothing happens fortuitously or contingently. “The will of God is the supreme and first cause of all things, because nothing happens but by his command or permission.” And in his extensive tract on The Eternal Predestination of God, dedicated on January 1, 1552, he says to the same effect that “the hand of God no less rules the internal affections than it precedes the external acts, and that God does not perform by the hand of men those things which he has decreed without first working in their hearts the very will which precedes their acts.” ((Calvin on the Sovereignty of God, John Murray))

We should note from Calvin, quoted by John Murray, the following:

and that God does not perform by the hand of men those things which he has decreed without first working in their hearts the very will which precedes their acts.“

And again from Aaron Curry:

Aaron: Ok Paul, I’m going to answer this one last time, then maybe you can stop avoiding my prior emails and answer them. People make decisions for themselves. OK Paul, Good. People are responsible for the decisions they make, Ok, Good. Every decision a person makes good or evil fulfills God’s will. GOD IS BEHIND EVERY DECISION A HUMAN BEING MAKES. IT IS LIKE SLIPPING A GLOVE OVER YOUR HAND.
THE GREATEST IDOL IN AMERICAN CULTURE IS THE IDOL OF PERSONAL SELF-DETERMINATION. PERSONAL CHOICE IS CHERISED ABOVE GOD. PERHAPS THE REASON IT IS SO HARD TO TEACH THE BIBLICAL DOCRTINE OF PREDESTINATION IS BECAUSE TO PREACH THIS DOCTRINE IS TO PIERCE THE VERY HEART OF MAN’S REBELLION. ” IN WE WERE CHOSEN, HAVING BEEN PREDESTINED ACCORDING TO THE PLAN OF HIM WHO WORKS OUT EVERYTHING IN CONFORMITY WITH THE PURPOSE OD HIS WILL” (EPHESIANS 1;11) WHO DECIDES? GOD DOES, AND HE DOESN’T CARE HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT IT. GOD IS HOLY. GOD IS SOVEREIGN. GOD IS GOD. BOW THE KNEE AND FEAR THE LORD. FALL BEFORE HIM AND WORSHIP. ((E-mail from Aaron dated 26/11/2008))

We should note the following statements

“People make decisions for themselves. OK Paul, Good. People are responsible for the decisions they make,”

And:

“WHO DECIDES? GOD DOES, AND HE DOESN’T CARE HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT IT.”

And again:

“Ok, Good. Every decision a person makes good or evil fulfills God’s will.”

Now, I could go on and quote literally dozens of other Reformed/Calvinist theologians, writers and adherents, but it would be utterly repetitious. They all say the same thing concerning the Sovereignty of God. Thus, this is a settled doctrine and accepted by all Calvinists.

So then, we must accept that the adherents of Calvinist/Reformed doctrine believe God ordained, commanded and controlled all the following:

Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming: it stirreth up the dead for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations. All they shall speak and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us? Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee. How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms; That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners? All the kings of the nations, even all of them, lie in glory, every one in his own house. But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, and as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcase trodden under feet. Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, and slain thy people: the seed of evildoers shall never be renowned. (Isaiah 14:9-20)

Moreover the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee. Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee. All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more. (Ezekiel 28:11-19)

And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered. And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads. And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born. And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne. And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days. And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. (Revelation 12:1-9)

All three of the passages above are about Lucifer and his fall from the position of covering cherub. In so doing, Lucifer took with him a third of the host of angels. Moreover, according to the Calvinists, the following also was ordained of God:

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea , hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons . And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. (Genesis 3:1-8)

And, let us fully consider the foregoing along with these statements:

Aaron: God is sovereign over all things and decisions.(Ephesians 1:11) Did you know that God has ordained every step and decision of our life? (Psalm 139:16) ((e-mail from Aaron dated 26/11/2008))

In Genesis 45:5 and 50:20, God plans the attempted murder and enslavement of Joseph so that God can eventually save millions of people from famine. Joseph tells his brothers that their paln was wicked, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives. ((ibid))

God has ordained every step of your life Paul, every bad and good decision, everything. He has your life written in a book. ((ibid))

Aaron: Yes, God ordained sin, he is not the author of it, but he let it happen. Let me ask you this Paul. Before the fall, Adam and Eve did not have the ability to sin, but Adam and Eve chose to rebell(sic) and sin against God. They had no sinful nature, they were perfect. How did they have the ability to sin if they do not have the abilty to do so?(No sinful natures) ((ibid))

And let us consider the meaning of the word “ordain”:

4309 proorizo { pro-or-id’-zo}
from 4253 and 3724; TDNT – 5:456,728; v
AV – predestinate 4, determine before 1, ordain 1; 6
GK – 4633 { προορίζω }
1) to predetermine, decide beforehand
2) in the NT of God decreeing from eternity
3) to foreordain, appoint beforehand

Let us now consider the ramifications of what the Calvinists claim about the sovereignty of God, and its impact upon the above passages of Scripture that deal directly with the fall of Lucifer, who became Satan. . . and all events subsequent to that.

To be continued . . .

Falsely Accused

This post comes about because the man I have been dealing with, and had to cut off contact with, falsely accused me of being an Arminian and holding Arminian theology. The fact is that over the last 6 months, I made it abundantly clear that I did not agree with Calvinist doctrine, Arminian doctrine, or Universalist doctrine. When Aaron Curry first encountered this, he stated:

I do not like labels, but there are 3 different types of theology. 1) Calvinism 2) Arminianism 3) Universalism. One of these is biblical Christianity. I believe Calvinism to be biblical Christianity. Your theology runs into one of these, unless you are creating new theology to confuse more people. ((E-mail from Aaron Curry dated 11/11/2008))

To which I replied:

Howsoever, I will make note of one of the things you just stated:

“I do not like labels, but there are 3 different types of theology. 1) Calvinism 2) Arminianism 3) Universalism. One of these is biblical Christianity. I believe Calvinism to be biblical Christianity. Your theology runs into one of these, unless you are creating new theology to confuse more people.”

I would have to strongly disagree with your assessment of the types of theology. I do not find any of the three “types of theology” to be biblically correct. I find that all suffer deficiencies in explaining the nature and character of the LORD God, in interpretation of the Scripture, and in the “whys and wherefores” of salvation. The fact that you have “pigeonholed” Scripture into one of the three types, and then claim that one must be “creating new theology to confuse more people” if they don’t agree with any of them, goes a long way to pointing to you considering yourself to be the judge of all that Scripture can be about, and leaves no room for any possibility of error on your part. Need I say that is not very humble, and not very wise.

My doctrine is very clear, and published for all to see. I have a Statement of Faith page, in which I went through the entirety of Scripture and proved out what I believe. It is extensive, and more extensive than most everyone else’s out there. If you want to try to pigeonhole me, then you are free to. However, you will find that my doctrine matches the doctrine of those Baptist churches that were never under Roman Catholic rule, and preceded the Reformation by about 15 centuries. Thus, before you start to lay an accusation about what I believe, go through what I have written first. You may find that I have already stated my belief an another article elsewhere. ((E-mail reply to Aaron Curry dated 11/11/2008 – minor typographical errors corrected))

So what happened? I was accused of holding Arminian doctrine!

Your salvation doctrine is Arminian. You believe man is in control of his salvation as the Arminians do.That man chooses or rejects Jesus by his own free-will. So do Arminians. That God elects people to salvation based on his foreknowledge of people choosing Him. That is Arminian. The only thing you don’t share with the Arminians, is losing your salvation.( Not all Arminians believe you can lose your salvation.) ((E-mail from Aaron Curry, dated 04/11/2009))

What a crock! The reason for his accusation?

I’m not really sure, but everything Mr. Curry has done over the last 6 months points only to the desire to “win” the argument. There is nothing in his demeanor and conduct that indicates he is interested in the truth, only in “winning.” So I sent him back a copy of The Remonstrance I found at Wikipedia. By the above e-mail reply to Aaron, and the annotation of The Remonstrance, it should be plain that I am NOT an Arminian, and I do not hold Arminian doctrine.

Here are the five points of Arminian theology. My answers are in BLUE interlinear, with red strikethrough on what I disagree with. It is plain, I do not agree with Arminian doctrine.

Article I – That God, by an eternal, unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ, his Son, before the foundation of the world, hath determined, out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ’s sake, and through Christ, those who, through the grace of the Holy Ghost, shall believe on this his Son Jesus, and shall persevere in this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace, even to the end; and, on the other hand, to leave the incorrigible and unbelieving in sin and under wrath, and to condemn them as alienate from Christ, according to the word of the Gospel in John iii. 36: “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him,” and according to other passages of Scripture also.
DISAGREE

Article II – That, agreeably thereto, Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption, and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins, except the believer, according to the word of the Gospel of John iii. 16: “God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life”; and in the First Epistle of John ii. 2: “And he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”
LACKING THE “HOW” AND “WHY.” NOT DEFINED ENOUGH TO AGREE OR DISAGREE

Article III — That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free-will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do anything that is truly good (such as having faith eminently is); but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the word of Christ, John xv. 5: “Without me ye can do nothing.”
THE ENTIRETY OF THIS IS WRONG

Article IV — That this grace of God is the beginning, continuance, and accomplishment of an good, even to this extent, that the regenerate man himself, without that prevenient or assisting; awakening, following, and co-operative grace, can neither think, will, nor do good, nor withstand any temptations to evil; so that all good deeds or movements that can be conceived must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ. But, as respects the mode of the operation of this grace, it is not irresistible, inasmuch as it is written concerning many that they have resisted the Holy Ghost,—Acts vii, and elsewhere in many places.
DISAGREE

Article V — That those who are incorporated into Christ by a true faith, and have thereby become partakers of his life-giving spirit, have thereby full power to strive against Satan, sin, the world, and their own flesh, and to win the victory, it being well understood that it is ever through the assisting grace of the Holy Ghost; and that Jesus Christ assists them through his Spirit in all temptations, extends to them his hand; and if only they are ready for the conflict, and desire his help, and are not inactive, keeps them from falling, so that they, by no craft or power of Satan, can be misled, nor plucked out of Christ’s hands, according to the word of Christ, John x. 28: “Neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.” But whether they are capable, through negligence, of forsaking again the first beginnings of their life in Christ, of again returning to this present evil world, of turning away from the holy doctrine which was delivered them, of losing a good conscience, of becoming devoid of grace, that must be more particularly determined out of the Holy Scriptures before they can teach it with the full persuasion of their minds.
DISAGREE

Now how in the WORLD can I be an Arminian, when I disagree with 4 of 5 points, and question the basis of the only point I was neutral on?

Of course, that is irrelevant to Aaron Curry. All he cares about is “winning,” never mind that my doctrine is fully published, and it is NOT Arminian. He rejected my annotated Remonstrance, and insisted he knows more of what I believe than I do!

His reply:

“Mr. Davis you share every Arminian doctrine below. I have emails to prove your Arminian language of these doctrines.” ((E-mail from Aaron Curry dated 04/11/2008))

At that point I cut him off. It is pointless to put the truth in front of someone who doesn’t care about anything except “winning.” No, all I “share” is some common language, and none of the reasoning, none of “prevenient grace,” and none of a host of other Arminian concepts that Calvinists actually do share with them. Perhaps I should have accused Aaron Curry of being a closet Arminian. It would be just as ridiculous as his accusation that I am an Arminian.

No, what it is, is the “Bull in a China Shop” approach. Aaron Curry’s approach to Scripture and doctrine is so clumsy and unrefined that he stumbles over and misses very important principles and precepts in Scripture. Thus, he makes lame accusations in an attempt to “win,” not perceiving right doctrine at all.

Ephesians 1:3-12, William Tyndale’s New Testament

The following is extracted from William Tyndale’s 1534 New Testament ((Modern Spelling Edition, edited by David Daniell, Yale University Press, 1989, ISBN 0-300-04419-4, pg. 282))

It is posted so that rabid Calvinists can read it and get bent trying to warp it into “unconditional, sovereign election.” I am not worried as the language will stand. Though the language and grammar are very plain that the predestination pertains to what the born-again believer will be AFTER they are saved, those holding Calvinist/Reformed doctrine are always intellectually dishonest enough to throw out the rules of English grammar and sentence structure, and contort the passage into saying “predestined to salvation.“

How do I know? I have dealt with several Calvinists, with the last “conversation” abruptly ending after about 6 months. During this time I found him to be more dishonest and unstable than most who hold Calvinist doctrine (he is a “charismatic Calvinist” (Extreme emotionalism plus hateful doctrine — what a combination!)), but right along the same lines as the rest of them. He used the same intellectually disingenuous arguments, and pulled the same shenanigans they all pull. He acted utterly superior, condescending, arrogant, bullying, and lied through his teeth, contradicting himself several times. When called on it, he changed subjects, bullied, and brought up questions that had nothing to do with the current discussion, and tried to seize control of the discussion. In short, typical Calvinist/Reformed behavior.

If you have been so abused by a Calvinist, you could drop a comment. I will gladly post it. The wickedness of Calvinist doctrine and the behavior it engenders needs to be seriously exposed.

With that, I leave you to the most excellent William Tyndale, the father of modern English and originator of the lineage of Bibles which culminated in the King James Version of the Holy Scriptures.

Ephesians, Chapter One:

Blessed be God the father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which hath blessed us with all manner of spiritual blessing in heavenly things by Christ, according as he had chosen us in him, before the foundation of the world was laid, that we should be saints, and without blame before him, through love. And ordained us before through Jesus Christ to be heirs unto himself, according to the pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace wherewith he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

By whom we have redemption through his blood even the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace, which grace he shed on us abundantly in all wisdom, and perceivance. And hath opened unto us the mystery of his will according to his pleasure, and purposed the same in himself to have it declared when the time were full come, that all things, both the things which are in heaven, and also the things which are in earth, should be gathered together, even in Christ: that is to say, in him in whom we are made heirs, and were thereto predestinate according to the purpose of him which worketh all things after the purpose of his own will: that we which before believed in Christ should be unto the praise of his glory.

Ephesians 1:3-6 (King James Version) – Pt. 2

This article has been combined with another article and moved to the following location:
Ephesians 1:3-6 (King James Version)

Sheesh!

Not that I have time to do a proper post, but I was reading Spurgeon’s sermon on Jacob and Esau and was appalled at the lack of Scripture usage by Spurgeon. No, what I found was a lot of Calvinist vomit, and very little in the way of actual instruction from the Scripture.

I am not surprised really. The more I read and talk to preachers and missionaries, the more I find they have “pet” verses, and “pet” books in the Scripture, and they wander very little from them.

For shame.

If you wonder why “Christianity” is in the state it is in, here lieth part of the answer: Pet Scriptures.

I will comment on Spurgeon more fully later. This just couldn’t wait.

The Calvinist Verses – Part 2

Here then, we have cause to ask, as Calvinism/Reformed theology raises the issue:

Were they born again, (regenerated) so that they might believe?

After all, Calvinist and Reformed theologians claim the following as true:

5) Calvinists do believe in man’s responsibility, but deny his ability to repent and believe the gospel. The two terms are not synonymous. Calvinists believe that man’s inability to repent and believe are caused by his own sin … not any positive imposition on God’s part.

14) Calvinists do believe that men can resist the Holy Spirit. They believe that even the elect can resist the Holy Spirit, and do – but only up to the time when the Spirit regenerates their heart so that resist Him no more. The non-elect effectively resist Him all their lives.

15) Calvinists do not believe that men are brought kicking and screaming irresistibly to Christ. We believe in irresistible grace. The will is not passed by in salvation. No man ever came to Christ unwillingly, or regretted that he had been brought.

19) Calvinists do believe that regeneration precedes faith in Christ. We do not confuse the term regeneration with that of justification or salvation. The Spirit of God regenerates the elect sinner enabling him to forsake the deadness of his sin and willingly embrace Christ and so be justified by faith and saved for eternity. Regeneration therefore is not synonymous with justification or salvation any more than conviction of sin is synonymous with conversion to Christ. ((http://www.oldtruth.com/calvinism/avoidingconfusion.html))

By the way, if you find the above points contradictory, you are not alone — they are contradictory to both the Scriptures and logic. There are only two places where the word “regeneration” appears in Scripture. One refers specifically to the new heavens and new earth, and the other is expressly addressing the new birth in salvation and being made righteous — born of the Holy Ghost.

And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Matthew 19:28)

But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. (Titus 3:4-7)

Hence, to arrive at the statement made in point 19 above, where it is stated:

We do not confuse the term regeneration with that of justification or salvation. The Spirit of God regenerates the elect sinner enabling him to forsake the deadness of his sin and willingly embrace Christ and so be justified by faith and saved for eternity. Regeneration therefore is not synonymous with justification or salvation any more than conviction of sin is synonymous with conversion to Christ. ((Ibid))

Is to specifically deny the meaning of the passage in Titus which states:

. . . but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; . . .

Here in Titus it is made quite plain — the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost are synonymous with salvation. The construct of the language and grammar permit no other conclusion. What it states in Titus is that in keeping with the mercy of God, we are saved through the means of the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost. Hence, if one is washed in regeneration and renewed by the Holy Ghost, then one is saved. Here we must also understand that “regeneration” ((3824 paliggenesia {pal-ing-ghen-es-ee’-ah} from 3825 and 1078; TDNT – 1:686,117;
n f AV – regeneration 2; 2 GK – 4098 { παλιγγενεσία } & 4100 { παλινγενεσία }
1) new birth, reproduction, renewal, recreation, regeneration
1a) hence renovation, regeneration, the production of a new life consecrated to God, a radical change of mind for the better. The word often used to denote the restoration of a thing to its pristine state, its renovation, as a renewal or restoration of life after death
1b) the renovation of the earth after the deluge
1c) the renewal of the world to take place after its destruction by fire, as the Stoics taught
1d) the signal and glorious change of all things (in heaven and earth) for the better, that restoration of the primal and perfect condition of things which existed before the fall of our first parents, which the Jews looked for in connection with the advent of the Messiah, and which Christians expected in connection with the visible return of Jesus from heaven.
1e) other uses
1e1) of Cicero’s restoration to rank and fortune on his recall from exile
1e2) of the restoration of the Jewish nation after exile
1e3) of the recovery of knowledge by recollection

Strong, James. The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible : Showing Every Word of the Test of the Common English Version of the Canonical Books, and Every Occurence of Each Word in Regular Order. Ontario: Woodside Bible Fellowship.)) and “renewing” ((342 anakainosis {an-ak-ah’-ee-no-sis} from 341; TDNT – 3:453,388;
n f AV – renewing 2; 2 GK – 364 { ἀνακαίνωσις }
1) a renewal, renovation, complete change for the better

Thus, to hold to the language of point 19 above, one MUST redefine the Scriptural meaning of the word “regeneration” to cause it to be less than salvation. Otherwise, though we might entertain the idea of regeneration before repentance and belief for some brief period, we cannot long hold the position as that doctrine generates a paradox and irresolvable conflict in Scripture. In fact, no statement in Scripture supports that doctrine, and number of statements contradict it:

Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. (Galatians 3:6)

Since this verse is a quote from Genesis, we would be benefited by looking to see how the original was worded:

And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir. And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be. And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness. (Genesis 15:4-6)

Here we see plainly in both the original and the quote that Abraham was counted righteous after he believed. He was not made righteous so he could believe. We find additional Scriptures that specifically support this in numerous places. In the following two passages we see that repentance precedes belief:

For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not: but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him. (Matthew 21:32)

Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel. (Mark 1:14-15)

And here we see that believing precedes salvation (or regeneration):

Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved. (Luke 8:12)

And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara’s womb: He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.
Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification. (Romans 4:19-25)

Thus, under Calvinist/Reformed doctrine the following passage becomes extremely problematic:

But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. (Matthew 9:13, See also Mark 2:17, Luke 5:32)

Here, by the direct statement of the Lord Jesus Christ, we find that the call to repentance is for sinners ONLY, not for any of the righteous. Thus, if you are made righteous (born-again/regenerated) so you CAN believe, then you are righteous WITHOUT believing (even for an instant, as you would be since time doesn’t stand still), and thus you now fall OUTSIDE the scope of the call of the Lord Jesus Christ as you now have NO NEED of repentance, NO NEED of belief – you are righteous WITHOUT REPENTANCE OR BELIEF. This leads to the following questions for the adherent of Calvinist/Reformed theology:

If one is regenerated/born again, what is the point of bothering with faith, repentance and belief then?
Why doesn’t God just “make everybody believe” and have done with it?
What is the point of picking and choosing to send some to Heaven and some to Hell?
Does God play games?

Are there valid answers to those questions in Calvinist/Reformed theology? Not likely, as they like to claim the following:

25) There is a difference between a paradox and a contradiction. We know that God is sovereign, yet man is free to follow the dictates of his own will. Where the two lines meet is not for us to say. Calvinist ignorance on the matter is to be excused on the basis of Deuteronomy 29:29

Never mind that “where the lines meet” is explained rather well in John 1:12-13, where it is explained that it is man’s responsibility to exercise the faith granted, as it is also man’s responsibility to exercise repentance and belief. It is the LORD’s responsibility to create a new creature in Christ Jesus when one believes. We see these things in order when it states:

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. (John 1:12-13)

In continuing the examination of the passage which Aaron claimed supported “unconditional, sovereign election” we find that there are actually conditions placed on the election addressed in verse 13 by the phrases in verse 12. There are three phrases in verse 12, which is the superior clause, that set forth specific conditions for one to be “born of God”:

But as many as received him, (faith)
to them gave he power to become the sons of God, (repentance)
even to them that believe on his name: (belief)

To be continued . . .

The Calvinist Verses – Part 1

In one of the comments left concerning the Unwanted Answers – Part 2 post, the following challenge was given:

Are you willing to acknowledge the truth in these scriptures? I challenge you, and everyone who reads this, to meditate and study those scriptures, and prove to me that these scriptures do not support unconditional sovereign election.

Now, this challenge concerns the following verses:

(Ephesians 1:3-11; Ephesians 2:8-10; John 1:13; Romans 8:28-30; Romans 9: 15-16; 11:4-8; 2 Timothy 1:9 1 Thessalonians 1:4; 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14; Titus 1:1; Revelation 13:8;17:8; 20:15; 1 Corinthians 1:25-31; James 2:5)

There are a couple of things that we should note prior to answering this challenge. First, there is a presumption in this challenge that we cannot let stand. That presumption is found in this statement:

prove to me that these scriptures do not support

Notice this does not state:

prove to me these Scriptures support conditional election

Rather, for whatever reason, Aaron chose to issue a challenge wherein we are supposed to prove the NEGATIVE. Now, this is a logical fallacy. One cannot prove the negative without having an absolutely positive statement in the verses and passages presented. Now, if that were the case, those particular passages would have never been offered as “proof.” Additionally, there is also the reason of the second presumption in the challenge:

prove to me that these scriptures do not support unconditional sovereign election.

The presumption here is that “unconditional sovereign election” is a valid, proper, Scriptural doctrine, and silence concerning how one is elected in any passage where election, or salvation is spoken of, is automatically interpreted as supporting “unconditional sovereign election.” This is called the “argument from silence” and it also is a logical fallacy. The following excerpt from the Wikipedia article on “argument from silence” explains:

The argument from silence (also called argumentum ex silentio in Latin) is generally a conclusion based on silence or lack of contrary evidence.[1] In the field of classical studies, it often refers to the deduction from the lack of references to a subject in the available writings of an author to the conclusion that he was ignorant of it.[2] When used as a logical proof in pure reasoning, the argument is classed among the fallacies, but an argument from silence can be a valid and convincing form of abductive reasoning. ((http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence))

Given the one condition in which “argument from silence” could be valid for determining Scriptural doctrine, we must devise a test to see whether “argument from silence” is valid for determining doctrine. In making that determination, we can accurately and properly state:

If there is a single instance where conditions for salvation are laid out, or put forth, then unconditional sovereign election is not true. If even one person, one single time is told “this do and you will be saved” then we have salvation that is conditional, based upon the actions of the person. If this is ever the case, then the argument from silence falls flat as it must now be considered that silence in the text means the conditions found in other verses are operative, they simply are not spoken of at this place in the text. Moreover, just because there is a distinct lack of mention of conditions in the verses we are challenged with, does not mean that conditions for salvation do not exist elsewhere in the Scripture. It would be foolish to assume that the issuer of the challenge has provided all scriptures that apply to salvation that exist in the Bible. Certainly the brevity of the list of Scripture references informs us that he did not.

Moreover, there are other factors that come to bear in taking on this challenge. It is plain that violation of clear rules of English grammar or deliberate mis-definition of words are grounds to go beyond the challenge given, so that we may determine, and then demonstrate whether bad faith on the part of the issuer of the challenge exists. Bad faith is a term used to describe ill motives or deceitful intent and is revealed by the deliberate misuse of clearly known precepts and concepts for the express purpose of gaining advantage – regardless of the truth.

As we have already seen, bad faith was clearly demonstrated on the part of Westboro Baptist Church when, in a published article they clearly lied about the definitions of an underlying Greek word, so that they could “prove” the view they hold. If this is done, that is: the deliberate misconstruction of grammar or mis-definition of words; then we have sufficient grounds to charge the issuer of the challenge with “bad faith” in issuing the challenge. Moreover, operating in bad faith does invalidate whatsoever doctrines are put forth as true by that individual.

With the foregoing explained, let us examine certain of the verses given in the challenge. As is customary and proper, all verse are taken from the King James Version, 1769 Edition.

Romans 9:15-16
For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

This verse does state that the bestowing of mercy is strictly the option of the LORD God, and no one can force the LORD to grant mercy by simply willing it to be, or by any number of good works. The problem here is that this passage is not addressing salvation per se, but addresses how the LORD deals with man generally, and specifically how He dealt with the children of Israel and Esau. Hence, though no conditions are given, neither is salvation expressly spoken of here. To draw the conclusion that “unconditional sovereign election” is proven here is to depend upon a very flimsy argument from silence and the drawing of the verses out of the context of the passage in which they reside.

Ephesians 2:8-10
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

While it is true that salvation is a gift from God, it does not follow that this gift is given unconditionally. The above passages does not state that the gift was given unconditionally, it simply states the gift was given. Hence, this is another argument from silence. However, we may note here the similarity of logic between the Universalist (who believes God will save everyone, regardless of that person’s free choice) and the Calvinist who believes God will save whom He will regardless of that person’s free choice. (Same logic — radically different conclusions)

1 Thessalonians 1:4
Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God.

Here we find a need for “the rest of the story” as it were. Why? Simply because verse 4 is a fragment of a sentence. More properly, it is a clause at the end of a (somewhat) long sentence:

We give thanks to God always for you all, making mention of you in our prayers; Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father; Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God. (I Thessalonians 1:2-4)

This does not say anything one way or the other how God elected those who believe, and is thus, another argument from silence. However, it does give rise to question the legitimacy of the Scripture references given, as this is a clear violation of English grammar and is plainly an instance of a deliberate pulling out of context.

Indeed, we find this to be particularly the case with the next verse cited:

John 1:13
Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Here again, it would seem at first glance, that this indeed does point to unconditional, sovereign election; except that the “evidence” comes only from an argument from silence, and would be true if sovereign, unconditional election was directly supported in some other Scripture, and conditions that one could meet were never delineated in Scripture. However, we also find that this verse to, is a sentence fragment, and thus a violation of clear and plain rules of English grammar. Perhaps this was done (though we can’t really be sure — the LORD knoweth) due to the content of the rest of the sentence.

The problem here is the fact that verse 13 is not a sentence. Rather, it is a dependent clause in a sentence. The reality is that the sentence actually begins in verse 12 and states:

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: . . .

There are some very interesting things to consider about this clause of the sentence; but first an explanation of the grammar is in order. Now, we know verse 13 is a dependent clause as there is that little punctuation mark at the end of verse 12, which is a colon (:). Colons delineate dependent clauses and instruct us that the clause following the colon is dependent upon, or subordinate to the clause going before the colon. This means everything in verse 13 is dependent upon everything in verse 12, and that verse 13 cannot stand alone. It is verse 12 that then defines the context of verse 13. Absent this context, verse 13 might mean something entirely different. But the meaning that appears to be existent, is completely altered and dependent upon the environment set forth by verse 12. It is this environment set forth in verse 12 that bears great examination. But before examining it, let us look at the whole sentence together, which is verses 12 and 13:

Here we see the dependency or subordination of verse 13 “Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” to verse 12 “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:”

The most outstanding portion of verse 12 lies in the middle phrase of the superior clause, and states “ to them gave he power to become the sons of God,” If we carefully note what is stated here, we plainly see that something is bestowed upon those who the first phrase of the superior clause tells us “received him.” That thing which is bestowed is this:

“power to become the sons of God”

Here we are plainly instructed that He did not make them “sons of God” but rather “ to them gave he power” which is to say — ability — to become sons of God: where before they had none. Moreover, this ability or power is predicated upon those (as many as) receiving him. This is not Him causing them to receive him, rather, it is freely done, meaning they receive Him of their own free will. This is no more than what is stated in Revelation, Chapter 22:

And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. (Revelation 22:17)

Here in John, Chapter 1, it is the same “whosoever will” stated a little differently using “as many as” in the place of “whosoever will,” but the meaning remains the same. That is, anyone who wants to, or anyone who will receive Him, He will grant them power:

“to become”

Which is not making them be “sons of God, but is placing in their hands the ability, the means, the way, hence the “power” to “become” which is to arrive at, attain, or otherwise achieve the position of a son of God.

But by what means? It is answered thus:

“even to them that believe on his name:”

To be continued . . .

Unwanted Answers – Part 2

NOTE: In dealing with Calvinist/Reformed doctrine, there are some questions the proponents of that theology like to throw at people to silence them as the Calvinist believes there is no legitimate answer to the question. However, as I, and many others have found out, the Calvinist doesn’t actually want a valid answer, and will either try to shut down any proper response, or belittle the answer given. The following questions and attendant answers are a continuation of such examples:

3)If Christ paid for this sin of unbelief as all others, then why must this sin stop anyone from entering heaven more than any other sins (murder, adultery, homosexuality, etc.)?

How obvious does this have to be? Since the requirement for salvation is “Believe the gospel” it is obvious that the sin of unbelief would be, and is, the greatest hindrance to salvation. The very nature of our sin is that it is engaged in periodically, except for the sin of unbelief. Though one is a murderer, or an adulterer, or even a sodomite, one is those things because one once thought of engaging in, or actually carried it through and engaged in the behavior at one time, and thus they carry that label. A murderer is not continually murdering people, or even continually thinking about murdering people. This is not so with the sin of unbelief. Before anyone and everyone who is saved comes to Christ and believes the gospel, they are in unbelief, and they remain in unbelief unless and until they actually believe the gospel. Thus, the only time they are not in unbelief is when they decide to trust Christ for their salvation. The apostle Paul made this plain:

And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry; Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief. (I Timothy 1:12-13)

Thus, if one continues in unbelief, then it is patently obvious they can never be saved.

Though all sins are the same with respect to penalty (all warrant death), not all sins have the same effect. Consider this: stealing a pencil is a sin; however, the effect is very limited. Nonetheless, it will still send someone to Hell. On the other hand, thinking about pushing a button that you know will kill millions, and following through with the act, is also a sin, and will send someone to the same Hell as the pencil thief. However, the effect of that sin is far more egregious than simply stealing a pencil.

It is the same when comparing unbelief to every other sin out there. The reason people sin is because they do not fear God, because they do not believe there is a penalty that will be levied against them by God or anyone else. Hence the root cause of all sin, beginning even before the Garden of Eden, is unbelief. The effect of unbelief is far greater than any other sin, and is the root of all sins. The very reason Lucifer fell was because he did not believe that God was truly greater than he, and that God truly was his Creator. (Isaiah 14, Ezekiel 28) Hence, Lucifer disbelieved the truth and believed a lie — which is the very definition of unbelief. Therefore, this sin is plenty sufficient for condemnation.

We must then understand that a single sin is sufficient for condemnation, and it is plain in Scripture that this is the case:

Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die. (Ezekiel 18:4)

Since both angels and men have souls, and the word “sinneth” means simply “to sin” it is clear that a single sin, committed by anyone, warrants damnation to Hell. We are also expressly told in Scripture that no sin warrants any greater or lesser penalty from God, than any other sin:

For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. (James 2:10-11)

Hence, the PENALTY for any sin is not different than the penalty for any other sin, but the EFFECT of any particular sin may be greater or lesser than the effect of any other sin, due to the scope of influence of that sin. It is plain that all sin springs from the sin of unbelief, hence the sin of unbelief has a much greater effect upon the individual than all other sins springing from it.

Therefore, continuing in the sin of unbelief, whether it is of unbelief of the existence of God, (which would necessarily include unbelief of the truth of the gospel), or unbelief that salvation is not of works but by grace through faith alone, in Christ alone (which is a particular truth of the gospel) even though they believe in God and that Christ came as Saviour, and persisting in that unbelief until the day of one’s death, is sufficient to consign one to Hell. On the other hand, though one be a murderer, adulterer, sodomite, or thief; if one believes the gospel and departs the sin of unbelief, then one is saved {i.e. the thief on the cross (Luke 23:39-43), the woman at the well (John 4:1-41), etc.} though they still be a murderer, thief, etc.

Part of the problem here is that Calvinist doctrine does not sufficiently distinguish between things spiritual and things physical, and certainly does not view sin the way the LORD God does.

4) Furthurmore (sic), if Christ did not die for the sin of unbelief, then one cannot say that He died for all the sins of all men.

Since the Scripture hath before proved that unbelief is a sin, then by Calvinist/Reformed logic, Christ did die for all men.

To be continued . . .

Unwanted Answers – Part 1

1) Paul if you hold to position 1, that Christ died for all sins of all men, if this is true, then why are not all men freed the punishment of all their sins? Are there not people in Hades or Hell that are being punished for the sin of unbelief, that Jesus died for?

This conclusion/question presupposes a doctrine: that doctrine being the doctrine of Universal Salvation, which is taught nowhere in Scripture. It does not follow that “if Christ died for all men, then all men will be saved.” That is a fallacy that attempts to negate the fact men have a choice to make. This “question” leaves no room for man’s choice in the matter, as if men cannot choose one way or the other. In this way, the Universalist and the Calvinist walk the very same path of logic and come to radically different conclusions. This ought to scream loud and clear that something is wrong with the logic.

The problem with the logic is that it is assumed that men have no choice in whether they are saved or not. The Universalist claims that men will be saved regardless of whether they want to have anything to do with God or not. The Calvinist claims that only the elect will be saved because God particularly chooses to “regenerate” some and pass others by without criteria, rhyme, or reason.

Both systems of logic ignore Scriptures that are not favorable to their particular theology, and that would indeed set aside both systems as being invalid. The reason for this is that both systems contain inherent contradictions that cannot be overcome. For instance, in the listing of the points of Calvinism that you sent me, (for which you did not cite the source) the following two points are given:

14) Calvinists do believe that men can resist the Holy Spirit. They believe that even the elect can resist the Holy Spirit, and do – but only up to the time when the Spirit regenerates their heart so that resist Him no more.(sic) The non-elect effectively resist Him all their lives.

23) While Calvinists believe that saving grace and repentance are the gifts of God, given only to His elect, they do not believe that God exercises faith for them or repents for them. The elect sinner, enabled by the power of God, actually repents and believes for himself.

However one chooses to dissect this, it is inherently contradictory. One cannot repent and believe for him/herself, and yet have their heart forcibly regenerated so that they resist no more. No matter how this is examined it is either totally contradictory, or one is being made compliant to the will of God by force. You cannot say that one is able to resist, but only up to the point where “the Spirit regenerates their heart so that resist Him no more” and then blithely claim that this is not forced conversion of the will. On its face it is, and it is undeniable.

Of course, to cover that the word “regeneration” is redefined:

19) Calvinists do believe that regeneration precedes faith in Christ. We do not confuse the term regeneration with that of justification or salvation. The Spirit of God regenerates the elect sinner enabling him to forsake the deadness of his sin and willingly embrace Christ and so be justified by faith and saved for eternity. Regeneration therefore is not synonymous with justification or salvation any more than conviction of sin is synonymous with conversion to Christ.

The problem with article 19 is that “regeneration” is not defined in Scripture the way that article 19 claims it is defined. In Scripture, the word “regeneration” only appears twice. In both instances, the term is clearly defined by the context of usage. Once it is defined as the new heavens and new earth time frame, and once it is defined as expressly salvation:

Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work, To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men. For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another. But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. (Titus 3:1-6)

Very plainly, the reference in Matthew is to the time when there will be the new heaven and new earth, after this heaven and earth are gone, and after the resurrection has occurred. The second reference in Titus is plainly concerning salvation, and describes salvation as “the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost” which states nothing about which, or what comes first in the process of salvation. That is left up to other places in Scripture. What the passage does tell us is the following:

For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another. But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, . . . (Titus 3:3-4)

Which is to say that every one (even the “elect”) were wicked and evil before they were saved, and that the kindness and love of God is toward man, without qualification or limitation. This can be easily seen as the statement “toward man” appears without any limiting or qualifying language. Thus, by definition it is open-ended in application. Moreover, application cannot be “general” without also being “specific.” By that, I mean that it is pointless to say salvation is generally available to all men, but not specifically available to any particular person, because they were predetermined to be “passed by” without them having any say in the matter.

Thus by the Scripture, the word “regeneration” is salvation and is such a part of salvation that without it, there is no salvation. Moreover, the phrasing is constructed in such a way as to indicate, by the passage in Titus, that regeneration happens after faith, repentance, and belief, and not before those are evidenced. This is directly contrary to what is stated in article 19 quoted above. However, there is further Scriptural evidence as to the error of article 19, which I will address later in my response.

Now, the fact that salvation is available to all is demonstrated in the following passage from I Timothy:

For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe. These things command and teach. (I Timothy 4:10-11)

Unless one does gymnastics with the English language, verse ten gives us two defined groups of individuals here, the first listed is “all men” and is inclusive of everyone, everywhere, at all times. This larger group identified as “all men” necessarily includes the sub-group “specially of those that believe.” The second or sub-group of individuals is listed as “those that believe,” which is that group some identify as “the elect,” but most simply identify as “believers” meaning they have been born again in Christ Jesus. The common umbrella that includes both groups is the statement “the living God, who is the Saviour of” in which the apostle Paul states “because we trust” indicating plainly why “we both labour and suffer reproach.” This view is also consistent with the general call to salvation expressed in the Old Testament:

Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price. Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is not bread? and your labour for that which satisfieth not? hearken diligently unto me, and eat ye that which is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness. Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David. Behold, I have given him for a witness to the people, a leader and commander to the people. Behold, thou shalt call a nation that thou knowest not, and nations that knew not thee shall run unto thee because of the LORD thy God, and for the Holy One of Israel; for he hath glorified thee.
Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near: Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. (Isaiah 55:1-7)

And in Isaiah 45:

Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else. (Isaiah 45:21-22)

Not only do we find that the LORD calls every man, but he also works in the lives of everyone to bring them to the point of understanding certain basic truths. This is what Elihu speaks of when he testifies to Job and his three friends about the working of God in the lives of men. Please note there is no implicit reference to the “elect” as defined by Calvinist doctrine. This passage, like the passages in Isaiah, simply include all men.

For God speaketh once, yea twice, yet man perceiveth it not. In a dream, in a vision of the night, when deep sleep falleth upon men, in slumberings upon the bed; Then he openeth the ears of men, and sealeth their instruction, That he may withdraw man from his purpose, and hide pride from man. He keepeth back his soul from the pit, and his life from perishing by the sword.
He is chastened also with pain upon his bed, and the multitude of his bones with strong pain: So that his life abhorreth bread, and his soul dainty meat. His flesh is consumed away, that it cannot be seen; and his bones that were not seen stick out. Yea, his soul draweth near unto the grave, and his life to the destroyers. If there be a messenger with him, an interpreter, one among a thousand, to shew unto man his uprightness: Then he is gracious unto him, and saith, Deliver him from going down to the pit: I have found a ransom. His flesh shall be fresher than a child’s: he shall return to the days of his youth: He shall pray unto God, and he will be favourable unto him: and he shall see his face with joy: for he will render unto man his righteousness. He looketh upon men, and if any say, I have sinned, and perverted that which was right, and it profited me not; He will deliver his soul from going into the pit, and his life shall see the light.
Lo, all these things worketh God oftentimes with man, To bring back his soul from the pit, to be enlightened with the light of the living. (Job 33:14-30)

Here now, both Isaiah and Elihu’s testimony to Job match the testimony of Psalm 107, the entirety of which is about the working of the LORD God in the lives of all men everywhere to bring down their pride, and humble them to see that they need a Saviour. In Psalm 107, the term “they cried unto the LORD” has the same meaning as the statement in Romans, chapter 10:

For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. (Romans 10:11-13)

The use of the word “whosoever” and the phrase “all that call” do not carry any limitation, or qualification such as Calvinist/Reformed doctrine places upon them. There is no context in any of the above passages that would give any idea of this call, and subsequent answering of the call by anyone, to be confined to only the “elect” as Calvinism defines the “elect.” For that to be there, one must overlay the passages with a doctrine and interpretation that inserts “only the elect” into each and every passage, thus forcing it to fit Calvinist/Reformed doctrine. Plainly, the call is to every person, and every person is capable of responding to the call, and is responsible for their rejection of the call. Their failure to heed the call will keep them in condemnation, and will not allow them any recourse if they die having refused to accede to the call.

What has been done here by Calvinist doctrine is to render meaningless some very significant passages of Scripture that specifically address how the LORD God chose to deal with man:

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings. (Jeremiah 17:9-10)

The above passage from Jeremiah tells everyone four very important things that we all need to know:

1. The heart is deceitful above everything else out there. Since the statement is framed “The heart is deceitful above all things . . .” and does not limit application, except by the context of the passage which is dealing with all men, it necessarily applies to all men, even the “elect” as Calvinist/Reformed theology defines the “elect.” Hence, all men are on a level playing field, with the law of God equally applicable to all.

2. We cannot know our own hearts. The rhetorical question “who can know it?” presupposes the answer “No one, save the LORD God only.” The only conclusion one can then come to is that we are never really certain what we really are unless we are shown what we are. This then leads to the third item:

3. The LORD God searches the hearts of every man, and tries the mind of every person, regardless of where on earth, or time in history. In this, we are confirmed by the verse from Proverbs which states:

The spirit of man is the candle of the LORD, searching all the inward parts of the belly. (Proverbs 20:27)

Hence, we can safely determine that the LORD God has a purpose for this, even though in His foreknowledge He already knew what each and every individual would be, how they would think and what they would think. This ought to cause us to consider the why of the next statement.

4. Here the purpose is revealed, but not in its entirety. The LORD tells us “even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.” This would have a certain effect upon man, and that effect would be to cause individuals, to a greater or lesser degree, to question who and what they really are. After all, when things seem to blow up in one’s face, or life doesn’t seem to go “right,” it does cause the normal person to question whether they are really right about what they are doing and what they believe.

What then is the rest of the purpose for this? If we return to the passages of Isaiah 45 and 55, Job 33 and Psalm 107, we can see that the LORD God has issued a call to all men, and tries to get men to respond to the call. We find that some men respond not at all, some respond to a greater or lesser degree, but fall short of actually heeding the command to repent and believe the gospel, and a few do obey the command and are actually born again in Christ. Which leads us to the point of Romans, chapter 10:

But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. (Romans 10:16-17)

In this, we find the rest of what is wrong with the redefining of “regeneration” by Calvinist/Reformed theology: its place in the sequence of events that leads to salvation. Quite plainly in Scripture, faith is not salvation, but is indispensable to salvation. It is the same for repentance. One cannot be saved without repentance, but repentance alone, and even with faith, is not salvation. Salvation is the culmination of the sequence of three events (so to speak). Faith, then repentance, then belief. As the passage from Romans 10 tells us, faith comes only when one hears the word of God in a certain way.

It is this certain way that throws people off. The reason for this is they ignore the call of the LORD God in Isaiah, chapter 1:

Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. (Isaiah 1:18)

It is manifestly impossible to reason about something if one never hears about it. However, merely hearing it spoken, or reading it without taking it in and considering it, is equally as bad as not hearing it at all. In either case, it is impossible to reason anything about the subject at hand. The LORD God’s call here is beyond simply hear my word, but rather, attend to it, consider it, let it sink into your heart, and I will reason with you about it. The context here is to all the wicked in Israel, and those who were contrary to the LORD. Plainly, this call is a call to the wicked for the purpose of effecting their salvation, if they will indeed hear, consider, be reasoned with, turn and believe. This is where the role of faith comes into play.

When the Scripture states that “faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God,” it is plainly a promise of God that if one hears the word, takes it in, and considers it, the LORD God will grant the faith necessary to perceive the truth of what He states. We can know that faith is a thing that must be granted, as Hebrews, chapter 11 describes faith as specifically an object, a noun:

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good report. (Hebrews 11:1-2)

“Substance,” “evidence,” and “it” all are specific to objects or things we describe as nouns. The only thing that would possibly confuse someone is the fact that this object, and the use of this object are both described with exactly the same word — faith. However, this usage is not all that unusual in language, as we do the very same with the word “truck.” For instance, the statement “I will use my truck to truck it across the country.” is not an uncommon application of the word “truck.” In the first instance “truck” is plainly the object, the noun, and in the second instance “truck” is the verb usage meaning the specific method of movement, or conveyance. Hence, having faith, and the use of the faith that one is granted upon consideration of the word of God, are described by exactly the same word — faith.

Upon this, we should understand that the sequence is:

1. Hear and consider the word of God.

2. The LORD God grants faith, the instrument necessary for perceiving the truth of His word.

3. Either accept or reject what faith shows.

What we then encounter is the necessity of repentance. The Scripture is also plain that it is the LORD God that grants repentance, as we are incapable of repenting on our own. In Acts, we are clearly told that repentance is a gift that the LORD God grants. Please note that repentance is necessary for the regeneration that occurs with salvation, and does not occur after the regeneration that is described as salvation in Titus, chapter 3, verses 1-6:

Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God? When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life. (Acts 11:17-18)

As can be plainly seen by the phrase “repentance unto life,” repentance must precede salvation. Without citing all the Scriptures that apply, this should be without question.

Hence, the sequence of events is now:

1. Hear and consider the word of God.

2. The LORD God grants faith, the instrument necessary for perceiving the truth of His word.

3. Either accept or reject what faith shows.

4. Exercise the repentance granted, having a change of heart and mind about your sin.

5. Believe the gospel.

6. Be regenerated by the Holy Ghost, which is to be “born again.”

Now where in any of this does any man have anything to boast of, or claim any merit before God?

Yet, the answer of the Calvinist/Reformed theologian is that believing is an act that man can claim as meritorious.

This is directly contrary to Scripture, which teaches that believing is not meritorious, and in fact, is what we are required to do. After all, the command is “Repent ye, and believe the gospel.” Moreover, if we have done so, we are told:

Doth he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I trow not. So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do. (Luke 17:9-10)

There is a principle stated here that transcends all contexts: That is, doing one’s duty, as one is commanded, is no cause to say “I have done anything worthy of merit, or boasting, or that is profitable to whose I am.” Hence, when one does all they are employed to do, they should not receive any recognition, as they have only done that which they were supposed to do. So likewise, all men everywhere, at all times are commanded to repent and believe the gospel, if they do so, of what special significance is that? If they do not, then they are in violation of the commandment, because they have not believed and obeyed the commandment, and are set for destruction.

Above all, we must remember what we are told in Ezekiel, chapter 18:

Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die. (Ezekiel 18:4)

Thus, the burden lies upon man to make the choice, which man is fully capable of doing. Man is capable of believing the truth, especially since the LORD God has provided everything else man needs to see and believe that truth.

To be continued . . .