George Bryson Cross-Examined By James White On John 6:44

O_o Wow. I honestly have never heard of George Bryson but he’s talking like a dog chasing it’s own tail. LOL

Maryland Mama,

I looked up to George at one time. I was on a mission trip to Russia with a team he was leading. Thank God for the doctrines of grace! So many brothers and sisters need to see what it is to trust in human reason above Scripture!.

Johnny B~

I don’t know if CC people are “afraid” of Calvinism…I think it may be a combo of ignorance (they just don’t know any better) and pride (especially some of the leadership)!

I will proclaim it repeatedely: There is such freedom in being a Calvinist! Bowing the knee to God and His word while not always easy…brings joy unspeakable…a full life…and true peace. He is in charge and we are SO not…

Praise Him!!!

Hello,

In the words of a wise philosopher, George Bryson is a dumb-dumb.

They at times make the issue an issue of division of faith. I believe Chuck Smith is along the same lines as Bryson. I know he wrote a little weak booklet on the synthesis of both. He talks about reading Pink’s book and throwing it across the room because it was to hard for him to understand. But via my personal experience with him, he seems like a hot head on this issue.

Does anybody know whether Calvary Chapel has experienced an official split over this issue?

Chuck allowed Walter Martin a stage in the 70s and I think in the late 60s so that was a good thing.

Anybody who wears a red sweater while they preach however is not among the elect.

Jean Cauvin

Just to be clear, we are not here to bash the CC system. We are here to encourage the readers to be strengthened in Christ. We must not forget that at one time we were also in the same place.

No matter what level of intellect we have, we were all once in darkness but God bestowed His grace upon us! We are called to be servants of all! Christ did say that whoever desires to tbe greatest must be the servant of all! Our Savior and Lord did not come to be served but to serve!

We are ministers of the new covenant, we do indeed have a treasure in earthen vessels! May we do all things to the glory of God!

Jean,

It was interesting when Chuck said he felt like luther throwing ink at the devil.

Man is proud and arrogant no matter whether he be a Calvinist or Arminian. It’s merely a sin you’ll find common among all mankind including myself (especially myself).

George Bryson is extremely ignorant. He appears to have such pride and seems closed off to any rebuke or correction even if its in God’s Word. He has this annoying attitude toward the doctrine of Grace and those of us who believe in it, like we’re ignorant and don’t know any better or we’re making God to be some kind of monster instead of a loving God. Not to mention he can be confusing when he tries to twist, oops I mean “explain,” scripture to fit his rational beliefs. Sometimes I wonder if he can understand his own thinking.

Calvary Chapels do not preach the whole counsel of God, they preach their own version of it. They preach what pleases them and usually the party line of Pastor Chuck or Jon Courson.

Calvary Chapel ministers are taught on purpose to be vague, disengenous in contraversial issues. While they boast in not seeking numbers, the training to ignore or resist dealing with contraversial issues is done so that they my gain in numbers.

Calvary Chapel ministry is not teaching the whole word of God simply because the Pastor decides what is contraversial and therefore what is divisive. Wherefore when the pastor speaks he will ignore those doctrines that are clearly stated and can be addressed in the text but instead he will sidestep them and feed you something that wont make you want to walk out the door.

I do wish this was not true but its in Calvary Distinctives written by Chuck Smith himself.
Pg 57-59.

Calvary stays away from the ‘name’ of contraversy, therefore they refuse to call themselves a denomination even though they are clearly one. You can quote them as saying they are not, but that is only because of the disengenous method of trying to be unified instead of telling all the truth. Pastor Chuck teaches his young ministers that if they become in volved in Reformed theology, or involved in contraversial issues they will loose half their crowd. So to remain pleasantly inert in teaching the bible so no one gets upset, its important to become devotional when the text might lead to a doctrinal stance that “they feel” shouldnt be taught because it might create division doctrinally.

The reality is in some cases that the pastors were so ill trained, they were unable to handle theological issues comfortably or with enough wisdom, Pastor Chuck simply taught them to sidetrack those teachings in favor of other friendlier teachings. Its calvary’s way of being seeker sensitive as well as preserving congregations lead by men who could not answer valid biblical questions beyond Chucks own teaching tapes.

Yes, I attend Calvary Chapel and have done so the last 5 years and I was married in one.
The realities of this denomination are what they are. If you dont like it, well move on.

IN a very real sense Pastor Chucks own limitations are spread to his young ministers. He had trouble with Gods sovereignty so in turn all pastors are to take the route Pastor Chuck did.
He saw that denominationalism was a trouble spot so he trained his ministers to avoid ‘title, names, doctrines or anything’ that would turn off people. Not only did this ministry as a whole turn from contraversy but from good solid biblical teaching as well. In order to protect the ministry and its leaders from problems a strong party line was propogated and is instilled in all young leaders.

John

[MODERATORS ARE NOT ON DUTY 24/7 - EXPECT SOME DELAYS AT TIMES]

John,

I hear you on the way things are done at CC’s. What Chuck doesn’t realize, is that people are leaving because, they won’t make a Biblical stand on doctrine. I was at one, where a group of people left, because the pastor, wouldn’t teach, eternal security, when the text was clearly teaching it.

They do quote Chuck a lot, which is scary, he’s a man just like the rest of us. He’s not the final authority, on any Biblical teaching. His way out is, He would rather err on the side of mercy, then be dogmatic. That’s not a direct quote, but I heard him say something to that effect.

Being a regular listener to “The Dividing Line” and James White’s various debates; I am very aware of this debate with George “Get My Book” Bryson. I have yet to become a James White channel rat as I find the channel rats to be a bit too strange for my taste. I took a cruise up to Victoria British Columbia Canada last year with James White and some of the channel rats, and I still think the channel rats are too strange.

I was mainly on the cruise to hear what James White had to say on the subject of the cross.

So James White is a cool Calvinist and Tim Keller is a uncool Calvinist and it appears you guys are of the Presbyterian tradition and not the Reformed Baptist tradition. Hmmmm …. well James White did expose George Bryson as being totally ignorant of Calvinism as some in your group appears to be of Tim Keller.

I meant, all that GEORGE could quote was John 3:16

Sorry folks for the very long entry but I rarely respond to the statments made about me and what I believe on web sites. I have recieved a lot of e-mails telling me that I should say something on the sites that are showing the You-Tube clip and saying that I am afraid to speak up. The truth is I do not wish to spend a lot of time going back and forth so I am going to say a lot all at once. I recognize it will be way too much for some people who would rather get a little at a time. If you read the whole entry or just the last half of the entry, you will see what I have have been saying to the position of James White on John 6: 44 and related passages. To the open minded, it should be obvious that James White is reading into John 6: 44 and elsewhere what is not in in John 6: 44 and elsewhere. Enjoy!

_________________________________________________________

CHAPTER THIRTEEN
IRRESISTIBLE GRACE
SCRIPTURALLY REFUTED
To many (if not most) Calvinists, the sixth chapter of John offers very strong support for irresistible grace. For some Calvinists, John chapter six can only be understood as proof of the Calvinist doctrine of irresistible grace. A careful reading of this portion of Scripture provides evidence to the contrary. If you are a Calvinist, this may require that you take off your Calvinist colored glasses (presuppositions) if you dare. In verse thirty-seven we read:

All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out. (Jn.6: 37)

A couple of verses later Jesus said:

This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing (Jn.6: 39).

In what is considered (by Calvinists) as one of the most important passages for the Calvinist doctrines of salvation and damnation in general and irresistible grace in particular, verse forty-four of the same chapter says:

No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. (Jn.6: 44)

Then in verse sixty-five Jesus says to His disciples:

I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father (Jn.6: 65)

Backing up to verses thirty-five and thirty-six, Jesus says:
I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst. But I said to you [those that were opposing Him] that you have seen Me and yet do not believe (Jn. 6:35–36).

The failure of unbelieving Jews to believe was their forfeiture of essential spiritual food and drink. Their failure to come to Him and believe in Him was a matter of choice on their part as is evident in our Lord’s obvious displeasure with their failure (or refusal) to believe. It is in this context that Jesus also said:

All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out (Jn. 6:37).

NEITHER REJECTED NOR EJECTED

Thus, those who believe in Jesus Christ are one and the same as those whom the Father gives to Him. In like manner, in coming to Christ in faith, the sinner can be assured that he will neither be rejected (kept out) nor ejected (kicked out) of the kingdom of God. Jesus is making the lost aware of how secure in Him they will be if they come to Him in faith. He is also making the saved aware of how secure in Him they are because they have come to Him in faith. As evidence that this is indeed our Lord’s purpose, consider the next two verses.

For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day (Jn. 6:38–39).

Once again, the context makes it evident that the ones given to the Son by the Father are the ones who believe in Christ and have therefore come to Him in faith. For in the next verse He says:

This is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.” (Jn. 6:40)

Those who remained lost may have seen the Lord, but did not see and believe in Him. Those who saw and believed received eternal life and a guarantee of a resurrection to life, according to the will of God. While it is very clear that those who are given to the Lord are believers and therefore have come to Christ in faith, it is not clear, as Calvinists want us to believe, that those given to the Son by the Father believed because they were given. Those given to Christ are given to Christ because “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life” (Jn. 3:16).

The reason a lost man can be (and is in fact saved) is because of who God is, what God is like, and what God did for the lost in the person of His Son. Jesus died for their sins and then rose from the dead to die no more. The God-ordained condition for salvation, or that which a man must do to be saved, is to believe in Jesus Christ (Acts 16:31).

Logically, faith in Christ is necessary to being given to Christ. Chronologically, faith in Christ is simultaneous to coming to Christ. When a lost person believes in Christ in time, He is given to Christ for time and eternity. Otherwise we have unbelievers given to Christ. It is believers and not unbelievers who come to Christ. It is believers and not unbelievers who are given to Christ. Even if we accept that there is a sense in which the one who believes in time was already given to Christ in eternity, those given must be viewed as believers, before they actually believe, and are given as believers to the one they will eventually believe in. Calvinists go adrift, in part, because they have factored out the all-important faith factor.

None of the above is meant to suggest that an unbeliever does not need supernatural enablement to believe. John six forty-four makes it very clear that we need to be supernaturally enabled to believe so that we can believe. Nor does it mean that faith in Christ produces that which follows faith, whether we are talking about regeneration or justification. Only God can and does regenerate the spiritually dead. Just so, only God can and does justify the ungodly. While God draws all unbelievers so they can believe, He only grants that believers come to Christ. Referring to John 6:39–40, Sproul is on the mark and makes my case when he says:

In this passage Jesus makes it clear that He is concerned about every believer being raised up at the last day. This qualifies His statement about what the Father has given Him that would never be lost. It is believers that are given to Christ by the Father, and these believers will never be lost. This affirmation builds on what Jesus declared only moments earlier (John 6:36–38).

I would, of course, apply 6:44 to what Sproul says in reference to 6:65. Notice, however, that Sproul Sr. admits, “It is believers that are given to Christ by the Father.” It is, therefore, not unbelievers who are given to Christ. On this we could not be more agreed. Nevertheless, Sproul, commenting on John 6:65, asks:

Does God give the ability to come to Jesus to all men?
According to Sproul and all committed Calvinists:
The Reformed view of predestination says no.
In John 6:65, Jesus says (as also quoted by Sproul):

Therefore … no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father. (Jn. 6:65)

We will be forgiven for asking the question, “To what does the word ‘therefore’ refer?” While speaking to those that opposed Him, Jesus says:

There are some of you who do not believe. … Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.” (Jn. 6:64–65)

That is, to those who believe in Christ, it is granted by the Father that they come to Christ. You must, therefore, come to Christ in faith or you cannot come to Christ at all. If you do come to Christ in faith, you will neither be rejected nor ejected. At this point the Calvinist is likely to ask, “How is it that an utterly lost, totally depraved, and, yes, spiritually dead sinner is able to believe in Christ?” It is by God’s grace and with God’s help—that’s how. I completely agree with Sproul when he concludes from a reading of John 6:65:

The meaning of Jesus’ words is clear. No human being can possibly come to Christ unless something happens that makes it possible for him to come. … Man does not have the ability in and of himself to come to Christ. God must do something first. This passage teaches at least this much; it is not within fallen man’s natural ability to come to Christ on his own, without some kind of divine assistance. One thing is certain; man cannot do it on his own steam without some kind of help from God.

Where we differ is over the answer to the questions:

What kind of help is required? How far must God go in order to overcome our natural inability to come to Christ?

The Calvinist insists that this help must irresistibly lead to faith, and not just give the ability or capacity to believe. Not only so, but the Calvinist also insists that:

It takes much more than the Spirit’s assistance to bring a sinner to Christ—it takes regeneration by which the Spirit makes the sinner alive and gives him a new nature.

By what logic, or from what Scripture, does the Calvinist conclude that the Spirit’s assistance would not be enough, unless it included irresistibly making an unbeliever a believer or regenerating the lost before he believes, so that he can and must—indeed will—believe? Often the Calvinist says, or implies, that one must either believe that the Calvinist version of irresistible grace is necessary to salvation, or one must believe grace is not at all necessary to the process of bringing a sinner to faith in Christ. This is an incredible and unreasonable leap out of logic, or into illogic.

There is a logical and scriptural option that the Calvinist either ignores or rejects. We must be born again to see or enter the kingdom of God. Of that there should be no question. Coming to Christ, however, requires that we simply and truly believe in Christ. When we do, God gives us a new life and that new life is eternal. That is, God regenerates the believer when an unbeliever turns from his unbelief and believes. Again, faith in Christ does not regenerate or justify the spiritually dead sinner—God does. God, however, only and always regenerates and justifies a lost person when the lost person believes in His Son.

THE FATHER DRAWS

Again, 6:44 tells us that only those that the Father draws can come to Jesus. That is:

No one can come to Me unless the Father … draws him… (Jn. 6:44)
Although this verse is used by Calvinists as a basis to deny that some men will be able to come to Christ, combined with John 12:32, it does just the opposite. The Calvinist says that because God must draw many (if not most) people cannot believe and be saved, because in fact He does not draw many (if not most) people. As we will see, Jesus suggests that God draws all people so that all can believe and be saved. In so doing, He insures that no one will have an excuse for not believing.

Thus, both the Calvinist and the non-Calvinist Evangelical recognize that God draws and that if He did not draw a man to Christ, no man would or could believe in Christ. The Calvinist, however, uses this word “draw” to exclude (in his thinking and theology) most of the lost from ever becoming saved. The drawing work of God does not, however, make it inevitable for some unbelievers to become believers, as Calvinism says. It is the drawing work of God that makes it possible for all unbelievers to become believers. Exactly what God does to draw us we are not told in this particular passage. Perhaps John 16:8 holds the answer. It is in this verse that Jesus says:
When He [the Holy Spirit] has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment.(Jn. 16:8).

Whatever this convicting work of the Holy Spirit is, it is work on the world. He does not (in this context) have the church in focus. That is, our Lord had the lost in mind, not the saved. The Calvinist asks a reasonable question when he asks: why do people positively respond when God draws them? The Calvinist unreasonably answers that everyone who responds positively does so irresistibly. Sproul, appealing to Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament353, argues that the word translated “draw” (i.e., a form of the word elko) means to coerce, force, or even drag. He notes that in James 6:2 the same word is translated drag. That is:

Do not the rich oppress you and drag you into the courts? (James 2:6, emphasis added)

He also points out that in Acts 16:19, the past tense of this word is translated dragged. Thus we read that:

When her masters saw that their hope of profit was gone, they seized Paul and Silas and dragged them into the marketplace to the authorities (Acts 16:19).

What he does not say is that a form of this same word is also used in John 12:32, where we read:

…If I am lifted up from the earth, [I] will draw all peoples to Myself.
I have heard many Calvinists seemingly dismiss the clear teaching of John 12:32. I have never heard them suggest a plausible interpretation of this verse. While the New King James Version uses the word “peoples” instead of “men,” the translators supply these words in both cases. Actually it could be translated, “If I be lifted up from the earth, I will draw all (or everyone) to Myself.” Thus, if the drawing of John 6:44 (i.e., by the Father) can be translated forced, coerced, or dragged, could we not say the same for the drawing of John 12:32 (by and to the Son)?

If being drawn to Christ leads necessarily and inevitably to saving faith in Christ, it would lead to universalism (i.e. everyone will be saved), which Calvinists rightly reject. John 6:44 tells us that everyone that comes to Christ must be enabled to do so, and in fact is enabled to do so by being drawn. It does not tell us that everyone who is drawn to Christ comes to Christ. Even so, Calvin taught that:

To come to Christ being here used metaphorically for believing, the Evangelist … says that those persons are drawn whose understandings God enlightens, and whose hearts he bends and forms to the obedience of Christ. The statement amounts to this …no man will ever of himself be able to come to Christ, but God must first approach him by his Spirit; and hence it follows that all are not drawn, but that God bestows this grace on those whom he has elected.
True, indeed, as to the kind of drawing, it is not violent, so as to compel men by external force; but still it is a powerful impulse of the Holy Spirit, which makes men willing who formerly were unwilling and reluctant. It is a false and profane assertion, therefore, that none are drawn but those who are willing to be drawn, as if man made himself obedient to God by his own efforts; for the willingness with which men follow God is what they already have from himself, who has formed their hearts to obey him.

Irresistible grace “makes men willing who were formerly unwilling”. That is, it makes an unbeliever a believer or it makes an unbeliever believe. The unbeliever has no choice in the matter. More precisely the unbeliever chooses not to believe (for this is in accordance with his unbelieving nature) and God overrides his choice and makes him a believer or makes him believe in spite of his choice not to believe, according to Reformed Theology. Calvin makes it sound like the only alternative is to say that God only draws the willing. That misses the point of being drawn.

Being drawn does not make the unwilling willing. It enables the otherwise unable. Being enabled to come to Christ, actually coming to Christ, and necessarily coming (being compelled) are not the same. The last requires the first two; the first two do not automatically or inevitably lead to the latter. If I were given one hundred dollars I would be enabled to buy a product or service that costs one hundred dollars. The ability to buy something is not the same as actually buying it. Actually buying it could be by my own decision, or because someone forces me to buy it.

Even so, the ability to believe is not the same as actually believing, nor is it the same as necessarily believing. A person must be able to believe in order to believe. The ability to believe, however, is no guarantee that a person will actually believe. The Calvinist wrongly assumes that to be drawn to Christ is to come to Christ. It is eisegesis not exegesis that leads to such a conclusion. That is, you have to read such a view into this text because it is simply not found here. As Calvin said, to believe in Christ is to come to Christ. To be drawn to Christ enables an unbeliever to become a believer and one who is apart from Christ to come to Christ.

The drawing work of God is irresistible in that there is nothing a sinner can do to keep from being drawn to Christ. Thus, there is nothing a sinner can do to keep from being enabled to believe. Again, we must distinguish between being drawn to Christ, which enables us to believe and therefore come to Christ, and actually coming to Christ, which involves a willingness to believe on the part of the enabled.

The ability to believe is from God and God alone. The responsibility to believe is entirely ours. This question is not, as Calvinists suggest, “can a lost and spiritually impotent man resist an all-powerful God who has determined to save a person no matter what?” Instead, the question is “has God determined to save such a person no matter what?” Conversely, the question is not; can a lost and spiritually dead sinner believe if God does not draw him? Of course, he cannot. The question is; are their people God has chosen not to draw? The scriptural answer is that there are no such people.

This text in particular and the testimony of Scripture in general does not teach that God has determined that coming to Christ in faith is forced upon a person in any way whatsoever. Just the opposite is true. The challenge, appeal, and proclamation of the Gospel, as well as the words of the sixth chapter of John, assume and state in a myriad of ways that a lost, depraved, and spiritually dead sinner must respond positively to the drawing work of God and choose to do what he is enabled to do by the drawing work of God. What a man is enabled to do by the drawing work of the Father is believe in and receive Jesus Christ. That is what is meant by the words “come to me”. They are not made to believe and they are not made believers. In effect, a Calvinist paraphrase of John 12:32 could read as follows:

If I be lifted up from the earth, [I] will draw all elect men to Myself,” or “If I be lifted up from the earth, I will draw all kinds of men (from different nations, walks of life, etc.) to Myself.

As Sproul surely knows, a single Greek word (such as elko) can be used to convey very different ideas depending upon the context. This is, in fact, why the translators of most translations used different English words (i.e., draw, drag) to translate what is essentially the same Greek word in different contexts. It is not what the word “draw” may or can mean in some contexts that is at stake here. It is what the word “draw” means and implies in this context.

Thus, if we say, as Calvinists rightly say, that the drawing itself is one hundred percent something God does, then of course, it is irresistible in the sense that man cannot keep an all-powerful God from doing what He has determined to do. Since He has determined to draw all people to Christ (John 12:32), no one can and therefore no one will stop Him from drawing all people to Christ.

If we say that to be drawn to Christ implies that the one drawn necessarily or irresistibly comes to Christ and is therefore saved, as Calvinism teaches, then John 6:44 combined with John 12:32 does not teach the exclusive version of unconditional election found in Calvinism. Instead, the two passages teach an all-inclusive doctrine of unconditional election found in a Calvinistic version of universalism. That would be a theological oxymoron if there ever were one.

By analogy, consider the love God has for the lost. Is it resistible or irresistible? It is irresistible in that a man can’t keep God from loving him if that is what God has determined to do. It is resistible in that God does not force everyone or anyone He loves to receive or reciprocate His love. So it is with the drawing work of God. No one can keep God from drawing him. It is in this sense irresistible. Since, however those enabled to believe are not thereby forced to believe, it is in this respect resistible.

Calvinists are intent on finding an irresistible grace that makes salvation inevitable for an elect caste and impossible (due to the absence of irresistible grace) for a reprobate caste. This colors their thinking and theology as well as their interpretation of Scripture. Calvinists are not, however, as observant of the particulars of this verse as they should be. Again, the verse reads:

No one can come to Me unless the Father… draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day (John 6:44).

To be raised up at the last day, two things must be true of a person.

1. He must be drawn by the Father.
2. He must come to Christ.

That is, to believe in Christ, a lost and naturally unable sinner must be drawn and thereby enabled by the Father to do so. To come to Christ, an enabled sinner must choose to believe in Christ or choose to come to Christ in faith. This is the only way a man can come to Christ.
Again, in order for us to come to Christ, or if you prefer, in order to enable us to believe in Christ, the Father must draw us. Just as the work of salvation belongs to God and God alone, so drawing a man to Christ (thereby enabling that man to come to Christ in faith) belongs to God alone. This is not, or at least should not be, in dispute. This enabling to believe, however, does not negate our responsibility to believe in Christ as well. In fact, we are responsible to believe precisely because we are enabled to believe.

If we were altogether unable to believe, then it is rather silly to talk about being responsible to believe. Believing in Christ is our responsibility and not God’s. It is only the enabling work of God that makes an otherwise unable man responsible for believing. A careful reading of John 6:65, combined with John 6:37, does not provide any kind of theological silver bullet for Calvinism, as so many Calvinists contend. Again Jesus says:

Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father (Jn. 6:65).

The word “therefore” in this verse takes us back to the why of what he says in verse 65. Why does He say what He says in this verse? The answer is to be found in the preceding verses. That is, our Lord says:
There are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him. And He said, “Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father (Jn.6:64–65).
An important connection exists between the word “believe” and the word “therefore.” If we bring our Lord’s words together without the explanatory intervening words it reads:

There are some of you who do not believe. … Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father (Jn. 64a, 65).

1. The Father draws us to enable us to believe in Christ.
2. The Father grants that if we believe in Christ we thereby will come Christ. That is, believing in Christ is coming to Christ.

The problem was not that our Lord’s antagonists could not believe in Him. It was that they did not believe in Him. The drawing work of God enables all to believe and come to Christ (Jn. 6:44, 12:32) Those God the Father gives to the Son of God (i.e., those who believe) come to Christ. Why? Because believing in Christ is effectively coming to Christ. Coming to Christ is the immediate result of believing in Christ in this initial and most foundational sense. Believing in Christ is also what God requires of the lost so that they can be saved. This is not a contribution to salvation, as Calvinists charge, but a condition of salvation as Scripture teaches.

The enabling work of God (i.e., the Father’s drawing) is a gift of the Father to the unbeliever so that he can believe. It should not be confused, as it is in Calvinism, with the gift of the believer to the Son. In other words, the ability to believe is a gift of God to the unbeliever. The act of believing is the responsibility of the one enabled to believe.
The sticking point for many Calvinists is found in the words “and I will raise him up at the last day,” which concludes verse forty-four of chapter six. These words are found at the conclusion of several different statements involving the destiny of believers. Let us look very closely at what they refer to specifically in John 6:44. Again Jesus says:

No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.

The Calvinist wrongly assumes that everyone whom the Father draws comes to Christ and is saved. They also wrongly believe this verse teaches that everyone the Father draws is raised up at the last day. Instead, what this text really teaches is that:

• Those that the Father draws to the Son, which we know to be all from John 12:32,

And:

• Those that believe in Him, which we know to be some from many texts in general as well as this context in particular,
… Will be raised up or resurrected with the just on the last day.

Again, a person must be drawn, which is what God does for us, and he must believe, which is what God enables us to do for ourselves. Calvinists and non-Calvinists agree that there are many who do not and will never believe in Jesus Christ. Calvinists and non-Calvinists agree that those who never believe will forever be lost. Calvinism says, however, that the reprobate do not believe and will not believe because they cannot believe. Concerning John 6:44, White said in an open letter to Dave Hunt:

In John 6:44, the key passage regarding ‘drawing,’ we read: “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.” This is a single sentence. In Greek we have, helkuse auton, kagw anastesw auton en te eschate hemera. The direct object of the action of the Father’s drawing is the first auton, “him.” A grand total of two words separate the first ‘him’ from the second appearance of the same term, “and I will raise him up on the last day.” Now, you are telling us that this is a different ‘him,’ a different group of people. That in fact there are Eph. 1:1-14) many, many who are drawn who will not be raised up. You are telling us that the Father draws millions to Christ, but they do not experience the last phrase of this single sentence. And upon what basis? You don’t tell us. ‘Surely’ you can do so! What is the basis, Mr. Hunt?.. There is no exegetical connection outside of your own theology that says that.
Here is what White is saying:

*Because there are only two words between the first “him” and second “him” of John 6:44, what happens to the second “him” must happen to the first “him” and in fact the first “him” and second him must be the same “him”.

White’s argument is not only misleading but it misrepresents Hunt’s argument. To say as Hunt does, that all are drawn, which we know to be true from John 12:32, and that all those who will be raised up had to have been drawn, which we know to be true from John 6:44, is not the same as to say that the first “him” and the second “him” refer to a different “him”. John 6:44 does not say that some of the drawn will not be lifted up (i.e., saved) and does not need to. That is said elsewhere and clearly implied in John 12:32. Thus the first “him” and the second “him” can be one and the same “him” without saying what White says or suggests.

That is, just because John 6:44 does not say that all will be drawn does not mean that it says that all that will be drawn will be raised up (i.e., saved). Since John 12:32 does say all will be drawn (because in fact Christ was “lifted up from the earth”) and because in fact not all will be saved (as White agrees) then Scripture contradicts White and does say, “You can be drawn but not saved”. To demonstrate the fallacy of White’s interpretation of 6:44 let us consider another issue. Suppose I was to say “God is love”. Now suppose someone argues that since I say God is love, I must also say that love is God. The second affirmation that is not true does not follow from the first affirmation that is true. Again, suppose I were to say that the sky is blue. Someone then suggests that I believe blue is the sky. That would, of course, be silly.

Even so, just because I say a man must be drawn to come to Christ is not to say that all who are drawn must come. To say it does, White has to engage in eisegesis and commit a very basic logical fallacy. Thus, the problem is not with Hunt’s exegesis but with White’s eisegesis. That is, it is not that Hunt refuses to see what is in John 6:44 but that White sees what is not in 6:44 while closing his eyes to what is in John 12:32. In response to my own handling of this portion of Scripture in The Dark Side of Calvinism, White says:

…Though…George Bryson]…directly quotes numerous Calvinists, all of whom point to the same textual issues (especially the fact that John 6:44 says all those who are drawn are also raised up), his tradition is so thick and so impenetrable that he continuously misses the point. In fact, he can go on to make these claims (p. 126):

Only in the imagination of a committed Calvinist do we see that all who are drawn by the Father come to Christ or believe in Christ.
Only in the imagination of the committed Calvinist do we see that being drawn by the Father means that the one drawn must come to Christ.

Only in the imagination of the committed Calvinist do we see that those who do not come to Christ were not drawn.

While White quotes me accurately, he clearly does not accurately understand what he quotes. For White goes on to say:

I invite the reader to review John 6:37-44 for a tremendous example of the power of tradition displayed in these incredible statements. Is it my committed Calvinist imagination that those given by the Father and those drawn by the Father are the same group? …Is it just my Calvinist imagination that the “him” who is drawn in 6:44 is the “him” who is raised up (another plain textual fact Bryson ignores)?

White is so convinced that Calvinism provides the only possible explanation to anything, that he finds it difficult (if not impossible) to even grasp the argument refuting his position. It is one thing to disagree with someone else’s view. We all do. It is another thing to be unable to even see what the other point of view is saying.

Suppose I was to invite 50 people to a celebration in my home. Suppose also that I was to say that only those people I invite into my home (the 50) would be allowed into my home. Would it follow that since I invite all 50 into my home that all 50 will take me up on my invitation? Conversely, if not everyone took me up on my invitation, would it mean that I did not really invite them? The number of the people in the home cannot exceed the number of people invited. However, the number of people invited could easily exceed the number of people who accepted the invitation.

Even so, the number of people who come to Christ (or who actually believe in Christ) cannot exceed the number of people who are drawn to Christ. However, the number of people who are drawn to Christ can certainly (and does) exceed the number of people who come to Christ (or who actually believe in Christ). Stated differently, the number of people who are drawn can be greater than the number of people who come but the number of people who come cannot be greater than the number people who are drawn.

White’s Calvinist tradition and strong bias for Reformed Theology evidently makes it impossible for him to see either what Jesus is saying or what I am saying Jesus is saying. That is, despite the fact that all are drawn to Christ, not all will come to Him`. To say that those who are drawn to Christ must come is to read more into the word draw than is there. There is a simple way to prove (based on the text itself) that what I am saying is true. Ask yourself this question; why is the drawing (elkusay) work of the Father needed? The answer is simple. The drawing work of the Father is needed so that a person is able (dunatai) to come (elthein) to Christ.

If a person is not able to come, they cannot come. However, if a person is able to come, does it follow that they will come? That is the logic of Calvinism. Most of us are able to do all kinds of things we actually (for one reason or another) never get around to doing. Would it follow that if we did not do something, we were not really able to do it. Again, that is the logic or illogic of White. Again, White asks:

…Is it my committed Calvinist imagination that all the Father gives to the Son as a result of being given come to the Son (Bryson rejects this simple grammatical and textual fact)…

Think through this question and assertion with me for a moment? Has anyone suggested that someone given to the Son by the Father does not come to the Son? What I have repeatedly and clearly said is that the Father gives believers and believers only to the Son. These believers and only these believers come to the Son. Unbelievers are not given to the Son and do not come to the Son. Is this so difficult to understand? Remember what Sproul Sr. said:

In this passage Jesus makes it clear that He is concerned about every believer being raised up at the last day. This qualifies His statement about what the Father has given Him that would never be lost. It is believers that are given to Christ by the Father, and these believers will never be lost. This affirmation builds on what Jesus declared only moments earlier (John 6:36–38).

White has given us four choices:

1. He disagrees with Sproul. If this is so, he must believe the Father gives unbelievers to the Son.

2. He does not understand this simple distinction of believers versus unbelievers.

3. He did not understand me when I said the Father gives all believers and only believers to the Son and those believers and those believers only come to the Son.

4. He deliberately misrepresented what I was saying.

The reader will have to decide for himself which of these four errors White is guilty of. If there were a 5th choice, and one, which exonerates White, I would love to hear it. At the very least, White is guilty of what is referred to as the Argument from false cause. According to Meithe, this is:

A logical fallacy that mistakenly draws a causal connection between events simply because one event follows the other in time of succession.

The two events are (1) God’s drawing work of the unbeliever and (2) God’s resurrecting work of the believer. Certainly there is a relationship between the drawing work of God and the resurrecting work of God. The latter only occurs if the former occurs. But the former can and does occur without the latter occurring. In other words, just because God has to draw us as well as resurrect us, it does not follow that He will necessarily resurrect us simply because He has drawn us. In between the drawing work of God and the resurrecting work of God, God requires that we do what He enables us to do by His drawing work, which is to believe in His Son. If we do not meet His condition of believing, He will not resurrect us. God makes sure we can believe. We are therefore responsible to believe/come to Christ because we can come to Christ. God makes sure we are able to believe. We are responsible to believe.

In harmony with the teaching of Scripture, non-Calvinist Evangelicals say that those ultimately lost do not believe because they will not believe. We also say that they could believe because of the drawing work of the Father, which enables an unbeliever to become a believer. Again, I agree with Calvinists when they say that without the enabling work of God, no one could believe. I disagree with Calvinists when they say that the enabling work of God is limited to those they call the elect. We will revisit this issue regarding the words “… I will raise him up at the last day.” For now, listen to what Jesus said about those who did not believe:

I have a greater witness than John’s; for the works which the Father has given Me to finish—the very works that I do—bear witness of Me, that the Father has sent Me. And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form. But you do not have His word abiding in you, because whom He sent, Him you do not believe. You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life (Jn. 5:36–40).

Revisiting John 6:37–39, Jesus says:

All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day.

Again, the question that must be answered is: Who is it that the Father gives to the Son? We know that those given to the Son by the Father will come to the Son and be secure in their salvation. That is, they will “by no means [be] cast out.” Concerning these same people, we know that God will “lose nothing.” This is also to say, we know that they will be “raised up at the last day.” Who are the ones, however, whom the Father gives to the Son? Returning to verse forty, we can see that Jesus answers this question as follows:

…This is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day (Jn. 6:40).

Why is this so difficult for White to understand? Just as we must be drawn and come, so those who see the Son and believe will be raised up at the last day. It is not enough to see the Son, just as it is not enough to be drawn. You must see and believe, just as you must be drawn to Christ and come to Christ. Calvinists are right when they say that those who see and believe are one and the same as those that will never be cast out, never be lost, have everlasting life, and will be raised up at the last day. Calvinists are wrong when they say that if you are drawn to Christ, you will necessarily come to Christ and be raised up at the last day.

According to Calvinism, but contrary to Scripture, if God does anything to make it possible for you to be saved, you must therefore eventually become saved. The logic of this would be that if you see the Son (which we know from verse forty is God’s will), you will believe in the Son (which we also know from verse forty is God’s will). Calvinists agree with non-Calvinists that it is God’s will that both seeing the Son (whatever that may mean) and believing in Him are God’s will and that both are a characterization of the saved. It seems that everyone who believes in the Son would also have seen Him, in some sense. Will everyone, however, who has seen the Son in this necessary way, also believe in the Son? Just because you must see and believe, does it mean that you will believe if you see or because you see? The Calvinist logic would say yes. Yet Jesus also says:

I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst. But I said to you that you have seen Me and yet do not believe.” (Jn. 6:35–36).

Calvin himself said:

He uses the words, see and believe, in contrast with what he had formerly said; for he had reproached the Jews with not believing, even though they saw (verse 36).

Thus we know:

• Some will see and believe and therefore will be saved.

We also know:

• Some will see and not believe and therefore will remain lost.
This also leads directly to verses 44 and 65, where Jesus continues to tell us what God must do, which is enable and grant, and what we must do, which is believe. God reveals the Son, so that we can see Him and therefore believe in the one we see. God draws us to His Son so that we are able to believe in the one we are drawn to. This is to say that God grants that believers, not unbelievers, come to Christ. God gives believers, not unbelievers, to Christ.

It is indisputable to all Bible believers that if we believe in Christ, God grants that we come to Christ. From the human side, this is the only bridge we need to cross. It is also indisputable, or at least should be, that all believers belong to Christ because they have been given to the Son by the Father.

NOT WILLING

If we go back in the narrative of John’s Gospel, we read where Jesus addresses His opponents as follows:

“You do not have [the Father’s] word abiding in you, because whom He sent, Him you do not believe. You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.” (John 5:38–40)

Here our Lord specifically tells us why these men did not have the Father’s Word abiding in them. It was not because they were not elect or that they were not irresistibly or effectually called. It was not because they had not been subjected to irresistible grace. It was because they inexcusably did not believe in God’s Son. Here our Lord tells us why they could not have eternal life. It was not for any of the reasons that Calvinism suggests. Rather it was because they were not willing to come to God’s Son in faith. Again consider the following verses from John Chapter Six:

“I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst. But I said to you [those that were opposing Him] that you have seen Me and yet do not believe.” (vv. 35–36)

“Everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.” (v. 40)

“No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.” (v. 44)

“Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.” (v. 45)
“He who believes in Me has everlasting life.” (v. 47)

“I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever.” (v. 51)

Since I keep seeing this same old and very misleading statement that I do not want to debate White I thought some would like to know that I have offered to debate White on these topic but have been turned down because it is not on a topic he is uncomfortable with. It would seem that he is allowed “conditions” but not me. Kind of strange don’t you think? I also think it is curious that I cross examined White but Reformed sites refuse to air that cross examination. The larger article is simply to answer the many questions or assertions found on this and other “threads”. So the first entry does call for answers. The second and longer entry is simply a response to some of what is said on this site. I did not answer comments that pointed out how ignorant I was, I assume in contrast to how smart someone has to be to call someone ignorant on a web site. That is is usually the kind of things people say who have no “argument”. The lady who wrote this is probably way to smart for me to engage in a debate with. It is not much different than saying I am ugly, which I will admit to. In Christ, George

Do you have the cross examination available on you tube? If so, we’d be glad to post it here.

“George Bryson is a very unusual non-Calvinist. He is able to describe the doctrinal position of Calvinism without putting any extra eggs in the pudding. His descriptions are fair and accurate, and he clearly knows his subject. The first portion of the book, the place where he does all this, is very good…The name of this book is The Five Points of Calvinism: Weighed and Found Wanting.” (Reformed professor Douglas Wilson)

Just so that no one has a heart attack Wilson did not agree with my refutation-only that my explanation of Calvinism is correct and that is all I am saying he is saying.

Mr. Bryson,

Scripture does seem to indicate that God sends, ordains, brings, etc., evil. Here are a few passages that declare that:

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Amos 3:6 Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?

Job 2:10 But he said to her, “You speak as one of the foolish women would speak. Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil?” In all this Job did not sin with his lips.

Genesis 50:20 As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today.

1 Kings 9:9 And men shall say, Because they forsook the Lord their God, who brought out their fathers from Egypt, out of the house of bondage, and they attached themselves to strange gods, and worshipped them, and served them: therefore the Lord has brought this evil upon them.

Romans 11:36 For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.

Dear Stephen

While I disagree with what I believe you understand these Scriptures to be saying (specificically that God is morally responsible for or the cause of moral evil in the world, I appreciate your willingness to come right and say it. Some Calvinists, as I am sure you are aware want to duck this issue.

Dear Mario

I “Can you provide…specific quotes where “Calvinism” states that God is ultimately and morally responsible for all that happens, including moral evil?

Before I do, can you tell me if you agree or disagree with the view (regardless of who teaches it) that says “God is ultimately and morally responsible for all that happens, including moral evil”

Knowing this will help me avoid scratching where it does not itch.

Dear Sonja

I have probably missed a lot so I am not sure who you are directing your comments to. Unless you tell me otherwise, I am going to assume that you are speaking to one or more of my Calvinist friends.

Sonja,

Are just going to do a blog by and not explain what you mean and give some examples, with scripture backing it.

Hey Travis

I would happily share with you a biblically based interpretation/understanding of these passages, but I am trying to keep the questions straight. You seemed to agree with Stephen and would say that Calvinism teaches that God is morally responsible for everything including sin. Is that true or am I misunderstanding you? Stephen is that what you are saying?

Dear Mario

Let me know if you think the following quotes from Calvin and well known and respected Calvinists are saying that God is morally responsible for everything, including moral evil.

————————————————————————————————–

John Calvin wrote:

I… ask how it is that the fall of Adam involves so many nations with their infant children in eternal death without remedy unless that it so seemed meet to God? … The decree, I admit, is, dreadful; and yet it is impossible to deny that God foreknew what the end of man was to be before he made him, and foreknew, because He had so ordained by his decree. … God not only foresaw the fall of the first man, and in him the ruin of his posterity; but also at his own pleasure arranged it.
The word hardens, when applied to God in Scripture, means not only permission, (as some washy moderators would have it,) but also the operation of the wrath of God: for all those external things, which lead to the blinding of the reprobate, are the instruments of his wrath; and Satan himself, who works inwardly with great power, is so far his minister, that he acts not, but by his command. … Paul teaches us, that the ruin of the wicked is not only foreseen by the Lord, but also ordained by his counsel and his will… not only the destruction of the wicked is foreknown, but that the wicked themselves have been created for this very end—that they may perish.

To Calvin, whether it is passive or not:

… The will of God is necessity …

Calvin explains:

There is no random power, or agency, or motion in the creatures, who are so governed by the secret counsel of God, that nothing happens but what he has knowingly and willingly decreed … the counsels and wills of men are so governed as to move exactly in the course which he has destined.

Calvin also reasons:

… Since the arrangement of all things is in the hand of God, since to him belongs the disposal of life and death, he arranges all things by his sovereign counsel, in such a way that individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death, and are to glorify him by their destruction. … I, for my part, am willing to admit, that mere prescience [foreknowledge] lays no necessity on the creatures … the dispute is superfluous since life and death are acts of the divine will rather than of prescience. If God merely foresaw human events, and did not also arrange and dispose of them at his pleasure, there might be room for agitating the question, how far his foreknowledge amounts to necessity; but since he foresees the things which are to happen, simply because he has decreed that they are so to happen, it is vain to debate about prescience, while it is clear that all events take place by his sovereign appointment.

R.C. Sproul Jr. represents Reformed thinking and theology when he says:

God wills all things that come to pass. … God desired for man to fall into sin. … God created sin.

Sproul Jr. explains that we only have four options:

Adam, Eve, Satan, [or] God…
He then says:

The difficult question is how men came to be sinners in the first place. Remember that once there was God and nothing else. Now there is not only God and the universe but also evil. Where did it come from?
Sproul Jr. rules out Adam, Eve, and even Satan because they were created good and as such are supposedly incapable of doing bad on their own. He then asks:

Who are we left with? The case against God, the argument that he must be the one who introduced evil into his world, does not just rest merely on the process of elimination.
Sproul Jr. goes on to say:

We know that God was present…he is always present…Did God have the means? Of course he did. There is no power greater than him that could somehow stop him from changing Eve’s inclination [from good to evil]. We know that it is not only possible for God to change a person’s inclination; we know in fact that it is his habit to do so. He does it all the time…

Sproul Jr. continues:

But even if God works through secondary causes-hires someone else to do his work for him-he cannot cease to be the primary cause. In a human trial we recognize that hiring a hit man does not shift the blame from the hirer to the hiree. Both the triggerman and whoever ordered the hit stand trial for the crime. And both can hang for it. The same could apply to Adam and Eve and the fall. God might not have operated on Eve personally. He might not have flipped the switch, changing her inclinations from good to evil. He must, however, have been the ultimate cause. He could have set things up in advance, arranged all the possibilities such that it would happen. But as the sole creator and controller of those possibilities, the trail ultimately leads back to God.

R.C. Sproul Sr. admits that:

It was certainly loving of God to predestine the salvation of His people, those the Bible calls the “elect or chosen ones.” It is the non-elect that are the problem. If some people are not elected unto salvation then it would seem that God is not all that loving toward them. For them it seems that it would have been more loving of God not to have allowed them to be born. That may indeed be the case.

A. A. Hodge, an Infralapsarian, concedes that:

… All the world knows that as a predestinarian [Calvin] went to the length of Supralapsarianism, from which… the Synod of Dort, and the Assembly of Westminster, recoiled.

John Piper says:

…I conclude with Jonathan Edwards, ‘God decrees all things, even all sins.

Edwin Palmer says:

This is the awesome biblical asymmetry. God ordains sin and man is to blame.

Calvin complained about his detractors because:

They deny that it is ever said in distinct terms, God decreed that Adam should perish by his revolt. As if the same God, who is declared in Scripture to do whatsoever he pleases, could have made the noblest of his creatures without any special purpose. They say that, in accordance with free-will, he was to be the architect of his own fortune, that God had decreed nothing but to treat him according to his desert. If this frigid fiction is received, where will be the omnipotence of God, by which, according to his secret counsel on which every thing depends, he rules over all? But whether they will allow it or not, predestination is manifest in Adam’s posterity. It was not owing to nature that they all lost salvation by the fault of one parent. Why should they refuse to admit with regard to one man that which against their will they admit with regard to the whole human race? Why should they in caviling lose their labor? Scripture proclaims that all were, in the person of one, made liable to eternal death. As this cannot be ascribed to nature, it is plain that it is owing to the wonderful counsel of God.

Wayne Grudem says:

The analogy of an author writing a play may help… In the Shakespearean play Macbeth, the character Macbeth murders King Duncan. Now (if we assume for a moment that this is a fictional account), the question may be asked, “Who killed King Duncan?” On one level, the correct answer is “Macbeth.” Within the context of the play he carried out the murder and is rightly to blame for it. But on another level, a correct answer to the question, “Who killed King Duncan?” “William Shakespeare:” he wrote the play, he created all the characters in it, and he wrote the part where Macbeth killed King Duncan.

Does this represent the Calvinism you believe in?

Just my .02….. If we are able to sin (and we certainly are) and that sin is not ordained in some manner by God would it not then be outside the will of God? If what we are able to do anything outside the will of God for our lives would we not then have more authority over our lives than God?

Example: One of my hobbies is woodworking. If I make my desk and that desk then decides (outside of my will) that it does not want to be a desk and decides to be a dresser, then would not that desk would then be more powerful/have more authority for its life than I do.

As Travis said above Joseph’s brothers sinned when they sold him into slavery and lied to Jacob. Joseph then later says that God meant it for good. Does this not mean that it was in the will of God for Joseph’s brothers to sin?

George,

Our mission and purpose is to defend Scripture. We want to look at what the Scripture in its context. Once again, the goal is to strengthen Christians from trusting in emotions and feelings. Most Christians out there really don’t understand what they believe.

We are concerned with what Scripture says above and beyond a man’s opinion, be it Luther, Calvin, Chuck Smith, etc…..A man is measured by what Scripture says. When we find ourselves in error, we should be willing to submit to the authority of Scripture even if it does not feel good.

Sonja said:

“I attend Calvary Chapel. So sad to see supposed “Christians”, behaving so vehemently towards another brother. It’s one thing to talk about your doctrinal beliefs, but to demean another in the name of Christ is wrong. How do you justify things like making fun of what a pastor wears, etc. I pray your doctrine of “Grace” actually becomes a reality in your life that you live out.”

Sonja,

We are not attacking each other here. We are discussing a topic that must be addressed and dealt with. I too attended Calvary Chapel. I realized though, that what some pastors at Calvary do, is villify the term Calvinism. While many pastors say it is dangerous and to ignore theology because it is not important, they do infact adhere to a theology. One that has a low view of Scripture. Theology is to be biblically based and not based on our feeling or emotions. Emotions and feelings are deceptive. We should seek to know and understand Scripture above and beyond our human reason.

Am I the only brother that God has experienced the enlightening from a misguided view Calvinism into the glorious doctrines of grace? The saints need to encourage those who are currently struggling. This is all done to the glory of God.

The saints of old have died for the Faith Sonja. We contend earnestly because it is the souls people that are on the line. The faith was not delivered so that man can interpret his own way. Man is the receiver of truth and must interpret it according to what God has revealed, according to His word.

Dear Glen

Not at all. It means that God did what He did in Sending His Son based on the very real condition of man. One has to assume (as Calvin does) that God wanted and decreed for man to sin to make your argument. If so it is just a game as Grudem suggests.
____________________________________________________________

ADDENDUM A

MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS THAT MATTER

CALVINIST COMPATIBILISM

As noted many times in the main body of this book, many Calvinists, especially those of the mainstream, affirm that God is absolutely sovereign while also affirming that man is meaningfully and responsibly free. Unfortunately Calvinists also mistakenly conclude that believing in the sovereignty of God leads to what both philosophers and theologians refer to as determinism of one form or another. Some Calvinists believe in what can be called “soft” determinism”. Others believe in what can be called “hard” determinism. Those who believe that the Calvinist version of divine sovereignty and the biblical view of human freedom are compatible hold to the relatively softer view of determinism.

Calvinists are, of course, right when they affirm that you can believe both in the sovereignty of God and a meaningful freedom for man. Thus there is a biblical kind of compatibilism. Calvinists, however, go seriously wrong by insisting that man can be (and is) responsibly free, while all of man’s decisions (and faith itself or the lack thereof) are decreed or determined (as Reformed Theologians define these terms) by God. Because Calvinists so often give the impression that the concept of compatibilism somehow resolves the contradictions introduced in a Calvinist doctrine of salvation and damnation, it is needful that we explore this matter a bit further.

The Calvinist compatibilist faces (or in some cases refuses to face) a problem in their system. Why? Because Calvinist compatibilism makes God responsible for the sin of the sinner. Since the absolutely sovereign God is also absolutely holy, it does not follow that God could be responsible for sin. Not all Calvinists, of course, have the same thing in mind when they say they believe in compatibilism. Some Calvinists (such as James White) of the compatibilist persuasion directly or indirectly assert that one act (and the decision leading to that act) can be caused by and the result of the decisions of both God and man. They believe that the same act (and decisions leading to that act) must somehow (i.e., in some inscrutable way) be both righteous and sinful. Remember the X-factor mentioned earlier.

Most of these Calvinists will rightly reason that an act must be righteous if and when God does it because an absolutely righteous God can only act in accordance with and in conformity to His absolutely righteous nature. They will wrongly reason that it is exactly the same act (or decision) that God does in righteousness that a sinful man does in sin. In answer to how this can be, the Calvinist usually answers that it is “inscrutable”, “incomprehensible”, “a mystery hidden in the secret counsel of God”, or by simply “shrugging his shoulders”. Allow me to state Calvinist compatibilism (relative to man’s sinful acts which relate to God’s decrees) in different ways:

*God is absolutely holy and can only do good things.

*Fallen man is totally depraved, and is incapable of doing any good.

*Sometimes God and man do the same thing.

*Therefore the same thing can be good and bad.

Calvinists can also say that:

*God determines or decrees all that was, is or will be, even the sinful choices men make.

*Sinful men make sinful choices in accordance with their sinful nature (i.e., they only do what they want to do when they sin) and are therefore solely responsible for the sins they commit. Conversely, God is therefore not responsible for the sins He determines or decrees that sinful men commit.

In either view, an absolutely free and holy God can supposedly be the cause of something sinful and still blameless. A man who is totally enslaved to sin and can only choose among sins (i.e., cannot choose not to sin) and is under the irresistible decree of God which causes him to sin is still morally responsible for his sin. Even though the Calvinist compatibilist says that man is to blame for the sin he commits (and not God) which is true, he contradictorily argues that the decree of God is the cause that leads man to do what he does, which is clearly not true. Again, the Calvinist argues that man is responsible for the sin he commits because it is the sin he wants to commit and is therefore in accordance with his sinful nature and sinful desires.

As noted earlier, that only moves the problem back one level. For the Calvinist also argues that it is God who caused man to be the sinful way he is (directly or indirectly) through His decree. The best any Calvinist can do is to say that the answer to this problem is to be found in a “hidden” or “secret” decree. Which is to say it cannot be found. Much has already been said on these (and related) matters. Both Scripturally and logically there are very good reasons for rejecting these kinds of compatibilist views. For now I think it best to give some serious consideration to the view that says or suggests that the exact same act can be both morally good and morally evil.

YOU
MEANT EVIL AGAINST ME;
BUT
GOD MEANT IF FOR GOOD

One of the more important passages of Scripture that Calvinists use to promote this kind of compatibilism is found in Genesis forty-five. Many years after his brothers sold him into slavery. This also one of several passages of Scripture that Calvinists believe can only be understood calvinistically:

Joseph said to his brothers…’I am Joseph your brother, whom you sold into Egypt. But now, do not therefore be grieved nor angry with yourselves because you sold me here; for God sent me before you to preserve life…God sent me before you to preserve a posterity for you in the earth, and to save your lives by a great deliverance. So now it was not you who sent me here, but God…’ (Gen 45:4-24).

Later, Joseph’s brothers’ said to him:

Before your father [Israel] died he commanded, saying, “Thus you shall say to Joseph: ‘I beg you, please forgive the trespass of your brothers and their sin; for they did evil to you.’ “Now, please, forgive the trespass of the servants of the God of your father.” And Joseph wept when they spoke to him…[He then said] ‘as for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, in order to bring it about as it is this day, to save many people alive.’ (Gen 50:16-20)
On one hand, we have the sinful acts of Joseph’s brothers. All parties agree that what they did was sinful.

*Joseph’s view of what his brothers did to him:

I am Joseph your brother, whom you sold into Egypt…’as for you, you meant evil against me’.

* Jacob’s view of what his other sons did to Joseph:

…Please forgive the trespass of your brothers and their sin; for they did evil to you.

*Joseph’s brothers’ view of what they did to him.

We are truly guilty concerning our brother, for we saw the anguish of his soul when he pleaded with us, and we would not hear; therefore this distress has come upon us. And Reuben answered them, saying, ‘Did I not speak to you, saying, “Do not sin against the boy”; and you would not listen… (Gen 42:21-22)?

On the other hand, Joseph understood that God used his terrible plight to further His divine purpose.

…God sent me before you to preserve life…God sent me before you to preserve posterity for you in the earth, and to save your lives by a great deliverance. So now it was not you who sent me here…(Gen. 45:5-7).
Notice that the Scriptures do not say that God sold Joseph as a slave into Egypt. In sinfully selling Joseph into Egyptian slavery, they were not intending to send Joseph to the place God purposed to use him. The characterization of what the brother’s did (i.e., sinfully sell Joseph into slavery) and what God purposed to do and did (i.e., send Joseph to preserve life, preserve a posterity for Israel’s sons, save their lives etc.,) could hardly be more different. In other words, what God did and was responsible for, is very different from what they did and were responsible for. The fact that God worked in and through these difficult times and circumstances for Joseph and the way He did so, illustrates the nature of His sovereign control.

It is not as though God is the cause of the same thing that the brothers are the cause of. Joseph’s brothers were not working with God and God was not working with Joseph’s brothers in this respect. In some respects, God was working against Joseph’s brothers as they were working against God. What they meant to accomplish was evil and some evil was actually accomplished in and through what they did. What God intended to accomplish and did accomplish was good.

A HOLY SACRIFICE-A HORRIBLE CRUCIFIXION

Another even more important example that Calvinists use (I believe misuse or abuse) for what they call compatibilism is the crucifixion of Christ. Calvinists rightly point out that by crucifying Christ, the Romans and Jews were perpetrating the greatest injustice imaginable. As an absolutely sinless and holy man could not possibly deserve punishment of any kind, those responsible for crucifying Christ were committing the most heinous of all iniquities.

Calvinists also rightly point out that while Jesus was being unjustly punished and while men were engaging in the greatest crime and sin possible in the process, Jesus was doing exactly what God from all eternity had purposed to do with and through Him. That is, God was allowing His Only begotten Son to die on the cross as our substitute and sacrifice for sin. God was not only allowing His Son to die this horrible death, He sent His Son to die this horrible death. For His part, Jesus freely gave His life (Jn. 15: 15-18). In an impromptu sermon the apostle Peter put these two things (man’s sinful deed and God’s holy design) together as follows:

For truly against your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before hand to do (Acts 4:27-28).

For the Calvinist, this means that what they did to Jesus, they did because God caused them to do this to Jesus. There is no doubt that what they did to Jesus was foreordained and in accordance with the purpose and plan of God. Everything is. If, however God foreordains something it does not mean God is the cause of that which He foreordained? Scripture clearly says explicitly and implicitly that God allows all that happens. Is , however, God the cause of all things? Remember what Sproul said:

That God in some sense foreordains whatever comes to pass is a necessary result of his sovereignty. In itself it does not plead for Calvinism. It only declares that God is absolutely sovereign over his creation. God can foreordain things in different ways. But everything that happens must at least happen by his permission. If he permits something, then he must decide to allow it. If he decides to allow something, then in a sense he is foreordaining it… To say that God foreordains all that comes to pass is simply to say that God is sovereign over his entire creation. If something could come to pass apart from God’s sovereign permission, then that which came to pass would frustrate his sovereignty. If God refused to permit something to happen and it happened anyway, then whatever caused it to happen would have more authority and power than God.

On the day of Pentecost, the apostle Peter puts these two issues together as follows:

Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know–, Him being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death…(Acts 2: 22-24).
Notice once again that according to Peter, when Jesus was crucified, He was:

…Being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God.
This is, of course, exactly what Jesus was referring to when He said:

…God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. (Jn. 3:16)
It is also what Paul the apostle was referring to when he said:

…God demonstrates His love for us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us…(Rom. 5:8).
It was what the apostle Peter had in mind when he said:

…Christ suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God…(1 Pet. 3:18).
Jesus said:

The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again (Lk. 24:7).

These sinful men crucified Christ with “unlawful hands”. What they did was wrong. If God was doing exactly what they were doing (or causing others to do it) then God was also doing wrong or at least responsible for making others do wrong. The fact is, however, these sinful men were doing something sinful, while God was doing something to set men free from sin. Joseph’s brothers had one thing in mind and God had something else in mind in and through what they did to Joseph. So it is with the cross of Christ. Sinful men were unjustly crucifying a sinless man for their own sinful reasons. On the other hand, God sent His sinless Son to die for our sins for loving and gracious reasons.

God’s gracious intentions in sending His Son to die on the cross did not cause or influence sinful men to commit the sin and sins they committed against Christ. Nothing God did caused or even influenced these men to do the awful things they did to Jesus. While what these sinful men did intersects with what God sent Christ to do, these sinful men were not working with God by committing these sins; they were working against Him. As in the case of Joseph, the purpose of God that was good triumphed over the intentions and acts of sinful men in committing an evil act. The apostle Paul said:

…We know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose (Rom 8:28).
He did not say that all things are good. Many things are not good. Everything of a sinful nature is not good. When these wicked men crucified Christ, they were not doing something good but something bad. A bad thing cannot be a good thing, but a bad thing can be used for a good purpose, as is the case for all things relative to those who love God. If a person does something bad, it may result in something good for someone else or even for that person, but it will always and only be bad if it was initially and intrinsically bad. In the case of Joseph’s brothers, what they did was bad and only bad. God used it for good. But what God did in and through what they did was good and will always and only be good.

There are three distinct but related principles involved here. One is that moral evil, while remaining moral evil, can be used for moral good. The second is that God can use the moral evil that has occurred to make good things come to pass. He can also do something good that intersects with something bad. These intersecting things are not the same things. Graciously sending Christ to die as a substitute for the sins of men is not the same thing as sinful men crucifying the Son of God. What man was doing involving the cross was the exact opposite (morally speaking) of what God was doing involving the cross. God’s purpose for the cross and man’s purpose for the cross, in effect, makes what God was doing very different from what man was doing. This corresponds to what James said and that was quoted earlier. That is:

Blessed is the man who endures temptation; for when he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to those who love Him. Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death. Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren. Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning. (Jam. 1:13-17)

We must consider the crucifixion of Christ in light of these truths. What sinful men did in crucifying Christ was give birth to the greatest sin of all. What God did through the cross is make available the greatest gift of all. The human motivation and purpose for crucifying Christ was sinful through and through for the responsible parties. The motivation and purpose for sending Christ to die as a sinless sin-substitute and sacrifice was sinless and altogether righteous. Man’s sinful condition was the reason Christ needed to die. Man’s sinful action was the reason that men crucified Christ. God’s love for sinful man is why God sent His sinless Son as a sacrifice and substitute for sinful men. It is also why God allowed (not caused) sinful men to crucify His sinless Son. On the cross the Love God has for sinful men meets the hatred sinful men had for God incarnate. Love and hate are not, however, confused or confounded. The cross of Christ both demonstrates God’s hatred of sin and His love for the sinner.

Suppose you see a child in a crosswalk, intending to safely cross the street. Suppose also that off in the distance you see a car coming very fast toward the child. Suppose you are able to calculate that with the speed of the car and his distance from the cross walk, the child will not make it safely across the street but will instead be run over by this speeding car, that now appears to have no intention of stopping or doing anything to avoid hitting the child. So in that split second you have to decide, you choose to race to the child and push him out of harms way. Suppose you also realize that in doing so you will be hit and probably be killed by the car yourself.

In this scenario I think we would all agree that such a selfless and sacrificial act would be heroic. You would be willingly giving your life for that child because that was the only way you could save him. At the same time, however, and in the same context, the driver would be taking your life, and guilty of manslaughter or even murder, even if he did not want to hit you or know that he was going to hit you with his speeding car. So how would we characterize your decision to put yourself into harms way? In effect, you made a decision to die when you made a decision to save a life. The driver of the car did not make that decision for you and is not responsible for what you chose to do. Anything bad in anything you did?

From the driver’s side of the story, that fact that you did a good thing and saved a life, does not change the fact that he did a bad thing and recklessly and needlessly took a life. You would not be responsible for what he did, even though you could have chosen to act otherwise, making it impossible for him to hit you with his car. Although your death is at the center of both the good you did and the evil the driver did, what you did and what he did were altogether different. So it is with the cross of Christ.

Jesus could have chosen not to come to earth and therefore made it impossible for mankind to have sinned against Him the way we did. But to save us, He chose to come and thereby allow us to commit this sin. At the same time He was giving or sacrificing his life for us, we perpetrated a horrible crime against Him. Good and evil often face off and are often found in one and the same event. But good and evil, in the moral sense, should never be confused, as they are in Calvinism. If it is morally evil, we can be sure God did not do it. At the same time, we can be just as certain that some other being capable of making moral decisions is responsible.

Now it is possible for God to do something that he has a right to do (without impugning His character) that would be a sin if you did it? For example, God can take a life because it is His life to take. He does it indirectly all the time. He does this when a child dies of disease, when an old man dies of old age, when an evil man commits a despicable act and murders a child. While we can accurately say that the child is a victim of disease, or the murderer, what God does is always the right thing to do. It is not just the right thing to do because He does it. Rather, we know it is the right thing (if God does it) because as a perfect God He only does the right thing.

Suppose I have a hundred dollars in my pocket and I buy some things for my computer. Suppose these are things that I could do without but that would help me do a better job when writing a book such this one. Would it be wrong for me to spend those hundred dollars? If a family member were to go hungry because I spent the grocery money on my computer an argument could be made that spending that hundred dollars on my computer would be wrong. What if however, there was plenty of food for the family and the rent was paid? Would it be right then? Not necessarily. Why, because in theory I could be holding that money for someone. I would not be right for me to spend someone else’s money (without their consent) on my computer. Even so, God can take a life because that life belongs to God. All life comes from God and all life belongs to God. We are, therefore, accountable to God for the life we live and the things we say and do in our life.

Jesus told the following parable:

The ground of a certain rich man yielded plentifully. And he thought within himself, saying, ‘What shall I do, since I have no room to store my crops?’ So he said, ‘I will do this: I will pull down my barns and build greater, and there I will store all my crops and my goods. ‘And I will say to my soul, “Soul, you have many goods laid up for many years; take your ease; eat, drink, and be merry.” But God said to him, ‘Fool! This night your soul will be required of you; then whose will those things be which you have provided?’ So is he who lays up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God (Luke 12:16-21).

God has the right to do things that we do not. It is not that it becomes right merely because He does it. He does it because it is right for Him to do it. Given what He knows (everything), He can do things that may not seem right to us because we know so very little. Even the manner and method He allows your life to be taken (or how He chooses to take your life) will ultimately prove to serve a good and glorious end, because on the throne is a good and glorious Sovereign. While God is not responsible for the bad things that bad men do, and should not be blamed for them, He allows all the bad things and uses all the bad things for His good purposes. God can and does give freedom to the wicked to do wicked things, without causing or participating in that wickedness.

DID GOD CREATE THE BAD AS WELL AS THE GOOD?

Some Calvinists will argue that since Scripture clearly says that God is the creator of all things (Gen. 1:1, Jn. 1:1-3, Col.1: 17), then the bad as well as the good must be His creation. The problem with this view is not that it affirms God as the creator of all things. God is the creator of all things as they were created. God is not responsible for created a square circle. A square circle was never created so God could not have created it. It is by definition uncreatable. Even so, God created Adam but He did not create sinful Adam. No such Adam was ever created. Adam was created sinless. In Adam we also were created sinless. Sin is a fact that results from acts, attitudes, thoughts (etc.) of beings that are either sinful or that become sinful when they sin. Given who God is and what God is like, He could not commit a sin or become sinful.

Not only so, by definition sin is uncreatable. Thus, sin was never created. Why then does God say through Isaiah 45:7 that He creates “evil”? While I have no problem with the word “evil” in the Authorized Version, I believe it is wrong to suggest (as some Calvinists do) that the “evil” for which God takes responsibility is moral evil. God does not create wickedness, iniquity, unrighteousness, or sin (etc). Moral evil is (or is the result) of acts, attitudes, thoughts (etc.) of men or angels who were capable of sin even before they became sinners. Men and angels were created sinless but capable of sin. Someday in our glorified body, I believe, we will be incapable of sin. Man was not created a sinner though he was created with the capacity to sin. In our recreation or glorification we will incapable of sin.

It is impossible for God to be capable of sin. God is not only free of actual sin He is free from the possibility of sin. He is what theologians call impeccable. The word that is translated evil may be understood as the consequence of sin, but not sin itself. When Pharaoh refused to let the children of Israel go (at God’s command) that was sin. He committed sin by disobeying God. God brought the plague of locusts on Pharaoh and Egypt for his/their sin; that is the kind of “evil” that God is responsible for and takes credit for. The New King James Version uses the word “calamity” instead of “evil”. Through Isaiah God says:

I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create calamity I, the Lord, do all these things (Is. 45:7).

God is not saying, “I am responsible for right or good things and I am responsible for wrong or bad things”. The light God forms and the darkness he creates are opposite but not morally opposite. In the same way, the peace that God makes and the calamity (or evil) He creates are opposite but not morally opposite. Mercy is opposite of judgment but both His mercy and judgment are morally good. As light serves one good purpose and darkness serves another good purpose, so peace serves one good purpose and calamity serves another good purpose.

The message of Scripture is that God would rather give us light, but if need be, He will use darkness to serve His good purpose. Stated differently, God would prefer to give us peace, but if necessary, He will use the opposite of peace or calamity to accomplish His righteous goals. What God does is not good simply because God does it. What God does is good because God is good and can only do good. God, therefore, only does good. Custance, a staunch Calvinist is right when he says (in reference to the kind of evil that God is responsible for) that:

Evil may in fact be good, seen in the long view, whereas wickedness can never be righteousness no matter how long a view we may take…evil per se is not to be equated with sin…God has every right to ordain evil as well as good in the working out of his purpose.

While a parent is disciplining a child for wrongdoing, it may seem like evil and rarely ever seems like something good to the child. Once that child becomes an adult and has a child of his own, from a more mature perspective he may have a different view of that that same discipline. What seemed like a malevolent act (when it is experienced by the child) may later be recognized for what it really is, an act of benevolence. So it is with the “evil” God created and takes responsibility for. When Scripture says:

“Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil…” (Isa. 5: 20) it is referring to that which is morally evil or morally good. When the Bible says God created evil or says He is responsible for something that is evil, it is an altogether different matter. As you will see a little later, there are many Calvinists (perhaps most) who will agree with what I am saying, in spite of what the system of Calvinism implies. The word “hidden” can hide a great deal from those committed to a theology of “hidden counsels”.

EVIL INSTRUMENTS IN A HOLY HAND

Nevertheless, some Calvinists can be heard asking “What about Isaiah 10 and other portions of Scripture that describe attacks on Israel as the result of a sinful nation’s evil aggression toward Israel, and a holy God’s righteous judgment on Israel? To be sure we understand how these principles would apply to this particular situation, let us read the relevant portions of Isaiah 10 very carefully and pay very close attention to exactly what they do and do not say.

Woe to Assyria, the rod of My anger And the staff in whose hand is My indignation. I will send him against an ungodly nation, And against the people of My wrath I will give him charge, To seize the spoil, to take the prey, And to tread them down like the mire of the streets (Isa. 10: 5-6).
Some versions render “I will send Him against an ungodly nation” as “I will send an ungodly nation against Him”. Either way God sent one sinful nation (Assyria) against another sinful nation (Israel) to be the instrument of His righteous judgment. It is also clear that God has the right and the power to do this. He has the right because He is the sovereign God and He has the power because He is the omnipotent God. The question is; is what He did right? Is it right for God to use a sinful nation to judge His sinful people for their sins?

If they deserve the judgment that God sent the Assyrians to bring upon them, the answer is yes. If they did not deserve such a judgment, the answer is no. To say that it was right just because God was behind it is to say that “might makes right”. However, I think most of us (Calvinists and non-Calvinists) would agree that they deserved the judgment that God was responsible for bringing upon them. Thus, we all agree that what God did was the right or righteous thing to do. Isaiah goes on to say:

Yet he [the sinful Assyrian nation] does not mean so, Nor does his heart think so; But it is in his heart to destroy, And cut off not a few nations. For he says,’ Are not my princes altogether kings? Is not Calno like Carchemish?Is not Hamath like Arpad? Is not Samaria like Damascus? As my hand has found the kingdoms of the idols, Whose carved images excelled those of Jerusalem and Samaria, As I have done to Samaria and her idols, Shall I not do also to Jerusalem and her idols (Isa. 10: 7-11)?
We must ask two questions. First, what does it mean, “he does not mean so”? Second, what does it mean “Nor does he think so in his heart”? The answer is the solution to the supposed problem that Calvinism has created. That is, the sinful nation of Assyria did not mean to bring the righteous judgment of God on Israel and it did not think that is what it was doing. What the sinful Assyrian nation meant to do and thought it was doing was simply “destroy” and “cut off” Jerusalem as it had done to so many nations before.

God’s purpose (and what God actually led Assyria to do (i.e., bring about His righteous judgment) and Assyria’s intentions and purpose, to “destroy” and “cut off” Jerusalem for its own unjust and wicked reasons, could not have been more different. Of course, the two things are happening concurrently. However, when God finished bringing about His righteous judgment on Israel (that He sent Assyria to accomplish on His behalf) He then turned His attention to the wicked and unjust intentions and purpose of his instrument of righteous judgment (Assyria). Thus we read:

…It shall come to pass, when the LORD has performed all His work on Mount Zion and on Jerusalem, that He will say, ‘I will punish the fruit of the arrogant heart of the king of Assyria, and the glory of his haughty looks.’ For he says: ‘By the strength of my hand I have done it, And by my wisdom, for I am prudent; Also I have removed the boundaries of the people, And have robbed their treasuries; So I have put down the inhabitants like a valiant man. My hand has found like a nest the riches of the people, And as one gathers eggs that are left, I have gathered all the earth; And there was no one who moved his wing, Nor opened his mouth with even a peep. Shall the ax boast itself against him who chops with it? Or shall the saw exalt itself against him who saws with it? As if a rod could wield itself against those who lift it up, or as if a staff could lift up, as if it were not wood (Isa. 10: 12-15)!

It is assumed by Calvinists (and I believe wrongly so) that that the wicked things done by the Assyrians in the process of bringing about the righteous judgment of God were the things God sent them to do. That would, of course, mean that God led the Assyrians to do wicked things. Assuming participation in some wars or fighting some fights can be justified it is necessary to make a distinction between righteous and just conduct and wicked and unjust conduct in the context of the same just war.

For example, suppose that a soldier, while defending his country against aggressors shoots one of the aggressors to prevent the aggressor from shooting an innocent civilian who somehow ends up in the line of fire. Most of us would say that this soldier’s action was not only justified but had he not done so would have been a sin. However, suppose that in the same war, a soldier (on the just side of the conflict) sees an enemy combatant who was unarmed and attempting to surrender. Realizing that it would be easier to kill this representative of the enemy, he shoots the enemy soldier in cold blood to make his own life easier at the end of the day.

If such an act occurs in a civilized country and the authorities find out about it, it would be considered a criminal act on the battlefield. The soldier would probably end up in a military prison. This would be true even if his victim deserved to die because of things he had done in battle. The same kind of action (i.e., shooting an enemy soldier) would be morally defensible (even morally requisite) in one case and morally reprehensible in another case. Let us consider another possibility.

Suppose that a man has just committed a murder by shooting (without provocation) three innocent victims during the course of an armed robbery. Suppose the man is about to escape from the scene without being caught when he runs into another criminal who (without any knowledge of what just happened) shoots and kills the first criminal (without provocation) in an attempt to rob him of a few dollars he assumed the man might have on his person.

One could argue that the first criminal got what he deserved, while the second criminal (not knowing who he was robbing) was (subjectively speaking) involved in an act every bit as wicked as if the man he killed was an innocent victim. The first criminal was getting justice but the second criminal was not just in meeting out that justice. Now let us suppose that it is God who (through whatever means He chooses) directs the second criminal to shoot and kill the first criminal.

Certainly, God has the right and would be in the right (knowing what He knows) if He were responsible for the first criminals demise. Of course, God can take life because life is from God and it belongs to Him. But God, because He is absolutely holy, could not by definition sinfully take a life. God does take all lives when they are taken in one sense, but He is never responsible for the sinful taking of a life. In other words, God is not the responsible cause for the sin in the heart of a murderer or the act of murder he commits.

The way God works and interacts with His creatures (and everything else) is always and only guided by His holy nature. Thus, to the extent that sin or the sinful acts or motives of a man (directly or indirectly) can be linked to the death of person (or anything else for that matter) to that extent God is not the cause of that death. God had to allow it but that is not the same as causing it to happen.

If allowing something morally bad to happen makes God morally responsible for it happening, then God is by definition morally bad.

Allowing something morally bad to happen, however, does not make God morally responsible for it happening. To rightly judge God about what He allows we would have to know everything (which is what He knows) and know that of all the options open to God, God made a morally bad choice in allowing a morally bad thing to happen. To say God caused something morally bad to happen you would only have to know two things.

1. The thing which happened was morally bad,

And:

2. God caused that morally bad thing to happen.

By definition, if God is absolutely holy and righteous, as Evangelicals (Calvinists and not Calvinists) believe, then we should know that nothing morally bad can be caused by God. We, of course, do not know all that God knows and are therefore not in a position to judge Him. If we believe He is the way He says He is we can trust that He always does the right thing, causes the right thing, and is acting in absolute righteousness even when He allows morally bad things to happen.

We also need to understand an important distinction between subjective and objective realities. Suppose you thought that you had a thousand dollars in the bank when negotiating to buy a car. Suppose, however, you were wrong. If you told the car dealer you had a thousand dollars would you be lying? Of course not, you would be wrong but not lying. Suppose however, you said you had the thousand dollars but thought you did not, even though in fact, you did. Would you be lying? Even though what you said in that case would be factually or objectively true, you would be subjectively lying.

God, because He is omniscient, cannot be mistaken. So He cannot make an error of the first kind. God, because He is absolutely holy and righteous, cannot make an error of the second kind. If God were to cause someone else to make an error of the second kind, then God would be the guilty party and guilty of committing a sin and would not therefore be absolutely holy and righteous, which is why the Calvinist view is so vigorously challenged by me and others.

One of the reasons Assyria got in trouble with God over the way they meted out the judgment that God sent them to bring upon Jerusalem is because they went beyond what they were supposed to do. That is:
1. Assyria was acting in unrighteousness in much of what they did to Jerusalem in addition to and in contrast to the righteous judgment that they were led by God to mete out to Jerusalem.

For example, if a soldier were sent into a town to find and kill all terrorists, but decided to execute all civilians in the process, He would be going beyond what he was ordered to do. Or suppose a soldier, in the process of engaging combatants, finds and rapes a young woman. While it is certainly possible that his fighting role was legitimate and justifiable, there is no way that rape (by definition) can be justified, under any circumstance. Even so, God’s instrument of righteous judgment (the Assyrians) engaged in some unrighteous actions in the process of executing righteous judgment.

2. Assyria also foolishly imagined that they were able to accomplish so much (militarily speaking) because they were so great and powerful in themselves-never acknowledging the one from whom that power (that they not only used but abused) comes from. This arrogance also brought the righteous judgment of God on the Assyrians. Indication of this arrogance is found in the following questions:

Shall the ax boast itself against him who chops with it? Or shall the saw exalt itself against him who saws with it? As if a rod could wield itself against those who lift it up, Or as if a staff could lift up, as if it were not wood (Isa. 5:15)!

Many Calvinists are loath to attribute sin to God and rightfully so. Some of those Calvinists who think it a mistake to blame God for the moral evil of man, take serious issue with Calvinists such as White for almost going out of his theological way to attribute to God everything, morally bad as well as everything morally good. Some of what they say coincides (in many respects) with what I am saying. After I finished writing this book (or thought I had finished) and during the time I began seriously looking for a publisher, I ran across an article on a Reformed Web-page. The question addressed in the article is “who killed Jesus?” The relevant portion of this article begins with the words:

James White On Who Killed Jesus.

The author of the article starts by saying:

I consider James White to be a strong defender of the Truth, of historic Biblical Christianity and (in large measure) Reformed theology. In the main contours of his hermeneutics, epistemology and doctrine he is sound. In short, he’s one of the good guys.
Immediately he goes on to say:

However, on this issue he has seriously missed the mark…Rev. White’s solution of blaming God for the murder of Jesus Christ (i.e., “God did it”) is a somewhat alarming contribution to the present debate.

White’s laying the deed, and therefore the blame, for the murder of Jesus Christ at God’s doorstep is not supported by the New Testament when all of the relevant passages are carefully considered. At this point, White exhibits a surprising weakness in both exegesis and his grasp of Reformed orthodoxy.

[White says] Isn’t it amazing that this is the big question today… And isn’t it even more amazing that the early church, long before the first gospel was written or the first epistle penned, knew the answer? And isn’t it just sad that most evangelicals don’t even believe what the Bible says about it anymore, and refuse to consider what it really means? Here’s the answer, folks, for anyone who wants to know:

Acts 4:27-28 “For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur.

Answer to the question? God did it. It’s no mystery. The early Christians had bothered to listen to what God had inspired seven centuries earlier:
Isaiah 53:4 Surely our grief’s He Himself bore, And our sorrows He carried; Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, Smitten of God, and afflicted.

Smitten of God. There’s the truth.

The writer of this article then, like a good non-Calvinist (i.e., biblicist) says:

God is sovereign; God rules all of creation; God does all His good pleasure, and nothing thwarts His eternal decrees. Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) and Tota Scriptura (all of Scripture) are essential foundations to a sound exegesis, and White would undoubtedly concur. An isolated proof-text that ignores the comprehensive Biblical teaching is not the stuff of serious Biblical exegesis or Reformed theology.
As such, citing Acts 4:27-28 does not make White’s case that “God did it.” The passage does testify correctly to God’s sovereignty and decree regarding the events of the crucifixion, but the passage does not teach that “God did it” in reference to the killing of Jesus Christ. God’s sovereignty does not mean that the actions taken by men — even when such actions fulfill His holy purpose — equate to meaning “God did it.” God, though sovereign, is not culpable for the heinous crime committed by those that murdered Jesus Christ.

The account of Joseph is a striking example of the evil intents and deeds of men being used within the sovereign rule of God to accomplish His will:
“As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive.” (Gen. 50:19-20, emphasis added)

God did not betray Joseph, nor did He sell Joseph into slavery — Joseph’s brothers “did it.” The willed intentions and evil deeds of Joseph’s brothers are manifestly admitted in the text, and so is God’s sovereign decree. Both facts exist simultaneously.

The Reformed (and biblical) doctrine of God’s sovereignty does not negate the responsibility of men for their evil deeds. The Biblical texts that White cites do not teach in any sense that “God did it” in relation to the murder of Jesus Christ. White’s comments are a gross misreading of the text, as well as a caricature of the Reformed and Biblical doctrine of the sovereignty of God. He does not reflect historic Reformed orthodoxy on this issue.

Did “God do it” as White asserts or did those that rejected Christ, conspire against His Person and cried out for His death “do it”? This is an important issue and it is necessary that the truth be stated directly, as James White is deemed by some to reflect Reformed theology in the entirety of his doctrinal positions, and that is unfortunately not the case.

Before I go any furthur I need to do a little test. Concernina Mario

“Can someone explain what [he has] just said?

How did [Johnny B, become an expert on [George Bryson]? He obviously is-I do not doubt for a moment. Did he read the five points of Calvinism-Weighed and Founding. If so did he read it with Calvinist colored glasses? What about the Dark Side of Calvinism? Can he tell me which of the many Calvinists quoted in The Dark Side of Calvinism he disagrees with? Or can he refer to something one of them said that that he disagrees with? Or were these books so below him that he had discern what is in them by not reading them?

What about Jean Cauvin? Did she/he graduate from the smart-smart school of Reformed theology or is he/she or so naturally brilliant. You cannot argue with someone who can spell dumb-dumb and use that for an argument. That should silence the ignorance of anyone that might dare to disagree-don’t you think?

And what about Brad B. He is so insightful and helpful in letting me know that I should consider the meaning of the word draw in 6: 44. Do not tell him that I did in three different books. Oh well, it is the thought that counts. Some of you Calvinists are so bright all you need to know is that the other guy disagrees with you so he must be wrong and or an idiot. I wish it were that smart.

And what would we do without the insights and genious of Johnny B. Wow! Now I know why I do not agree with Calvin, Calvinism, and all of the incredibly sharp Calvinists on this site. It has nothing to do with 40 years of Bible study and almost as many years reading the writings of men like John Calvin, R. C. Sproul Sr. John Piper, James White, Lorraine Boettner etc. It was and had to be due to my ignorance and pride. Thanks Johnny B. I needed that. What is your secret to knowing so much and being so humble? If I call those I diagree with ignorant will I be more knowledgable like you? Or if I say accuse others of pride will it make me humble to?

I should also thank Kat for the thoughtful and kind words-pointing how extremely ignorant I am. Is that more ignorant or less ignorant than “totally ignorant”. I will let the extremely brilliant (or totally brilliant” among you sort this out, for it is way over my head.

Very encouraging Stephen, HOW GREAT OUR GOD IS!

God *is* the standard (none above Him), and morality is the quality of being in accord with His standards which ultimately are Himself. Whatever He does is good because He is the origin of Good.

Dear Mr. Bryson~

Where the early church fathers, or Calvin, Luther, Spurgeon (my fav), or modern Reformed thinkers/writers etc.etc. line up with Scripture we embrace them. Wherever these saints leave Gods word for any reason we reject those teachings. We do not support ideas/thoughts/beliefs just because they are “Calvinist”!

You will find us quite unlike other Reformed/Calvinists. We are often accused of being arrogant, “knowing it all” etc. It is not so. There is just something so incredible about being free in Christ…free to KNOW He chose us, left us His marvelous word to devour and reigns sovereign over us IN EVERY way. We have little problem living with the tension such as God/evil…not because we get it…but because we trust Him.

Forgive those who may have hurt your feelings. We regulars on this blog are quite passionate about our King and not straying from His written word…for “His word is truth”!

God’s grace…

Dear Reformed Mama

I cannot tell you how hard it is to call someone Reformed Mama. I cannot imagine anyone call those on the site “arrogant”. How insensitive! Thank you for your concerned about my feeling but I am feeling OK. I am more concerned about those who can dish it out but not take it. My guess is that it will not be long until someone says-”George you are too mean to us nice people. We can say what we say because we are right-you cannot say what you are saying because you are wrong”

Dear Stephen

If you do not think I have been answering you, it is because you are probably too focused on the side issue of the name calling. Go back and read what I have said on some issues that are very important to most believers that I thought were important to you as well.Try one question. I will try one answer.

Mr. Bryson,

You said “God’s gracious intentions in sending His Son to die on the cross did not cause or influence sinful men to commit the sin and sins they committed against Christ. Nothing God did caused or even influenced these men to do the awful things they did to Jesus. While what these sinful men did intersects with what God sent Christ to do, these sinful men were not working with God by committing these sins; they were working against Him.”

The part I have a question on is “While what these sinful men did intersects with what God sent Christ to do.” If this is completely true then what you are saying is that God is reacting to what man has done. He may not be reacting in our mindset of time as God does not exist in time. Whether He reacted before the world began by looking through space and time or on the spot He was still reacting non-the-less. This leaves, at best, God having to look through time to see what man is going to do and then making a plan based on our decisions.

As far as the sin of man, if what you are saying is true then Jesus would not have had to die for our salvation if Eve had decided not to eat the forbiden fruit. So the only reason that Christ was crucified was that God had to react to our sin and had to make a plan of salvation (again, whether before the earth was made or on the spot does not matter).

As you said in your comments above “Jesus was doing exactly what God from all eternity had purposed to do with and through Him.” So was this a reaction to the sin of man or what God had purposed to do from all eternity?

George your issue is not with Calvinists, per say, it is with Scripture. Because the Triune God of Scripture had a plan from all eternity to save sinners, this plan was concrete, set in stone, foundational! It was the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit who consulted together for how to accomplish it. The LORD did not consult with humans with regard to this.

We observe what Scripture says. When the Scripture says that “He purchased men,” Not all were purchased. And of course we know that it was not only men he purchased. In a similar fashion, the word “men” is not in the Greek. This means people, particular people. There is an absolute distinction made in Scripture of the wicked and God’s people.

Dear Stephen

Since I am “totally” or “extremely ignorant” to some of your friends it would make no since for them to try and engage me in an intelligent conversation about what you call “the doctrines of grace.” If you are not of that opinion, all you have to do is say so, and I will happily debate you.

Since you believe God is the cause of everything, logically you must believe God is the cause of sin. I propose that this be the first question we tackle. You argue the affirmative and I will argue the negative.

Since you do not believe Christ died for all people and I do, I will argue that Christ died for all people and you can argue that Christ did not die for all people.

Since you believe that regeneration must precede faith in Christ and I believe faith in Christ must precede regeneration, we have a third question.

Since you believe in the Reformed view of a decree and all that this implies, and I do not, you can argue that man is not free to choose right over wrong or Christ over Satan. I will argue the opposite.

Since you believe in the Reformed doctrine of unconditional election and unconditional reprobation, we can deal with this issue as well.

If you think these are topics that need to be discussed, let me know and we can begin working on the rules of engagement.

If you would like this to be one on one, that is fine with me. If you would like to represent a team (and represent them or speak as one with them) of debaters that is OK. With the vast knowlege represented on this site, you should have no trouble with a light weight like me, with or without a team working with you. Since I am still in the work world, I have to pace myself a little, but if we can come to terms, this should be a very productive use of our time. So what do you think?

Hey Mario

Yes I can. I can explain the source of evil, both moral and non-moral, which kind of evil are you taking about? The “sin” kind? If it is the sin kind of evil you are talking about, is your explanation that God is the source of sin?

I agree also, it would be benificial to many!

Job says to his wife after she told him to curse God and die, “shall we accept good from God, and not evil also.” What did he mean by this?

George,

Are heading out to Russia?

Hi George, you ask “why so touchy”? I only knew from previous encounters with you that you’d eventually have to vent and it was my point to just point out that you degraded yourself by the tone of your rant. I am talking about your dismissal of comments or questions and how unworthy of even responding to them is for you.

I have seen you operate is several situations and you make a killing slaying strawmen and the smirk you bathe yourself in really belies your cover of “loving Christian dispelling that evil Calvinsm”. You clearly have demonstrated that you’d do anything to win the debate or make your point even at the expense of truth. I think you are a wolf in sheeps clothing and have from the first time I heard you back on KBRT when you came on the radio 4 or 5 days in a row in around 1999.

In case anyone has missed it, serious discussion with George is a major waste of time. Consider how you are spending your time, of course he needs to be answered for the benefit of others, but know ahead of time this is what your are doing.

Brad B,

Easy there brother. The Lord is always working in the lives of His saints. Any work that is done in the hearts of believers is by grace alone and not according to our clever schemes.

We are to strive to put forth biblical truth and let the Holy Spirit of God use the words which are written to His glory!

We are to remember that we are not to be quarrelsome. We are to be long suffering and trust that the Lord’s Word does not return void, but accomplishes what it intends, even if it means the destruction of the wicked.

Remember the Rhinocerous! Keep pressing ahead forward in truth! Be encouraged Brad! God’s truth is marching on!!!!!!

Lenski’s commentary on John 6:44

“Luther has put these words into classical form: ‘I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to him; but the Holy Ghost has called me by the gospel, …and will at the last day raise me up and all the dead, and give unto me and all believers in Christ eternal life. This is most certainly true.’ Here Jesus explains the Father’s “giving” mentioned in verse 37 and 39: he gives men to Jesus by drawing them to him. This drawing is accomplished by a specific power, one especially designed for the purpose, one that takes hold of the sinner’s soul and moves it away from darkness, sin, and death, to Jesus, light, and life. No man can possibly thus draw himself to Jesus. The Father, God Himself, must come with his divine power and must do this drawing; else it will never be effected.”

William Hedriksen:

“Here the emphasis is on the divine decree of predestination carried out in history. When Jesus refers to the divine drawing activity he employs a term that clearly indicates that more than moral influence is indicated. The Father does not merely beckon or advise, he draws! The same verb also occurs in 12:32, where the drawing activity is ascribed to the Son; and further in 18:10; 21:6;, 11; Acts 16:19; 21:30; and Jas 2:6. The drawing of which these passages speak indicates a very powerful-we may even say irresistible-activity. To be sure, man resists, but his resistance is ineffective. It is in that sense that we speak of God’s grace as being irresistible. The net full of big fishes is actually drawn or dragged ashore (21:6, 11).”

I think Mr. Bryson is the one who’s confused.

George
what happened at Mission Valley Christian Fellowship? That was my fellowship before I changed my theology. I still have a lot of friends there, just curious on whats going on.

Leo is a great guy, but I still believe his theology is inconsistant, and the way he tells people we should live is impossible to live, its Similiar to what Mario has just said about Raul ries. The whole Calvary Chaple circle needs to rethink there distinctives. (I can say this because I was an assistant pastor at a CC, and a college aged teacher at MVCF) I can go over it in more depth but this post is probubly not a good place.

Hi Mario, thanks for the encouragement and I appreciated the quotes a little further down from Luther and Hedricksen. This “drawing” or “dragging” wouldn’ offend anyone as it does if they understood the nature of the fall and it’s effect on men. Men love darkness because their deeds are evil. No one willingly goes into the light unless compelled to, because it’d be contrary to nature. To characterize this irresitable force as an offense to man or his “freedom”, is to call good evil–woe unto them.

[all means all kinds sometimes]

Brad B

Brad,

You encourage us! Let us keep the ministry in prayer! By God’s grace he would lead saints in the deep things of God!

George, “For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.”
I do not take the ninth commandment lightly, I do not wink at sin. I will follow this rabbit trail, since you did not answer me question, so that way, I hope you will answer the question of, the hims in John 6:44. Either being the same, or not, just a straight, yes or no, there’s nothing to explain.

I started believing, what is called Calvinism, just a few months ago. If you look on this site, I asked questions, of the same sort as the one you purpose, about God and sin. If I was try to impress, people and I was the so-called, foaming at the mouth, person you spoke of, don’t you think, I would of, said that I called you akin blasphemer, when I seen you at Mission Valley, to impress, as you said? For you to think that you could convince anyone of God’s truths, is your heart revealing, what you think of your arguments. The Holy Spirit, is who showed me these truths.

As far as someone coming to you, to ask question om Reformed Theology, that was not the situation. I will remind you of the time we meet. You might remember though, because as you answered, the post I posted, you reminded my, of your attitude that day. It was a time, where the White Horse Inn, was protesting the Calvary Chapel movement. With signs in front of the mens conferences, call us cult members and Chuck the pope. Everyone was looking for someone to give these chosen frozen heretics what for, which was about the same time you wrote your book, the John 3:16 one. I was with a friend of mine, maned Mike, that had went to the Ukraine, with a group from, CC Vista, that you lead. He was interning at CC San Diego, with Bryan, at this time, the 3 of us went there, concerning, Mike going to the Ukraine to start a Church. I do not remember the question I asked you, being it’s been 13 to 14 years ago, but the way you answered them, I’ve never forgot. I asked you a question, you gave me an answer, then I questioned your answer, you didn’t not directly answer that question, so I asked, a follow up, which wasn’t anywhere near what I asked you. You had an attitude of I was bothering you or who did I think I was questioning you. What’s interesting, is I had been taking an apologetics class at Costa Mesa, on Saturdays, one of the lessons was how to test peoples arguments, I used that with your answers. That’s when I came to the conclusion that reading your book would be a waste of my time.

You hope I’m not offended, by you calling me a liar, then make a snide remark, “How brilliant do you think you are? Just curious! In question form as to try to hide your intent. Like Jesus said “For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.”

Okay, I went down your rabbit trail, answered your question to remind you. Now can you let us all know, who the two hims are in John 6:44? It’s a simple yes or no answer, are they the same hims?

Here’s something to think about, when it come to the doctrine of election. Think of the bankruptcy laws. Chapter 11, is reorganisation, chapter 7, is a total lost.

Some people believe, they have enough goodness (toward God) in them that they just need, God to reorganize their lives. Then, they will take it from there, just need God to help them in the rough times.

Others believe, that they are at a total lost, there is nothing in them that could get them right with God. So they need God to come in, take over and give them a new life. Because there was not one thing to salvage from their own lives. Only God could make them, right.

Amen…Stephen!

Johnny B…we continue to petition our Lord!

Congrats to Omar, Jessica and Daphne…welcome Luther Robert Calvin!

HAPPY FATHERS DAY OvercommiTad…Dr. Bob…Stephen…Travis…Reformed Rich…Omar…Speedy…Woodoced and ALL fathers on BT!! Where would we be without our men of the Reformation??

“The Lord would not have us follow him for the sake of what we get from him. He would have us men, against whom even Satan could not say, “Hast thou not set a hedge about him, and all that he has?” Our Lord desires followers who will cling to him at all risks, for no other reason but their value of himself and his truth.” — CH Spurgeon

God’s grace…

James White said “I have mentioned that last year we attempted to arrange a debate in Utah with George Bryson on Calvinism. He refused to allow for cross-examination in the debate.” What James White did not say is that I offered to debate him on the very interesting question: “Does Calvin or Calvinism teach that God is the cause (by virtue of His decree) the cause of sin? James White refused to debate me on this issue. His refusal had nothing to do with a cross-examination, and everything to do with what he has to admit about what Calvin taught and Calvinism teaches.

Why won’t James White debate George Bryson on such an important and relevant question. While I believe that the “cross-examination” issue is for theatrics I will happily allow James White the opportunity to cross-examine me if He will allow me to cross-examine him on this issue. To borrow a line “Why James White Won’t Debate George Bryson Anymore”

Dear Maria

What I am saying is easy to understand. Suppose someone offers you a gift that you must personally recieve to have and enjoy. Suppose you they are in a place far away from you. Suppose you cannot get to where they are to recieve the gift. Suppose then that they send a car for you so that you can meet them where they are. Once the care takes you to where they are you are able to personally recieve the gift they are offering you. Now you have a choice to recieve or not to recieve the gift. Because you are now able to recieve the gift does it mean that you will automatically or inevitibly recieve the gift. Do you have to accept the gift. Does it follow that because you are able you have no choice. You can disagree with what I am saying when I say the ability to recieve the gift of eternal life (i.e., the ability to believe) is God’s responsibility while the choice to believe is my responsibilty. But it seems odd that an intelligent person cannot understand these distinctions. Perhaps there are something that do not make sense to you but that in fact make good sense.

Hey Johnny B

I just read your post about our meeting at Mission Valley. I hope you feel better getting that all off of your chest. I must confess that I did not get the point. And Mario-to borrow a phrase from someone–Can someone tell me what Mario just said? Seriously!

Mr. Bryson,

This is all you have to answer?

You did not address any of the Biblical material.

Ah Mr. Bryson…

A few questions for you:

What happened to the debate you were discussing with Stephen on this thread back in June?

Why do you speak of yourself in third person in your 9/26/08 comment?

Why do you act like Mario does not make sense when it is your silly analogy that does not make sense?

Why don’t you address the Scripture that you were pointed to?

Scripture tells us our lives are but “a vapor”…do you really want to spend yours going after Calvinists…is that what you want to be remembered for?

Can’t speak for all…but the Calvinists here on BT are God-fearing men (and women) of the Reformation who bow to God’s word alone…we earnestly contend for the faith and by God’s grace…we will do so until our deaths.

How the heck do you get that somebody is a partial preterist simply from the dating of Revelation? Have you even read Dr. Morey’s eschatological views?

That’s actually a rhetorical question.

Cauvin:

I have heard Morey discuss his eschatological views many times and he has always said that his views do not rest on the dating of Revelation whether it be before or after AD 70. He has also written and spoken very harshly against preterists and said there is no such thing as a partial preterist.

Now if you are willing to leave Morey aside, I’d be willing to discuss your eschatological views including the dating of Revelation. I have spent a great deal of time reading and studying eschatology so am interested in the subject. I find most reformed persons to be Amillenial which is ironic because my church is reformed yet holds to premillenial view (my church models GTY).

Aaron

P.S. When I say discuss, I mean a civil interchange of ideas between two adults not one person insulting the others’ intelligence, beliefs, or smoking habits.

Hi Stephen & Sir Aaron,

The dating of Revelation is a little off subject via this thread and the OP. Would you not prefer to post another thread with the AD 65 arguments so that the discussion could stay focused upon an even flow of thought?

If you don’t care, I will demonstrate my arguments for a 95 AD date and the logical fallacies for the 65 AD date on this thread, though I make a simple suggestion since the arguments are somewhat detailed.

The classical Irenaeus attack is a classical adhominem and does nothing. You can’t isolate a single point in an author’s work while ignoring the rest (Schaeffer). Based on the rest of his writings, it is deducible that this was an error or theological “slip.”

Morey is sometimes more hard vs. flex depending on his “mood” and audience. Yes, I suppose he would say he is flex since this is a non-essential issue. Though he was passionate in his conviction of “converting” Geisler to his conclusions on this matter.

If you would permit, I could submit the thread OP. You should know, the one who goes first usually has the Burden of Proof, and in this case, I don’t mind.

For once, Morey will be siding with Hank while I will be refuting Hank. I know this is a mute point, but it is humorous considering the history of things.

Depending on how you thread this discussion, it will be a fruitful discussion either way.

Respectfully,

Jean Cauvin (Jude 3).

Hi Sir Aaron,

I believe Wal-Mart is having a sale on “sense of humor’s. Buy one and get an additional one 50% off.

It will be difficult to find the opposition to the 65 AD that is as knowledgeable on the subject as I am, so it would be an interesting dialogue nevertheless.

But If we continue this line of argument, I would enjoy the fruit that would come out of the subject at hand.

I’ll be as serious and to the point as desired.

Respectfully,

Jean Cauvin (Jude 3).

Hello,

Is there any “moderator” at B.T. that has the knowledge to thread this discussion? I thought Sir Aaron was a moderator as well and that she could do this?

Is this not a desired topic of discussion? I have my weapons of mass destruction towards AD 65 aimed and ready for take off.

If the topic is brought up, we can move on to something else I suppose.

Respectfully,

Jean Cauvin (Jude 3).

Hi Stephen,

You seem “testy.” Bad Hair day?

I was simply inquiring about the status.

Approach super-cuts so that we don’t have your moodiness anymore.

John Hagee is cultic and perhaps this smart ass comment was your intent.

Respectfully,

Jean Cauvin (Jude 3).

Sir Aaron,
Are you sure you want to credit him with taking a logic course? That’s pretty generous brother.

Hello,

The notion of “oh behave” is odd. This is from the Austin Powers “Gold Member” flick.

I thought we already had the bash session? The she was a joke.

It is difficult to see a person’s face gestures when it is over a hard copy e-mail. I’m really nothing more then a jar of jolly.

Not to mention Dr. Morey. I’m a shadow of peanuts compared to the elephant of bluntness that comes from him at times. After all, he’s from Brooklyn right? so at least he has an excuse. ?

I’m sorry Sir Aaron if calling you a girl upset you or caused tears. I will refrain. But perhaps you could help me out by not relating “girlish” apologetics.

Looking forward to the discussion on AD 65/95 if permitted.

And by the way, Stephen is growing on me as well. Though at times, it feels like a wart.(But not all the time).

I will try to tone it down out of respect for the board.

Respectfully,

Jean Cauvin (Jude 3).

“I will try to tone it down out of respect for the board.”

Yes, he will “try” after he gets in as many digs as he can. And he always finds a way to relate whatever we happen to be talking about back to Dr. Morey.

Hi Glen,

Call me the Simon (American Idol) of Christianity. Sir Aaron would be Paula Abdul while Randy would be for the choosing (Thomas Jones?)

If you would like me to act as a cub scout “Den leader” then line up, I will assess the truth as it appears relevant. I have many merit badges to give.

Morey’s son was a “boy scout,” so the merit badges run wide and deep.

Glen, hopefully you can lighten up and relax. Like I said, it is hard to discern motive over hard copy email. I’m sure if we lived near each other I would allow you to buy me a hamburger. I might even buy one for you.

After all, even though you are ignorant regarding the philosophical logical argument of metaphysics as it relates to politics, I still find you as my brother. We are on the same side.

However some of your arguments are simply not going to get the gold paper for Hollywood.

Your Brother in Christ,

Jean Cauvin (Jude 3).

Hi Mario,

you are going to explain the passage by a 2 +2 = 4 analogy?

Note, if you “have heard and learned from the Father”, then you are able to tell what that is. If a peson says he has learned from the Father and cannot articulate, cannot communicate what the content of the teaching is, then he cannot have learned anything. You might read the post for yourself and comment on my blog.

Verse 45 is the access to heaven’s gate?

What does it mean “Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me?” — That means that what you learn here leads to conversion, right? So the content of the teaching is the “password” — that is logical.

How do you explain the predetermined plan of the Father, the finished work of Messiah, and the work of the Holy Spirit?

On my blogs. Feel free to visit and comment! I’m looking forward to debating the doctrines of grace on the basis of the bible.

Greetings
-a helmet

Helmet, (caps are just for emphasis —I’m not yelling, trust me!)

Well I didn’t try to debate you and I won’t. Debates are a waste of time. Rather I called you to STUDY (and don’t look up commentaries when you study them—read the Scripture for what it is actually saying). Here’s what I said:

I would suggest that before you even attempt to shove your fist up at the Sovereignty of God, you should study the book of Job, Romans, and Ephesians first.

I am sure all your arguements are the same old anti-Sovereignty of God stuff we’ve all heard ad nauseum. But the issue is the Lordship of the Lord…I highly suggest you study that, too. Afterall, if you deny His Lordship and Sovereignty over all things, you will end up with an Open Theist god which is heresy.

I also provided two passages that destroy any notion that God waits for His orders from man; rather HE has already decided what shall happen in the future (hence “prophecies” which HE brings about):

Isa 46:10 declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘MY counsel SHALL STAND, and I WILL ACCOMPLISH ALL my purpose,’ 11 calling a bird of prey from the east, THE MAN OF MY COUNSEL from a far country. I have spoken, and I WILL BRING IT TO PASS; I have purposed, and I WILL DO IT.

Ps. 33: 8 Let all the earth fear the LORD; let all the people of the world revere him. 9 For He spoke, and it came to be; He commanded, and it stood firm. 10 The LORD foils the plans of the nations; He thwarts the purposes of the peoples. 11 But the plans of the LORD stand firm forever, the purposes of his heart through all generations.

I’ll add one foundational passage (really Genesis 1-3 )that should dictate how we read Scripture and understand God (and thus our state):

Gen 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. 3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

The foundational issue of the Doctrines of Grace is God’s Sovereignty, In the flower of TULIP, God’s sovereignty is the Stem that holds up the whole flower. Therefore I think the real issue is His Sovereignty. If you grasp what Scripture teaches about HIS sovereignty, everything else in TULIP will fall into place.

I’m not sure why you won’t deal with the issue here on this blog. I think its more fitting to do so right here.

Anyway, I think that’s it for now.

Denise

I’ve had MANY DEALINGS with our friend “A Helmet” over this issue.

I have yet to get him to take this text in context and he keeps asking this inane question about “what is the context of the teaching in 6:44″ “who hears and learns from the Father”

I must confess, I STILL don’t get it.

A Helmet, in my opinion you are tilting at windmills on this one.

Hi Helmet,

If you want to really refute the Calvinistic positions regarding the Sovereignty of God, we need to start from the beginning.

Again, we need not start on letter R to begin our discussion. We start with letter A.

Without starting the subject in ALL its aspects as a whole, misunderstanding happens.

So let’s have you refute the Calvinistic positions from THE BEGINNING.

Since this issue involves MAN, let’s begin at the very beginning of man’s creation which is found in Genesis.

If the foundation of Calvinism is refuted, then all other verses (Luke, John, Romans, etc) are refuted instantly, and “Christian” “Humanism wins.

Begin your refutations on whether Adam, via his freewill, chose to be a man. And if Eve, via her own free will chose to be a woman (c.f. John 3:4-6).

My positions is that God, via His sovereignty, decreed Adam to be a man, and Eve to be a woman. Neither of them had a freewill choice in the matter.

Please refute me and argue your position.

We then need to discuss the naming of the animals and procreation. Did Adam have sons via his own choice of freewill or was this God?

After then we can discuss the taxonomical approach of Adam’s science in naming all the animals.

But of course, after we discuss the issue of gender in relation to freewill, we must ultimately then lead up to the issue of ORIGINAL SIN.

Please refute the Calvinistic position that man is 100% dead spiritually and thus this would include his reason and intellect (Noetic Effect).

What did it mean when Adam died?
Did he really die, or was he really sick?
Or did this give Adam the MEANS to sin, and thus he is a sinner because he sins, he does not sin because he’s a sinner.

If you continue to solve the puzzle of refutation by starting with the letter R, you will be like a baby Hitler approaching the subject of Calculus. You must start with the letter A.

If you decide to simply look at a topic in the middle of hundreds of other topics, it will become obvious that truth is not your goal, rather your humanistic ego.

Looking forward to your refutations. It’s homework time.

good luck.

Respectfully,

Jean Cauvin (Jude 3).

Hello Denise,

you should study the book of Job, Romans, and Ephesians first.

The five pillars I’m treating are John 7:37-45; Eph 1:3-12; Eph 2:1ff; Rom.8:28-30 and Rom. 9ff. Because these are scriptures most frequently used by Calvinsts. Almost no reformed book on soteriology gets by without referring to these texts. That’s why I chose these scriptures. But there are others, of course. I hope I will address more scriptures.

I am sure all your arguements are the same old anti-Sovereignty of God stuff we’ve all heard ad nauseum.

Then you simply don’t know my arguments

I also provided two passages that destroy any notion that God waits for His orders from man; rather HE has already decided what shall happen in the future (hence “prophecies” which HE brings about):Isa 46:10 Ps. 33: 8

That has nothing to do with anything I said or wrote. Again, you do not know what I say.

The foundational issue of the Doctrines of Grace is God’s Sovereignty, In the flower of TULIP, God’s sovereignty is the Stem that holds up the whole flower.

God’s sovereignty does not in any way lead to TULIP. Here is the error.Who says that God’s sovereignty is TULIP?

Therefore I think the real issue is His Sovereignty. If you grasp what Scripture teaches about HIS sovereignty, everything else in TULIP will fall into place.

Okay, I just wrote about Rom.8 and the “golden chain of redemption”. This is often used to buttress TULIP. There is the transition “called” => “justified” (Rom.8:30). How do you explain, that there have been persons who were called, but not justified but condemned? What was God’s purpose behind this?

Besides, we just had the issue of John 6:44,45 and the “inward call”. Do you know anyone who has received that call?

These are issues I’ve been dealing with lately. Now you know

I’m not sure why you won’t deal with the issue here on this blog. I think its more fitting to do so right here.

I might deal with the issue here on this blog as well, that’s fine with me. I’m looking forward to conversating with you.

Greetings
-a helmet

Robert,

“what is the context of the teaching in 6:44? ”

No, the content of the teaching in 6:45!

Hi Jean Cauvin,

So we agree thus far, that Freewill does not exist as to the condition of Adam’s biological (bios) makeup.

Yes. Both the creation of Adam and Eve are the work of God.

Though this is not totally in order, is corresponds. John 3:4-6, if Adam had no freewill over his penis, then how did he have freewill over his glorified penis?

Indeed, this is not in order. But what about John 3:4-6? What about the context? Nicodemus comes at night. The important light-motif here. The conversation is at night, in the darkness. When you cannot see anything. If you cannot see, you cannot know. If you cannot know you are spiritually dead. If a leader walks in the darkness then not only he falls into the next pit, but all who follow him as well! Who is on their way at night anyway? When the Lord was betrayed it was night. When Peter denied the Lord, it was night. When the Lord was killed, darkness came over the land. The night is the time of iniquity. Who’s active at night? The thieves, the liars, sorcerers, murderes, idolaters, adulterers and all others that work iniquity. But what about the day? God wrought the creation at day. He did not work at night. God saw that the light was good, but there is no mentioning of the darkness being good. In the New Jerusalem there will be no night. There will be no darkness. Light is good. Darkness is bad. The day is good. The night is bad. Those who walk at night, cannot see, therefore cannot know, cannot understand. In the night nothing can be understood!

So this is the contextual framework of the passage you’re quoting.

What’s the purpose of the passage John 3:1-13? It is a forensic treatment of the would-be knowledge of those who walk in the darkness. Those who say “I know” while being spiritually dead, are confused by these words and condemned in their spiritual darkness even more. There is nothing to be understood except the fact that in the darkness absolutely nothing can be known! So much concerning the bible passage you are using.

And what about Adam’s biology? Well, he had no choice because he didn’t yet exist. Simple.

I’m trying to make a point via example. Thus, the BIOS (physical) of Adam’s “makeup” is WITHOUT freewill, and I would argue that via correspondence, the PSYCHE (Heb “Nephesh”)John 3 Vs. 5 = Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Well this is obvious.

This is obvious? But to Nicodemus it was very confusing. Why? Because in the night, that is in the darkness, nothing can be seen and nothing can be known. Those who are in the darkness, think they see, think they understand, but they don’t even know that they are in the darkness! If you are in the darkness, then you don’t even know that!

If a person was never born (physical birth) they do not exist and thus non-existence cannot coincide with existence.

Don’t rack your head on things that are meant to confuse those who think in the darkness anything can be understood! Spiritual darkness (or death) is the result of sin. In the darkness nothing can be understood. You must admit that. Think of the parables. They are meant to confuse, they are forensic in purpose. The same is true here. Those who think they can see in the darkness are confused even more. Note, the words “born again”. The greek words can mean “again” or “from above”. What did Jesus really say, “from above” or “again”? What language did the conversation take place? We don’t know. That’s confusing. It is meant to.

1) Our physical (bios) makeup is without man’s freewill

I agree.

2) Our spiritual DEATH (thanatos) is without man’s freewill

No! I told you that spiritual death is a condition where you cannot know any absolute truth. You cannot know anything for sure. Therefore, those who are spiritually dead cannot even answer the question “did spiritual death come by man’s freewill?”. Spiritually dead persons know nothing about the origin of sin and how spritual death itself came about in the first place. Only the spiritually alive can answer this question. It’s the case of Nicodemus and John 3! You might think you are in the light but still be in the darkness. At the beginning Nicodemus says: “we know”. By verse 10 however, he is even more confused than at the beginning! Spiritual darkness increases the more you rack your head on it.Let’s stay at “A” and look what the bible says: Spiritual death is by man’s willful transgression — see Adam! It was not God’s work but man’s.

Your inability to reconcile and explain the sovereignty and goodness of God with evil is due to the spiritual death, or spiritual darkness.

Let’s continue:
John 3:6:
“That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.”
Hmm? So we both agree that the gender/existence of man is without man’s freewill. But what of those born of Spirit?

Nicodemus was confused, because “born of spirit” doesn’t communicate much to us. These words were meant to confront Israel’s leaders with their own inability to see any absolute truth. We should not try to catch on to a text that is meant to convey only one message: If you walk in the darkness then you only get confused even more! The more we try to understand “born again” (or from above?), the more we get confused. This text is forensic, not revelatory.

You can only understand “born again” when it happened! Then you will know the origin of “spiritual death”. So again, we are at the start, at A.

This is non-sequitur . If the creation of the bios is without freewill, then how can one validly deduce (or induce) the freewill of the psyche of the Spirit since they are both outside of the man’s control.

This compare apples to oranges. The creation of the bios, was God’s work, God’s freewill and man did not yet exist. But the following refers to man after his creation.
Don’t be in Nicodemus’ position. Don’t try to see in the darkness. It doesn’t work. Rather account for sin! Why is there sin anyway and where did it originate from? Sin is the cause of spiritual death. If you don’t know the mystery of sin, how can you know anything about “spiritual death”? If you want to start at A, then start at A!

John 3:8:
“The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
Via Scripture, as via your partial agreement, the way in which freewill is not via the flesh, it is not via the Spirit for the wind blows where it wishes, not where man wishes.

“Wind” and “spirit” are the same words in the greek. Confusing! The wind is beyond our comprehension and control. Confusing! We don’t know where the spirit comes from and where it is going. Confusing! Nicodemus, who said “we know” in the beginning, knows less and less. The subject of this passage is confusion. Here is nothing to catch on.

The law of biogenesis in biology is a good illustration for this.

If Nicodemus could not understand all these things, how can you? Nicodemus was confused by these words, and you are not? Do you know what “born from above” means? It doesn’t communicate much, does it?

The law that life cannot come from non-life while non-life cannot come from life.
Thus, only life can come from life.

However, assume there is just one person that has spiritual life. Then this person can now raise dead persons to spiritual life. No dead individual can raise himself. But others can raise him. A candle cannot light itself. But a burning candle can light another one.

non-life cannot choose life.

But a living being can choose to raise non-life to life, right?

If you are a christian then you are in Christ. And Christ is in you. Christ is the logos (the word). Therefore the word is in you. The word raises to life (John 6:63, James 1:18+21; 1 Pet 1:25). It is the power of God (John 1:1). So now you, as a spiritually alive person, can likewise raise others using the logos-word.

Now of course biology is not where we go for doctrine.

I agree, hence I wonder why you brought up that idea anyway.

1) Adam’s existence without freewill

I agree. God made Adam. God was the doer.

2) Adam’s nature without freewill
I agree. God made Adam. God was the doer.

3) Adams spiritual death without freewill.

No! Adam transgressed. Adam was the doer. The problem is, that you don’t seem to understand the origin of sin.Therefore you don’t understand the origin of spiritual death. Go to “A” and answer the question: Whence sin? Why sin anyway?

Now, via logic and via John 3:5-8, explain how you will then leap like a frog on steroids into that notion that man’s choosing of spiritual life is freewill?

Your logic above is fallacious because it compares apples (God’s work) and oranges (Adam’s work). John 3:5-8 is about the judgment of those who think “they know”, while being spiritually dead. They are confused even more. Fortunately Jesus does not leave Nicodemus with this forensic words but proceeds with the proclamation of the gospel at v.3:14. (Note, Nicodemus is not portrayed as someone extraordinarily sinful! He’s later picked up again in the gospel of John)

I agree that no dead individual can turn to life by himself. But other forces can raise him. If we are christians, then we can raise others to spiritual life. If we cannot, then the Word (logos) is not in us. If the word is not in us, then Christ is not in us, for Christ is the word. If Christ is not in us, then we are spiritually dead.

Now we are getting back at A more directly. While the spiritual ramifications were (A)(1 or 2).

What is the origin of sin? Why is there sin anyway? Unless we know the answer, we are spiritually dead. Just remember the guest without wedding clothing. He could not answer the relationship between sin and a good and sovereign God. Therefore he was thrown out.

Yes, we are still at A.

Greetings
-a helmet

Concerning the original subject:

No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.” John 6:44

I’d like J. White to deal with the following verse 6:45 and explain

Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me

and explain what the Father teaches here. Of course, he won’t deal with that….I guess.

Hi Helmet,

Now of course you would want to discuss the “Fall” first. You are accepting the infralapsarian position (also sublapsarian) position of order probably without evening knowing it.

As Morey once said, this concept probably jumped on you like a band of flees jumps on a dog (Scotty?) and the dog has no idea where he picked them up. This has rolled into your confusion of Hitler like theology of autonomy.

The Infralapsarian position places the FALL FIRST, while the Superlapsarian places Election first. So technically, since I’m write and your insane (regarding your theology) I will outline the issue of supralapsianism.

It should be first pointed out that this is actually before A, though it pertains to A. Just like the connection between the bios of life vs. psyche of life are connected to each other.

It should also be noted that not very many (if any) works have been written on this subject. Even Morey “skipped” the subject in his “Studies in the Atonement.” I believe this is indicated somwhere around pg. 87 or 89 (it’s been a few years since I’ve read this). He encourages SOMEBODY to take this task on. More on this later.

Let’s get to it.

The prime tenent of a supralapsarian position is the concept that God did first elect (chose) various peoples as HIs, BEFORE any type of creation. In other words God’s first decree was election, then followed creation, tehn the fall, a provision for salvation was made, and lastly the provision for salvatino was applied. As outlined

1) The decree to elect some for salvation, others not elect.

2) The decree to create humans in Adam (constituting both elect and non-elect

3) The decree to allow the fall

4) The decree to provide salvation of the elect

5) The decree to apply this salvation to the elect.

Infralapsarianism moves the first decree to follow the creation and fall decree. We will discuss this further later.

And thus, we will get to the subject of the fall when we approach it via order.

While most have understood this in order, Morey places an interesting theory worth contemplation. Instead of viewing this via an order of linear sequence, he suggests to view this as spherical. He has not worked this out and suggests somebody else to take on this task in his “Studies in the Atonement” work (pg. 89 if memory serves me).

Now this is a good idea. I would imagine he was thinking about space and time in relation to God’s eternal state. While God is ontologically OUTSIDE OF TIME, The question rises, can God be ontologically INSIDE of time as well, or merely economically in time.

While orthodoxy would most likely acknowledge that God can both be in time and outside of time ontologically, my mere statement must be qualified in terms of limitiations. While God may “visit” within time, He is NOT bound by this time.

This then raises questions of the Incarnation which is somewhat off subject. This topic is worth discussion to the mature another time.

More specifically, ALL events in time are already experienced by God since He is outside of time. So 10,000 years from now He already experiences, even though we don’t.

This is awesome to think upon and should cause fear towards the idiots which are against God and his Sovereignty.

Now, this is a technical subject (Space and Time) so I will leave this for another discussion if it comes up, but I wanted to reiterate that though I appear to be refering to this as a linear equation (for pedagogical purposes), I am viewing the possibillity (greatly) as a spherical means.

God’s election is not subject to error. He neither needs to adjust to it, nor amend it, nor add to or delete it. It is applied to some human beings, and human beings only [as far as salvation is concerned]. God elected certain humans from eternity past (see Romans 8:29-30).

Romans 8:29-30

“For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become (or, to be) conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren (30) and whom He predestined, these He also called; and whom He called, these He also justifed; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.”

All of the above verbs are aorist, indicative, suggesting a singular occurence and an aspect incorporating past time. The words “to become” (or “to be) are not in teh Greek text. Many other passages can be illustrated to show that God, in time past, choose some souls to be “glorified” and “justified” each aspects of salvation. For example, Acts 13:48, II Timothy 1:9, Ephesians 1:4, etc.

Hence, election is is a process ENTIRELY orchestrated by God, competely independent of the desires of humans (c.f Romans 8:7). Arminians, Wesleyian Methodists, Charismatics (Chuck Smith), “holiness” peoples (Morey’s friend Bruno), are convinced that man’s will ha a part to play in salvation.

However, this is parrell in saying that man has a part to in God’s election, as electin cannot be separated from the consequence of election/salvation.

I could elaborate much more regarding “salvation,” and “sealing,” but the point is made regarding election.

I will simply add one thing that I am almost positive that Morey has never heard of. If he’s reading, I’m sure he’ll find it heretical.

Briefly, regarding “sealing.”

Seal adn sealing represent different words in Greek, “seal is arrabon, a pledge, a special endowment within every elect person. “Seal” is a neccessary part of election, where as “sealing” of the believer (his/her mind) is not an essential part of election salvation. The elect have this seal before being created. One should also consult Ephesians 1:14, II Corinthians 1:22, and 5:5

The Holy Spirit indwells each saint. From Romans 8:9b one may ask ” When does one blond to Him?”

…But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he/she does not belong to Him.

In Genesis 1:26, the “image” imparted to man, seems to contain a spiritual aspect. Note Galatians 4:1-9 also [In Galatains 4:9, consider the passive particular thusly-"had been known" by God - gnosthentes] It is suggested that all elect persons are born with the Holy Spirit indwelling them in a germinal form. At the proper time, the indwelling Spirit moves an elected person to respond to the “gospel”, the indwelling Spirit then activates teh believer’s faith SO AS TO BE ABLE to believe. When this faith is expressed, the new believer is then SEALED. Many also consider the presense of the Holy Spirit as a SEAL, yet note taht He also “seals” – Ephesians 1:13:

In Him, you also after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation-having also believed, you were sealed by the Holy spirit of promise..

The Greek term for “sealed” is esphragisthete, aorist, passive, used as “securing”, safeguarding, and confirming.” The Holy Spirit helps us be secure (sealed) with the new concept – the awareness of our salvation in Christ Jesus! Note the dative of the agent, (“by”) with the passive, as opposed to the instrument (“with)”

Though it is said that the Spirit had not yet been given (John 7:39), what is meant is that particular type of ministry of the Holy Spirit. In this age, He ministers as one indwelling each individual temple (vaos), He also seals, convicts, and baptizes.

This is somewhat deep theology, and most on here are probably looking similar to a doupster. But for Helmet to understand this, it must be relayed as such.

Now, I am aware of the arguments against this, and will post those argument at a later time after I respond to the logical fallacies of Helmet in his last post.

After such, we can skip the decree of creation and go straight to the Fall (or the issue of Evil – Theodomy).

Respectfully,

Jean Cauvin (Jude 3).

Hi Denise,

Thanks for your answer. I knew this John 6 commentary. Also the “Open Letter To Dave Hunt” where White addresses John 6:45 as well. But both in this commentary and in other articles, White speaks about the teaching, but does not actually tell the content thereof. I mean the following.

This teaching is the regeneration mechanism. This is how 100% spiritual dead sinners are brought to spiritual life.

Note the comparison between physical death/life and spiritual death/life. In order to raise physically one would need some “physical action”. To raise a spiritually dead to spiritual life one would need a “spiritual action”

“physical death –> physical action –> physical life”

“spiritual death –> spiritual action –> spiritual life”

Now, this “spiritual action” is the imparting of knowledge according to John 6:45 and nothing else! The imparting of knowledge (teaching) is the regeneration mechanism.

Now Calvinists are quick to say: “But a dead man cannot learn”. However, this objection is fallacious, because this teaching is what makes the dead alive. There is no further “factor X” involved. Calvinists admit that dead man can learn the mere facts of the gospel, right? Now, this teaching, according to John 6:45 is the mechanism that makes alive.

This is important: spiritually dead individuals cannot know how they must be brought to life. They have no say! So if scripture declares that they are brought to life by knowledge (the word) only, then we should not put our own opinions about death and regeneration above this. There is no such thing as an “inward address” in the bible! The spiritual resurrection of 100% dead sinners just works in a different way.

Note, spirit is both life and light (knowledge). There is no actual difference between knowledge (understanding) and spiritual life (John 1:4; John 17:3). They are two sides of the same coin.

Knowledge of God (light) is life.

The John 6 discourse that picks up the queston at verse 63-65 again, says.

Verse 44: “hear and learn the words”
Verse 6:63a: “The spirit gives life”
Verse 6:63b “The words are spirit and life”.

The order is like this:
Spiritually dead persons learn the word (v.44)
The words transport the spirit (v.63b)
The spirit then, makes alive (v.63a)
Therefore, the words are spirit and life.

There is no basis for any “Factor X” involved in the regeneration of dead sinners, as Calvinists assume. There is no room for such an idea in John 6, nor elsewhere in the bible. Everything is accomplished by the word.This is how the spiritual dead are given “a new heart”. There is no secret action involved that by-passes the word.

So back to the question of White and “everyone who has learned from the father”. This teaching is obviously the key that makes alive. And White speaks a lot about this teaching (that it repeats the thought of verse 44, and that it refers to Isaiah…) but does not acutally say what its content is. (All who learn this teaching wil come to Christ. All.) This proves, that he himself has not received it. He speaks about a light (knowledge) which he obviously put under a footstool. A light that is hidden, however, is of no use at all and the one who claims to possess it is going to fall into the next pit, because a light that is hidden neither is good for others, nor for the one who says he has it.

The teaching is the drawing of v.44.
So if someone doesn’t know what the teaching is, he doesn’t know what the drawing is.

Greetings
-a helmet

Hi Helmet,

LOL, it’s like discussing the 11 herbs and spices to a chicken in a hot kitchen.

The issue Helmet, is that you seem to be confused as to what Calvinism really IS. You are misrepresenting your opponents position, and ironically you are often on your opponents side while you are refuting your opponent. I would suspect that It’s like a really hardcore “acid trip” in talking to you.

You also did NOT deal with my arguments. Morey’s friend Bruno is a freak, though a nice guy. He’s more like a walking comedian, though he is now aware of this himself (thus the comedy).

Shall I assume that you know New Testament Greek, or do you not? Is this the reason as to why you did not discuss my grammatical exegetical analysis of the passages? Instead of repeating arguments, deal with the verses I used grammatically via the Greek, and not via the commentary of Strong or Lewis Sperry Chafer.

I reiterate some of my arguments slower.

The reason we are starting with election is because we are starting with the order of things from the beginning. If you discuss a subject like a fat man at a buffet table grabbing things randomly, your conclusions will be fat and will thus lack substance. Epileptic theology is popular, but usually ends with the foaming at the mind.

You gave an adhominem about the 5 (5 pointed pentagram or 5 points of tulip). This shows me your ignorance regarding Tulip since Tulip was a COUNTER MEASURE against the 5 points of Arminianism. The remonstrance (or 5 points of Arminianism) was originated first (1610) while the Tulip countered this via the Synod of Dort in 1618. The fact that I have to teach you basic history shows that I am discussing theology with a guy that is still learning to eat solid food. It’s like those really bad singers on American Idol that keep coming back and trying out again and again each and every year. Go home already. : )

Since you denied the 5, do you reject the 5 points of the remonstrance and the 5 decrees of the infralapsarian/sublapsarian view? George Bryson probably does because he wouldn’t even know what we are probably taking about since his brain is most likely extremely pink due to his years at the Calvary Chapel playgroud.

This issue here are inferences within systematic theology. The Supralapsarian system and it’s opposing views are a category with the whole of Systematic Theology. And thus, we must acknowledge doctrine where doctrine is acknowledge. Similar to the Trinity, it would be difficult to find a passage to discuss the Trinity unless we use Systematic Theology with the basic principle of analogia fidei to guide our understanding with the help of the Holy Spirit.

Now that I’ve wiped your behind on the basics, we can now get to your random outbursts (since you did not address the grammatical and dialectical Greek, though brief, of the passages).

Helmet Said:

“This, and only this, is the reason why I started my blog about the doctrines of grace in the first place, namely in order to see, whether they really flow from the scriptures or rather from human prejudices and arbitrary assumptions.”

This tells me that you have no idea how logic works. First off, the very issue that the Bible is the Word of God is an Axiom. Now, the issue of whether God always tells the truth is not an axiom. Though the relationship between these two must be understood before you start making comments about assumption.

Helmet Said:

“Note the transition called=>justified. All who are called are justified. Really? There are examples in the bible where people where called beyond doubt, but justified?”

This is due to your lack of knowledge regarding logic, Greek grammar, and simple hermeneutics. In the same way that the word “called’ is not used univocally 100% of the time, there are different meanings for the word called (Greek kletos which also means invited, or appointed). To know the meaning we must allow the context to tell us.

Another type of objection used to oppose a true Supralapsarian position concerns an example of the word for “choose” or “elect.” John 6:70, in which Jesus chooses the 12, is often utilized to demonstrate that just because Jesus “chooses” someone, that choice does not NECESSARILY equate salvation (or eternal security). IN using John 6:70, a fatal error is generated when applied meaning (id est that “choose” must always equal salvation), note John 6::70:

“Jesus answered them, did not I choose you the twelve, and one of you is a devil?”

It should pointed out that choose does not indicate salvation, rather it only shows a choosing of 12 as messengers. So we would not look for places where choose does not mean salvation, and then argue that against the places where it does mean salvation.

As with the term “called, “ we don’t go to places where called doesn’t mean salvation, and then apply the non-salvation to the passages that mean salvation. Again, this is the fat man at the buffet table method of hermeneutics.

Regarding called; we see a parallel in Luke 6:13

“ And when day came, He CALLED His disciples to Him and chose twelve of them, whom He also named as apostles:”

Now, we have a different Greek word here. Though many “calls” are of the same word but not meaning the same thing. For example, the called in Romans 8:28 (Kletois) is from the same word in Romans 1 (Kletos). The calling of Romans 1 is not the same calling of Romans 8:28. So again, I am not arguing that the Bible is extremely colorful and unique in its language regarding linguistic terms in connection to dialectical understanding, what we are talking about is context.

And since this verse is in support for Calvinism, the pink minded Arminains have pretended that this verse has been in support for them and has deceived the subject matter. This reminds me of a conversation with Gretcha Passintino, very boisterous and somewhat pink minded.

Now, regarding the subject of call in Romans 8:28 (Kletois), we see the Ordo Salutis (order of salvation) in which we are noticing the process. Similar to regeneration preceding or proceeding faith, we see the order right in the passage. The Ordo Salutis relates the order of application of regeneration. Even the Arminian (the ‘intelligent ones”) acknowledge this, though they do not agree as to the order of process. Again, we must keep in mind Morey’s understanding of spherical vs. linear, though it’s not commented on this, I find it still could apply.

We should also note that this is not a full list of the process. And to some degree, this passage is not talking about the passage directly (more indirectly) for it is giving us understanding towards the full richness of our salvation (Berkouwer). But nevertheless, indirectly we see a partial “order” towards justification, regeneration, calling (Kuyper).

Sanctification is not listed, but it should note that sanctification is not part of the process per se, since justification is judicial position while sanctification is condition, though it will be fully placed together when the regenerate reach home (Philippians 1:6).

So there you have it, basic understanding of approach. We evidently have different methods of hermeneutics. While I like to approach the Scriptures with my mind and the Holy Spirit’s guidance, it appears you prefer the style of “fat bastard” on Austin Powers (ooh, nutty?).

Helmet Said:
“What do I have to prove, that Adam transgressed (caused spritual death) by his own volition?”

This is not what we mean by “Original Sin.” What we mean by Original Sin is the consequence of Adam’s sin (Romans 5:12-18). And since the natural man is an “Adam,” then how can one make the leap of 100% God of the bios, and 0% in the psyche. This is loony (like that film, “high anxiety”).

Helmet Said:
“I don’t embrace the idea of libertarian free will. However, that doesn’t imply predestination of man’s actions and doesn’t make Calvinism true.”

Nor do I. This is where I wonder if it is really pizza that I’m eating.? Choice corresponds to nature, and thus we are free to choose according to the bondage of our nature. Do you concur? If not, explain your understanding of freewill since it appears 100% of Arminians and the “Free Willy’s.”

Helmet Said:

“I believe that man is dead in trespasses and sins because the bible says so. But I showed how this doesn’t lead to Calvinism. See the comment addressed to Denise above. Being dead in sin doesn’t imply the reformed concept of regeneration. Rather the calvinstic understanding of a factor X that works around the word of God, is unbiblical. The idea of an inward call is denied by the scriptures, not affirmed.”

Wow. I believe the term “Calvinism” has become a “buzz” word for you. You have demonstrated that you do not fully understand the very issue you are opposing.

Of course death does not lead to Calvinism. Lol, Calvinism is about death brought to life. And of course being dead in sin does not give us Calvin’s view of regeneration. Either you are very tired or simply writings upside down.

This issue has to do with the means of death to life. Since choice corresponds to nature (II Corinthians 2:14), then the natural dead man will always choose of his nature (death) while the man of God will choose life (II Corinthians 2:16). So, the means for the dead man to choose life, since choice corresponds to nature, would be to change the nature from death to life, so as to allow the man to choose via his nature that was changed by God and God alone, life.

This is why we say regeneration precedes faith, since the nature must first change, in order for the choice to comply with life (II Corinthians 5:17). And this is why nobody has the ability to seek God or understand God (Romans 3:10-12) because their nature is LOCKED into death. Thus, God must unlock the dead nature to allow the choice to correspond to what God has allowed to change.

The inward calling or “Effectual Calling” is based on the notion that action flows from and away from its base. And thus, the man with the changed nature to choose life will thus demonstrate this choice in the actions of his life. This is much more involved then this, but this all ties into the Cause and Effect relationship of the Ordo Salutus.

Helmet Said:
“To conclude, the doctrine of election must be won from the scriptures, not from Morey or Bruno or anyone’s preferred personal version. You suggested Rom. 8:29-30. However, this cannot serve to buttress the calvinistic doctrine of election as long as you don’t answer the problems regarding the necessary connection called=>justified. That’s the weak point here. So Calvinists must look for another fundamental scriptural anchor to begin. “

Amen. Romans 8:29-30 does serve as a case for Calvinism since the context allows it via the terms (call, etc). Your lack of understanding of Greek and vocabulary in relation to context has caused you to fly like a kite on a 0% windy day. You fall on your face in the mud of inscitia.
Again, please provide the means in which man has 0% of control in the bios, but 100% control in the evil, dead psyche. This you cannot do.

Respectfully,

Jean Cauvin (Jude 3).

Hello Jean Cauvin,
thanks for your reply.

The issue Helmet, is that you seem to be confused as to what Calvinism really IS. You are misrepresenting your opponents position,

Where exactly was the misrepresentation? I don’t think there was anything misrepresenting Calvinism in my comments. What was off the mark? Well, with respect to the “5 decrees”, I acknowledge that they in fact mean 5 different aspects of the one decree. But I don’t see where there was anything else wrong about Calvinism! I know so much about Calvinism, that it is unlikely for me to misrepresent it. Honestly!

and ironically you are often on your opponents side while you are refuting your opponent.

No. The fact that I believe that humans are “dead in trespasses and sins” doesn’t mean I assent to “Total Depravity” in the reformed meaning. When I read “dead” in Eph 2, I’m not reminded of skulls and bones. I’ll pick that up later again.

You also did NOT deal with my arguments.

Okay, then I’ll do this now. You present the 2 views that

1) Some were elected before the fall to glory, and the fall used as a means to reach that goal. (Supra)

2) First the fall was predestined and some elected for mercy, after the fall would have occurred. (Infra)

In both cases, the order between fall and election is logical, not temporal. The Supra view is based on election to glory and the infra view on election to mercy.

Since all this is supposed to have happened in eternity past, and there was only one decree, this cannot mean a temporal order but a logical order. The question is, what causes what? Now, regarding Morey’s spherical order, this hasn’t been worked out as you say. So I don’t think it is worth commenting on that idea here, because if neither anyone else in the reformed field endorses that concept nor I, a helmet do so, nor you have any further idea about that concept, it doesn’t make sense to savor that subject here. I haven’t read about that spherical order theory before, so I don’t think it is worth contemplating. However, any appeals to the scriptures are worth contemplating. You bring up the subjects of God’s relation to time and space and the spirit as a seal. Now, the reason why I did not deal with these things is because they are indeed off-subject as you say yourself.

Back to the supra-infra topic. This is based on die-hard reformed presuppositions that must be justified by the scriptures. We cannot simply assume the reformed doctrine of predestination and then discuss the order of the aspects thus predestined. Rather the reformed understanding of predestination itself must be put into question. So the foundation must be on the scriptures. You wouldn’t argue with a Muslim who insists on taking the Qur’an and its infallibilty as a presupposition for a discussion, would you? (Or the five points of Islam). In the same way, I don’t accept the reformed understanding of predestination and decree, unless we have it based on the scriptures. I think you won’t deny that the supra-infa-alternative you present here, is already based on a lot of reformed bias. I think it is so.

Shall I assume that you know New Testament Greek, or do you not?

I don’t.

Is this the reason as to why you did not discuss my grammatical exegetical analysis of the passages?

You are referring to Rom. 8:29-30 and the usage of the aorist tense and the words “to become/to be” there. The reason why I did not pick that up this is because:
1) the past tense of this “golden chain” is not really the subject of controversy. Both “foreknown” and “glorified” are described as past events. Do you believe that God in eternity past inwardly called, justified and glorifed someone? Obviously not, because “effectual/inward calling” is supposed to be an event happening in time, right? So the past tense of the passage is rather an argument against the doctrines of grace, than in its favor. However, the past tense indicates some finished reality, something from the point of view of God, portraying His sovereignty. This makes sense. And it can be understood as a review from the end point. The problem for Calvinists is the transition called=>justified, rather than the tense, therefore I said the tense used is not mainly the matter of controversy.

2) the original absence of “to become (or to be)”, (if this is really the case at all; I doubt) doesn’t change the meaning of the text. “those whom he foreknew he predestined conformed to the image of His son”. Rather like this? The meaning stays the same. “Predestination” refers to the goal, it is the purpose that the foreknown are to fulfill (v. 28). And this goal is the likeness of Christ. The meaningof the text isn’t changed thereby. And note, the idea of a “predetermination of all of man’s actions” does not follow from that at all. Predestination refers to the objective, it is the aim that is to be reached by the following steps of the chain.

The reason we are starting with election is because we are starting with the order of things from the beginning. I Epileptic theology is popular, but usually ends with the foaming at the mind.

I agree. But we cannot start with Morey’s spherical order theory if no-one except this guy himself embraces that idea which hasn’t even been thought through and we must start with an anchor scripture. When Calvinists write books they will soon utilize some scripture, right? So they must decide which should be the scriptural foundation. We need to use the bible to form our insights.

The remonstrance (or 5 points of Arminianism) was originated first (1610) while the Tulip countered this via the Synod of Dort in 1618. The fact that I have to teach you basic history shows that I am discussing theology with a guy that is still learning to eat solid food.

I know that the 5 points originated with the remonstrants. But Calvinsts emphasize their 5 points much more than the Arminians tend their flower (what flower?). So why should not some Calvinist once upon a time have founded his 5-decrees-theory on the 5 points of Calvinism? But anyway, this is just distracting from topic.

Since you denied the 5, do you reject the 5 points of the remonstrance and the 5 decrees of the infralapsarian/sublapsarian view?

I don’t buy any of these 5 points at all. Neither the 5 points of Calvinism, Remonstrants, Allahism, Satanism, Infra- or Supralapsarianism. Therefore I don’t see why I should defend any of these. By the way do you know that this Calvinism-versus-Arminianism debate is a solely american phenomenon? This rather narrow-minded controversy isn’t alive in Europe. Theology is much more complex and complicated than average american folks like to admit. Pardon me, I’m not being polemical here, and not personal. This is a fact: This controversy is almost limited to America.

This issue here are inferences within systematic theology. The Supralapsarian system and it’s opposing views are a category with the whole of Systematic Theology.

I’m favoring the opposing view. Apropos systematic: I wonder how systematic theology constructs the doctrines of grace. The doctrines of grace require quite some bias and have so little support in christendom.

And thus, we must acknowledge doctrine where doctrine is acknowledge. Similar to the Trinity, it would be difficult to find a passage to discuss the Trinity unless we use Systematic Theology with the basic principle of analogia fidei to guide our understanding with the help of the Holy Spirit.

Okay, I agree that there must be a common ground of understanding to begin with. Some minimum agreement so to speak. But note as well, while the Trinity has much support in Christendom, the doctrines of grace do not.

helmet: “Note the transition called=>justified. All who are called are justified. Really? There are examples in the bible where people where called beyond doubt, but justified?”JC: This is due to your lack of knowledge regarding logic, Greek grammar, and simple hermeneutics.

First, a word concerning greek grammar. Here are absolutely no problems that could possibly arise from a mishandling of grammar. There is absolutely no ambiguity in the grammar that might cause anyone to misinterpret the text in Rom. 8:28-30. Or can you point out any ambiguous “pitfalls” due to grammar here that would influence the meaning of the text in a significant way? I don’t think so. So the grammar argument here is all hollow words. And logic requires that being called necessarily leads to justification. And simple hermeneutics is surely unable to capture the reformed understanding of calling here. The preemptive regeneration or inward call can hardly be established by this text.

In the same way that the word “called’ is not used univocally 100% of the time, there are different meanings for the word called (Greek kletos which also means invited, or appointed). To know the meaning we must allow the context to tell us.

Would you admit that this holds true for the word “dead” as well? Some words regarding the context here. The context is provided by the encompassing section Rom. 8:19-39. The topic here is the Christians’ sufferings, tribulations, afflictions and even persecution. They who have the firstfruits of the spirit are encouraged to put their hope in the things to come, because God is sovereign in providence to work out all things for the good of the elect. The “golden chain” is embedded in this context to point out that God is sovereign in providence, and the elect will finally be more than overcomers. Those who love God are kept by His power and preserve in His love. This is the context. Now how does this context determine the meaning of called and elect? Well, the called are those who love God (v.28) That is, they are righteous. This is why they are justified. Because they are good. There is no justification of sinners. Sinners don’t love God. Those who are called and those who love God are one and the same group. This is important to note.

Another type of objection used to oppose a true Supralapsarian position concerns an example of the word for “choose” or “elect.” [...]“Jesus answered them, did not I choose you the twelve, and one of you is a devil?”

So there are examples of people called but who don’t seem to be justified. Now, this requires an explanation and the question is open what these different callings are or how called=>justified in Rom 8:30 is to be understood. In Rom. 8:30 the called are righteous, therefore they are justified. Furthermore, they are called according to a purpose . What is this purpose? It is to be conformed to the image of Christ (glorified). So here is a basis for the meaning of “called” in the passage. “called” carries the same meaning as in Luke 14:16 and Mt. 22. It is the invitation to the lamb’s wedding supper. Both in Rom 8:28-30 and in Mt. 22 and Luke 14 the purpose of calling is to come to Christ to be justified and glorified. Therefore, we might well utilize these scriptures for a further understanding of “called” and its correlation to “love God” in Rom. 8:30. This is the way we must follow.

It should pointed out that choose does not indicate salvation, rather it only shows a choosing of 12 as messengers. So we would not look for places where choose does not mean salvation, and then argue that against the places where it does mean salvation.

Right, we must not mix the meanings of one and the same vocable in different places. In the same way we should not think of a bog body whenever we read the word “dead” in the bible.

As with the term “called, “ we don’t go to places where called doesn’t mean salvation, and then apply the non-salvation to the passages that mean salvation.

Well it depends what salvation. “Called” in Rom. 8:28-30 refers to those who love God and are therefore righteous. The called are righteous. They are not “saved” in the sense of the doctrines of grace, but saved from their enemies and persecutors and tribulations of all kinds by the sovereign provision of God. They go through trials in this world and are condemned by the authorities of this world, but God will ultimately justify them and wipe away their tears. The righteous ones, persecuted by the world, are finally justified and glorified by God. The objects of the chain in Rom. 8:29-30 are not sinners, but the righteous.

Regarding called; we see a parallel in Luke 6:13
“ And when day came, He CALLED His disciples to Him and chose twelve of them, whom He also named as apostles:” The calling of Romans 1 is not the same calling of Romans 8:28.

Rom 1:1 refers to Pauls apostleship. But “called” in Rom. 1:7 has the beloved of God as the object and might well carry exactly the same meaning as Rom.8:28+30.

So again, I am not arguing that the Bible is extremely colorful and unique in its language regarding linguistic terms in connection to dialectical understanding, what we are talking about is context.

Okay, context again. The meaning of “called” must be decided by the context. Now, the context of Rom. 8:28-30 is God’s sovereign help of those who love him, the elect. The words “sin”, “believe”, or “faith” do not occur in the entire confined section vs. 19-39! Therefore the context in no way buttresses the idea of a “secret call in a sinner’s heart” as a meaning of “called” here. This is as far-fetched as possible. This is high-grade eisegesis. Again, then where does this concept come from? The context of Rom. 8 does not promote it at all. Rather those called are those who love God. Sinners don’t love God. Therefore the calling here is not some mysterious change in nature turning a sinner into a saint. That understanding of “called” is not buttressed by the context at all.

And since this verse is in support for Calvinism, the pink minded Arminains have pretended that this verse has been in support for them and has deceived the subject matter.

It isn’t in support for Calvinism at all. However, here’s a challenge for calvinists: How do you explain “to be called to love God”?

Again, we must keep in mind Morey’s understanding of spherical vs. linear, though it’s not commented on this, I find it still could apply.

Why must we keep Morey’s understanding in mind, if no-one else embraces that idea as discussed above and this understanding was not elaborated thoroughly anyway? Are you or I the “somebody” else who shall finish this work?

Sanctification is not listed, but it should note that sanctification is not part of the process per se, since justification is judicial position while sanctification is condition, though it will be fully placed together when the regenerate reach home (Philippians 1:6).

This shows once again that Calvinists don’t get the message here. Note, sanctification is not listed, because the objects of this chain are righteous, there are no sinners that are turned into saints, or something. And “when the regenerate reach home”? Note, those who love God (the called) are justified because they are righteous. The fruit of righteousness is holiness (sanctification). These are holy. And they will inherit heavenly glory. This is important to note: The reformed understanding of “sanctification” is absolutely flawed as well.

So there you have it, basic understanding of approach. We evidently have different methods of hermeneutics.

Calvinism’s problems with Rom. 8:28-30: 1) Missing context 2) Confusion regarding the meaning of “called”. Called carries the meaning of “invitation” (yet as a command) to come to Christ’s wedding supper here. It is the same “called” as in Rom.1:7, Mt 22 and Luke 14.

explain your understanding of freewill since it appears 100% of Arminians and the “Free Willy’s.”

I have done this, but will repeat it. There is no God-vesus-man conflict as calvinism assumes and takes as premise, but rather the union established by the gospel — the new temple: man-in-God-and-God-in-man. Man works the works of God. He has the freedom of God. He is fully encompassed in God (In the Father, God’s sovereignty) and also fully free (The father in man). This is explained in the post on God’s sovereignty and man’s freedom on my blog about the doctrines of grace. There is no conflict between God’s freedom and man’s.

helmet:Being dead in sin doesn’t imply the reformed concept of regeneration. Rather the calvinstic understanding of a factor X that works around the word of God, is unbiblical. The idea of an inward call is denied by the scriptures, not affirmed.JC: Wow. I believe the term “Calvinism” has become a “buzz” word for you. You have demonstrated that you do not fully understand the very issue you are opposing.

Did you mean this with misrepresentation? Well I’m indeed opposing the reformed understanding of regeneration. According to Calvinism, there are two seperated forces that work on the dead sinner. Man who invokes the outward call (uttering the words of the gospel) and God who invokes the inward call. These forces are seperated because there is a division of work. The outward call is the preacher’s part, the inward call is God’s independent part. The preacher has no influence on the inward call, no matter how many words he might utter. Now, this is exact reformed doctrine. I argue however, that this inward call is just smoke and dust and there is no Calvinist who knows whether he’s ever received it. And I keep on demonstrating that it is indeed an unbiblical concept.

Of course death does not lead to Calvinism. Lol, Calvinism is about death brought to life. And of course being dead in sin does not give us Calvin’s view of regeneration. Either you are very tired or simply writings upside down.

I agree that the conception of spiritual death as an equalization with physical death is an arbitrary assumption. Calvinists are quick to point out that “world” does not always mean “world”, that “all” doesn’t always mean “all”, that “called” doesn’t always mean “called”…. but “dead” must always mean dead ? Why? Well, this is actually a matter of personal preference.

This issue has to do with the means of death to life. Since choice corresponds to nature (II Corinthians 2:14), then the natural dead man will always choose of his nature (death) while the man of God will choose life (II Corinthians 2:16). [...] This is why we say regeneration precedes faith, since the nature must first change, in order for the choice to comply with life (II Corinthians 5:17).

Do you know any person whose nature changed? Did anyone testify to this, or is this just a pesonal opinion, caused by some overwhelming feelings of the respective person or something like that? I’m not being polemical here, but this is crucial. Do you know anyone to whom “factor X” occurred? Or do people only interpret their subjective emotion-driven life experiences as “factor X” having secretly happened to them behind the veil? I think it’s the latter. People just make the claim that their “nature was changed”. Because there is no scriptural basis for “factor X”.

And this is why nobody has the ability to seek God or understand God (Romans 3:10-12) because their nature is LOCKED into death. Thus, God must unlock the dead nature to allow the choice to correspond to what God has allowed to change.

If you wait for a change in your nature to occur, then you’ll wait till death, because it just ain’t gonna happen! If you think there is some secret action working in your heart that changes your nature and your desires, you will try to detect such an occurence in vain. Then you only cheat yourself. Note, I said how the unlocking of the dead nature is done. You did not deal with that. The reformed understanding of God unlocking the dead nature is fallacious.

Romans 8:29-30 does serve as a case for Calvinism since the context allows it via the terms (call, etc). Your lack of understanding of Greek and vocabulary in relation to context has caused you to fly like a kite on a 0% windy day.

Calling in that context addresses the righteous. And it has the meaning of “invitation by the king to attend the son’s wedding banquet”. We must draw on scriptures that treat of that subject in order to come to an understanding of the connection called-to-justified in Rom. 8:30. The calvinistic understanding of calling is not served by this text at all.

Again, please provide the means in which man has 0% of control in the bios, but 100% control in the evil, dead psyche. This you cannot do.

Okay, we can distinguish between the situation of Adam before the fall and common man’s condition now.

First, Adam transgressed the commandment by his own volition. That’s what scriputure says and whoever disagrees must prove his case.

Second, concerning common man, I said already in a previous comment that a dead man cannot raise himself, just like a candle cannot light itself. In order to make a candle light burn you need a match first. The match must come from somewhere. Okay. But how many matches do you need to light 10 candles? Or 100? You also need just 1 match and light the first candle. This candle then can be used to subsequently light another candle and so on. What do I mean with this? Christ was the first burning candle (spiritually alive) He came as a light, as a burning candle. Now, the christians carry the light in themselves (Mt. 5:14-15). They have “learned from the Father” (John 6:45). They can now put their light on a lampstand (Luke 8:16;11:33) so that everyone can see it and be enlightened thereby. And it is the light that raises to life. Nothing else, no secret supplement here! (John 6:63). Thus, those who have the light, have the life and can share it.
So is any spiritually dead individual able to choose to come to life? No, but those who have the light already and therefore have the life, can raise them to life.

Now of course Calvinists rack their heads on the issue why 2 persons who hear the very same words spoken by a gospel preacher respond differently. One comes to faith, the other one does not. Now Calvinists attempt to answer this by inventing some secret, inscrutable action that shall be going on behind the veil, “changing the heart”.
But note, there are no esoterics involved here. It is the spirit (light & life) that makes alive. How is the spirit conveyed? By the word (John 6:63; James 1:18). The word grows like a plant (Acts 6:7; 12:24; 19:20). In the beginning the word is small. Therefore it is not strong enough to convict everyone. But it grows to become a sharp sword. Then it is strong enough to combat all opposition. So the reason why some who hear the gospel still don’t believe has to do with the preacher’s weakness.
So now I’ve repeated that as well. A dead man cannot choose to live. But the living can choose to raise the dead.

Greetings
-a helmet-

Hi Helmet,

This is becoming a book. I am still under the whether, so I will respond to your “voodoo” theology more analytically as soon as my fever goes away.

Before I go to bed, I must respond to one of your voodoo comments:

Helmet Said in quotes:

“”"Second, concerning common man, I said already in a previous comment that a dead man cannot raise himself, just like a candle cannot light itself. In order to make a candle light burn you need a match first. The match must come from somewhere.”"”

This statement shows that you are somewhat on my side. Thus I can call you my partial Calvinistic brother. However, Bryson may count you among the heathen. Let’s have a beer and celebrate (Hebrews 7:7).

“”"”Okay. But how many matches do you need to light 10 candles? Or 100? You also need just 1 match and light the first candle. This candle then can be used to subsequently light another candle and so on. What do I mean with this? Christ was the first burning candle (spiritually alive) He came as a light, as a burning candle. Now, the christians carry the light in themselves (Mt. 5:14-15).”"”"

Well, you are close. But we don’t disagree on this point either (we do somewhat, but again, you’re close). I addressed this issue on a technically level in relation to sealing vs. sealed. I was not OFF topic per se, I was simply elaborating on topic A/B in relation to the logical connections of consequence. And sealing is one of those consequences. Calvinism has not “worked” out this understanding of sealing and thus is not the issue at hand. But again, I have not been off topic per se since I have connected the logic consequents (briefly and not completely however).

“”"”"”They have “learned from the Father” (John 6:45). They can now put their light on a lampstand (Luke 8:16;11:33) so that everyone can see it and be enlightened thereby. And it is the light that raises to life. Nothing else, no secret supplement here! (John 6:63). Thus, those who have the light, have the life and can share it.

So is any spiritually dead individual able to choose to come to life? No, but those who have the light already and therefore have the life, can raise them to life.”"”"”"

Now, this is where you become a Voodoo Obei witch doctor. Only the Holy Spirit has the power to raise the dead to life. Joe, the pizza guy who is a Christian has no authority to “save” people (II Cor 2:4-5, Eph 1:13-14, I Tim 2:5, Matt 28:18, etc, etc).

Please give Biblical support for your Voodoo.

In relation to the spherical. The reason nobody has worked this out is due to a lack of understanding in relation to time and space. By work out, I mean an exhaustive analysis in relation to the order. While I know of nobody who has done this, the conceptual understanding in which he is using from Augustine (most likely) should be understood as an asterix footnote.

There have been a few who have tried to work out the issue between time and space. However, the CONNECTION (again) in relation to decrees is important and it worth merit via a combination of thought in Church History that has not been worked out.

So while it is not the point of our discussion, it should be in the back of the mind when contemplating the issue.

For pedagogical discussion we can place things in order, but to deny the space time concept is simply days of old and limits God’s precision of decrees.

You limit Him enough already as it is, let’s not make it worse with His decrees.

There are many subjects which have not been discussed in toto in Church History. Though Morey’s spherical concept raised a good point, your voodoo gives me the ‘whillies.”

Now, provide verses to show that people can raise the dead (spiritually). I find no support for Voodoo in the New Testament.

I ordered KFC last night, but I suddenly lost my appetite for chicken this morning. Thanks a lot Helmet!

I will address more fully in the near future.

Respectfully,

Jean Cauvin (Jude 3).

Hello Jean Cauvin,

Thank you for your response. I’ll respond to both comments seperately.
So is any spiritually dead individual able to choose to come to life? No, but those who have the light already and therefore have the life, can raise them to life. JC:
Now, this is where you become a Voodoo Obei witch doctor. Only the Holy Spirit has the power to raise the dead to life.

This response, once again, demonstrates clearly that the reformed have absolutely no knowledge about how “regeneration” actually works. The reformed conception of the holy spirit and regeneration seems to be somewhat settled in an esoteric realm, the holy spirit being some esoteric, mystic force and regeneration the inscrutable work of this inscrutable force. Your conception of regeneration reminds me of the “burning in the bosom” which the Mormons speak of when they testify to the Book of Mormon. They pray a prayer, ask God whether the Book of Mormon is true and then claim to have received some experience, which cannot be articulated but which they interpret as coming from the holy spirit. Your concept of the holy spirit’s work seems to be similar: a personal conviction that your desires have changed and something supernatural happened to you. Calvinists claim their will changed and they desired to become more holy. Let me say right away that I don’t buy any of these testimonies that allege that their nature and desires changed by some unknowable influence. Of course, people have their personal experiences and convictions, however these convictions certainly don’t originate with the spirit of God — and I will explain why.

The point is this: If calvinists don’t know how the spirit works, how can they reject the notion that he works through the word of God? The spirit is transported by the word and since the christians have been given the word, they can use the word and hence also the spirit. That is logical. No esoterics here. Calvinism has nothing but an esoteric conception about “how the spiritually dead are raised”. God however, is a knowable God, He is not concealed in unknowable realms. You say “only the holy spirit has the power to raise the dead to life”, but don’t know what that means.

Joe, the pizza guy who is a Christian has no authority to “save” people (II Cor 2:4-5, Eph 1:13-14, I Tim 2:5, Matt 28:18, etc, etc).

I checked the scripture references you’re providing here. I don’t see their reference to the topic. Perhaps except 1 Tim 2:5 which says the man Jesus Christ is the only mediator between God and man. Sure, so we have already someone else beside the holy spirit who is mediator between God and man. Note, Jesus Christ is the Logos (=the Word of God). Everything was made by the word (John 1:1). The word logos, however, does not only mean “word” but also reason, and rationality. It is the origin of the word logic, and the of the suffix -logy in various sciences like psychology, biology, theology etc. It implies articulation and clarity. The logos is always in conformity with reason and logic. All truth is from God and God reveals only through the logos. There is no truth coming from God that by-passes the logos. And all truth can thus be articulated or expressed somehow, it is always communicable.
Now, Jesus Christ is the logos and He is in the disciples. (John 17:8; Col 3:16; 1 Thes 2:13). And since the spirit makes alive and the spirit comes through the word and the disciples have the word, the disciples can save. But it is still not their own work, but the logos who lives in them (Mat. 4:4; Mark 4:20).

It can be described as follows:

1) The spirit makes alive (Rom 8:11; 2 Cor 3:6; John 6:63; John 1:4)
2) The spirit is conveyed by the Word (John 6:63; Mat. 4:4)
3) From 1-2: Therefore, the Word is the instrument which raises the dead to life (1 Pe 1:23)
4) The Word lives in the Christians (Mark 4:20; Acts 12:24)
5) From 1-4: Therefore the Christians can raise the spiritually dead to life.

Was Jesus a Voodoo? Didn’t Jesus say: “anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.” (John 14:12) What are these greater works? The problem for calvinists is, that they don’t know how regeneration works. It is portrayed as a secret and unknowable action. This however, is false. (Mt. 5:14-15; Luke 8:16; 11:33; John 17:3; John 1:4; John 6:45)

Spirit is life. Spirit is knowledge. Therefore the spirit is life and knowledge. These cannot be seperated.

This is eternal life that they may know you, the only true God and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. (John 17:3)

Knowledge of the only God is knowledge of the truth. Beholding God means to live forever. The knowledge of God, who is truth, is eternal life. Spiritual resurrection is by imparting knowledge of truth.

In him was life and the life was the light of the world. (John 1:4)
Light means life, because spirit is both life and light (knowledge). They are two sides of the same coin.

Imagine someone is in the darkness but has a pocket lamp. Then he can see. Imagine further, he is not alone but accompanied by others. These persons can see as well, because one person has a lamp. Now imagine the lamp is on and put into a drawer, and then the drawer is closed. Now the light shines within the closed drawer. The person, who possesses the pocket lamp, is destitute of sight again. He is like without any lamp at all. What does he have to do? He has to open the drawer and take out the lamp! Then he can see again. But not only he, but also those around him as well. What does all this mean? If someone has a light which he hides, then he falls into every pit and those around him as well. On the other hand, if he gets the lamp out of its hiding place and puts the light on a stand, then he can see and those around him as well.

What does this mean with man’s ability to share the light? If someone claims to have a light, which cannot be seen, then we can safely tell that he has no light at all.

How is it possible for others to see another person’s spiritual light? Note, if you are a christian, then Christ is in you and Christ is the logos. The logos can be used to pronounce, to articulate the knowledge (light) in you. It is possible to express the knowledge somehow. This is why others can understand this knowledge (“see”). On the other hand, if someone says he has some kind of “burning in the bosom” or something like that and everyone else who desires this knowledge must do this or that work to receive it for himself then we can conclude that this person does not have the logos in himself. He cannot communicate his knowledge, cannot share his light. Therefore this alledged knowledge does not originate with God.

In the same way, if you have ever “heard and learned from the Father” (John 6:45) and cannot say what you have actually learned, then you haven’t learned anything. For otherwise you would be able to share that knowledge and thereby save others.

One more note. Calvinists often make a distinction between “head knowledge” and “heart knowledge”. The bible doesn’t know any such distinction rather the heart is often described as the thinking organ. Anyway, all truth that originates with the only God, can be communicated. All light can be seen by others, or it is no light at all.

Sincerely
-a helmet-

So, so, may I conclude that we’ve buried the “doctrines of grace” ? I hope so.

Helmut: Im sorry I missed your posting, I dont know whether you are reading or not after so long a non-response.

It is really admirable that youve spent so much time trying to undermine Calvinism. I can see from your excellent writing skills youve learned a thing or two.

What I can see is someone who is excellent at defeating the adversary as long as he is a windmill. It takes more than really well said sentences to prove the same ole regurgitated arguments of free-will, predestination dont mean “fore-loved”, Election is the result of the believers acting upon the word and so on.

I was waiting for the rehearsal of ancient arguments re-tooled according to your education and literary flair and dropped into the thread as though “wow, we surely didnt know that”.

Now, admittedly I am the lowest common denominator here and youll laugh while posting rebuttals to me. Yet, I get the opportunity to share my faith and the reasons why Calvinism as a legitimate interpretation of scripture should be believed.

John

Mr. Bryson, could you please be more vague. I always appreciate a meta with lots of random comments that have nothing to do with anything in particular much less the original post.

Friends (Arminian and Pauline),

I know I am about a year late regarding this discussion between Bryson and his “Calvinist friends” but I couldn’t hold back from making a comment or two. Am I an ignoramus or did not we all watch James White debate George Bryson already? Isn’t this a dead issue? i.e. having another debate with him. Some Trinitarians debated Unitarians out here in SoCal a few years ago and after spanking them the first time, gave them another chance. A re-match? What is this boxing?

We all saw James White handle Bryson like a man can handle his son in wrestling. Am I misinterpreting this or what? Now, I give Bryson credit for publically debating White, but it’s over… Tyson shouldn’t get in the ring anymore, neither should George debate White again.

To discuss or argue this here is still sharpening but come on now George, this is a blog forum and you are posting chapters from your book. At least we don’t have to pay for them, but still…

Brother George, or if you are ordained Jean Cauvin might call you Father George… lol.
Either way brother, if it is really you I would not think you would be deceptive, but it would be nice for the people to see some footnotes to the quotes you have been providing. This will help establish some validity to your arguments…

Mario, I also heard a very distorted and vilified view of Calvinism when I went to Calvary Chapel Bible College. I later found out that there was so much straw in those arguments I could feed horses for eternity. That is what they eat, right?

Stephen is right…to ask if God is morally responsible is technically a non-sensical question, similar to are there married bachelors or Calvinists-Arminians…

Again, my few comments from a year old outdated argument that may or may not be still going on… At least I feel better now.

As I think you know:

‘Theodicy is a specific branch of theology and philosophy that attempts to justify the behaviour of God”.

I never offered to debate James White concerning whether or not the behavior of God could be justified. I think a perfectly just God only does what is justifiable. If you think that is what I offered to debate James White about you betray a misunderstanding. What I offered to debate James White about is whether or not Calvin or Calvinism teaches that God is the morally responsible cause of moral evil. I offered to take the affirmative and suggested he take the negative. Now of course, if White were simply to say in unambiguous terms that Calvin, Calvinism and James White teaches that God is the moral responsible cause of moral evil, then it would not be a debate. On the question of the debate we would be in agreement. Are you saying that according to Calvin, Calvinism, or you that God is the morally responsible cause of sin? If you are saying this I would take you at your word as for your own beliefs (certainly you know what you believe) and I would agree with you that Calvin and Calvinism teaches, if indeed that is what you are saying Calvin and Calvinism teaches. So what is to debate? I suggest that many Calvinists would say you are wrong to say that Calvin and Calvinism is the morally responsible cause of sin and therefore this is an intramural matter between Calvinists. In Christ, George

Dear Stephen

You completely miss the point. I am not trying to justify God at all. That would be an entirely different issue. Again, the only issue is whether or not Calvin, Calvinism (and by extension James White and I will now assume you) teaches that God is the morally responsible cause of moral evil. The issue as to whether you may believe that all non-Calvinists Evangelicals hold to pagan views with regard to who is morally responsible for moral evil is a very different matter and a very different debate. One reason the philosophical and theologica waters gets muddied is that many othewise good and bright people cannot (or wish not to) make simple but necessary distinctions.

Do you understand the difference between a debate on the matter I am proposing and what you seem to wish your readers to think I am talking about? If you do not understand this distinction then it is certain that the conversation will go no where. I do not doubt that you are able to understand the distinction to which I refer. If that is the case, then something else must be at play. In Christ, George

GB,

I also find the greater good defense, which makes God the author of sin, bizarre to say the least.

P.S.
George, some years back I was an arminian calvary chapelite.
I went to a debate that you had with James White on “predestination” at a Vineyard church somewhere in O.C.
At that time I was at a “crossroads.” I heard the “doctrines of Grace,”
and Calvinism(without me knowing it was “Calvinism”) and it sounded SO BIBLICAL!! Soooo…., I checked out your guy’s debate. I was rooting for you. I was wanting you to clear it up for me,especially because you were from Calvary, and then I could go on. BUT…… James had scripture,and you had ( suck it up, take it like a man), pride and emotion. It was Scripture that convinced me and made me realize that I was an arminian christian with one foot in Rome and the other in Humanism. It’s crystal clear in the Scriptures that GOD is GOD and He can do what he freely wants to do, without my say so.
P.S.S.
I guess it was easy for me to be open minded on the subject since I really didn’t have much at stake(reputation,ministry,salary etc..)
(Don’t let the salary part, cause anger.)

Dear Mark

It would probably be best to allow Stephen to answer for himself. If he thinks I have misrepresented his views he is more than able to say so. We disagree on a number of important points, but I do no misunderstand him and have not misrepresented him. You are not paying close attention-Take it like a Calvinist and suck it up-I like the way that sounds

GB,

The answers to your questions are a resounding NO. Most Calvinists come to Calvinism by other calvinists’ persuasion. By their books or their explanations of the bible. So Calvinism is mostly based on scripture + something. This something is the “correct interpretation”, provided by an interpreter accpted as authoritative. Hardly anyone discoves the doctrines of grace from the bible alone. The Roman Catholics have the pope, the JW have their Watchtower Society, the Mormons have their prophet and apostles — and Calvinists have their “reformed fathers”.

Just take the article “Was Anyone Saved At The Cross” by the one who is your opponent in the debate this post is about. In that article he says he came to became a “5-pointer” only after reading a calvinist’s book.

If Sola Scriptura is the rule, why then arrive so few bible students at calvinism. And if the clue is mostly in the greek language, why then are most churches in Greece non-calvinist, especially the great greek orthodox church?

No, no one is won to Christ by a calvinist message.

George,
This looks like some great interaction going on here.
Question:
What do you say to the many people, ‘Calvinist’ and ‘Arminian’, who actually ‘feel’ and ‘believe’ that God drew them into the Kingdom? I have heard this from numerous people. They would say with all confidence that they did not want to become a Christian. I have a similar testimony as well.
Does this, in and of itself, prove the Doctrines of Grace?

Sincerely,
Mike Sarkissian

George,
One more question brother. (I know you haven’t responded to my previous post. It has only been 10 minutes or so.)
Do you believe that Calvinism, Reformed Theology, Augustinianism, etc… is “almost demonic” and even “blasphemous?”

Respectfully,
Mike Sarkissian

Hey Mark

Thank you for answering my question. I would love to follow up just to be sure I understand you. You came to Christ when and only after you heard a Gospel that would conform to a Calvinist understanding of the Gospel-Unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace etc. When did you first hear what you refer to as a Gospel that would confirm to an Arminian understanding of the Gospel? Did your reject what you call decisional regeneration initially or did you later conclude that accepting it was a false Gospel-thereby rejecting what you have previously believed to be a true conversion? Thanks-In Christ, George

P.S. Did you hear about the Calvinist Gospel (i.e, the one conforming your understanding of how the lost get saved) before you were regenerated or after?

Dear Mike

You asked me:

“What do you say to the many people, ‘Calvinist’ and ‘Arminian’, who actually ‘feel’ and ‘believe’ that God drew them into the Kingdom? I have heard this from numerous people. They would say with all confidence that they did not want to become a Christian. I have a similar testimony as well. Does this, in and of itself, prove the Doctrines of Grace?”

Dear Mike I think you probably know that how a person feels or even what he believes does not determine the truth. Something is true or not sometimes despite what a person feels or believes. The question with regard to the so-called doctrines of Calvinist is not about whether or not God draws. The question is does He irresistibly draw some so that they will be saved and not others so they will not be saved.

The so-called doctrines of grace must include a message (spoken or not) that says that God does not love many people in the world (never did and never will) and He did not savingly send His Son into the world to redeem those He did not and does not have a saving or redemptive love for.

I you cannot say to (or about) all non believers that Christ may not have died for your sins (like he did those of you who fancy yourself as unconditionally elected) then you have not embraced the so-called doctrines of grace in Reformed theology.

If you cannot refer to many millions of people as those for whom Christ did not die for and does not have a saving or redemptive love for you, you have not accepted the Calvinist doctrines of grace.

In Christ, George

George,
You have to show us, in the bible, where it talks about or has the concept or doctrine of an unregenerate sinner having the “free will”choice of rejecting or accepting Christ in order to be saved.
P.S.
As christians, brother to brother, we can split hairs like this and argue, but to someone who I don’t know from Adam i.e. a non believer, I preach repentance and faith. The Gospel. I deliver the message;Christ died to save sinners like you and me.That’s from the bible. I don’t go around trying to get people to “SAY THE PRAYER.” That’s not the Gospel.
Now after I preach the Gospel and someone asks,”What must I do?”
Then I start to disciple.

George

You have no reason to believe me, but I know from first hand information that Mark Caro IS in fact a nice dude!

You keep asking but him questions, but never answer any of his questions. Hmmmm…

Sorry Stephen but you are wrong. Of course, one kind of fatalism includes an impersonal force, chance, etc. But we do not get to make up our own rules with regard to language. If you believe in an all encompassing decree you are a fatalist. I am sure you have some good dictionaries that will help you out on this. Nothing personal-you are or you are not a fatalist based criterion that you meet. In Christ, George

Oh, George, dont take that the wrong way (smiley face). lol. The first paragraph at least. The second paragraph is sad though.

Stephen,
Good argument, my friend.

Respectfully,
Mike Sarkissian

George,

At this point in my sanctification, I am not able to state a case as well as Stephen or Mike. However, I have to make the following comment.

You have struck on what, in my humble opinion, is the main issue in this discussion. That issue is as you put it “ducking and dodging”. Ducking or dodging the definition of Fatalism is not the problem after all this discussion is taking place at BiblicalThought.com. The issue is ducking or dodging Scripture. The concepts commonly called “Calvinistic”, like them or not, ARE IN S-C-R-I-P-T-U-R-E. And we know that according to 2 Tim 3:16 & 17, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” Why are you so resistant to the Word of God? It’s clear from God’s revelation to us that God is sovereign and in control of ALL things, isn’t it?

Don’t dodge me George. Don’t “answer” with a bunch of questions and “rabbit” trail me.

It should not be amazing to me, to see what results when a man is not subject to the authority of Scripture. Like roaches scattering at the break of light, so is Mr. Bryson’s empty grasps at explaining what he means. He cannot explain it and will not explain it unless he is willing to submit to Scripture.

Brothers, I appreciate the work God does through all of you! Great lessons to see through this discussion!