Over the years, I’ve hosted some serious debates on many of the issues relating to Fundamentalism. I’ve had debates on various aspects of Calvinism too.
Recently in an old post on my blog, buried where few can see it, have been some comments by Greg and Don wanting to debate me on Calvinism. The insinuation was recently left that I don’t want to debate that topic or that I won’t allow a debate on it. To make such an enterprise simpler, I had asked that Greg read my explanation of the 5 points of Calvinism.
He’s done that, but I keep missing his comments because on very old posts on my blog the comment notifier doesn’t work for me (since I ported those posts over to my blog from my free wordpress.com blog). So I’m going to move that debate to this post.
In the comments, you can expect to see some interchange on that topic, and I’ll copy Greg’s most recent comment over and give my reply. We’ll see where that goes.
Rules for this comment thread are you must 1) read my explanation of the 5 points of Calvinism, and 2) try to stick to the Calvinism debate and 3) debate charitably following the spirit of my commenting policy. If you’re up to the challenge dive in. Know that I’ve been under the weather lately and have some catch up to do at work so I may not be interacting over here as regularly or quickly as I would like. But I will see all the comments and be sure to respond.
Here was Greg’s comment (which I don’t think I saw until today, even though it was left on 6/16).
____________________________________________
Bob,
I do truly understand your beliefs. I had read your explanation of the 5 points before writing my last comments. I even took the time to look up many of the verses you list. Its ironic because most of the verses you use to support your beliefs I use to support mine. I just feel those verses have to be tortured to get them to say what you want them to say. Let’s take your very first reference. Romans 3:10-18 Paul here has pulled some old testament verses mostly from Psalms to make a very simple point that no one is righteous, he goes on in v-20 explaining that no one will be declared righteous by observing the law, its through the law that we become conscious of sin, continuing in v-21 But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the law and the prophets testify, and now the clincher – v 22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. So Bob the way I understand these verses, clearly we are sinners and not at all righteous, but God allows us His righteousness through belief in His Son. To (all) who believe. So while this does teach that we are all sinners or unrighteous or even depraved, he made a way of escape, if you will, if we will simply believe. So you see my problem with calvinism, instead of teaching me that I’m totally depraved and can do nothing about my lost, depraved condition, read just a few more verses and I find the good news of the gospel of Jesus Christ that I’m not any type of robot that I have complete free will to accept by simply believing. v-22 is really quite powerful and answers other questions if you will allow it to. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.
I don’t think I’m changing your mind with any of this. I’m a simple man that does study the Word and believes it, I really haven’t found any calvinist doctrine that can’t be systematically taken apart just as has been done above, but I also know that you have answers that will try to rebut the above. Just another point here, I haven’t followed any man to get to this understanding of the scripture, this is just ol Greg setting at the house and studying the Precious Word. Don’t get me wrong I have had a few good bible teachers but always questioned everything they said and would study it out for myself.
Bob I know that that Jesus Christ died for me, I placed my trust in Him when I was just a little child and he wonderfully and graciously saved me, just as the entire new testament teaches. I could have just as easily rejeceted Him and ended up in hell. The angels rejoiced when I got saved, hey that brings up another point, why do the angels rejoice? They rejoice because I was snatched from the cluthces of Satan. Why would they rejoice if they already knew I was coming, that would be kinda anti-climatic wouldn’t it? I don’t know about you but I wouldn’t even go to the football game if I knew the outcome before the game started and I certainly wouldn’t bother with cheering!
In Christ,
Greg
Greg,
My point on Rom. 3:10-18 is to hone in on the idea that no one can seek after God, no one can understand. That fits with Rom. 8:8 which says if you are in the flesh, you cannot please God. That speaks to a loss of ability. Without faith (Heb. 11) you cannot please God, and in the flesh you cannot please God. So how do you have faith? I contend that the picture of Scripture is that faith is a gift, we are granted the ability to believe. God grants repentance, and God turns the light on for us who are captured by Satan.
That’s my initial reply and I’m a bit rushed for time or I’d develop this further. But 2 Cor. 4:1-6 + 2 Tim. 2:24-26 are what I’m thinking there.
As for the angels, do you contend they are omniscient? Or to take your comment another way, why bother cheering at all if you knew God was going to best Satan in the end? So maybe they don’t know that, and maybe God doesn’t know that either! That’s what open theism proponents would actually argue. You can argue based off of implications from the emotional state of angels of which we aren’t told much in Scripture, or you can go with the Bible’s statements that God chose us before the world began.
In Christ,
Bob
Bob,
This is a real odd debate for me, its like we talk past each other. I don’t want to beat a dead horse here but Paul prefaces v-10-18 by saying v-9 “What shall we conlude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. Then he goes on with the OT quotes. He is showing us the the Jews and Gentiles are alike and all are under sin. Now Paul has laid all of this out and v-21 goes on to tell us “But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. v-22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to (ALL) who believe. Yes there is none righteous, but now a righteousness from God has been made known. Yes, no one seeks God, but now a righteousness from God has been made known. Yes, all have turned away, but now a righteousness from God has been made known. Yes, there is no one who does good, but now a righteousness from God has been made known. Am I making my point?
Your references 2 Cor 4: 1-6 and 2 Tim 2:24-26. Bob this is the what we are battling spiritual wickedness in high places. The god of this age is our adversary he does darken the vision of those who are perishing w/out the Lord. This is what I’m all about, rescuing these that are lost and blinded by the god of this age.
Well my wife is ready to go up on the Skyline Drive and cook a nice ribeye, so I gotta go and didn’t get to develop this as much as I wanted
No I don’t believe angels are omniscient. I just threw that in to try and make a point.
In Christ,
Greg
Greg,
Thanks for clarifying the angels bit. On the blinding and binding (2 Cor & 2 Tim), I believe that describes all of humanity apart from God. In both cases it isn’t a human who is going to rescue these people. It is God who must decide to act or not act. He may grant repentance or he may cause the light to turn on in their blinded state. In both cases people cooperate with God’s mission, the servant of God must be gentle, and the gospel must be preached.
Again, to me, the mysterious nature of God’s electing and working in the heart, is revealed in Scripture so we have to believe it. But every answer is not given, there is a part that remains mysterious. But this aspect of salvation is like the “behind the scenes” work of God. Externally, in human terms, we repent and believe, and we tell others to do that. When they do, they aren’t to be congratulated for making the right choice, instead God is to be thanked because He ultimately worked in them to make them choose as they did.
Greg,
I understand where you are coming from. But when looking at the Doctrines of Grace (or the 5 points), there is a reason that Total depravity (or total inability) is first. It not only declares that we have no ability to come to Christ on our own, but it also speaks of the sovereignty of God as well. As someone who holds to the Doctrines of Grace, God’s sovereignty is the first thing that is considered in all aspects of my life. No where in scripture is it said that God, in His sovereignty decided to resign any portion of it to man in allowing them to choose Him or not. If anything, we can read numerous scriptures that speak of the very opposite. God gave up nothing to us in allowing us to choose other than choosing our own sin. Sovereignty is Sovereignty (Isaiah 45), God relinquished none, if He had, He would, by definition and logic, cease to be God. Sovereignty is a difficult thing to understand for those who have never lived under a monarch, they have complete and total power. God is the one who changes the hearts of men (see Ezek. 36:26), we have not the ability nor the want to change, it is only by the grace of God via the Holy Spirit changing our hearts, do we have the ability to come to Him, but our ability is only because we are drawn (John 6:44). You mentioned the “robot” reasoning, as is used by many in this discussion, but that assumption falls apart when we understand that no one can come to Christ (no one means no one) unless God the Father draws then to Him. This is a really bad sermon illustration, but I will use it anyway. We can look at the drawing like that of an electric magnet. We can have all the metal around it we want but nothing will happen until it’s turned on, but once its turned on, only that metal that has an affinity to the magnet will be drawn. Not that the metal was in some way programed like a robot to respond but that its nature drove it to the magnet. In essence the metal had no other desire than to go to the magnet, because of it’s makeup it was designed to do just that, it wasn’t an issue of refusal, that is what its natural affinity drove it to do. when God changes our hearts, we want nothing other than to go to God, its not an issue of choice, its what we, with changed hearts are drawn to do. You, me, no one can come to Christ by our own wills, its not possible. But we do have freedom of will in a sense (See Freedom of the Will by Johnathan Edwards or Bondage of the Will by Martin Luther), we have the freedom to choose our own sin, that was made possible in the beginning (see Gen. 2). Because of the fall, we no longer have the ability to choose what is righteous (see Isaiah 64:6), that is, from an objective point of view. Our Father chose us before the foundations of the earth (Eph. 1:3-6). That is not a debatable issue, nor is it an issue of fore knowledge, but one of predestination.
We must never forget that God is in charge in every aspect of our lives whether we want to believe that or not. He is sovereign. We were designed to serve Him in what ever capacity He chooses, not the capacity that we choose. the Westminster shorter Catechism in its first question sums this up well. What is the chief end of man? the answer: Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever. We are called to bring glory to God, that is our job. Understanding that He is in charge is the first step in doing just that.
Blessings
Toby
Toby,
I appreciate you responding to my post, I also appreciate Bob allowing folks with different opinions a forum to debate these different opinions.
I would like to ask you a question, you know Jesus consistently asked people questions to get them to think. If you would not have been taught this theology from some man would you by studying the Word on your own have come to these conclusions? I have gone back and forth with Bob and many others and nearly always am directed to read Piper, Luther, Calvin, White and others, I don’t want to tell a lie here, but I don’t think I have ever tried to get someone to read something other than the precious Word of God to arrive at a conclusion in ref to something in the Word of God. These guys are just men, don’t put anyone or anything on a pedestal except Jesus or the bible.
Now another observation, and I find this with all sorts of folks not just calvinists, is that ya’ll (southern for you all) consistently take verses out of context. I guess I’ll tell the truth and admit I have done it as well, we want to prove our points don’t we. Bob did it in trying to show how man is totally depraved (which we are) and he used Romans 3:10-18 I would probably use this passage as well if I were a calvinist, but then you just have to read down a few verses to get to get to the remedy, if you will of that depraved state to find v-21 “but now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify.This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to (ALL) who believe. I am a very simple man this verse tells me that if I believe in Jesus Christ I can have righteousnes apart from the Law. Abraham BELIEVED the Lord (Genesis 15:6) and he credited it to him as righteousness. I guess the Lord forced him to believe. Forgive the sarcasm, but I’m trying to make a point, you have to manufacture that reasoning from somewhere to arrive at those conclusions.
Jesus said if I be lifted up I will draw (ALL) men unto me (John 12:32) ties right in with your reference (John 6:44) “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him” This is precisely how it happens. This is the way it works. Man is depraved, all that is true in Romans 3, no one seeks God, All have turned away, no one does good. Ahhh but thanks be to God, His blessed Holy Spirit draws men unto Him, thats His job, or at least one of them. Then just exactly as Romans 3:22 says “This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.” Praise His Name, He’s faithful folks. He made a plan and a way for us, Bless Him. I’m about to get pentecostal here Toby. John 3:34 “just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of man must be lifted up, that (EVERYONE) who (BELIEVES)in Him may have eternal life. What happened way back there, you can read for yourself in Numbers 21. God sent snakes among the disobedient to punish them, a snake was fashioned and put upon a pole, those that looked upon the snake were saved, those that didn’t perished. It’s very simple Toby, please today look upon our Saviour, Jesus, just as He told us to and believe on Him, call upon His name and you will be saved, don’t let men’s traditions tell you anything differently, is he drawing you today Toby? Trust Him. I’m not telling you to look at a video of Piper, or read a book by Calvin, I’m asking you to believe just as Jesus said to for the eternal salvation of your soul.
In Christ
Greg
Greg,
You make some good points, let me address them if I can.
CONTEXT
Yes, you are right context is important. I totally agree. But we can draw legitimate inferences from sidepoints made in Scripture. I believe Rom. 3 talks about the state of man. Man’s state is such that he doesn’t seek God, he doesn’t understand God, he is totally depraved and unrighteous. Thus he needs the righteousness that comes from God as the passage goes on to say. That righteousness does come to all who believe. I again agree totally with that. Everyone who wants to believe in Christ and does believe, those people all of them get the righteousness from God. Scripture clearly teaches the responsibility we have to believe. What Scripture does not teach, and what I believe you are assuming rather than finding in Scripture, is this: that what you are responsible to do, you must have necessity be able to do. That is not clearly stated in Scripture. In fact, Scripture says I am responsible to obey God and keep the greatest two commandments (and all the others too). As a believer I should want to keep them. And I do. But I cannot keep them totally, I never can keep them totally this side of heaven, but that does’t absolve me of my responsibility. I can’t say, because I am unable to love God perfectly, completely and exclusively every minute of every day, therefore I don’t have to love God and cannot be held responsible to love God and if I were held responsible, than God would be unfair. It doesn’t work like that. Similarly, just because man cannot believe without being aided by the work of God (which I believe Scripture clearly teaches), that does not make God unfair or let man off the hook. So just because Rom. 3 says righteousness comes to those who believe, it does not clearly state that all have the ability to believe would they just so choose.
There are places in Scripture where God tells us why some believe and others do not. Those are extremely instructive to this debate. Several of them are in John and they form a perfect pattern.
John 6:63-65 — “But there are some of you that do not believe… this is why I told you (referring to vs. 44) that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
John 8:47 — J”the reason you do not hear (the words of God) is that you are not of God”
John 10:26 — “you do not believe, because you are not part of my flock”
This pattern in John is supported by Jesus’ response in Luke to the amazement by some of his hearers over his declaration of how hard it is for rich people to be saved. They said: “Then who can be saved?” But he said, “What is impossible with men is possible with God.”
John 12 and John 6 seem to be using the word draw in different ways. John 6 in context is saying that not all believe and the reason they don’t is that not all are drawn and not all are granted by the Father. In fact, in vs. 44 all who are drawn are raised at the last day, so if Jesus draws all men then all would be raised at the last day. I believe the word is used in two different contexts for two different ideas, though they are similar.
In Christ,
Bob
Just to clarify for any onlookers, this isn’t about defending an “-ism”. It isn’t about a man-centered theology. It’s about the truth of God’s word and I believe Calvinism comes closest to that truth than any other system. That is reflected in my explanation of the five points. For those unfamiliar with Calvinism, I’d further recommend John Piper’s biblical explanation in this small booklet: What We Believe about the Five Points of Calvinism.
Bob,
I’m glad you found the old post.
I agree that “Total Inability” needs to be placed first in the TULIP concept. If it was true, then the other would logically follow. However, because “Total Inability” is not a Biblical doctrine the other petals fade and wilt with it when exposed to the light of Scripture.
The Reformed doctrine of regeneration preceding faith is necessary to maintain their doctrine of “Total Inability” and “Irresistible Grace.” In future posts I’ll endeavor to show the Bible teaches Faith precedes Regeneration.
Just to get the ball rolling, could you explain: Why if man is dead and has “Total Inability” that Satan blinds their minds 2 Cor. 4:4 or are taken captive 2 Tim. 2:26? Since these are texts that you gave I assume you have reason for doing so. I’ve heard these verses used but I’ve never heard an explanation. How does one blind someone who is dead?
Don,
I don’t think we can necessarily separate the blinding / binding work of Satan from the inability of man. I think that is part of the problem. In our current state, of blindness to God, bindedness by Satan, and spiritual deadness, we are inable to make the first step to God. We are inable apart from God’s work in us. You and I both would agree God makes the first steps, I just see that as regeneration coming prior to faith, and you see it as some kind of prevenient grace making faith possible or something.
Deadness is an allegory. Obviously we are alive in some respects but dead to God. The inability deadness implies does not preclude the use of other allegories describing that same inability.
For me, Rom. 8:8 is pivotal in the inability debate. Furthermore we have passages like 1 Cor. 1:30 which speak of our being “in Him” because “of God”. Faith and Repentance are gifts of God. They don’t exist where they aren’t given. 2 Tim. 2:24-26 implies that God may not grant repentance, or He might.
A few passages about faith and repentance being gifts (which to me intersects Total inability and irresistable (or efficient) grace are listed below:
Repentance: 2 Tim. 2:25, Acts 11:18, and Acts 5:31
Faith Acts 3:16, 1 Pet. 1:21, Phil. 1:29, and Rom. 12:3 {also Acts 15:8-9, 18:27 and 1 Pet. 1:5}
Conversion in general: Jn. 6:64-65 explaining v. 44, Acts 16:14, Jm. 1:18, Eph. 2:8-9, and Jn. 1:13
Just as in believers, in whom God is at work to cause them both to do and to will for His good pleasure (Phil. 2:13), so too in unbelievers God works in them to turn their heart to Him and to give them a flesh-y (as opposed to stony) heart. This explains why Paul can thank God for the faith of the Thessalonians, for instance (2 Thess. 1:3), and why believers are said to be guarded by God through faith (1 Pet. 1:5). God works faith in believers, and if it takes God doing that in us as believers, how much more so do the lost need God’s work in them?
Bob,
To me the the reason Satan blinds is because man does have the ability to believe the Gospel. I think 2 Cor. 4:4 makes it quite clear that it is the work of Satan and not our inability or being dead that prevents the light of the Gospel from shining on us.
Romans 8:8 starts out by saying “So then” which draws us back to the previous verse which explains why one in the flesh cannot please God. Namely a lost person cannot keep the law. The only way one in the flesh can please God is to keep the law, which as Paul tells us one cannot. The law was not given to save us, but it was a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ (Gal. 3:24). Notice it was the law that was our shoolmaster that brought our dead, unregenerate selves to Christ.
I agree God makes the first step, but it is always in connection with the Gospel. The work of the Holy Spirit on the unsaved (John 16;8-11) and His work of regenerating the believer are two seperate works, occuring at different times. One before faith and one after faith.
I noticed one of the verses you gave (Acts 11:18) is also one of several that I use to show faith precedes regeneration. I understand you’ll want to discuss the word “granted” in the verse and I will if you want. But for now notice the last three words of the verse “repentance unto life.” I believe we both agree that life begins with regeneration. If the Calvinists’ concept of regeneration preceding faith were correct the verse would say “life unto repentance.” But it states just the opposite. Clearly showing repentance precedes regeneration. Because repentance and faith go together the only possible explanation is that Faith precedes Regeneration.
The light of the Gospel shining into our hearts is equated with God commanding light to shine out of darkness. It’s a miraculous thing.
Not sure what you’re saying about Rom. 8. Faith doesn’t please God? The one in the flesh cannot please God, he cannot keep the law, granted, but he can believe? But belief doesn’t please God for him?
You are selective and haven’t addressed all I gave you in the last post. Which is fine as I don’t expect to really change your opinion. “repentance unto life” is true. Faith leads to life too. The believing ones have everlasting life. Repentance and faith are actually required, I agree. The question is how do faith and repentance happen? From the human perspective we are called to believe, but since Scripture reveals what happens in the heart, we have to agree with Scripture’s witness that faith is given by God as a gift. Life can be the ultimate eternal life or the present experience of life. Again 11:18 says God granted that repentance which leads to life. Like John Piper I believe the regeneration which precedes faith logically, is almost simultaneous with faith chronologically.
Bob,
Thanks for this helpful thread. You handle these theological discussions so well. May the Lord continue to bless and strengthen you.
Cordially,
Greg Barkman
Thanks for the prayers and encouragement, brother.
Bob,
You’re missing my point. Repentance unto life is not simply unto or leading to everlasting life. Everlasting life starts with regeneration or quickening or being born again, which ever term you perfer. My point is repentance and faith precede any type of new life. Acts 11:18 seems to make this quite clear.
The reason John Piper and other Calvinists think regeneration logically precedes faith is because they think “spiritually dead” means Total inability. So we might hear something of the nature as: “speaking to a spiritually dead person is like speaking to a corpse.”
The Bible does not speak of dead as inability, but of separation (James 2:26). This is probably best seen with the rich man in Luke 16. When the rich man died physically he was separated from his body. Bear in mind he was dead spiritually long before he died physically. Now after dying physically he is still dead spiritually. Does he show inability. No, the Bible says he lifted up his eyes being in torment. Not only could he see, touch, hear, taste and talk, but he had concern for his lost brothers and wanted them saved. Please explain from the Calvinist concept of “dead” how the rich man could do these things.
I’m not ignoring your verses. I will address them at some point. I’m a simple guy and can only handle one verse at time.
Bob,
Just a quick added note. I am for the time being trying to stay away from some verses, John 6 in particular. I’m not afraid of them but I don’t think you would be receptive to what I believe they mean, or at least until we settle when regeneration occurs.
I know you are thinking that ain’t a goin to happen. Maybe not, but I’m trusting so.
Regeneration precedes faith and repentance. This is shown in the case of Lydia Acts 16:14.
Where does it say that we must believe to be reborn? How do you become reborn? Why did not Jesus tell Nicodemus? What was all that about the wind?
How does the natural man become the spiritual man since the natural man thinks the things of God are foolishness (1 Cor. 2:14)
1John 5:1 indicates that believing is an attribute of those who were born of God.
Consider the two resurrections mentioned in Jn. 5. The first resurrection is to eternal life. Notice that there is a difference as to who are the hearers.
While you are in John 5, what is the meaning of the crippled man? Is it to show the healing power of Jesus, or is it to show also His sovereign eternal life giving power?
Finally, in a selfish, shameless plug for my web site, for more rocks to chew, go to http://heyrandy.wordpress.com/2008/01/01/god-is-sovereign-human-salvation/.
Randy,
Good to see another has joined the fray.
I see from your post and your web site that you also believe regeneration precedes faith.
I’d be interested on your thoughts on Acts 11:18. In particular the phrase “repentance unto life” as mentioned in my earlier posts.
As I mentioned to Bob, my limited brain can only deal with one text at a time. Since you were kind enough to weigh in I’ll deal with your first text.
You wrote:
“Regeneration precedes faith and repentance. This is shown in the case of Lydia Acts 16:14.”
Because you gave no exegesis of the verse I’ll assume you mean the usual Calvinistic interpretation of it.
To begin with does it not seem just a bit strange that in the whole book of Acts Calvinists can only find one example of regeneration preceding faith. If regeneration always preceded faith, I would think one could point to more than just one case from Acts. Just some food for thought.
With regards to Lydia, I assume though you did not say, that God opening her heart is the same as God regenerating her. I don’t like assuming to know what you mean, but in this case because I’ve heard Calvinists use the verse so many times I’m guessing you have the same take on it. If not please correct me.
My first question would be where else in the Bible does opening one’s heart mean regeneration. I know an arguement can be made for a new heart or a heart of flesh to mean regeneration. Opening a heart and getting a new heart are not the same thing.
Now here I think is a bigger problem for Calvinists. The text states that Lydia worshiped God. Please explain how Lydia who was not yet regenerated and still in the flesh could worship God. Please note the text does not say that Lydia said she worshiped God. Nor was it her mother, sister, brother, aunt, uncle or the dog catcher that said she worshiped God. It was the author of the book who said she worshiped God, so we know it was real. Now here is a woman in the flesh who must have pleased God. I think you would agree that worship is pleasing to God.
Because Ldyia was not yet regenerated which means she was “dead” please explain with keeping to “Total Inability” that it was possible for Lydia to worship God.
Don,
I’m not basing my argument on dead = inability. I’m basing it on the explanation Scripture gives that faith and repentance (which both lead to life) are in fact given by God. Since they are given, the implication is that they are not given equally to all. That’s the point of Acts 11:18 in context, and also of 2 Tim. 2:24-26. It’s also the idea of us believing “through him” or “of him”.
The point about John 6 is that you can’t separate it from this inability idea. It’s part and parcel with it. John 6:63-65 interprets John 6:44 and says that some are given or granted the ability to come and others aren’t — that’s the difference. When Jesus sees the unbelief of some, he explains it as being some aren’t given the ability, some aren’t drawn. This fits with Jesus’ words in Matt. 11:27 and the idea of Acts 16:14 and 1 Cor. 2:14 which Randy brought up.
We can try to isolate Acts 11:18 from all other Scripture and deal with “repentance unto life”, but it isn’t isolated it must fit with Scripture’s whole teaching. When but a few verses later, Luke says “as many as were ordained unto eternal life, believed”, that should impact how we understand 11:18.
About the Lydia thing, what do you want to call the opening of her heart? You can call it whatever you like but it isn’t Lydia doing that. So we could say you have pre-regenerative activity by the Spirit to cause the faith, and then subsequent to the faith you have the giving of actual life by the Spirit. I’d be fine with that approach, too. I just think the picture in Scripture, especially in 1 John 5:1 is this: if you find faith, you find one who had been born of God.
To me, the clear teaching of Scripture is that the lost are blinded, in the grip of their father the devil. They need to be one of Christ’s sheep, else if they aren’t they won’t believe (John 10:26). They need to be “of God” else, if they aren’t they won’t hear God’s words (John 8:47). If they were fore-ordained, then they will believe (Acts 13:48) and it will take the work of the Spirit in their cold dead, hardened heart to give life. Just as the dry bones need the rejuvenation of the Spirit to come to life. This reality is consistently presented in Scripture. But as Scripture preaches to the lost, it does call on all to believe. But Jesus clarifies just who will believe, “his sheep”, those “of God”, those to whom he reveals the Father (Matt. 11:27), those who are drawn (John 6:44), those to whom the ability to come has been given by God (John 6:65).
This doesn’t negate our responsibility to preach the Gospel to all indiscriminately, it doesn’t mean the lost don’t need to exercise faith. It is just the mysterious, “behind the scenes” work of the Spirit in regeneration / salvation.
This idea fits in with election and God’s sovereignty in salvation which again seems very clear from many texts in Scripture.
Note: I just turned on RefTagger a plugin to give the ability to hover over verse references and see the text. Didn’t want to spook anyone. But yes this is new….
Bob,
First off I’m not trying to isolate Acts 11:18. I’m trying to give one text at a time. I have several more but they will come one at a time. I think to much gets ignored when several texts are mentioned, unless they deal directly with the one in question.
Second I’m not trying to hide from John 6. But again you’re not going to believe anything I have to say about John 6 until you believe faith precedes regeneration. I realize you don’t now and maybe never will.
Third, repentance is given to all equally. Its given to Israel (Acts 5:31) and the Gentiles (Acts 11:18) that covers everyone of the lost. It is not given equally to those in the church (2 Tim. 2:24-26). If you would like I’ll expain why Tim. 2 is refering to the church and not the lost.
Fourth, my point about Lydia wasn’t so much about opening her heart, I deal with that when we get to John 6. My main point with Lydia was how was she able to have faith before she was regenerated (the fact she worshiped God shows she had faith). This should be impossible if “Total Inability” was true. You did not address this point.
Fifth, how long have you been one of Christ’s sheep?
Sixth, who did the ordaining in Acts 13:48?
Seventh, I’ll have another text tomorrow showing faith precedes regeneration.
??? If God does the drawing…the choosing…the gifting…(even a casual perusal of the scriptures shows this to be the case)…Why is the “timing” of regeneration such a contention point????
2 Corinthians 4:6 (New Living Translation)
6 For God, who said, “Let there be light in the darkness,†has made this light shine in our hearts so we could know the glory of God that is seen in the face of Jesus Christ.
How cool is that! I LOVE the fact the scripture ref link is automatically added!
Nancy,
The reason the “timing” of regeneration preceding faith is important is that it would prove “Total Inability” and “Irresistible Grace.”
Likewise if faith preceded regeneration then those doctrines would suffer a fatal blow.
R C Sproul writes: A cardinal doctrine of Reformed theology is the maxim: “Regeneration precedes faith.” Mr. Sproul believes when one accepts “Total Inability” then the other parts of the TULIP will become a necessity. Therefore in order for the TULIP to fade and wilt the “T” must be shown to be unbiblical.
Bob,
Here’s another text showing faith precedes regeneration.
Galatians 3:26
“For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.”
The verse states we are children by faith. The verse does not say: we have faith because we are children.
I believe it is clear from the verse that faith must come first. The other question to ask is: When does one become a chid of God? There is only one possible answer. The moment a baby is born physically he becomes a child of his or her parents. So too, when a person is born spiritually they become a child of God the moment regenerated.
When one is born again they become a child of God at the exact same instant of their new birth. Therefore because the new birth and being a child of God are inseparable, the only possible conclusion that one can draw from the verse is: Faith precedes Regeneration.
Don,
I know of no other place in scripture where opening of the heart is equal to regeneration. The Bible uses different figures to express the same idea. Such is metaphorical language. I do not find it strange that there is only one instance in Acts. How many do you need?
Lydia did worship God. However, this does not mean that God accepted her worship. The Jews who killed Jesus worshiped God. This is the central issue. Is Christianity man centered or God centered? Who takes the initiative? Why is there “none who seek after God?” Post fall Adam and Eve did not run to God. Such is the case will all.
What was the difference between Jacob and Esau? There election was determined before any action on their part.
Randy,
Because of the number people that were saved in the book of Acts, one would expect several if it was true.
The Jews that killed Jesus did not worship God.
It was God that told us that Lydia worshiped God. I don’t know about you but that’s good enough for me. Just to turn your question back at you: how many times and by who do we need to be told that Lydia worshiped God to make it valid?
Its true there is none who seek after God. Which why Jesus told us to go to them Mark 16:15.
What kind of election are you refering to with Jacob and Esau?
Don,
Forgive me if you already mentioned the story in Acts 10…I didn’t see it referenced. I believe these people WERE Jewish…Unfortunately in many instances…and thankfully in others, God deals with an entire people group as if they are one entity.
“The Jews that killed Jesus” …
And…what about the Romans? Didn’t they have the hammers and the thorns and the cross? What about Pilot specifically? Were they all just poor schmucks that got caught up in the fray? Were the Jews the ones who “master minded” the event? Maybe Satan entered the hearts of only some evil Jews and made them do it! We might need Agatha Christi to come help with this one…*; )
Nancy,
Acts 10 has not yet been mentioned.
I’m not sure what it is you’re asking.
Reply to Gal. 3:26:
I contend that faith is given as a gift. It’s something the Holy Spirit works in us. For instance, John 1:13 says we aren’t born according to our own will, from our own initiative. This doesn’t mean we don’t have the responsibility to believe and to receive (John 1:12), but it means when we do that, we look beyond our actions to the ultimate Actor behind them.
So I don’t see it as contradicting regeneration preceeding faith. Faith is essential, without faith we aren’t children. But other texts teach that faith, and conversion itself is all of God. Again, as many as were ordained believe, and we can tell who the non-sheep are by whether or not they actually believe.
Bob,
If faith is a gift, why would Jesus say to his disciples “where is your faith”? If faith was a gift could not they say to Jesus we don’t have it because you didn’t give it to us.
Why did Jesus marvel at the faith of the centurion in Luke 7:9 if faith was a gift? Did Jesus forget that he gave the centurion the faith in the first place?
Why do we have Hebrews 11, if all the examples of faith were simply gifted to the persons? What possible edification could Heb. 11 be if we had to hope that God would give us faith before we did anything?
Again I ask who did the ordaining in Acts 13:48?
Do non-sheep ever become sheep?
Don,
Why did Jesus ever show surprise at anything if He knew everything in advance anyway? Whenever he did this it was to teach others by his reactions.
By the same token, why would Paul thank God for the Thessalonians’ faith? Why not thank God for the privilege of working with those great people? Rather than thanking God for their faith, when they are responsible for their faith?
I’m a bit taken back by your Heb. 11 bit here. No value at all? Is this really just a hall of heroes that we need to ooh and ah over and say they are just so awesome and I totally wish I can work up enough self-determination to be as cool as them? Is that really what you think is going on in Heb. 11 a bare adulation of man?
And with Acts 13:48 you know what I believe about it. Tell us what you do already. It’s passive so the people themselves didn’t do the ordaining. Since elsewhere God is said to elect people, it seems to be God who did the ordaining.
Re: sheep, in a sense they can and in a sense they can’t. Jesus is using a sense where they can’t. They wouldn’t disbelieve if they were sheep, he says. So if they believe, they must be sheep. Again John 8 and John 6 as I have explained recently elsewhere, fit the pattern in John 10 so I think in this context no, they can’t. In God’s eye before the foundation of the world, He knew who was written in the book of life, so He knew who the sheep are.
Oops! I’m sorry, Cornelius and his family weren’t Jewish …they were Italian…. But, the point of the story is that even though Cornelius and his family were “God fearing”…they were NOT regenerated…they still lacked something that they would only receive after hearing the gospel message that God, Himself arranged for them to hear…Being devout, knowing that there is a god, and doing good works can never produce regenerating-believing faith…only the Word of God can accomplish that…and then only when you have ears to hear! Where do these “ears that hear” or as mentioned earlier “eyes that see” come from? From God alone!
Don,
Every one born on earth is given a measure of faith (common faith, if you will) that we use to make it through life…Operational faith and saving faith are not the same thing. Also…there is no indication that everyone that Jesus performed miracles for became a believer. Jesus might have been amazed that the centurion was using this common faith to believe in His authority simply because he had heard stories about Jesus’ ability to heal, even though he (the centurion) had no history with God! While the nation of Israel on the other hand had much history with God and yet they did not for the most part operate in faith at all.
As for the disciples, Jesus wasn’t rebuking them for not having believing faith, but for not putting it into action. We see that in believer all the time! As believers, we believe Jesus IS the Son of God…that he died for us…paid for our sin, and yet we don’t apply the knowledge that attends our faith.
Nancy,
The tomatoes look good. Do you really have that many different crops?
As far as Cornelius goes, I didn’t want to start talking about him just yet. But if I don’t Bob will think I don’t want to talk about anything. So I guess I’ll have say something. I wrote a paper on Cornelius, but I’m going to reproduce it here, or at least not just yet.
Cornelius like Lydia are not friendly texts for Calvinists. When one looks closely as to what is said in the texts, they quickly see the problems it creates for the TULIP system. The story of Cornelius is much more damaging than that of Lydia, which is why I was saving it for later. Since you brought it up I’ll just ask a couple questions. I think you will see the problems they create for the TULIP.
To begin with I also believe Cornelius needed to be born again. Because only born again people go to heaven.
Q 1. What does it mean: “that God is no respecter of persons” Acts 10:34?
Q 2. What does it mean: “But in every nation he that FEARETH him, and worketh righteousness IS accepted with him” Acts 10:35?
Bob,
I’m getting concerned. Have you jumped ship on us?
Don,
I’ve been real busy, burned myself out finishing a project up late each night early this week, and am recovering some. Plus we’re getting ready for our new arrival.
This debate isn’t a huge priority for me. I’ve given plenty of verses about faith being a gift, and will respond to your recent post soon. And I plan on responding to Greg soon, too.
I know you are eager to continue, and respect that. But this is my site and I have a lot going on right now.
Thanks,
Bob
I find it ironic that there is a definite difference between the two sides of the debate. And it is not just on this thread, but on many threads that debate Calvinism. From what I have observed, those that are on the side of Calvinism take the time to support their position with verses and other theological sources. Those that are “against” Calvinism spend all of their energy trying so hard to disprove Calvinism. In essence, a Calvinist only supports his/her decision and really does not try to “disprove” those that are against Calvinism. A person that is an Arminian spends all their time trying to disprove Calvinism, instead of trying to prove/support Arminism.
I have also noticed that many times those that are against Calvinism (I don’t want to say they are an Arminian even though those are the two sides), often times use a lot of sarcasm and get very annoyed when you don’t agree with them.
While I agree that it is great to debate these points and to research the Scriptures and come to a conclusion based on your own personal study with the leading of the Holy Spirit, sometimes it seems that people are more interested in the debate and “being right.” As Christians, we should be able to agree to disagree and still be able to respect each others’ opinions.
I appreciate the differences of opinions and am so glad that Christ gave us analytical minds to be able to debate these issues. And it is very important to research the Scriptures and trust the guidance of the Holy Spirit to discover what you believe. But I truly believe that once we get to heaven, we will find out that neither side was completely right (hence, we need to be respectful of others). It is just something that our human minds cannot comprehend and praise God that we can’t because it shows how powerful and awesome He truly is! 🙂
Angela,
I’m not an arminian, and I’m definately not a calvinist. I feel that I have provided detailed explanations of my belief system based on many scriptures. I also feel that from what I have read on this site, most folks are very polite, I may have been alittle sarcastic here and there but just trying to make my points.
When Bob promotes his views on calvinism that in effect goes against my belief system, so I don’t know how you can say that the calvinists only try to support their view. Maybe I can say this better, when I describe why I believe what I believe, that goes against calvinist doctrine and likewise when calvinist espouse their view that goes against my beliefs.
You are certainly right about everyone wanting to be “right” Yes I like to win a debate, but as it relates to calvinism there is way more at stake, I am actually fearful that folks may miss heaven because of this teaching. So its way more important for me than just being “right”
Jesus Christ came to plantet earth to save sinners. He made a plan for everyone and a way for everyone to be saved from a devil’s hell. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. The Word of God says John 1:9 “The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.” For the life of me I can’t see how calvinist can get so mixed up, its amazing. Yes he draws us “he gives light to every man” God does not beat us in the head and force us to do anything. We can resist this drawing. In Numbers 21 God sent venomous snakes among the people, a bronze snake was fashioned and put upon a pole, those that looked upon the snake lived those that didn’t died, its a choice. Jesus said if I be lifted up I will draw (all) men unto me. Dear calvinist friends its no gigantic mystery, please don’t make it difficult and worry so deeply about the drawing power of God, let’s take Him at His Word and trust in that One that loves us so and provided a way of escape. “How shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation?” Sadly the answer is we won’t. Please call upon Him today for salvation, just as the entire new testament teaches.
In Christ,
Greg
Nancy,
1. All my arguments use Scripture.
2. I am not an Arminian, just a non-Calvinist.
3. I have not been using “a lot of sarcasm.”
4. I agree one should search the Scriptures with the leading of the Holy Spirit. However, I’ve yet to meet anyone who has become a Calvinist by studing the Bible. Everyone I know who becomes a Calvinist did so by reading something from Sproul, Piper, MacArther, White or someone else.
5. Bob put up this thread not me. Should I pretend the thread does not exist? Should I not be able to present an opposing view based on the title “Debating Cavinism”?
6. I would very much like to see you join the debate.
Don,
I became a Calvinist by studying the Scriptures alone. It wasn’t until years later that I ever read anything by Piper, MacArther or any of the other authors that support Calvinism. My husband (was boyfriend at the time), introduced me to the concept of Calvinism (I had never before heard of it). He gave me his Bible which had the five points written out in the front with Scripture to support each point. He then challenged me to take as much time as I needed to research it from the Bible and see what conclusions I would draw. He never told me to read anything other than the Bible.
And believe me I STRUGGLED with the entire concept of Calvinism. To even begin to think that God chooses who goes to heaven and who goes to hell and that we have absolutely no say in the matter was not an easy concept for me. Don’t I have a choice? Are we really just “robots” living our lives without any choice or say in the matter? But the more that I studied the Bible, the more I came to see how right the points of Calvinism are. As hard as I tried to “disprove” Calvinism (which is why I feel I can say what I did because I have been on the “other side”), the more convinced I became that it was indeed correct.
And the beauty of predestination is that I appreciate my salvation all the more! The fact that a holy and sovereign God would choose ME of all people…I am so undeserving! How can I not love and thank Him and praise Him for loving me enough to choose me before the foundation of the world?! It just amazes me…the great love that God has for all of His children.
And as I said, I think it is great to be able to present an opposing view! I feel that healthy debate is a wonderful thing because it forces us to think and go to the Scriptures and trust the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It only becomes dangerous when we are close minded (and I am NOT saying that you are close minded at all…please don’t feel that I am saying that) to any new view point. I have TOTALLY been there and was completely close minded to any concept other than what I was taught my whole life.
It seems that you are very knowledgeable about what you believe and why you believe it and that is an awesome thing! I feel that the most important thing is to be able to back up your beliefs with Scripture and not just go off of what someone says in a book or what someone tells you to believe. There are wonderful Christians on both sides of the debate and both sides use Scripture to support their points. I think it really comes down to your interpretation of Scripture.
Angela,
I think you confirm my point. While it was not someone famous that showed you the points of Calvinism it was as I wrote “someone else.” In this case it was your boyfriend. My point is that one does not study the Bible and come away a 5 point Calvinist. Everyone I know of is first precondition. Which is what your boyfriend did by giving you the points and the Scripture to support it. Your boyfriend did not do anything wrong, but under the circumstances I doubt you could have come to a different conclusion.
Just for argument sake, if your boyfriend had given you the 5 points of Arminianism, do you think you would have come away a 5 Point Calvinist? I don’t even know the 5 points of Arminianism.
I believe there is only one interpretation of Scripture. Though I’ll say some are difficult to interpret.
I welcome you and your husband to join in.
Actually, I completely disagree with you on that Don. I never really knew what I believed or why I believed it exactly. I just believed what I was taught my whole life but if I was ever asked “why” I believed it the answer was always “because that is what I was taught.”
And I should probably clarify my background for you so you can fully understand where I am coming from. When my husband introduced me to Calvinism, it was the first time I ever met him. So I guess he wasn’t technically my boyfriend at that time. We were actually on a blind date set up by a friend. Our dinner conversation turned to theology very quickly. And he didn’t even tell me what these five points were actually called. I had no idea that it was “Calvinism.” He just told me that these were five things he felt very strongly about and wanted to know how I felt about them. I honestly didn’t know where I stood on the issues (meaning I couldn’t disprove them with any Scripture). So I eagerly took his “challenge” to research the topics on my own and try to come to my own conclusions based on my own personal study and leading of the Holy Spirit. After about a week or two of studying what the points were, he finally told me that it was called “Calvinism.” He told me that if I wanted to see what the other view was, that I needed to research “Arminianism.” I found 2 great links that compare and contrast the differences between C&A here: http://www.the-highway.com/compare.html and here: http://www.gotquestions.org/Calvinism-vs-Arminianism.html
So I actually did research both sides of the issues. And like I said, I came to the conclusion that I believe in Calvinism and that it is CLEARLY stated and supported in the Scriptures. I literally spent weeks studying this and praying over it and trusting the guidance of the Holy Spirit. And I can honestly tell you, I never felt more at peace and more free when I finally began to understand what God wanted me to see. It was a great moment and I will never forget it.
And I do agree with you that there is only one interpretation of Scripture. And I also agree that sometimes it can be difficult to interpret.
I guess the question I have for you is what exactly do you believe? If you are not an Arminianist or a Calvinist than what views do you hold regarding Scripture? And the other question I have is why are you trying so hard to disprove Calvinism? Was there an issue in the past about it? You seem quite intent on “making the “T” wilt in the hopes that the rest of Calvinism will fall apart” and I am just wondering where exactly this fervor is coming from.
Greg and Don have both made this point and I believe it needs to be addressed. They have said that no one becomes a Calvinist without being taught by a man or reading what a man wrote. They also aver that they only stick with Scripture and don’t want to point you to what another man says, but just to what Scripture says.
Let me stress, Scripture itself declares that God has given teachers to the Church. Some are gifted in teaching. In fact, in the wisdom of God, almost no one becomes a believer apart from the work of some human teachers. And almost always people grow in the Lord through human teachers’ impact. It may be pastor Joe, SS teacher George, friend Sarah, or sister Jane. It may also be Matthew Henry, Albert Barnes or Jameson Faussett and Brown. It could be John MacArthur, John Piper or R.C. Sproul. It could just as easily be Josh McDowell, Charles Ryrie or Bill Bright. Jim Berg, John R. Rice, Jack Hyles or David Cloud.
My point is Scripture encourages us to teach others. What struck me most about John Piper’s booklet on Calvinism was the amount of Scripture he used. And in my own studies I’ve found more and more Scripture that all fits together to support the general thrust of the doctrines of Grace.
Angela brings up a good point too, about debates in general. It rings true for me as well. My just finished response to Greg above (see here), also fits in with this. I’m not sure this will make sense, but let me try.
I contend that Calvinism (and I use the term to refer to a system of Bible teaching not a person or -ism but Scriptural ideas), focuses on the “behind the scenes” aspects of salvation. Ostensibly and externally, the gospel is preached and some repent and believe, while some don’t. Believers have eternal life and non-believers don’t. We are exhorted to challenge people to believe by teaching them the whole truth of the Gospel and the Bible. I would be content to leave all this right there. But Scripture draws back the curtain on the heart and actually teaches us what happens “behind the scenes” with conversion.
Based on the explicit, contextual teaching of Scripture about election, predestination, and the Spirit’s work in the heart to draw men to faith, Calvinists are compelled to declare the teaching of Scripture on these points as true. Furthermore, they find ways to rejoice in these “deep” and at the same time “mysterious” teachings.
Non-Calvinists, don’t like the presumed implications of this doctrine and so they dispute it. They try to answer what Calvinists teach about the “behind the scenes” work of salvation, by countering their exegesis and trying to give counter-arguments. Their positive argumentation boils down to what we all agree on. They like to say things like, “well, John 3:16 so clearly says…. whosoever”. But Calvinists believe that whoever wants to believe, and does believe, will be saved. The problem for Calvinists is not that whosoever will can be saved, it’s that no one wills apart from God changing their will-er. Non-Calvinists say, but God desires all to repent, God wants everyone to be saved. Calvinists agree, God declares his general will that all should obey him perfectly, but that will is not realized thorugh human sin. Similarly, God declares He wants all to be saved, and He even does desire that. But He desires His glory more than that, and has created a place called Hell because He knows not all will be saved.
The problem for non-Calvinists lies in the presumed implications of Calvinism. They think if “behind the scenes” work is required prior to faith, then we need not bother preaching at all. So this doctrine leads to no evangelism. Or they think that if God’s election is required, then God must be a mean God only electing some and passing over others. That must not be fair or loving of God. The problem is that these implications are not necessary inferences. They may follow logically, but they don’t have to follow logically. Furthermore, the Calvinist would say, whatever implication we see, we must accept the clear teaching of God’s Word.
Now I know some Calvinists have taken the doctrine too far. But the majority would agree with my statements here, I believe.
Speaking for myself alone here, what sealed the debate for me was that in some passages Scripture directly addresses the “why” of why some believe and others don’t. Or Scripture directly teaches a “behind the scenes work” of election or Spirit-given grace, and so I have to go with the direct word of Scripture, rather than implications drawn out of other passages which don’t directly confront these other clear and direct teachings of Scripture.
Angela,
I checked your web sites. I have Steele’s and Thomas’ book, The Five Points of Calvinism. In fact it was the first book a Calvinist friend of mine gave me 29 Years ago, to help me see the “truth.” As you can see it didn’t work.
On the second site I don’t have Geisler’s book, But I do have White’s, The Potter’s Freedom.
I believe I have 15 or 16 works by Calvinists, but only 2 or 3 by non-Calvinists. The works by Calvinists are by Sproul, Piper, MacArther, White, Pink, Boice, Custance, Ryken, Good, Nettleton, Steele and Thomas.
I consider myself a Bible believing Christian. I don’t really care for tags. I do believe in eternal security of the believer. So that would disqualify me as an Arminian.
I too studied Calvinism, and came to the conclusion it is clearly NOT stated and supported by Scripture.
Yes, there was an issue in the past, but I don’t want to get into that. I will say the past issue is what made me look into the subject a lot closer.
If the “T” did in fact wilt, then yes, the rest of the TULIP would go with it. Would you agree with that statement. Remember I said “if”.
My next proof text showing faith precedes regeneration is the one that starts to open the eyes of Calvinists. In fact every Calvinist so far has stopped discussing the issue after the text is presented. I trust that won’t be the case here.
Bob,
If I’m understanding you correctly, are you saying you’re a 4 point Calvinist. I say that because no 5 pointer would ever say “God declares He wants all to be saved, and He even does desire that”.
God could not “want” all to be saved, because the ones He wants saved will be saved. Also if He did not die for all, then He is not desiring for those for whom He did not die would somehow find another way.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think this is Piper’s teaching. I know it is not Sproul, Pink, or White’s.
Don,
I don’t think Piper is unique in that view. God “wants” in more than one sense. He wants in the sense of declaring His stated will and commands. He wants sometimes in the sense of decreeing and making things happen. He does this second sense of “want” in the case of the elect and not the non-elect.
I am somewhat non-committal on the L point. But historically Calvinists are all over the map on that point. It wasn’t until after 1900 that the TULIP acronym as we know and debate it today, even existed. (See this post). One can believe in multiple intentions for the atonement (Bruce Ware) or one can believe that the Scripture is not overly clear on this point even as he still tenuously holds to it (Wayne Grudem). I am closer to Grudem on this point but am happy to have it be somewhat less settled because I follow Scripture not the Calvinist paradigm.
One other thing Don. You pick and choose what you want to deal with from me, and then expect me to deal with all you dish out. I’m being very nice here. At some point we are going to have to just agree to disagree and everything like that….
Bob,
When Piper speaks of God’s compassion for all people, he states: “My aim is to show that this is not double talk”. But it is double talk.
Can you explain in simple terms so that I and anyone else can understand, how God has compassion on someone that He intends to send to Hell. I hope your answer is not that He lets them enjoy life on earth for a few years only to spend eternity in Hell. I can’t imagine anyone thinks that is compassion.
Having compassion is like loving, they are always demonstated with an act. When Jesus had compassion on the multitude, He fed them. When He had compassion on the sick, He healed them. And when He had compassion on man, He died for him.
I know some Calvinists think God offers salvation to everyone because He commands all men everywhere to repent. However the offer cannot be real if its impossible for them to repent. Please explain`God’s compassion for the reprobate.
Don,
God “desires all to be saved” and “is not willing that any should perish”, he also “takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked”. But God is God and He is Creator. He said he “hated Esau” before Esau was born. The Bible doesn’t say God loves all men equally, that’s the whole point of love vs. hate language.
How much compassion did God show the lost who died before Christ without a chance of knowing the Gospel? How much compassion did he show to the Canaanites in Israel? God is not a man and cannot be judged on man’s terms from man’s perspective. God is Creator and Judge and that changes how we can relate with Him.
God revealed Himself to Moses with this statement: “I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy.” Your version is “I will be gracious to all equally or else I am not really gracious or compassionate at all.”
Show me Scripture Don, not your reasonings and arguments about Scripture.
Hi Bob,
I think if “desires all men to be saved” and “is not willing that any should perish” if taken out of their contexts then Don would be correct that Calvinists are speaking double talk. Looking are the context shows that both of these passages are inline with the rest of scripture affirming God’s sovereignty, even in salvation.
I’ve gone through 2 Peter 3:9 here (http://www.charisweb.ca/blog/4892-not-willing-that-any-should-perish)
And 2 Timothy 2:3-4 here (http://www.charisweb.ca/blog/4893-god-desires-all-men-to-be-saved)
I’m with you Tim. Thanks for the links, I’ll check them out.
Wow. Of all the debates I’ve seen on this subject, I must say, this has been the most captivating! Lol
I’m sure there’s more that I could add, but so much ground has been covered already I don’t think it would make much of a difference 🙂
I would like to mention a few things before I move on to more of these awesome posts.
It’s obvious that you’ve all done your homework, so to speak, and I have greatly appreciated all of the scripture references. However, I have to agree with Angel. Regardless of denomination/background, it seems that every “non-Calvinist” has a unified agenda… “Down With Calvin!” So much for edification.
On the other hand, I’ve also noticed that there is a unified agenda with “Calvinists”…”Soli Deo Gloria!” That says a lot.
When your entire purpose is to downplay the inability of man and prove that he has something good to offer God, in any case, there is reason to doubt. This seems obvious to me, but doesn’t that undermine the entire Gospel? We need a SAVIOR because we are UNABLE to do anything in and of ourselves. Likewise, if we already have faith that pleases God Christ died needlessly. I don’t see why evangelism would even be an issue at this point. Just a thought.
I do agree, however, that we should be careful using stereotypes or associating too much with a name other than Christ. I do my best not to use titles, though I do understand how this can simplify things.
And for the record, I have learned each of these truths taught by Calvin directly from the Word without any previous influences, other than the Holy Spirit. Inability being the first thing He taught me. In fact, I was raised to believe the Arminianist view (unaware of that title) as well as a works-based salvation and was excited to share these truths with everyone I knew as Christians. Then after 2 years of standing alone on the Word, debating, confronting, questioning, and being ostricised, I began hearing about this guy Calvin. I was thrilled that someone else had learned the truth! Ha!
Anyway, thanks for letting me comment.
May the Lord bless each of you! SDG!
J
Don,
You are correct, “we become children of God by faith in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:26). We cannot become children of God without faith in Jesus Christ. However, that is not the same as saying “faith precedes regeneration”. This is not an adequate proof text for your position against Calvinism.
Yes, faith is a gift, given by God. Here are some proof texts:
“For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the measure of faith God has given you.” (Romans 12:3)
“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God” (Ephesians 2:8)
It is unfortunate that all of John Calvin’s work is reduced to the 5 points that were refuted by the Arminians.
Jeffi,
I’m glad you’re enjoying the debate. Feel free to join in anytime. Let address some of your thoughts.
1. I’ve never said “down with Calvin”. I don’t think I’ve even mentioned his name. I could be wrong on that, but I don’t want to reread each of my posts.
2. I don’t think this is a unified agenda amoungst the Calvinists. I know something was said by one of the contributors, which Bob for sure and probably others would disagree with.
3. I’ve never have and never would say man “has something good to offer God”.
4. We need a Saviour because we are unable to save ourselves.
5. Your faith statement we’ll look at when we get to John 6:37, 44 and 65.
6. I don’t like titles either.
7. Just curious, what verses did you feel taught Total Inability?
Hope to hear from you again.
Ryan, Jeffi,
Thanks for jumping in and leaving your thoughts.
Bob
Ryan,
1. Yes, Gal. 3:26 is the same as saying faith precedes regeneration. Because a person becomes a child of God the moment they are born of God. Since becoming a child of God is preceded by faith, one is left with the only logical explanation which is faith precedes regeneration. I think in my next post the text will make the truth clear.
2. The measure of faith mentioned in Rom. 12:3 is not saving faith, but faith for service using one’s spiritual gifts. Notice in verse 6 where it states “according to the proportion of faith”. People don’t need proportions of faith to be saved. They either believe or they don’t. However, they do need certain amounts of faith for different types of ministry. For instance, it takes a greater proportion of faith to go to a distant land and become a missionary than it does to sweep the church building. I’m not putting down the sweeping of the church or any other ministry. I’m saying there are varying degrees of faith for each.
3. I don’t think Eph. 2:8 refers to faith, but rather to salvation.
I beieve salvation is by grace Eph. 2:5.
Salvation is through faith Rom. 5:1 Eph. 2:8.
Salvation is not of ourselves Jonah 2:9 Eph. 2:8.
Salvation is the gift of God Rom. 6:23.
Salvation is not of works Rom. 4:28 Eph. 2:9.
Salvation excludes boasting Rom. 4:27 Eph. 2:9.
Thanks for commenting. I trust I’ll hear from you again.
Hi Don,
Since Gal. 3:26 has been mentioned quiet a bit, I wish to challenge your assertion here that this verse “is the same as saying faith precedes regeneration.”
Galatians 3:23-26 says “Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.”
You said “I believe it is clear from the verse that faith must come first.” and you also linked regeneration with becoming a child of God. So if I understand you correctly the verse becomes something like… “in Christ Jesus you were regenerated, through/by faith”
I think you would agree that faith in context here is the mechanism or means used to justify us (vs 24) so that we are freed from the law (vs 23).
What I fail to see is how “in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God” equates to the moment of regeneration. You want to apply a present-tense statement backwards to the moment of regeneration. If we assume that you are correct in saying this verse deals with regeneration we have “in Christ Jesus you are regenerated through faith”, but you also want to change the tense and have “you were regenerated through faith”.
That seems to be reading into the passage what isn’t there.
Using the same hermeneutic on 1 John 5:1 which states “Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God” becomes “Everyone who is believing that Jesus is the Christ has been regenerated” Would you agree that 1 John 5:1 applies to the moment of regeneration? You may agree with it when it applies to a presently believing Christian, but at the moment of conversion you would not agree.
In Closing:
Galatians 3:26 says we are sons of God by faith. Not disputed. Faith is the mechanism or instrumental cause that justifies us. But what we’re after is Who causes faith? We would say the scriptures teach God creates faith in man.
As an aside, we’re getting into the nitty gritty here over the timing. Time-wise faith and regeneration happen at the same time. You don’t believe that people walk around having faith, but haven’t been regenerated by God and I don’t believe that people walk around having been regenerated but don’t have faith. It’s a logical ordering which boils down to—does man cause it, or does God.
Tim,
I’m pleased to see you spot the double talk. However, I believe your traditional Calvinist’s view of the verses is also incorrect. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it appears your approach to “all men” means all kinds of men.
The folowing are the verses you site on your blog.
1. John 1:7 the “all men” MIGHT believe. It did not say “would believe”. Those that might believe come the group of “all men”. Here “all men” means all men. Not kinds or types.
2. John 3:36 the “all men” here simply means it seems like everyone is coming. Did Jesus baptize different types or kinds of people than John? If it’s types or kinds: Could tell me what kings, Roman governors or chief priests went to be baptized?
3. Rom. 5:18 I noticed you gave only half of the verse. Could you tell me what the “all men” in the first part of the verse means? Is it types of men or is it “all men”?
4. 2 Cor. 3:2 the “all men” means all those with whom we come in contact. If it means types or kinds, I would ask: What what types or kinds?
5. 1 Tim 4:10 the “all men” are those who the Saviour desires to be saved “the world” John 3:17. While Christ is potentially the Saviour of “all men”, He is effectually the Saviour of those that believe. An added note: It says those that believe and not those who were chosen. We’ll come back to that later.
6. 1 Tim 2:1-4 the “all men” means all men. Included in the “all men” are kings and those in authority. If it meant types or kinds I would ask: What kings were saved in Paul’s day?
Thanks for joining in.
I’m inclined to think contextually the 2 Pet. 3 passage is specific to the elect but the 1 Tim. 2 passage could be will as in express will, or be the all kinds of men argument. The verses you mention here Don, do not have to all line up to mean not all men for the argument to stand in 1 Tim. 2.
Bob,
Sorry I did not see this post earlier. In a debate I wouldn’t even use 2 Peter 3 or 1 Tim. 2 to show the error of “Limited Atonement”. Knowing a Calvinist would respond with types or the elect, it would end in a draw. I would use verses that at least to me could have no other meaning. But I don’t want to get on a side track just yet. I want to settle the faith-regeneration issue first.
Bob, I do want to say thank you for keeping this thread open. I know its not that important to you as you’ve said, so again I says thanks for going this long.
Hi Don,
Those verses weren’t cited to show that each use of “all men” means “all kinds of men”. They were cited to show that “all men” can mean different things depending on the context.
What does the usage of “all men” mean in verse 1? Answer: Don’t be partial in prayer.
So what is the meaning of “all men” in verse 3 and 4? Answer: God is not partial in salvation.
Tim,
No, I am not saying “in Christ Jesus you were regenerated, through/by faith”.
What I am saying is “For ye are all the regenerated children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.”
Tim, what I’m about to say is not going to get me any fan mail and I’m very reluctant to even mention it, but at some point it needs to be said. I just wish it was by someone else.
Here goes, one of the reasons the ESV is such a big hit among Calvinists, is Gal. 3:26. If one wants a correct reading for the verse use the KJV, NKJV, ASV, NASB, NIV, NLT or the Greek text itself. I believe the ESV intentionally changed the order of the words to make it Calvinist friendly. I suspect you don’t believe me, so I encourage you to check the other versions or a Greek Interlinear.
Yes, I would agree that faith in the context here is the mechanism or means used to justify us (vs 24) so that we are freed from the law (vs 23).
Yes, we are into the nitty gritty over timing. Faith and regeneration do not happen at the same time. I would agree that there is no time lapse between the two. One brings about the other. You would say regeneration brings faith. I would say faith brings regeneration. Also its God who does the regenerating and not man.
Any thoughts on Acts 11:18.
Don,
I’m not above saying the ESV has some flaws. I’m fine with the Galatians rendering of the other versions. Here’s what I see, though. We have two verses saying a similar thing in a similar way. I’ll use the NET Bible here which sticks closely to the Greek.
(Gal. 3:26 NET) “For in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God through faith”
(1 John 5:1 NET) “Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been fathered by God ”
Both connect faith to sonship. But Gal. 3:26 says faith is the means for the state of sonship (not entrance to sonship). You are sons through faith. Whereas 1 John 5:1 is more specific, it says faith reveals that one “has been fathered” by God. This is more specific to the gneration idea in “regeneration”. And it is more specific in the timing of that.
My understanding of Gal. 3:26 doesn’t contradict 1 John 5:1. Yours appears to.
Hi Don,
I fail to see how the ordering changes the meaning of the text to support your argument. I’m happy to use Galatians 3:26 in the other versions you mentioned.
Using the KJV my objections still stand. 1) You are seeing regeneration when the topic of the passage is how faith is the mechanism that justifies us. 2) You are also using a present tense statement to prove a past ordering of actions.
The present tense statement has no bearing on past actions because I could argue “God granted you the gift of faith, making you his child.” This would still fit just fine with statement “ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus”.
Then in support I would cite verses demonstrating that faith is a gift and that God is the author of it.
Concerning Acts 11:18 you stated in an earlier post “notice the last three words of the verse “repentance unto life.†I believe we both agree that life begins with regeneration.” Which you conclude as “faith+repentance leads to regeneration which leads to life”.
What the end of the verse says is “repentance leads to eternal life”. Then you squeeze regeneration between repentance and eternal life? That is simply not in the passage. How do we know from this passage that regeneration didn’t happen before the repentance?
Your entire argument rests on your assertion “life begins with regeneration” which seems to be arbitrary and just used to lead to your conclusion. To be consistent I would’ve assumed that you would state “life begins with faith in Christ”. Then you would read it as “repentance leads to faith”.
I would see the order in Acts 11:18 as 1) God grants, 2) repentance, 3) eternal life.
Tim,
What version are you using that says “eternal” life in Acts 11:18?
If life does not begin with regeneration when does it begin?
What does quicken or made us alive mean, if it does not mean to give life?
Bob,
What is the NET. It is not on the online Blue Letter Bible Program. Does it go by another name. Is it brand new.
Just wondering why if you are fine with the rendering of the other versions, why did you not use one?
http://bible.org/netbible/
The New English Translation put out by Dan Wallace and DTS guys.
On Gal. 3 I’m fine with other versions, in 1 John 5:1 none of them really capture the Greek like the ESV does and a few others. The NLT and Young’s Literal agree on the rendering and those two, plus the NET are not necessarily Calvinist-friendly or anything.
Bob,
Do you have an idea why Mr. Wallace changed the word order of the Greek in Gal. 3:26? I did notice in his translator’s notes that he does give the traditional reading. Again check your Greek Interlinear to see which is the correct reading. I wonder if Mr. Wallace is a 5 Point Calvinist. Actually, I already knew he was. I recognized his name, who gave high praise for James White’s book “The Potter’s Freedom”. Word order is everything.
I’ll try to give my explanation of 1 John 5:1 tomorrow. Here’s something to think about. Have you ever noticed when a Calvinist gives their view of 1 John 5:1, they only use the first part of the verse. I’ve never seen anyone use the whole verse. At any rate just something to think about.
Hi Don,
Continuing our discussion on Acts 11:18.
I see the “life” mentioned in that verse in referring to eternal life based on Acts 13:45-48 where Paul explained that they were turning to the Gentiles. It is discussing the same matter as Peter was discussing in Acts 11.
However, it’s not crucial to my argument, so if you disagree, that’s fine.
You state “If life does not begin with regeneration when does it begin?” But what about faith? Could I not say life begins with faith? Or how about, life begins with Christ? We could argue for the validity of each of these statements but you seem to be picking “life begins with regeneration” because it leads to your conclusion.
I just don’t see that as valid argumentation and is inserting into Acts 11:18 something that just isn’t there.
Tim,
In Acts 13:46 Paul mentions “everlasting life”. There is no mention of “eternal life” in Acts 11.
When does eternal life begin?
No, I don’t seem to be picking “life begins with regeneration” because it leads to my conclusion. I say life begins with regeneration because before we were saved we were “DEAD”. And God made us alive Eph. 2:5 Col. 2:13. If that is not giving life I don’t know what is.
Why is it alright to insert “eternal” in Acts 11:18 but not the “new” life?
Tim,
The life in Acts 11:18 does include eternal life. I don’t what to give the impression that only regeneration or quickening is in view here.
Here’s something else that just hit me. In John 10:10 Jesus said “I am come that they might have life, and have it more abundantly.” When do peoplehave this abundant life, is not until they get to heaven or while they are on earth?
Hi Don,
I know there is no mention of “eternal” life in Acts 11, but the exact same content is being discussed in Acts 13:46 and 48 which leads me to believe that life in Acts 11 is in fact “eternal” life. That is why I see it as “eternal” rather than “new” life.
If you see it as “new” life (aka regeneration) then you have support that interpretation. Citing verses that describe new life do not mean that “life” in Acts 11:18 is “new” life.
What about 2 Cor 7:10 where “repentance leads to salvation”? Would you accept that salvation in this context refers to eternal life? In Acts 13:47 ‘salvation’ is used interchangeably with eternal life in vs 46 and vs 48.
Hi Don,
You mention John 10:10 but I fail to see how the “life” in John 10:10 helps to clarify the “life” in Acts 11. Wouldn’t Acts 13 which is discussing the same issue as Acts 11 be a more suitable place to help us clarify its meaning?
Tim, thanks for jumping in and continuing the conversation with Don.
Don, “repentance which leads to life” is a general descriptive phrase that isn’t dealing with specific ordo salutis questions.
I accept that life is a state of existence (ala John 10, and other passages). But it terminates in the ultimate existence of eternal life. So in Acts 11, is the life just referring to the general state of life or is it saying the ultimate life? The text isn’t specific enough to tell us.
With “repentance” leading to that life, again it is correct from a certain perspective that repentance and faith enable this state of life, and the hope of eternal life. In fact from a human standpoint, yes one needs to repent and believe if they want to see life. But again, the question we are addressing is more technical — where does the repentance come from?
In Acts 11 we do see God grants this repentance. That applies to the ordo salutis but still isn’t all that specific. Acts 13 is a specific statement, as is John 6 and other places which explicitly deal with the question of where faith and repentance come from. Again as I’ve said before, I think the passages which directly relate with where faith and repentance should govern how we approach generic passages which say faith is required for salvation or life. I agree it is required, but when I discuss the particulars of where that faith comes from, I’ll then get more specific. To the lost, generally, I’ll just say you need to repent and believe in Jesus.
Tim,
OK, lets assume you are correct. When would you say this “eternal” life of Acts 11:18 starts?
Which of the following is a correct statement for a Christian to say?
1. I “have received” eternal life.
2. I “will receive” eternal life.
If you answered “have received” when does one actually “have” life?
If you answered “will receive” when “will” one receive this life?
Hi Bob,
I agree with your post that the point of the passage is not so much a laying out an order in salvation. The meaning of the text is clear–God has granted salvation to the Gentiles in keeping with his promise (Isaiah 49:2, 49:6) quoted in Acts 13:47.
Hi Don,
To answer your question [without doing a thorough study] I would say eternal life is a future event but God has promised it to those who believe so we can still say we “have” eternal life because God keeps his word.
A small sampling of it described as a future event: Luke 10:25, Luke 18:18,30 (note Jesus mentions eternal life is in the age to come), John 6:40, Romans 6:22
A small sampling of it described as a current possession: John 3:36, 5:24, 6:47, 1 John 5:13
When exactly does it start? Maybe when our mortal bodies are changed to immortal bodies?? I haven’t really looked into it.
But from Acts 11:18, (if it’s talking about eternal life) we know that repentance is required for it.
Tim,
If the text had said “life unto repentance”, what do you think that would have meant?
Hi Don,
If we understand Acts 11 as referring to salvation (ie eternal life) for the Gentiles (cf Acts 13, 2 Cor 7:10) then with your hypothetical rendering we have “God granted them eternal life leading to repentance.” It just doesn’t make sense.
It reverses the clear testimony of Scripture that you must repent and believe to inherit eternal life.
Tim,
Good response. I couldn’t get you to take the bait.
I don’t know if you’re a Reformed Calvinist or not, but all Reformed Calvinists believe “life leads to repentance”.
The people Jesus was speaking to in John 10:10 were alive physically. Jesus said to these “living” people: I am come that they might have “life”, and that they might have it more abundantly.
My question, when would people get this “life” that Jesus mentions in John 10:10, and “where” do they experience it more abunduntly? What I mean by “where” is it while we are alive physically or do we have to wait until we die (heaven).
Hi Don,
In John 10:10 Jesus is continuing a “figure of speech” (vs 6) and is discussing sheep. When He states “The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly.” I think the focus is on the fact that Jesus as the door (vs 9) and as the shepherd (vs 11) gives life to the sheep rather than cause them harm like the thieves and hired hands.
What is this “abundant” life? Keeping with the same figure of speech perhaps Psalm 23:1-6 describes it best. These sheep have abundant life because their shepherd is a good shepherd even willing to lay down his life for them. (vs 11)
When does this abundant life start? I don’t see a “when” discussed in this passage.
“Reformed Calvinist”?: I’m not sure of all the baggage that the term brings with it, and I’m sure both of us dislike broad brush labels.
Concerning the topic we’ve been discussing, I do believe the Bible teaches that man has a heart of stone and is rebellious toward God by his very nature. And that it takes a work of God to open that sinner’s eyes so they can see, repent of their sin and turn to Christ by faith. (Eph 2:3-5,8 cf. Phil 1:6,28-29)
I do believe the life in John 10 is a qualitative life we have now, and it is the kind of life that never ends. John’s use of the idea “life” is very much qualitative in emphasis not so much focused primarily on after death-life.
Saying it is regeneration that preceeds faith is partially semantic in my view. Life results from God’s work in us. His work in us causes human faith and repentance. Some texts speak of it from a human perspective that repentance (i.e. faith follows hard on the heels of repentance), is required for true life, it preceeds true life. I can agree with that.
Calling what God does in us whereby he gives us a new heart or causes us to understand spiritual things, or causes us to see whereas before we were blinded, or causes us to believe, or causes us to repent — this operation of God is not specifically named as “regeneration”. It fits, and we call it that conveniently, but regardless of its exact title, God is the prime mover in causing these things. Whenever Scripture directly speaks of the origination of faith and repentance in man, or even of the new birth, it is said that God is the one who causes that. We call this monergistic vs. synergistic regeneration. God is the prime mover behind our actions. He gives or witholds mercy, He elects or passes over, He effects that by working in hearts. Without God’s work, we as carnal creatures are blind, bound, and dumb (can’t understand spiritual things), we’re dead, and we are following the prince of this world being his children by nature. What effects our transformation, to deliver us from this and allow us to believe and follow God, CANNOT be our own initiative because the flesh cannot please God and we do not save ourselves. God works, and then God sustains our work. God started the work in us, He didn’t cooperate with the spark of divine life we contained within us. He began the work, and He will bring it to completion. Just as God works in believers to cause them to will and do, so He works in unbelievers to cause them to believe and follow. This is explicitly called “drawing” of the Father, without which no one “can” come to Christ in faith.
Bob,
You have stated your position extremely well here. Please stop whatever you’re doing and re-read what you wrote. I know why I’m not a calvinist I’m not smart enough. Please “monergistic/synergistic regeneration”!!! Are you kidding me! Does our Lord want salvation to be this complicated?
I have mentioned in a couple of posts about Jesus saying that if He was lifted up He would draw “all” men unto himself. He goes on to say that just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of Man be lifted up. He compares the folks looking upon the serpent and being “saved” from death from the biting serpents to folks looking to Jesus for salvation. I know what calvinists believe about salvation now and about those lost folks who come to the Lord now. I disagree, of course, believing that while they are drawn they can resist that drawing. What I would like an answer to is the folks that looked upon the serpent did they have to be drawn and all of this spooky stuff go on behind the scenes or did, just as the story says you could choose to look and live or you could choose not to look and die. If nothing spooky had to go on behind the scenes for the folks to be saved from the snake bites, then why does all of this spooky stuff have to go on for folks to be saved now?
By the way, the Word of God was preaced at our church service yesterday and a man called upon the Lord to save his soul, just as the entire new testament teaches. Praise God! We then had a home cooked meal, there were 15 people in attendance, but what a time we had. After the meal we went back to the small creek behind the church building and baptized our new brother, just as the entire new testament teaches and the angels were rejoicing.
In Christ
Greg
Greg,
1) I am thrilled at the blessing of God for you and your congregation and especially that one more sinner has been saved.
2) The mysterious behind the scenes stuff you refer to, is explicitly taught in Scripture. That is the only reason I believe it.
3) The event in Numbers about the snakes didn’t result in actual salvation from sin for those people, but is used as a picture of salvation by Jesus. Since the Bible says that both sinful and non-sinful actions of people are in some mysterious way caused by God, then I would assume God stands behind the action of the people looking and living too in some way. (Joseph’s brothers sinned but God “did it” to save people. God ultimately acted in bringing about the crucifixion but real people committed really evil acts in so doing that too.)
4) Jesus said he will draw all men to himself in the sense of the serpent being lifted. He will compel the attention of all men. This drawing concerns all, but the drawing in John 6:44 concerns only those who actually come.
5) Sorry for the term “monergism”. That is shorthand for a theological term. It describes the role of God in bringing about our salvation.
I gotta run now, as supper’s on the table. Thanks again, Bob.
Tim,
I think Jesus was talking about men (people) as mentioned in Vs 9. It is these men that Jesus likens to sheep.
Jesus did not say He keeps them safe, nor did He says He keeps them alive. What He said, is He gives them LIFE. That LIFE, He gives to people that are already alive. Which leaves only ONE possible conclusion as to what kind of LIFE is given. It has to be spiritual LIFE. This new LIFE is to be enjoyed abunduntly in our physical bodies during our days on earth, and continues for eternity. This is the same LIFE the Jews in Acts 11:18 referred to when they said “repentance unto LIFE”. They knew the Gentiles received LIFE because of their changed lives. Because of their new LIFE, they now magnified God through the Holy Spirit 1 Cor. 12:3.
Guess I was wrong on you being a Reformed Calvinist. I just assumed you were because you were writing on Bob’s site. As far as labels go it depends on what it is. For instance I would never call myself a Calvinist or an Arminian. I’m want to be identified with Christ, and not a man Acts 11:26. I’m still one those ignorant KJV Independent Fundamental Baptists that Bob is trying to rescue. But I’m to far gone for help.
What God began in Phil. 1:6 is LIFE.
Bob,
The Holy Spirit does work on hearts of unbelievers John 16:8-11. His work is to bring repentance and faith. Which in turn is the requirement for God to regenerate and save the individual.
Stay tuned in tomorrrow. Do not touch that dial.
Bob & Tim,
The following is my third proof text showing faith precedes regeneration. This one is my favorite because it is the only verse in the Bible that mentions the word “regeneration” with respect to the new birth.
Not only does the verse mention “regeneration”, but it partially defines the word. Which leaves no room for doubt in the Ordo Salutis as to where “regeneration” should be placed.
Titus 3:5
“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.”
My first question would be: What is washed?
I would be very interested in the Reformed Calvinist’s answer to that question.
But instead of waiting I’ll give you mine.
The washing of regeneration I believe must be the washing away of our sins. I say that because I don’t find anything else in scripture that it could possibly be. Note the following:
Rev. 1:5
“…and washed us from our sins in his own blood.”
Acts 3:19
“Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out.”
Acts 10:43
“…whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.”
Acts 22:16
“…and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.”
Romans 3:25
“… a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins.”
Assuming I am correct on the washing of our sins; my second question would be: Do sins get washed away before or after one repents and believes? The above verses should help answer that question if you have any doubt.
I trust you all said one repents and believes before washing.
Now my third question: If repentance and faith occur before our sins are washed, does that not prove they must also precede regeneration since regeneration is the washing of the sins?
The washing of sins is not the only thing involved when one is regenerated, but it is the part God wanted us to know.
Even though Titus 3:5 should settle the fact that faith precedes regeneration, I’ll have more texts to further substantiate the point.
Don,
I think you are forcing too much out of Tit. 3:5. Couldn’t it be washing which flows from regeneration? Or the washing that is intimately associated with regeneration? Where is faith in the context? Paul’s stress is on regeneration and washing as an act He does, not something bestowed to worthy recipients.
Furthermore, many believe baptism is in view here. Certainly baptism pictures the washing away of sins. Acts 22:16 which you mentioned above and 1 Pet. 3:21 with a possible interpretation of John 3:5 seems to imply this. So Titus 3:5 could be referring to the baptism which symbolizes the washing accomplished by regeneration.
Regeneration can be used in a broad sense, and often has been in the history of theological interpretation. The life imparted surely carries with it the renewing aspects which eventually result in birth and externally apparent life. Once again, this passage does not seem to specifically mention the cause of faith, which is what the T addresses in my view. You still have not adequately explained how the lost who cannot understand spiritual things can suddenly come to faith independently. And if they don’t come independently, than how different is your view really from mine?
Ezekiel 36:25-27 is pertinent both to the text at hand (Tit. 3:5) and our underlying discussion, the role of regeneration and the total depravity of man.
“I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.” Sounds pretty monergistic to me.
Bob,
I suppose at the start of this I should have said: “I believe God says what He means and means what He says.”
I approach the Bible with thought that God told us what He wanted us to know. What I mean by that is God did not leave words out or used the wrong words. I don’t believe God then gave certain men the knowledge or ability to “correct” or “fix” what He plainly stated. God gave teachers to teach what He said and not what He “should have” said. Paul said to Timothy to “preach the word”. He did not say correct the word.
When Luke wrote “life” in Acts 11:18 it was because God meant meant “life”.
Likewise, when Paul wrote “by the washing of regeneration”, God meant for Paul to write “by the washing of regeneration”.
You gave a couple of possible “corrections” to the wording of the verse. Yet you gave no Scriptural support for changing the clear meaning of the text. Even the ESV uses the exact same words as KJV. The reason is simple: there is no other way to translate the phrase.
You then seem to indicate it could mean “baptismal regeneration”. I don’t want to get of track on baptismal regeneration, unless its something you believe in.
You ask where is faith in the context? Answer, its not mentioned. Why is it not mentioned? Answer, the verse mentions what God does to save us. The verse is not about what man must do. If God gave faith as a gift as you believe, then Paul would have included as well. In fact anytime God mentions what He does in salvation, faith is never mentioned.
Lastly you use Ezekiel 36:25-27 and say its pertinent to Titus 3:5. I agree it is pertinent, but what kind of argument is it to simply say: “Sounds pretty monergistic to me”. Just an added note, there is no mention of faith in Ezekiel 36:25-27 either.
Don,
For the record, I don’t believe God said what he meant in the Bible.
That is totally tongue in cheek, now. Do you really think I hold to something like you’re stating?
I’ve answered Acts 11:18 ad nauseum. I’ve given you other texts and arugments you are completely silent about. “Of” has a wide range of meaning. You say God meant what he said, but you import a systematic list of texts outside of Titus 3:5 to help interpret it. I am not baptismal regenerationist. But Batptism pictures the washing of regeneration. He could have been using it as a picture. Just as baptism doesn’t do the cleansing but pictures it, so too regeneration results in cleansing but doesn’t necessarily have to do cleansing before it causes faith. What in the passage says regeneration has to be post-faith?
Is Titus 3:5 really meant to be, and is it intended in its context as an occasional letter, to be the be-all end-all verse on this question?
Hi Don and Bob,
Just to let you both know, I’ll be moving across the country the next few weeks so won’t be able to contribute much to the discussion. But I’ll follow and contribute when I can.
Don, from my understanding, I agree with your analysis of Titus 3:5 in that the “washing of regeneration” includes the cleansing of sin. This passage reminds me of Ephesians 2 and John 3:5 where Jesus was probably referring to the same things as Paul mentions in Titus 3:5.
Your conclusion is that this disproves the Calvinistic order of salvation. Do you have a link or a reference I can read by a Calvinist that puts the washing/forgiveness of sin before faith? That would certainly contradict Matthew 9:2 and the Biblical teaching that forgiveness follows repentance. I’m doubtful that this is what’s actually believed by those you are refuting.
Sorry I got a bit upset in the last comment, Don. But I do fail to see how the text itself in Tit. 3:5 demands no time separation or logical separation between “washing” and “regeneration”. How does this expressly rule out a “generated faith” that comes in between “regeneration” and “washing”?
Tim,
You may want to read again my first post on Titus 3:5 before you agree with me. Don’t get me wrong, I trust you will continue to agree after reading my post. I think you did not understand my point, though I trust you did.
Yes, I agree Eph. 2 is referring to the same things as Paul mentions in Titus 3:5. In fact that will be my next text.
Yes, my conclusion is that this disproves the Calvinistic order of salvation. You also will believe it disproves the Calvinist order of salvation, unless you can disagree with me.
You asked me for a link or reference of a Calvinist who believes washing/forgiveness of sin comes before faith. No, I cannot. Which is my point. As far as I know all Calvinists (myself as well) believe faith comes before washing and forgiveness. Matt. 9:2 that you sited is one of several examples.
You admitted “the washing of regeneration” includes the cleansing of sin. You also believe faith comes before the washing. Does that not prove to you, faith must comes before regeneration.
Bob,
I don’t mind if you get upset. Though my intent is not to rile you. I understand this is your blog and not mine.
I don’t understand what you mean with “no time separation”?
One reason the “generated faith” is ruled out is because Paul is telling Titus what God did to save us. If “generated faith” is part od what God does to save us, one certainly think Paul would have included here.
I don’t think Titus 3:5 is the end all verse. I don’t believe a Bible doctrine should be build on just one verse. This is my third thus far with more to come. While it is not an end all verse, I do think it is an eye opening one.
Hi Don,
I’m allowed to agree with you; I’m not here to refute everything you post 🙂
Maybe we’re talking past each other a bit. I’m a bit confused with your comment “Yes, my conclusion is that this disproves the Calvinistic order of salvation.” followed by “As far as I know all Calvinists (myself as well) believe faith comes before washing and forgiveness.”
In one case you say this disproves the Calvinist order of salvation, then say no Calvinist believes the order you are refuting? I feel the 5 points of Calvinism accurately describe the Biblical presentation on salvation, by claiming to be a Calvinist do you believe the same?
To clarify my position, I agree with you that faith comes before the washing of regeneration (which includes the washing away of sin), but not with your conclusion that because faith is absent from Titus 3:5 that faith is not something God creates within us.
– Romans 10:17 – does not faith ultimately come from the word of Christ through the power of the Spirit? (cf. Col 1:5-6 faith is the fruit of the word)
– Why would Paul thank God for the faith of the people in the opening of his letters?
Where did your faith come from?
Tim,
I’m glad you’re not trying to refute everything I say.
I guess I did not make myself clear. I’ll try again.
I was not saying I was a Calvinist. I was saying I believe as do Calvinists that faith comes before washing/forgiveness. I was agreeing on that point.
I do not believe washing/forgiveness comes before faith. I believe faith comes first.
Again my point, if faith comes before washing/forgiveness (and it does we both agree) then faith must also come before regeneration, because washing is part of being regenerated.
I’ll answer the rest of your questions later tonight. I’m off to the store with my wife.
Hi Don,
To restate your point “if faith comes before washing/forgiveness (and it does we both agree) then faith must also come before regeneration, because washing is part of being regenerated.”
I agree with your statements:
1. faith comes before washing of sin/forgiveness
2. washing is part of regeneration
But your conclusion “then faith must also come before regeneration” doesn’t necessarily follow. Joining your statements we can conclude that “faith comes before the washing part of regeneration”.
One could also reasonably conclude that as washing is part of regeneration, so too is faith. So in the “regeneration process” we could have faith preceding the washing of sin. [I think this may be what Bob alluded too]
Titus 3:5 neither includes or excludes faith as part of regeneration.
Tim,
I must say I have to agree with something Greg said earlier today. Namely, I’m not smart enough to be a Calvinist. I would never have thought that God forgot to have Paul include faith in regeneration.
One of my problems with Calvinism is it seems as if they start with their theology and then make the Bible fit it. Whether its adding words or changing the clear meaning of the words or changing the order of the words.
Now, how is it possible to “reasonably conclude that faith is part of regeneration” when it is not mentioned or inferred in text. Not only is it not mentioned in Titus 3:5, but it is never mentioned as part of regeneration or similar word.
If one builds their theology on words God forgot to put in the text, where does it end? Does Monergism.com sell a handbook on the missing words of the Bible?
Forgive the sarcasm, but I hope you get my point.
There are two things we “know” about regeneration from Titus 3:5. First it involves washing and second the renewing of the Holy Spirit. That’s it!!!! Anything else is adding to the text.
So Don, you make a point. We need to be careful in arguing from silence. I think I’m arguing that the silence in Tit. 3:5 allows for my position on generated faith. You are arguing from silence in Tit. 3:5 to say faith must precede regeneration, but still no faith is found in the passage.
From your argument so far, here is what I see as your points:
1) Regeneration involves giving of life
2) Regeneration involves being made children of God
3) Regeneration involves a washing from sin
Then following this you say further:
1a) Giving of life follows repentance
2a) Being a child of God follows upon personal faith
3a) The washing away of sin follows personal faith/conversion
Now you must admit that there is logic involved here and some connecting of the dots. The word “regeneration” only occurs once in the NT related to the “regeneration” we are referring to (Tit. 3:5). So when you and I use the term we are giving it some meaning from other texts. Phrases like “life”, and “born again”, and “begotten” or “brought forth”, or “children of God” are all similar in meaning and we are treating them under the convenient rubric or term “regeneration”.
I agree with your first three points. I agree entirely. But I modify your second three.
I have:
1b) The experience of life (which comes after the imparting of life), is connected with repentance
2b) Being a child of God is evidenced by personal faith
3b) The washing away of sin does not happen without personal faith/conversion also happening
Now you can say I’m theologizing here and not taking the text at face value. But that’s what I’m saying you are doing with some of my texts. And it is also what you are doing even with the three texts above. They don’t say everything you make them to say.
I’ve already argued for:
1) Faith and Repentance are gifts of God given to man.
2) Understanding the gospel is not natural but requires spiritual discernment.
3) A drawing or giving by God the Father is required for people to come to Christ.
4) Jesus only reveals himself to those He wants to.
5) Being able to see Jesus as glorious in the Gospel is something that God must supernaturally work in your heart (akin to his creation of light from darkness).
And a host of similar points. I’m not sure if this post helps provide clarity much or not. I thought it was making sense but now it’s late and my thinking is cloudy.
Hi Don,
You said “I must say I have to agree with something Greg said earlier today. Namely, I’m not smart enough to be a Calvinist. I would never have thought that God forgot to have Paul include faith in regeneration.
One of my problems with Calvinism is it seems as if they start with their theology and then make the Bible fit it. Whether its adding words or changing the clear meaning of the words or changing the order of the words.”
Not constructive at all towards the conversation. I know some would just repeat the same accusations against your position but such a blanket generalization would not be helpful. Lets debate what the text says rather then stoop to ad hominem argumentation.
You misquoted my statement “One could also reasonably conclude that as washing is part of regeneration, so too is faith.” and completely miss my point.
This is your proof text, I’m not trying to support faith is part of regeneration from this text [I’m not even sure where I stand in terms of faith and regeneration]. I was just pointing out that your conclusion is not supported here using sound exegesis. Both your theology of synergism and Bob’s theology of monergism “fit” in this passage. It doesn’t include or exclude faith, so either way discussing faith falls under your condemnation of “adding to the text”!
Bob & Tim,
Tim if I misquoted you please give the correct quote and restate your point.
I believe I am debating what the text says. What I’m not doing is debating what the text does not say.
I am not the one who has been adding words to the text. Now I will say I have made deductions from the text. But it is based on other Scripture or the natural physical life to which all can relate.
I’ll go back over briefly each of the three texts I presented one at a time.
Gal. 3:26, it is my contention that a person becomes a child of God the moment they are born. I do not know if either of you have children, but I have four boys. When my wife gave birth to each of the boys the doctor never said to my wife we’ll have to wait a bit before we can say this is your child. What was said was something of the nature: “you have a baby boy” or “you gave birth to a boy.” When she gave birth we never had to around to see if the baby was a child. The baby was declared a child the instant he was born. He did not become a child sometime down the road.
Now, if God uses natural physical terms as born or children with respect spiritual life, should we not think of them the same way as natural life. I would agree that they should be viewed differently if God elsewhere in Scripture stated a person becomes a child of God by doing something after they are born of God. Thus far I have not seen one and you have not supplied one.
Therefore, the new birth cannot be separated from being a child (please give Scripural support if you disagree). Since the text states we are children by faith, is not the only logical conclusion that faith must also precede the new birth.
I’m not saying the word regeneration or born again should be included in the verse. In fact it would be redundant because it would already be assumed because no one yet has become a child without first being born.
Do you understand my argument? I didn’t ask if you agreed. I what to make sure I’m correctly communicating my thoughts.
Second, because you have to disagree with my premise, could show where I’m wrong.
Thanks
Don,
On Gal. 3:26, I do understand you. Faith is the agent or means that makes us children of God and so since being children of God, is inherently connected to being born again, having life, and being regenerated, you see Faith as being instrumental to regeneration.
As I’ve said before the term “regeneration” is somewhat broad and has been used in a broad sense before. When I use it to say regeneration precedes faith, I am using it in a narrow sense. I am trying to express that God is the one who causes faith.
So I see it as a God-caused faith, that is the means by which people are children of God. That to me, doesn’t conflict with Gal. 3:26, and rather it does justice to 1 John 5:1 and other texts which deal with God being the cause of human faith.
Don –
If faith comes before regeneration, do you believe a man can have faith in Christ and not be saved until he is regenerated? If so, you are saying that it is theoretically possible for a man to have faith and not be saved. This contradicts the Scriptures that teach man is saved who has faith!
Andrew
Andrew,
No, a man cannot have faith and not be saved. I believe a person is instantly saved the moment he believes.
I sense a follow up question.
If you don’t think God initiates the “saving faith”…do you think that He might have orchestrated the circumstances that brought it about? Isn’t the “Primary Cause” the generator of the effect? Is the effect a surprise to God? Can God be surprised?
Brother Johnson –
If you sense the follow-up question, I won’t bother to ask it.
Your Friend,
Andrew
Nancy & All,
I have not said anything (at least I can’t remember) yet about where faith comes from. My objective thus far is to show that faith precedes regeneration and I’m not even halfway done with that.
Could someone or everyone tell me what they think Stephen meant in Acts 7:51 “ye do always resist The Holy Ghost”?
I know this has nothing to do with “Irresistible Grace”. Also I’m not asking how they were able to resist. My question again is what is it they were resisting? And don’t just say the Holy Ghost.
Don –
I think Acts 7:51 is an excellent verse in favor of Calvinism. It teaches us that mean ALWAYS resist the Holy Ghost. How is it that a man can stop resisting the Holy Ghost (Acts 13:14). No Calvinist believes a man does not use his will to resist the Gospel; they believe that due to his sin nature, that is all he wills to do.
As to your question, I would think that what is meant here is the general gospel call (Mt 20:16, 22:14).
By the way, since you’ve reasserted that faith precedes regeneration, how is it not possible for a man to have faith and not (YET) be saved?
Andrew,
Could you clarify your statement “and not (YET) be saved.” I want to make sure I’m answering what you asked.
Don –
Let me cut to the chase. Folks seem to accuse Calvinists of believing that a person can be regenerated and THEN (in a temporal sense) come to faith. The argument is that one cannot be born again without faith.
I’m just trying to turn the tables and ask the my free-will brothers whether a man can come to faith and THEN (in a temporal sense) be regenerated. If so, there is a period of time where the man has faith, but is not yet saved.
I think we all agree that faith and regeneration and justification all occur at the same time.
Andrew,
Are you sure Acts 13:14 is the verse you wanted to give.
Are you sure Acts 13:14 is the verse you wanted to give?
Of course! Don’t you get the obvious typology involved in locations like Antioch and Pisidia.
Some less Spiritual folks thought I was going to refer to Acts 16:14 again.
Andrew,
I’m definately one of those less spiritual folks. I thought you meant Acts 13:48. Just to show how much less spiritual I am, I have no idea what you’re trying to communicate with Acts 13:14.
You say there is “obvious typology” and maybe there is, but I don’t have a clue. Please help me understand.
No, I don’t think faith and regeneration occur at the same time.
There must be an order of the two. One must occur before the other. Though faith occurs first, regeneration immediately follows.
Just because you use to believe that faith immediately followed regeneration, there are some Calvinists that believe there could be varying gaps between the two.
Back to Acts 7:51, what was the Holy Ghost trying to communicate that the people were resisting?
Don –
I’m really sorry for the confusion. Yes, I was mistaken when I typed Acts 13:14 – I was just joking about the ‘obvious typology’. What I meant to type was surely Acts 13:48 (but Acts 10:44 or 16:14 would do as well).
—
Since you are pressing for whether faith or regeneration come first in the ordo salutis, I must ascent unto the work of God first (opening the ears, opening the eyes, softening the heart) and THEN conversion (faith/repentance).
If we are dead in our sins (Eph 2:1-5), unable to understand Spiritual truth (1 Cor 2:14), having a canal mind not even able to be subject to God’s law (Rom 8:6-8), unable to come without being drawn (John 6:64-65), unable to understand or seek God (Rom 3:11), unable to see or hear (Matt 13:14-16), etc., then I conclude that God has to do a work in eyes and ears of the heart before that man can hear and see and understand the Gospel and believe it and be saved.
This new principle of life is wholly the special and secret work of the Holy Spirit. How often have we prayed for the Lord to open someone’s eyes that they might ‘see’ the truth of the Gospel – this is what we are praying for.
See Ezekiel 36:24-27 and compare with John 3:3-8.
Additionally, there are other places, like Romans 8:30, for instance, that describe the ‘calling’ (of the Holy Spirit) as preceding justification (note that a man is justified when he has faith).
As an illustration, I’d like to call your attention to the resurrection of Lazarus from death to life. When Jesus commanded him to come alive by his Word, did Lazarus obey, and then receive life; or did he receive life and then obey? Certainly they must have happened at the same time! Logically, however, we must agree that the Spirit, working by the power of Jesus’ word, gave Lazarus life (life to hear the command and a will and ability to obey), so that he could obey and come out. I see regeneration in the same way.
As to Acts 7:51, given that the people are ‘uncircumcised in heart and ears’, they can do nothing but resist the gospel call. Clearly, if they are hard of heart and ears, the Spirit of God is not working IN them, but preaching TO them through Stephen, whom they reject to their condemnation. It is similar to how Peter condemned Ananias for lying to the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3) when Ananias lied to Peter.
Andrew,
I’d have to write a chapter to answer all your verses and I don’t like writing. So let’s keep this simple. You give me a verse and state why you feel it supports your position. Then I’ll respond and tell why you are wrong (I knew you would like that). Instead of just throwing the verse out there, provide some commentary with it (I said some). I don’t want to read a book.
You can start with your Acts 13:14, 13:48, 10:44 and 16:14 verses. You said nothing about them.
Don,
“…No, I don’t think faith and regeneration occur at the same time.
There must be an order of the two. One must occur before the other. Though faith occurs first, regeneration immediately follows…”
Why can’t they happen simultaneously? Nothing is impossible with God! The actual point is that it is ALL the work of God…His choosing…His action. None of us are in the body of Christ without regeneration and none of us can regenerate ourselves; it is gifted to us, so says Paul. I have to agree with Andrew, it is the “first” gifting that activates “those that follow…”
Nancy,
They can’t happen at the same time because God says they don’t. “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved” Acts 16:31. Is there an order in the verse. Do the terms sound like they happen together or does one come first.