This is the second post of Pink’s, The Sovereignty of God. Let the Lord minister to you as you read.
“Perhaps the one Scripture which most emphatically of all asserts the absolute sovereignty of God in connection with His determining the destiny of His creatures, is the ninth of Romans. We shall not attempt to review here the entire chapter, but will confine ourselves to verses 21-23—”Hath not the potter power over the clay of the same lump, to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor? What if God, willing to show His wrath, and to make His power known, endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had afore prepared unto glory?” These verses represent fallen mankind as inert and as impotent as a lump of lifeless clay. This Scripture evidences that there is “no difference,” in themselves, between the elect and the non-elect: they are clay of “the same lump,” which agrees with Ephesians 2:3, where we are told, that all are by nature “children of wrath.” It teaches us that the ultimate destiny of every individual is decided by the will of God, and blessed it is that such be the case; if it were left to our wills, the ultimate destination of us all would be the Lake of Fire. It declares that God Himself does make a difference in the respective destinations to which He assigns His creatures, for one vessel is made “unto honor and another unto dishonor;” some are “vessels of wrath fitted to destruction,” others are “vessels of mercy, which He had afore prepared unto glory.”
We readily acknowledge that it is very humbling to the proud heart of the creature to behold all mankind in the hand of God as the clay is in the potter’s hand, yet this is precisely how the Scriptures of Truth represent the case. In this day of human boasting, intellectual pride, and deification of man, it needs to be insisted upon that the potter forms his vessels for himself. Let man strive with his Maker as he will, the fact remains that he is nothing more than clay in the Heavenly Potter’s hands, and while we know that God will deal justly with His creatures, that the Judge of all the earth will do right, nevertheless, He shapes His vessels for His own purpose and according to His own pleasure. God claims the indisputable right to do as He wills with His own.
Not only has God the right to do as He wills with the creatures of His own hands, but He exercises this right, and nowhere is that seen more plainly than in His predestinating grace. Before the foundation of the world God made a choice, a selection, an election. Before His omniscient eye stood the whole of Adam’s race, and from it He singled out a people and predestinated them “unto the adoption of children,” predestinated them “to be conformed to the image of His Son,” “ordained” them unto eternal life. Many are the Scriptures which set forth this blessed truth, seven of which will now engage our attention.
“As many as were ordained to eternal life, believed” (Acts 13:48). Every artifice of human ingenuity has been employed to blunt the sharp edge of this Scripture and to explain away the obvious meaning of these words, but it has been employed in vain, though nothing will ever be able to reconcile this and similar passages to the mind of the natural man. “As many as were ordained to eternal life, believed.” Here we learn four things: First, that believing is the consequence and not the cause of God’s decree. Second, that a limited number only are “ordained to eternal life,” for if all men without exception were thus ordained by God, then the words “as many as are a meaningless qualification. Third, that this “ordination” of God is not to mere external privileges but to “eternal life,” not to service but to salvation itself. Fourth, that all—”as many as,” not one less—who are thus ordained by God to eternal life will most certainly believe.
The comments of the beloved Spurgeon on the above passage are well worthy of our notice. Said he, “Attempts have been made to prove that these words do not teach predestination, but these attempts so clearly do violence to language that I shall not waste time in answering them. I read: ‘As many as were ordained to eternal life believed’, and I shall not twist the text but shall glorify the grace of God by ascribing to that grace the faith of every man. Is it not God who gives the disposition to believe? If men are disposed to have eternal life, does not He—in every case—dispose them? Is it wrong for God to give grace? If it be right for Him to give it, is it wrong for Him to purpose to give it? Would you have Him give it by accident? If it is right for Him to purpose to give grace today, it was right for Him to purpose it before today—and, since He changes not—from eternity.”
{ 157 comments… read them below or add one }
Beautiful reading. Note the first section in RED. Frank and ALTRILARK fit nicely into what Pink declares in this passage.
Pink: We shall not attempt to review here the entire chapter, but will confine ourselves to verses 21-23—”
Altrilark: It is only by “isolating” these verses from the entire section that Calvinists come away with ancient pagan fatalism, not biblical predestinarianism. Pink’s blatant confession of eisegesis is habitual, and it invalidates the rest of his assertions.
Pink: These verses represent fallen mankind.
Altrilark: The hermeneutic is skewed, and so errs in a domino tumbal. The preceding context, which Pink confesses to ignore, restricts the scope to a particular people, while Pink universalizes it (i.e., “mankind”). No wonder no serious study, monograph, or technical commentaries on this crucial section in Romans (9-11) never use Pink’s archaic prejudiced book to interact with, much less merit any dignity.
Pink: It teaches us that the ultimate destiny of every individual is decided by the will of God, and blessed it is that such be the case; if it were left to our wills, the ultimate destination of us all would be the Lake of Fire.
Altrilark: He’s preaching to the choir; needless to say, it is not an argument. He assumes what he must prove, namely, theological voluntarism, which I already raised objections on this blog. Try to pay attention.
Pink: It declares that God Himself does make a difference in the respective destinations to which He assigns His creatures, for one vessel is made “unto honor and another unto dishonor;” some are “vessels of wrath fitted to destruction,” others are “vessels of mercy, which He had afore prepared unto glory.”
Altrilark: Once again, eisegetically, no contest. Since Mario espouses this nominalist theology, he cannot, to an absolute certainty, rule out the frightening prospect that he is not one of the vessels “fitted to destruction.” For all he knows, he can be consigned to hell, and his faith at the moment can be of the temporary variety that is indistinguishable from true faith, as Calvin puts it, “the reprobate are sometimes affected in a way so similar to the elect, that even in their own judgment there is no difference between them (Inst. 3.2.11). Deal with it.
Pink: …He shapes His vessels for His own purpose and according to His own pleasure. God claims the indisputable right to do as He wills with His own.
Altrilark: He continues to sink in his eisegetical foundation; this makes God similar to the Greek pagan megalomaniacal sadistic gods whose actions are not restricted by anything (i.e., “His own pleasure”) because he has no nature according to which he must act. God performs action not because they are intrinsically good, but because he does them. What he does extrinsically, determines what is good or wrong, therefore arbitrary.
Pink: Not only has God the right to do as He wills with the creatures of His own hands, but He exercises this right, and nowhere is that seen more plainly than in His predestinating grace.
Altrilark: See previous. I’ll just add here, to do as “He wills” supports my point. God is sheer will. God’s actions are called good, not because they *are* good, but because He *does* them. Only be isolating said verses can he bulwark his Greek pagan fatalism.
Pink: Here we learn four things: First, that believing is the consequence and not the cause of God’s decree.
Altrilark: Acts 16:31 And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved, you and byour household.” Paul says believe first, and salvation is the consequent. Pink reverses this, and his handling of scripture is selective and prejudicial. I already raised formidable objections that regeneration is logically prior to belief. You either don’t grasp the argument, or you get it but have no counterargument. Try not to be persistently obtuse.
Pink: Second, that a limited number only are “ordained to eternal life,” for if all men without exception were thus ordained by God, then the words “as many as are a meaningless qualification.
Altrilark: True, but only here. Pink commits three fallacies. It does not follow that a restriction in scope in one verse, precludes a wider scope in a passage elsewhere—non sequitur. And a statement “as many as” should not be so reduced to teach that Christ did not die for anyone else, unless, of course, the passage itself specifically states (it doesn’t!) it was *only* for the elect; so fallacy of composition. It is natural to encounter passages in scripture where Christ’s death is said to apply for a specified group, but this does not cancel out the sayings elsewhere where His death is understood more widely to apply “for all men without exception.” Pink simply begs the question, argues in a circle, with respect to such passages. We need to see his exegesis of them.
Pink: Is it not God who gives the disposition to believe?
Altrilark: This statement is deadweight. Who would disagree? The heart of the matter is *who* believes? But this takes us back to ask: Do we believe because of regeneration, or the converse? Calvinists confuse the Spirit’s work of illumination and convicting power with regeneration. People are disposed to believe when God graciously illumines the heart, open blind eyes, and loosens the grip of sin *through* the Spirit’s operation of convicting the world of sin (John 16: 8), which in turn, saving faith follows, which is followed by a divine act of regenerating the individual. Pink’s statement does nothing to further his case.
Try again; but this time try doing some of the thinking on your own, rather than being string-jerked by a dead theologian.
Pink: Here we learn four things: First, that believing is the consequence and not the cause of God’s decree.
Altrilark: Acts 16:31 And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved, you and byour household.” Paul says believe first, and salvation is the consequent. Pink reverses this, and his handling of scripture is selective and prejudicial. I already raised formidable objections that regeneration is logically prior to belief. You either don’t grasp the argument, or you get it but have no counterargument. Try not to be persistently obtuse.
Macasil: By misreading Pink and pouring your own imagined content into his thought you have walked away with the very error you’ve injected. This is not a new phenomenon observable in almost everything you ever say here on BT, but this one warrants an illustration to serve as an example of the inevitable consequences when one thinks like you do.
Believing is the consequence and not the cause of God’s decree, says Pink, but you (jesuitically) equate Pink’s “God’s decree” with “your” “salvation” in your counter from Ac. 16 as if the two were identical.
God’s decree and the conversion of the elect are not the same thing. The conversion of the elect is caused by the decree and not the other way around. In order to turn Pink’s statement around you must successfully argue that God’s decree is the consequence of the elect’s conversion.
If you cannot do this, then it shall stand that you have misused the isolated proof text you’ve selectively and prejudicially used to argue that Pink isolates proof texts and handles Scripture selectively and with prejudice.
We shall not attempt to review all your fallacies here, but we will confine ourselves to the above for now.
We will await your argument that shows how God’s decree is the consequent of salvation, or your statement of retraction that admits guilt to the charges above.
Or you can continue creating straw men and enjoying the victory of knocking them down, we just won’t pay any attention to you.
ALTRILARK said:
Try again; but this time try doing some of the thinking on your own, rather than being string-jerked by a dead theologian.”
Sorry to say once again, you come in as an adversary! This is your ultimate problem ALTRILARK, you do too much thinking on your own independent of Scripture. You are the dead theologian.
Mario,
Are these coarse vulgarities a substitute for argument? No matter how many “rabbit trail” jingles you chant, it does nothing to change Pink’s glaring outright disclosure of wrenching passages out of an entire unit to underpin ancient Greek pagan fatalism, theological voluntarism, fallacious reductionism; and the fact that neither you and Pink cannot close to an absolute certainty the epistemic gap that you are *not* one of the “vessels fitted for destruction,” so much more intensified by Calvin himself. For all you know, you could be reprobrate. If you’re in the season of luck, I can see how flipping a coin brings you interim hope.
I gave you Acts 16:31 here, and elsewhere. You either cannot grasp the plain reading of it, or you do, but rather sing your “rabbit trail” remix and stom your feet to cop-out because, evidently, you have no counterargument.
The book speaks for itself ALTRILARK. You can fight against the Doctrine of God’s Sovereignty all you want. All of your posts reveal your issue is with God.
Go on and keep ranting about how this is all to “underpin ancient Greek pagan fatalism, theological voluntarism, fallacious reductionism,” and the rest of your empty mental babblings.
Spurgeon on Sovereignty:
“The householder says, “Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own?” and even so does the God of heaven and earth ask this question of you this morning. “Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own?” There is no attribute of God more comforting to his children than the doctrine of Divine Sovereignty. Under the most adverse circumstances, in the most severe troubles, they believe that Sovereignty hath ordained their afflictions, that Sovereignty overrules them, and that Sovereignty will sanctify them all. There is nothing for which the children of God ought more earnestly to contend than the dominion of their Master over all creation—the kingship of God over all the works of his own hands—the throne of God, and his right to sit upon that throne. On the other hand, there is no doctrine more hated by worldlings, no truth of which they have made such a foot-ball, as the great, stupendous, but yet most certain doctrine of the Sovereignty of the infinite Jehovah. Men will allow God to be everywhere except on his throne. They will allow him to be in his workshop to fashion worlds and to make stars. They will allow him to be in his almonry to dispense his alms and bestow his bounties. They will allow him to sustain the earth and bear up the pillars thereof, or light the lamps of heaven, or rule the waves of the ever-moving ocean; but when God ascends his throne, his creatures then gnash their teeth; and when we proclaim an enthroned God, and his right to do as he wills with his own, to dispose of his creatures as he thinks well, without consulting them in the matter, then it is that we are hissed and execrated, and then it is that men turn a deaf ear to us, for God on his throne is not the God they love.”
Sounds like he’s describing ALTRILARK….
Praise God for the gifts He has given us from the works of His saints now in glory!
The above passage is from : A Sermon (No. 77), Delivered on Sabbath Morning, May 4, 1856, by the REV. C. H. Spurgeon at New Park Street Chapel, Southwark.
Mario: The book speaks for itself ALTRILARK.
Altrilark: I couldn’t agree more! A blatant admittance of wrenching passages out of context is unconditionally unacceptable. Are you just plain dumb, or are you really that obtuse? I’m convinced that you don’t want to be confused with facts—think-phob. But what I don’t get is, if you’re phobic-bigoted to critical thinking, then how were you brainwashed into buying hook line and sink ancient Greek pagan fatalism in the first place.
Under your presuppositions, you still can’t know to an absolute certainty if you are reprobate. Did you flip your coin today?
I’d rather take stock in a biblical view of God’s sovereignty against a deterministic unbiblical pagan concept of fatalism in which God’s character is atrociously impugned. Pink’s pagan Greek philosophical thought can only be dressed in theological guise by his eisegetical and reductionistic (i.e., “confinement”) outburst; apparently this doesn’t seem to bother you…oh, and keep googling; I’m sure you’ll find something to counteract my reading of Acts 16:31.
You are so bothered ALTRILARK……Where does all the bitterness in you come from?
You are attempting to run from the fact that you are not the one who determines your destiny. You are in fact just clay in the hand of the potter. When you write, your babblings reinforce my trust in divine sovereignty…..
It is good that you cannot help but fight against the doctrine of God’s omnipotence. You are compelled to come here as an opponent of the teaching.
It would be another thing if you were edifying but you are not. You are arrogant and sound like an angry Catholic…….
Mario: It is good that you cannot help but fight against the doctrine of God’s omnipotence.
Now we go from “sovereignty” to “omnipotence”, try not to be mired in the quiver of flux. You answered the question: you really are that obtuse, determined to be so.
Mario: You are attempting to run from the fact that you are not the one who determines your destiny.
Yes, I plead guilty as charge: I would run away from anyone who’s theology is a result of excoriating (i.e., “cofinement”) a passage out of context, especially from his own admission.
Mario: You are in fact just clay in the hand of the potter. When you write, your babblings reinforce my trust in divine sovereignty…..
Good for you! I too have “trust” that your presuppositions, as logic demands, create for you a safer path to hell since it’s up in the air whether or not you are reprobate, as Calvin insists (Inst. 3.2.12). Don’t forget to give glory to your god if he reprobated you. After all, it will bring him more glory.
My goodness ALTRILARK……
So tell me, how is God glorified in what you are saying?
God is on His throne and sovereign. He is omnipotent as well. He is the potter and does as He wishes!
Were it not for Christ and His work in my life I would be reprobate! Bless God ALTRILARK for the fact He is the God that intervenes in the affairs of man and in fact saves His elect whether they want it or not! He makes them willing……
But surely, you disagree…..
Mario: But surely, you disagree…
Altrilark: Your last post is merely dogged assertions, which as evangelical scholars on both sides of the fence. Here’s a simple question to know where you are coming from:
Question: If I told you that I want to analyize two verses extracted from its context (i.e., “confinement”, as Pink puts it), and you are fully aware that a more biblical reading would emerge if read properly in its entire unit of thought as oppose to “confinement”, would you call me on it?
If your answer amounts to “you have *your* reading, I have mine”, then I know you deny logic. On the other, if you protest, then that informs me that your beliefs, after all, are not a result of forced social conditioning.
Altrilark:
Act 16:30 Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
Act 16:31 And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”
Act 16:32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house.
Are you serious? This text is going to undermine Pink? Its no wonder that you seem to be ignored on all of your questions.
I must admit I like all the shop talk terms you use..”nominalist theology”, “theological volunteerism”..but again, its trying to beat someone with a slogan. Its not working. This whole counter-Pink argument is not working.
Really, my friend, you sound mad and frustrated with Mario because he’s not jumping through any hoops. That may or may not be helpful to you. In the end, Arminian folks who read your statements dont walk away with much ammuntion to damage Pink’s message. I realize you are doing your level best to intellectually sink this Bismark, but from the couple of threads Ive been reading your responses they all reduce to highly polished wordsmithing.
I thought, “wow, I had better read Acts 16:31 and get a good grasp on the context and the verse itself. But when I saw it, I realized that all of this quoting and requoting of Mario, or Stephen was because you intellectually want to rattle your sword, but when it comes to using scripture to validate your loquacious rebuttals you didnt have much to say.
Calling Pink’s teachings…”pagan Greek philosophical thought” and again “ancient Greek pagan fatalism” and again, “He continues to sink in his eisegetical foundation; this makes God similar to the Greek pagan megalomaniacal sadistic gods whose actions are not restricted by anything (i.e., “His own pleasure”) because he has no nature according to which he must act. God performs action not because they are intrinsically good, but because he does them. What he does extrinsically, determines what is good or wrong, therefore arbitrary.”
Wow, you really think thats what Calvinists believe? That sort of blasphemy is not fit in the mouth of the cultists let alone a Calvinist.
I know you love logic, I can see your logician-tech arguments against anyone that disagrees with you. The above quote is not true about what any Calvinist here believes God to be. In all the posts from Stephen or Mario, have you read that God acts inconsistent with his nature? Have you read that Calvinism preaches a God of arbitrary choice? Now, God might make a decree or a choice that you or I have no say in the matter, and God didnt ask our permission or give explanation of Himself to make such decrees or choices. Just what are you going to do about that? Youre in the same boat with all of us, God is God because He acts according to his nature, a nature and a mind that neither you or I have. All of my posting in favor of God’s Sovereignty and all of your rebuttals against that Sovereignty dont change anything. We are receivers of what God does in the world, not designers. We are not even to call God into account or to “reply against” God.
What does rise to the surface in your postings is a “calling God to account”….not by way of impudently challenging God directly, but by challenging everything that the Calvinist says about God’s sovereignty.
John
John, [pay attention, don't think you read what I wrote previously]
Acts 16:31 is a linchpin test case if Paul had presuppositions of the late medieval sort. Had Paul believed in the decretive schema as it comes down from the Calvinist’s fallible and autonomous confessional source of authority, then his issuing a command to the Jailor (i.e., man) that presupposes participation at some level in a soteriological event that Calvinists by definition says man has no role, would be an extreme peculiar wording of such scenario. So also, if Paul assumed that the Jailor’s regeneration is necessarily logically prior to belief, such divine bestowal grants Silas born-again-eternal-kingdom status, thereby extricating faith itself of any teleology–et nullo–not to mention Paul’s declarative result that he will be saved *because* of belief. But in this mini-dramatic sketch is the praxis of the apostle’s [contra Reformed] ordo salutis: Believe *in order* to get saved. The means is logically prior to the end. Since faith is the means and/or instrumental medium by which we get saved (i.e., “through faith”, “by faith”) it follows logically that faith is prior to having eternal life, i.e., born again. See now John 3.
——-
So you want to step up to the plate? Fine. Hopefully, you’ll fare better than the rest, except for the rants and bombasts.
John: I must admit I like all the shop talk terms you use..”nominalist theology”, “theological volunteerism”..but again, its trying to beat someone with a slogan.
No mere slogans here: They are actual categories used in the academy that carries within them massive study in both monograph and scholarly evangelical articles. Do your homework (tendentious task), and you’ll see how Calvinism fits the bill on these. I suspect “ignoring” is due to ignorance of the literature as many have conceded on this site.
John: Really, my friend, you sound mad and frustrated with Mario because he’s not jumping through any hoops.
I asked Mario this basic harmless “hoop” to know where he’s coming from: If I told you that I want to analyze two verses extracted from its context (i.e., a-contextually, or as Pink puts it, “confinement”), and you are fully aware that a broader contextual reading falsifies my interpretation, would you call me out on this terrible mishap?
Don’t be shy, take a stab at it.
John: I thought, “wow, I had better read Acts 16:31 and get a good grasp on the context and the verse itself.
Sorry, I didn’t get your exegesis of Acts 16.31 in midst of your spouting. Now that you see the problems as I’ve illustrated them above, you can get down to the nuts and bolts of what Paul is presupposing. So then, this passage is Reformed-friendly, how exactly? You tell us which comes first, the chicken or the egg?
John: We are receivers of what God does in the world, not designers. We are not even to call God into account or to “reply against” God.
In Acts 16:31 *who* calls the shot as to whether or not to be saved? The Jailor couldn’t have setup the question any clearer! “What must I (i.e., man) do to be saved?” What sort of human responsibility does the apostle Paul presuppose the Jailor can do in the process of salvation? Does he answer in a strict-confessional Calvinistic way? Does the apostle assume that man can believe prior to salvation, or must he be regenerated first? What say you?
John: …but by challenging everything that the Calvinist says about God’s sovereignty.
Correct. Calvin is fallible, no? You too should not view Calvin uncritically. I have no problem, however, with God’s sovereignty as scripture portrays it, sometimes becoming content, even squelching, at times, the rational impulse to go beyond what is incomprehensible to humanly reconcile all other theological data. And in fact, Acts 16:31 is a good case to show how His sovereignty and the divine expectation for man to believe logically prior to his being saved, is affirmed at the same time, and in the same breadth.
But I’ll await your responses.
Hello Altrilark:
Thanks for the reply.
Answers in short for a quick move forward.
I sure dont read Calvin uncritically, but I dont read him as a critic either. I really like Calvin he has so much good to say.
The answer for me in regards to Acts 16:31 is pretty simple.
First off, I dont develope theologies that develope arguments to approve or disapprove of inspired scripture. Im not going to dare begin to dictate what Paul “should have said” if he was going to be a consistent “Calvinist”..haha..for lack of a better term.
In this case, I simply let the text tell me what was said.
Now, how does that fit in with regeneration before conversion and faith before confession and lots of other entanglements that can arise from a derived ordo salutus?
To put it the best way I can, Paul being lead by the Spirit of God dealt with the Jailor in terms of his personal responsibility toward God. God has sent his Son, and God’s Son is to be believed upon. The quick answer by Paul “believe on the Lord Jesus”…was followed up with
Act 16:32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house.
The Jailor and his household didnt simply get a one-liner, they were instructed by Paul in the gospel. We dont have specifics here, so pretending to know them is a rabbit trail. We know what the gospel is, but we dont know the exact conversation per-se.
Here is the beauty of the gospel. We need not concern ourselves with “is the man regenerate?”, or, “Is he the elect?”. We preach the gospel to every man, instructing them in the gospel message. We leave it to God to plant the seed of the word in good soil. It may be that God had regenerated him, because he did cry out “what must I do to be saved?”. Notice he didnt tell him to be regenerated, Paul didnt tell the Jailor to pray that he was the elect, Paul dealt with the Jailor on those necessary requirements stipulated in the gospel. Believe, repent, call upon Christ etc. You see, this doesnt interfere with the any of the 5 points, it doesnt get the ordo salutus all mixed up, its simply a look into a families life where God steps into it and saves them. Its a testimony to an unlikely character that is imprisoned with sin and needs to hear how to escape the bondage of sin by the grace of God. Paul a prisoner of Christ was the right prisoner at the right time.
Its not hard to speculate, God had regenerated him…or if the story ended differently God may have simply preached the gospel to him by Paul. Since its great to see what God did in hind-sight, we are able to rejoice in the salvation of this family. But, not all families believed, many have heard the gospel and they will hear many more times before God births them with that same incorruptable seed.
It could have also been that God right then and there regenerated the man and put faith in the man to receive Pauls preaching, It could have been a long history of tid-bits of gospel the Jailor heard over time, we dont know.
All Im saying is, this wonderful story is an overlay to the great grace of God to elect a gentile Jailor and his family.
To me, this story displays God’s goodness to even a supposed enemy. I dont turn this story into a rebuttal to God’s election. Its nothing of the kind, its a manifestation of the goodness of God toward a sinner. We know the elect by their fruits and works and doctrine. But we dont know them by speculation because they prayed a sinners prayer or they refused a gospel message. I refused a gospel message at first, but by the grace of God, He was longsuffering toward me and saved me.
You said, “And in fact, Acts 16:31 is a good case to show how His sovereignty and the divine expectation for man to believe logically prior to his being saved, is affirmed at the same time, and in the same breadth”…and I agree in a sense. That sense is from our point of view. From a human perspective God is Sovereign and man must respond and unless man responds Election, predestination, atonement, justification and all the rest miss their mark. But thats an important point. Human perspective or Divine perspective changes things. It doesnt change the ordo salutus it changes what part of the order we can see, because salvation is invisible and secret, its a work of God not men.
Sometimes when Pink or any of our reformed brothers get to shout out a praise to God for his election and hidden regeneration, they were emphasizing other parts of the ordo salutus that dont involve direct responses from men. God-anonymous….we all get to know the love of God in God’s various hidden acts of kindness. We dont see them until we can see them.
So, this text doesnt undo any ordo salutus or undo any doctrine of total depravity or irresistable grace. This text is the story of a mans conversion….God got his glory and his praise from this family dont you think? I bet that Jailor said “I thank God he sent Paul to this jail to give me the gospel”. I thank God I am Elect of God, Jesus saved me, I thank God for the impulse to cry out “what must I do to be saved”.
I dont think Im exaggerating here, I think this kind of praise is normal for any Christian, thanking God for being the author of his faith and for sending Jesus to make a way for reconciliation.
I hope this helps.
John
John,
Before I jettison a response, I have to throw on the table a serious question to see if you don’t take back with the left hand with what you give with the right:
Suppose you press me to provide a response (objectively, presumably) for a text you think strongly supports Calvinism. Now, by way of response, would you allow, even support, me to resort to “may be”s, “could have”s, “speculation” and so forth, and specutively fill-in details where the text is silent in order to conveniently align it with my presuppositions? In short, would you allow me to do the very same thing without hearing any kind of protest from you? What say you?
A straightforward non-rabbit trail answer would promote progress, then follow it up as to why, or why not, this would be a terrible approach.
Altirlark:
You can answer me in the same manner I answer you, I thinks thats fair.
John
John,
You didn’t answer the question. Fundamentally, when someone responds with “could have”s, “may be”s, and “speculation,” and *read into* details, and then flesh out from the other tail end conclusions to that effect, is this not dangerously subjective, I asked you?
You’re assuming a method that may be deficient, and ends up in relativism: I have mine “may be”s, you have yours. That sort of reasoning preempts any progress. Try again, lest I provide a response in vain.
Hi Altrilark:
The post didnt have a bunch of speculations, only some fleshing out of the Jailor. I gave you what I believe the passage to be teaching.
And yes, I do put could-haves and maybe’s because its fine to flesh out a narrative. I am far from relativistic, but I am not interested in pretending to exegete a passage without fleshing out what the characters were actually looking at.
This is why this text is no danger to reformed theology, its not trying to establish ordo salutus, its simply rehearsing the main focus of Pauls message to the Jailor…”believe on Jesus Christ”.
If you dont like the flesh out then fine, dismiss them. They establish no doctrine to me or you and my read in’s are happily not the issue.
However, if you dont want to claim your not looking through your own lenses, but in fact are looking through the logician or the Arminian presuppostion, I think its kinda dishonest. Now, Im not saying your dishonest in any way. I am saying that I think its best to be open about the perspective your coming from. I dont pretend some autonomous, unbiased, uncolored exegesis, I will tell you as I tell everyone, I am a calvy and I interpret the text from the sum of all the other texts I have learned and all the theology I have obtained to arrive at a conclusion. So, while Iam front-loaded with Calvinism, I dont mind my detractors declaring their own front-loading. It saves alot of rabbit trails.
Here is whats subjective to me.
You said…
Acts 16:31 is a good case to show how His sovereignty and the divine expectation for man to believe logically prior to his being saved, is affirmed at the same time, and in the same breadth.
And again you said…
So also, if Paul assumed that the Jailor’s regeneration is necessarily logically prior to belief, such divine bestowal grants Silas born-again-eternal-kingdom status, thereby extricating faith itself of any teleology–et nullo–not to mention Paul’s declarative result that he will be saved *because* of belief. But in this mini-dramatic sketch is the praxis of the apostle’s [contra Reformed] ordo salutis: Believe *in order* to get saved. The means is logically prior to the end. Since faith is the means and/or instrumental medium by which we get saved (i.e., “through faith”, “by faith”) it follows logically that faith is prior to having eternal life, i.e., born again. See now John 3.
Now, to me, Altrilark this is not the praxis of a Pauline contra reformed declaration. Thats an assertion of yours and I grant you that the narrative doesnt discuss anything in the way of Paul making direct connections to God’s election and the Jailors belief in Christ.
There is a caveat…and that is why I fairly injected…Act 16:32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house.
Paul had an indepth gospel introduction to make. We dont know what was said. But what cannot be proven is that Paul excluded God’s sovereignty in the salvation of men. So I look at your argument…and get this…cause I wanted to try this out on you of all people..
“Circulus in demonstrando”…assuming as a premise the conclusion you wish to reach.
So I disagree with your conclusion above….but Ive no doubt jumped waaaaaaay ahead. Please dont take me wrong if I whip out some other stuff like…Cum hoc ergo propter hoc…oh yea and Ive got more..
Im just having fun here…anyway.
I hope this moves us forward.
I also realize I probably just stepped in to a lions den dressed in rack-of-lamb..but Daniel…..
John
By the way…Stephen and Mario…I hope its ok to go down this path, I realize its not a “pink” discussion on my part.
John
John, it’s OK. It fits within the post heading and the broader topic (the Sovereignty of God in Salvation).
Here is what is most odd about this Altrilarkian thread: “Acts 16:31 is a linchpin test case if Paul had presuppositions of the late medieval sort.”
Why is this verse considered such?
It’s a historical narrative (third person here) and seems a poor (odd) selection over many other first person didactic passages by the author of said case that reference soteriology to use as a “linchpin test case.”
And *which* exactly are the supposed presuppositions of the “late medieval sort” Altrilark is talking about?
John: And yes, I do put could-haves and maybe’s because its fine to flesh out a narrative. I am far from relativistic…
This is perhaps not prima facie relativistic; but you do, nonetheless, offer a license to read preconcieved notions into the text, which would result in relativistic sparring cliches: “I have my could-haves and maybes, you have yours.”
I cannot and will not, for logic sake, pursue progress with this method. As already stated, such method shortcircuits there being any right or wrong interpretation. By such standards, everyone can be right by shaping (i.e., “flesh out”) or moulding the text to a preconceived grid through could-haves and maybes. When you speculate (you do say this) you conjure up ideas already preset and read them into the text. You have it backwards: It’s fleshing-in assumptions, not fleshing them “out.” Where the text is silent, the interpreter must restrain himself from going beyond what the evidence allows.
You need to discuss this among your peers. I think Macasil, so too, will reject your approach. From this vantage point, perhaps you don’t know what “eisegesis” means. All in all, you haven’t dealt frontally with the explanation I gave, and most importantly, whenever I can find a text that does a great deal of damage to the Arminian system, then so be it; would it be preferable always to align one’s beliefs textually rather than traditionally.
Don’t respond to this, talk it amongst your peers.
John,
I want to give it another shot, so allow me to make this plain:
Acts 16:31: And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”
This is the apostle Paul’s theological presuppositions contextualized, that is, applied theology, live and in reality. According to this verse, which comes first the chicken or the egg? Do we believe *in order* to get saved (i.e., “will be saved”, future tense)? Or, Are we saved *in order* to believe?
Try to stick to the plain reading of the text without autonomously speculating what could or could not be there. Put your presuppositions to the side for a moment, as hard as this “may be”. Restrain yourself from reading into the text.
Oh, and don’t worry about Macasil’s comments. Prooftexting in Acts is a two-way street for both sides. In fact, Pink does it above; so I guess Macasil’s gives Pink a pass when he uses a text in Acts, but I’m stripped of this privilege and demanded to find support elsewhere in the New Testament to suit him. Bottom line, Paul would not evangelize in any inconsistent way with what he will later say in his letters. Macasil either sees that belief comes first, but has no counterargument, or pretends the text is irrelevant and doesn’t truly reveal the apostles’ theological presuppositions. Or he assumes the apostle will later correct himself, and beat the notion into his readers that we are saved *to* faith, rather than *by* and *through* faith.
John,
ALTRILARK has a twisted view of Scripture and is all over the place. He cannot see his error. You keep on keepin on my brother.
“Try to stick to the plain reading of the text without autonomously speculating what could or could not be there. Put your presuppositions to the side for a moment, as hard as this “may be”. Restrain yourself from reading into the text.”
ALTRILARK…….you should look in the mirror as you say this and take heed to it yourself.
It is on this point that we should state, implement, and enforce the Reformed principle Analogia Scriptura (Analogy of Scripture).
Analogia Scripturae: anaology of Scripture; the interpretation of unclear, difficult, or ambiguous passages of Scripture by comparison with clear and unambiguous passages that refer to the same teaching or event. (Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Theological Terms, 33)
This principle of sound hermeneutics simply says, “interpret the unclear in light of the clear.” Some suggest, “Scripture interprets Scripture,” although regula fidei / Scriptura Scripturae interpres has nuanced, distinguishing characteristics…
On the analogy of Scripture, Grant Osborne writes:
Milton Terry’s dictum still stands: “No single statement or obscure passage of one book can be allowed to set aside a doctrine which is clearly established by many passages” (1890:579). I would strengthen this by adding that doctrines should not be built on a single passage but rather should summarize all that Scripture says on that topic.
Moreover, all such doctrinal statements (for instance, on the lordship of Christ or on eternal security) should be made on the basis of all the texts that speak to the issue rather than on the basis of proof-texts or “favorite” passages. Such an approach results in a “canon within a canon,” a phenomenon in which certain passages are subjectively favored over others because they fit a system that is imposed on Scripture rather than drawn from it. This is a dangerous situation, for it assumes that one’s preconceived ideas are more important than is the text. Also, it misinterprets Scripture. Few biblical statements are theoretical—that is, holistic—descriptions of dogma. Rather, a biblical author’s statements apply a larger doctrine to a particular issue in a specific church setting and stress whatever aspect of the larger teaching applies to that situation. Analogia scriptura is the method by which we do this. (The Hermeneutical Spiral, p.28)
So, no, Pink doesn’t get a pass…
Macasil,
It seems to me that you are still ducking the issue. Acts 16:30-32 is transparent. The analogy of faith has no real applicability in this case, much less in theory.
BTW, thanks for being consistent. But, would you give John a pass for resorting to “could-haves” and “may be”s when distilling a passage?
Altrilark: would you give John a pass for resorting to “could-haves” and “may be”s when distilling a passage?
Macasil: No, not if his argument rested on it (you said, resorted to…). I don’t see John doing that. John began with, “Im not going to dare begin to dictate what Paul ’should have said’ if he was going to be a consistent ‘Calvinist’…”
But John expanded the scope of focus by including v. 32, and gave the following commentary:
“The Jailor and his household didnt simply get a one-liner, they were instructed by Paul in the gospel. We dont have specifics here, so pretending to know them is a rabbit trail.”
John basically sums up the passage as,
“Its a testimony to an unlikely character that is imprisoned with sin and needs to hear how to escape the bondage of sin by the grace of God.”
It wasn’t until after John had given the basic sketch of his argument that he said,
“It could have also been that God right then and there regenerated the man and put faith in the man to receive Pauls preaching, It could have been a long history of tid-bits of gospel the Jailor heard over time, we dont know.”
John admits to “not know” and a fair reading of him must include this detail. But immediately prior to that he said,
“Its not hard to speculate, God had regenerated him…”
I agree that John cannot make that inference based on this passage alone, but it seems to me that he has made use of the principle of analogia scripturae by adding what is clearly revealed in the whole of Scripture (tota scriptura) to his explanation of our passage in view.
He never departs from his initial summary as we find him saying again,
“All Im saying is, this wonderful story is an overlay to the great grace of God to elect a gentile Jailor and his family.”
So I don’t see him “distilling” the passage (if by distilling you mean something synonymous with Wright’s “teasing out”). His argument seems to be made by the time he begins “fleshing out” his already established position. Further, I don’t see anything “fleshed out” after the fact that he relies on in order to establish his position (for it had already been made by now).
John seems to be using some sort of abduction to produce his “possible” inferences, which in and of itself is not always a fallacy per se, but it does not establish his position, rather, comes after his deduction of what is clearly revealed. And that is where he is to be commended.
I agree with you in the sense that as soon as you begin to tread those waters, drowning is not far away. The waters of relativism are dark and her currents are strong (relatively speaking
). But I’m not too worried about John since he already has a grounded view that depends not on abductive or inductive reasoning or hypothesis. Abduction and Induction at best can only produce probable antecedents, and whatever antecedent is chosen to run with the probable contradictory antecedent always looms with life since it too is probable and remains so unless refuted via deduction!
John hasn’t done that though. He had deduced a valid inference that is not contradictory to any passage in Scripture, namely, “Its a testimony to an unlikely character that is imprisoned with sin and needs to hear how to escape the bondage of sin by the grace of God.” Of course he adds “elect a gentile jailor and family” in his second mention, which if you restrict allowable exegesis to this passage alone cannot be made, but sound hermeneutical principles are at work and that is fine.
But I also see the other side of that critical sword inching closer to the one wielding it in the initial thesis:
Acts 16:31 is a linchpin test case *if* Paul had presuppositions of the late medieval sort. *Had* Paul believed in the decretive schema as it comes down from the Calvinist’s fallible and autonomous confessional source of authority, then his issuing a command to the Jailor (i.e., man) that presupposes participation at some level in a soteriological event that Calvinists by definition says man has no role, *would be* an extreme peculiar wording of such scenario. So also, *if* Paul assumed that the Jailor’s regeneration is necessarily logically prior to belief, such divine bestowal grants Silas born-again-eternal-kingdom status, thereby extricating faith itself of any teleology–et nullo–not to mention Paul’s declarative result that he will be saved *because* of belief. ((??? the “then” never followed))
So, granting for argument’s sake, that while John *may* be guilty of “resorting to ‘could-haves’ and ‘may be’s when distilling a passage,” wouldn’t all agree that the greater methodological error is in using that method to “establish” an argument?
John: “The Jailor and his household didnt simply get a one-liner, they were instructed by Paul in the gospel. We dont have specifics here, so pretending to know them is a rabbit trail.”
Again, v. 31 is clear, and I’m pressing to get a response of what to make of what we do in fact have from the apostle, as oppose to not having specifics. We can’t comment on what’s silent.
Macasil: John admits to “not know” and a fair reading of him must include this detail. But immediately prior to that he said…“Its not hard to speculate, God had regenerated him…”
If he doesn’t know, and cannot know, speculation becomes a case of special pleading. It’s ducking the issue. And, if John speculates that “God had regenerated him,” I posed this problem for the sake of argument which no one feels comfortable in dealing with: So also, *if* Paul assumed that the Jailor’s regeneration is necessarily logically prior to belief, such divine bestowal grants Silas born-again-eternal-kingdom status, thereby extricating faith itself of any teleology–et nullo–not to mention Paul’s declarative result that he will be saved *because* of belief.
The scenario, for argumentative purpose, is meant to rule out John’s “speculation” as contradictory. If the Jailor is “born again” *already* (speculatively) then why the apostle’s follow up “will be saved.” This is a tautology par excellence.
Macasil: I agree that John cannot make that inference based on this passage alone, but it seems to me that he has made use of the principle of analogia scripturae by adding what is clearly revealed in the whole of Scripture (tota scriptura) to his explanation of our passage in view.
I’m hoping to get someone to exegete what inferences we can come away with what is textual plain, without skirting around the actual reading via speculations. And, if John is assuming interpretations elsewhere in scripture, he’s bringing over assumptions to those texts, which are themselves being questioned. So, if what seems to you is correct, he’s simply begging the question, arguing in a circle. I.e., “Even if Acts 16.31 does say we believe, and as a result we are saved, this cannot mean what it plainly says because the rest of scripture teaches otherwise.” This is just simply imposing other preferred passages to the eclipsing of a passage that seems to conflict with one’s presuppositions.
In another post, I’ll show how the analogy of faith is woefully deficient and irrelevant in this case.
Macasil: So I don’t see him “distilling” the passage (if by distilling you mean something synonymous with Wright’s “teasing out”). His argument seems to be made by the time he begins “fleshing out” his already established position. Further, I don’t see anything “fleshed out” after the fact that he relies on in order to establish his position (for it had already been made by now).
He never attempts to exegete what in fact v. 31 textually says. He just prances and skirts around it, so nothing is established.
Macasil: John seems to be using some sort of abduction to produce his “possible” inferences, which in and of itself is not always a fallacy per se, but it does not establish his position, rather, comes after his deduction of what is clearly revealed. And that is where he is to be commended.
By “possible inferences” is just another way of avoiding comment on the text in question. Again, he never “clearly reveals” what it says. So let us not pretend to deceive ourselves here that he has told us what is “clearly revealed.”
Macasil: John hasn’t done that though. He had deduced a valid inference that is not contradictory to any passage in Scripture, namely, “Its a testimony to an unlikely character that is imprisoned with sin and needs to hear how to escape the bondage of sin by the grace of God.”
Again, this begs the question, since it brings questionable assumptions to which is a “valid inference” for *him*, not to the passage.
Macasil: Of course he adds “elect a gentile jailor and family” in his second mention, which if you restrict allowable exegesis to this passage alone cannot be made, but sound hermeneutical principles are at work and that is fine.
To *you* it is “restricted” because it does not say everything you want it to say. It is only by going beyond the restrictions that scripture itself makes, that Calvinists can make their case. When a “passage alone” conflicts with one’s presuppositions, then one is obligated to hunt for passages that do support their assumptions, and then read them over and into the passage in question. Again, it’s the worst case of question begging.
Macasil: So, granting for argument’s sake, that while John *may* be guilty of “resorting to ‘could-haves’ and ‘may be’s when distilling a passage,” wouldn’t all agree that the greater methodological error is in using that method to “establish” an argument?
If nothing was established, that’s why I couldn’t move forward and instead questioned his methodology. That seems to be the case here.
For some reason I’m having difficulty in picking up what you’re saying here:
“such divine bestowal grants Silas born-again-eternal-kingdom status”
I’m not connecting the dots here, will you provide a few extra expository sentences for clarifying purposes?
Macasil,
What does it mean to be “born again”? It certaintly doesn’t mean opening one’s heart, enlightening the mind, drawing, removing the veil from one’s eyes; no, it is much more powerful than that.
The best expository note that I can give is from a Reformed scholar himself, Don Carson explains: “To a Jew with the background and convictions of Nicodemus, ‘to see the kingdom of God’ was to participate in the kingdom at the end of the age, to experience eternal, resurrection life…but it is far more characteristic of him to stress entry into life and participation in the eternal life *now* (e.g., Jn. 3:16)” (PNTC, p. 188). Even Spurgeon declared: “A man who is regenerated…is saved” (“The Warrant of Faith” Ser. 531).
Ergo, to be “born again” is to have eternal life, be a part of the Kingdom of God, become children of God, etc. This is a theme that well dominates, if not controls, John’s gospel.
So to paraphrase my question: If we suppose, for the sake of argument, that the Jailor was already *regenerated* (i.e., belongs to the Kingdom of God, has eternal life, as Carson exposits), to what end thereof, is faith exercised if the person is *already* saved? Such order makes faith totally effete, accomplishing nothing and having no teleology. Moreover, if the Jailor (specutively) is already “born again”, it reduces Paul’s follow-up, “will be saved,” to a tautology. How can we be “saved *THROUGH* faith” (Eph. 2.8-9) if regeneration is logically prior to “faith”? The text should say: “We have been given faith through being saved.”
As a friend of mine puts it: “You will search in vain for any notion in Scripture to the fact that faith is given to a sinner as a result of God regenerating him. What the Bible teaches is that if a person will place his or her faith in Christ Jesus alone, then God will save the one believing. Calvinists have the cart before the horse.” “that whoever believes may in Him have eternal life” (Jn. 3.15). “Believing, you might have life” (Jn. 20.31).
Ok, but how does “Silas” fit in? That’s the part I’m not able to pull together with the rest.
Macasil,
Ah, I see…I noticed that in my posing the questionin in the OP, I accidentally confused Silas for the Jailor. In that regard, the argument wouldn’t have made any sense. That was a mistaken oversight. It is the “Jailor” that should have been consistently focused.
That’s hilarious: here I was thinking you were questioning the latter phrase, when it was the typo “Silas” that had you confused. Well, at least the argument was strenghened and clarified.
BTW, I see how an appeal to the analogy of faith is important here, and I need to get across some points to show all the more that John, and whoever makes such a hermeneutical move, would be fallacious. I have service tonight, so I’m hoping to post it sometime after 9 tonight.
Again, pardon the mixup.
No worries, grace is given where it is undeserved.
Thanks for the *What does it mean to be “born again”?* post. It provides helpful insight of where you’re coming from. It will help me draft a polemical reply to post later this evening.
I will be working off of the Greek text (which has variants here), but I need to know which text you prefer. I will use the 27th NA and the 4th UBS as a starting point. I am not strong in TC and would prefer not to argue over witnesses, etc. So are there any objections to these?
…the 27th NA. And, it doesn’t have to be polemical; I know the implication are unacceptable to you, but just try to stick to what the text in fact seems to be saying. Since the plain reading is not favorable for you, I suspect you will try to undermine it by finding crucial ambiguity through textual criticism. At least, that’s what it sounds like. But if that’s the case, that will thrust us into a whole other realm where scholarship must be consulted. (Of course, nothing wrong with that).
Suppose you press me to concede all the logical entailment of John 6.44. If I can’t skirt my way around the plain reading, I instead polk holes at it through the angle of textual criticism. Doesn’t that show that I’m clinging on an edge to salvage my preconceived notions? Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for raising the bar, but I don’t want to loose the audience. Why don’t you just try exegeting a passage where it does in fact teach that “regeneration is logically prior to faith.” Once you’re able to do that, then you can turn around and rebut the passages I put forth and respond to them at the same level I’ve argued it, i.e., by logic, and exposition strictly in its own context, categories, terms, etc. It seems that it will come down to arguing over witnesses and other categorical methods that can get technical and boring.
All that the analogy of faith does is gives us a license to say the following: “This passage cannot mean what it plainly says because of what scripture teaches elsewhere.” That’s how John, presumably, has dismissed my argument. Hopefully, you can see that both sides can use this cliche and reach an impasse. It gets us nowhere, and establishes nothing!
I want to avoid a TC debate, that is my point.
And by polemical I only meant its argumentative sense, not the emotional baggage that comes with.
Hi Altrilark, you are right about using the analogy of faith on both sides, and isn’t it a prior supposition that determines which way the less clear are to be understood? Your view of sovereignty [how you define Gods sovereignty] drives a certain and no doubt necessary[logically] exegesis that is contrary to the Reformed because your definition of sovereignty allows a measure of “freedom” that we dont see as logically consistent [based on our definition]. Aren’t we just dancing around the issue because of this? You seem to want to economize on the discourse, so why not justify the definition of sovereignty so that we are driven by logical necessity to agree with you?
Hello Stephen and Atrilark:
First off I want to say a huge thank you for allowing me entry into this debate.
Stephen, I deeply appreciate your critiquing my post and for the kindly advice. Thanks for helping me. I hope I do not impose upon you as I go through this with Altrilark.
Altrilark, it is a privilege to post to you on the subject and I realize you are not here for my education, but as it is, I am blessed because you force me to think more precisely.
I want to address what I think is most important, or at least the “rub” issues.
“if John is assuming interpretations elsewhere in scripture, he’s bringing over assumptions to those texts, which are themselves being questioned. So, if what seems to you is correct, he’s simply begging the question, arguing in a circle. I.e., “Even if Acts 16.31 does say we believe, and as a result we are saved, this cannot mean what it plainly says because the rest of scripture teaches otherwise.” This is just simply imposing other preferred passages to the eclipsing of a passage that seems to conflict with one’s presuppositions.”
I can go two direction Altrilark, I can try and interpret the passage from conclusions drawn from the reactions of the jailor or I can interpret the passage from the totality of knowledge that scriptures provide. Since the doctrinal issue is Sovereignty and ordo salutus, I don’t see how the jailor will provide much insight into that. But then again,
Its not the Jailor but Luke that helps us along here.
If we can jump back to vs 25 we will ramp up to vs 31 looking over the whole event.
We find Paul and Silas in prison praying, singing and being overheard by the prisoners.
An earth quake occurs, the prison doors open, the jailor reacting in fear supposes his prisoners are lost and begins to fall upon his own sword, but Paul cries out “do yourself no harm we are all here”. The jailor calls for a light and goes to Paul and Silas to ask “what must I do to be saved?”. Paul tells him “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you and your household will be saved”.
This whole event as told by Luke reads like a drama not a systematic like Romans or a polemic like Galatians. But please allow me to bring to the front some things I see in this unfolding event. I see this narrative contains everything that would lend itself to similitude. See what I am saying…The jailor has just had his world shaken, he has lost all that was entrusted to him, his own conscience demands justice be done and he will execute his own justice upon himself. But the grace of God is rich toward him, that while the jailor was in the darkness of desperation the call to ‘save yourself’ came from out of the darkness. We begin to see that God spared the jailor from the earthquake, then God saved him by Paul from his own sword, and now God moves upon him to call out for a “light” so that he may run to Paul and Silas and seek out another ‘saving’ that is spiritual. From whence comes “what must I do to be saved”.
If you were to ask me, I would have to say the whole event is filled with the sovereign saving hand of God in the preservation and eventual salvation of this man and his family.
God could have just as easily taken Paul and Silas out as he did Peter in Acts 12. The sentries and the guards were not worth the mention; Peter’s escape by means of the Angel was the focus. But here, the detailed account of a jailor’s crying out to be saved is preceded by what happened to bring him to that place of crying out. The details are not filler, but another cause for us to praise God that he orchestrates the details for men to come to Christ.
Taken as a whole, I regard this text as a proof of God’s sovereign grace to preserve a mans life so that he may be saved eternally.
Luke jumps rapidly from “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you and your household will be saved”…to speaking the word of the Lord to him and all that was in his house. Luke didn’t just want to testify of the jailor but of the jailors household as well.
What shall we say then? Shall we forget all that transpired before hand that brought the saving gospel and salvation in Christ to that household? I see God going to a lot of trouble to save a jailor just so Paul and Silas could have an audience with his family.
Its getting late..and long. Ill leave off for now.
John
Brad: Hi Altrilark, you are right about using the analogy of faith on both sides, and isn’t it a prior supposition that determines which way the less clear are to be understood?
Yes, yes, yes! That is why it is woefully subjective, and therefore question begging. I will shortly give more reasons as to why below.
Brad: … your definition of sovereignty allows a measure of “freedom” that we dont see as logically consistent [based on our definition].
And that’s what’s in dispute with the above Acts 16 passage. I don’t merely assume it (that would beg the question), but we must exegete Acts 16.30-32, esp. v. 31, and afterwards logically configure if said exegesis sits comfortably well with a Calvinist view of the ordo salutis, or otherwise. For reasons that are apparent, I cannot get no one to comment directly on the passage, or answer any of my poignant questions.
John: Taken as a whole, I regard this text as a proof of God’s sovereign grace to preserve a mans life so that he may be saved eternally.
I agree! But you frustratingly continue to duck the issue. Moreoever, I’m not militating against God’s sovereignty.
John: …I can try and interpret the passage from conclusions drawn from the reactions of the jailor or I can interpret the passage from the totality of knowledge that scriptures provide.
You keep skirting around everything but the crux of the matter. The issue is not the Jailor’s point of view, nor your appeal to assumptions, which themselves need justification; rather, the issue is you providing an explanation for the apostle’s presentation of the Gospel *to* the Jailor, which prima facie seems to presuppose that belief (i.e., faith) is logically prior to being saved, period. I’ll simply re-post these questions, and try not to evade them. Tell us what the apostle (not the Jailor) pressuposes in his presentation fo the Gospel, period? Put it in your interpretive crosshairs!
——–
This is the apostle Paul’s theological presuppositions contextualized, that is, applied theology, live and in reality. According to the apostle’s evangelistic expression, which comes first the chicken or the egg? Do we believe *in order* to get saved (i.e., “will be saved”, future tense)? Or, Are we saved *in order* to believe?
Try to stick to the plain reading of the text without autonomously speculating what could or could not be there. Put your presuppositions to the side for a moment, as hard as this “may be”. Restrain yourself from reading into the text.
Hello again Altrilark
As I said earlier, the rub is the “backstory” not the narrative. Its the injection of ordo salutus or the assumption of regeneration or the presumption of a whole series of things that precede the jailors salvation.
But my point early on is, without the backstory from you or me, there is no debate. The text doesnt lend itself easily to contraversy unless its injected by backstory.
Its how much backstory or frontloading…which ever term you like that starts the fuss. Do we need a decree? Do we need an ordained civil government disposed to imprison Christian preachers? Just where do we impose a restriction upon the over ruling power of God in this narrative or any? Do we fuss over the permissive will of God to build Rome or do we nail it down with decree by means of Daniels prophecy? God’s orchestrating events is so meticulous that the casting of lots is given a place in determination of events..even in Acts.
Shall we begin to prove God sets up kingdoms? Can we begin to prove that a kingdom was established just so a jailor could be saved? Is it too far a reach?
Again, with such abundance of God’s own testimony that he rules in the affairs of men and does whatsoever he wills, I read Acts 16 and come away with, not the accidental event of an earthquake or the good fortune of a jailor, but an anonymous God working behind the scenes in the Roman empire…brought forward in the narrative for the Christian to rejoice in a great and powerful God, full of mercies and full of wisdom; Jesus Christ being the central figure of prayers and songs the Savior of the message and of the Savior of a family.
John
Altrilark: Ergo, to be “born again” is to have eternal life, be a part of the Kingdom of God, become children of God, etc. This is a theme that well dominates, if not controls, John’s gospel.
Macasil: If you’re saying that being born again is being part of the Kingdom of God and having eternal life, then you still have to explain how Jesus’ prerequisite fits in to your scheme. He says that one must *first* be born of water and the Spirit *in order to* enter the Kingdom of God (Jn. 3:5). This points to two acts that takes place prior to entrance into the Kingdom (being born from sperm [Carson] and being born from above of the Spirit).
If one is already *in* the Kingdom of God and in possession of eternal life, it follows that s/he has already been born again. I take you to mostly agree with this. But if one is not *in* (i.e. hasn’t entered yet), then according to the text unless regeneration occurs s/he cannot enter. This “cause and effect” relationship between regeneration and entrance into the Kingdom of God (the realm where faith-acts take place) establishes at least one account of regeneration preceding faith.
If you’re saying that being born again is having eternal life then you must account for faith. The text says that “believing in Him” results in eternal life (Jn. 3:15-16) and that only those “born of God” believes (1 Jn. 5:1). This is consistent with regeneration preceding faith seen in Jn. 3:5, and further verifies that the domain where faith acts occur (the Kingdom of God) requires regeneration prior to entrance.
Without this regeneration occurring, we remain dead in sin, hostile to God and in the flesh, unable to please God. There is no dead-man-in-the-flesh-produced action that can transfer man from the death sphere to the life sphere, hence the title of this thread: The Sovereignty of God in Salvation. God *makes us alive,* *the Spirit gives life,* and we have been *born anew!* All of which happens while we are still in the condition we were born with, spiritually dead, a state where faith is impossible to spring from.
This, we call regeneration. Regeneration makes us capable and willing to obey the gospel which requires faith. This faith which is given and exercised only in the regenerate state produces the event what we call conversion. Conversion happens on the conscious level of man where he is cognitively aware of what’s going on. He hears the gospel call, he receives and experiences the effectual call, he receives and understands the propositions of the gospel, and believes, i.e., he faiths.
The distinctions between Regeneration and Conversion are most clearly noted by saying that Regeneration occurs on man’s subconscious level while Conversion occurs on his conscious level. In Regeneration God is wholly active (monergism) and man is wholly passive (has no clue what’s going on). In Conversion both God and man are active (synergism). Faith and repentance are absent from the event of Regeneration, but proceed from it at Conversion. There is no specific time lapse between the two (one second, four years, etc.), and for all I know they could occur simultaneously from our perspective.
Hi Altrilark:
Sorry if it looked like I was evading something, Im sure not attempting to do that.
Altrilark said..”the issue is you providing an explanation for the apostle’s presentation of the Gospel *to* the Jailor, which prima facie seems to presuppose that belief (i.e., faith) is logically prior to being saved, period”.
Ok got it..
I really thought I had explained that earlier, but Ill reinterate..or I might have buried it in gooblty gook
Paul’s initial response was to the jailors person. He must believe Christ. Not simply that he existed but that Christ would save “him”. Paul was personal to the jailor, Paul left off any means mentioned in other places, namely faith, repentance, baptism, confession of sins etc. Paul went straight to Christ alone.
Why? Probably because the falling rock and timbers of the prison made for a bad place to hold a bible study, it was time to make the escape, and time to continue in depth the initial first response “believe on Christ”. at another location. So we see Paul and Silas “in the jailors house” being washed and cared for…and they took the time to baptise the jailor and his family.
It appears that enough gospel was preached that salvation was effected and baptism was done.
I have said earlier that a human perspective can ignore hidden events and causes and relegate a specific order namely to believe..and then youre saved. But thats an issue I never disagreed with. Its only when you force the text to demand no other contingencies be admitted…that I felt such a treatment of Acts 16:31 was improper. Its upon this ground that I have said, it does no harm to ordo salutus as the reformed view it. Pauls intent wasnt to introduce election or the decree of God, but the person of Jesus Christ to a person who was crying out for salvation.
John
Stephen: Thanks for that regeneration conversion explanation. I was going to make the same explanation but I need not do so now. This is another problem with Altrilarks explanation of the text and for that matter a constant one with Bryson too.
John
Altrilark, I’m not sure that the analogy of faith is woefully subjective, so long as everyone has justified their prior commitments [or better yet ultimate commitments] about God’s nature–there is little wiggle room there[logically]. Your exegesis of Acts 16 makes your point in accordance with a view of mans freedom that we reject. The scripture reference is not complete enough to stand alone at all-a point John has made on a few occasions showing a reasonable alternate meaning that doesn’t put it at odds with some other scriptures-under the Reformed system.
So doesn’t it still stand that your presuppositions about sovereignty steer your exegesis, and if you would justify sufficiently logic would *force* us to see the world as you do and then deny Calvinism? I dont think we’ll be convinced until that happens, so why not go at the root?
You got it, John!
No tricks needed with Acts 16:31. The text records Paul and Silas answering the Jailor’s question with “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”
This fits perfectly within the Calvinist doctrine of conversion which mandates faith in order to be saved. Calvinism affirms what Jesus said, that His sheep hear his voice for He calls them by name (Jn. 10:3). If anyone enters by Him they’ll be saved (Jn. 10:9). He knows His own (Jn. 10:14).
The Jailor believed because he was one in the other fold Jesus foretold (Jn. 10:16). If you’re not part of Jesus’ flock then you won’t believe (just like those Jews in Jn. 10:25-26), but His sheep hear His voice, and He knows them, and they follow Him (Jn. 10:27). He gives them eternal life, and they will never perish (Jn. 10:28; cf. Jn. 3:16). Jesus’ sheep are given to Him by His Father (Jn. 10:29; Jn. 6:37, 44ff).
There is no contradiction with Acts 16:31 and Calvinism. What’s the beef?
John: “The details are not filler, but another cause for us to praise God that he orchestrates the details for men to come to Christ.”
Excellent point! A moving truth. Praise the Lord!!!
Macasil: If you’re saying that being born again is being part of the Kingdom of God and having eternal life, then you still have to explain how Jesus’ prerequisite fits in to your scheme. He says that one must *first* be born of water and the Spirit *in order to* enter the Kingdom of God (Jn. 3:5).
I concur, but this is not a contentious point. One must *first* be born of water and the Spirit *in order to* enter the Kingdom of God, NOT *in order to* have faith. The faith part comes later in the chapter, and tells us where it fits in (v. 15). You continue to miss the point. The means is always logically prior to the end (This is my driving axiom, if you deny it, explain why and offer an alternative!) Faith is the means (i.e., “by faith” “through faith”), and being “born again” (i.e., eternal life) is the end. Therefore, instrumental faith is logically prior to the end-goal of being “born again” (i.e., having eternal life).
Macasil: This “cause and effect” relationship between regeneration and entrance into the Kingdom of God (the realm where faith-acts take place) establishes at least one account of regeneration preceding faith.
You only account, needlessly, for the “effect”, but you don’t show where the “cause” falls in the logical order. It establishes nothing. If faith is a result of being “born again” (i.e., possessing eternal life), what teleology or instrumental efficacy is faith left with? That is what I meant when I said faith is made et nullo, making it of no effect. You have to account for “faith’s” efficacy. That is the crux of the issue.
Macasil: If you’re saying that being born again is having eternal life then you must account for faith.
It is not just I who says it, but Carson and Spurgeon as well, which you did not dispute. Moreover, I have accounted for “faith.” I said previously: “People are disposed to believe when God graciously illumines the heart, open blind eyes, and loosens the grip of sin *through* the Spirit’s operation of convicting the world of sin (John 16: 8), which in turn, saving faith follows, which is followed by a divine act of regenerating the individual.”
Macasil: The text says that “believing in Him” results in eternal life (Jn. 3:15-16) and that only those “born of God” believes (1 Jn. 5:1).
Whoa(!), what hermeneutical sacrilege did you just commit here? Is 1 Jn. 5.1 part of the running and concurrent didactic narrative of Jn. 3:15-16? (It’s a simple question; try not to overload to dodge the implication). Obviously, no! Did you just cut & paste two remote passages and repackaged them into a false context to make your point? Absolutely. John’s gospel (at least the first part) explains *how* to receive eternal life (i.e., “whosoever believes”), whereas 1 John is a letter to a community that are *already* Christians. 1 Jn. 5.1 is explanatory decayed in this discussion, as Dr. Wilkins explains: “The point of 1 Jn 5.1 is that if a person believes that Jesus is the Christ, they’ve been born of God. In fact, the perfect tense could be interpreted “*is* born of God.” What John is simply saying is, you find a believer, you find a born again person. In fact, the NKJ version translates that passage: ‘Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ *is* born of God;’ emphasizing the abiding present result…faith which is eternal life.” So then, considering the (1) audience as an already believing community; (2) coupled with the justified NKJ translation of the perfect tense; the *is* from the perfect, is an *is* of “essential predication” expressing reciprocal identity, i.e, believer = born again. Within grammatical confines, this is all that the passage can muster. Therefore, 1 Jn. 5.1 is explanatorily vacuous in this discussion. Unless your strip-mining of 1 Jn. 5.1 and pasting and repackaging it into a false context is valid, it does nothing, nor does it show nothing, to justify your assumption.
Macasil: This is consistent with regeneration preceding faith seen in Jn. 3:5, and further verifies that the domain where faith acts occur (the Kingdom of God) requires regeneration prior to entrance.
Again, the point of Jn. 3.5 is to show that regeneration is a prerequisite *to* attain eternal life as Carson explains, not a prerequisite *to* faith. It’s not until v. 15 that we learn of the instrumental means to attain eternal life, that is, by “believing.”
Macasil: Regeneration makes us capable and willing to obey the gospel which requires faith.
Jesus doesn’t explain that the “capability” of regeneration is *to* “willing to obey the gospel”, were it that simplistic. Question: (Q1) Where in the Nicodemian dialogue does Jesus expain that one must be born again *to* be “willing to obey the gospel”? I reiterate: it is much more powerful than that; it means to have eternal life as Carson and Spurgeon explains it. The question continues to be begged: (Q2)What instrumental purpose, or teleological end or efficacy, if you will, is there for “faith” or belief (3.15), if one *already* attains that end-goal?
Macasil: Faith and repentance are absent from the event of Regeneration, but proceed from it at Conversion.
You’re preaching to the choir at this point, and continue to beg the question in a hostile way. If regeneration is identical to having eternal life, a point you don’t dispute with Carson or Spurgeon, then why does Paul invite: “Believe in the Lord…” At this point, it is assumed (or “frontloading,” as John puts it) the Jailor is regenerated, thus has eternal life. Paul continues, “and you will be saved?” But saved from what(?!) if the Jailor presumably already *has* eternal life. It makes faith efficaciously effete. The point is either lost on you, in which case you can’t comprehend, or you do get it, but continue to beg the question.
Let me try to make it easier all the more still: Assuming you don’t disagree with Carson’s explanation, and recall further that Spurgeon says that “A man who is regenerated…is saved,” the Acts 16.31 passage can be paraphrased: “Believe [because already regenerated]in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be regenerated.” If this is clearer, hopefully you can see the antagonizing tautology Calvinistic logic lands you.
Macasil: The Jailor believed because he was one in the other fold Jesus foretold (Jn. 10:16).
I’ve already shown above that the point is either misunderstood, or the question continues to be begged, and more so here. There is nothing in Acts 16 that objectively informs that the Jailor is whom Jesus foretold. It assumes a construal of Reformed unconditional election, and so you use your assumptions to argue your point and your conclusion is the same as your assumptions Again, what is the end-goal of “believing” if the Jailor is secretly regenerated, thus has eternal life?
Finally your usage of the AOF here is illegitimate and abusive, and I hope to demonstrate this after I hear your response from this post with the hope that the question will not be begged.
I want to further compound exponents from the Reformed side that supports my contention. Millard J. Erickson a Calvinist, who is endorsed by an even more prominent Reformed scholar J.I. Packer, adds this analysis in our discussion:
“Nonetheless, the biblical evidence favors the position that conversion is prior to regeneration. Various appeals to respond to the gospel imply that conversion results in regeneration. Among them is Paul’s reply to the Philippian jailor (we are assuming that regeneration is part of th eprocess of being saved): “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved–you and your household” (Acts 16.31). Peter makes a similar statement in his Pentecost sermon: “Prepent and be baptized, everyone of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And y ou will recieve the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2.38). This appears to be the pattern throughout the New Testament. Even John Murray [distinguished Reformed scholar at Westminster Theological Seminary], who unequivocally regards regeneration as prior, appears to deny his own position when he says, ‘The faith of which we are now speaking is not the belief that we have been saved, but trust in Christ in order that we may be saved” (p. 109). Unless Murray does not consider regeneration to be part of the process of being saved, he seems to be saying tha faith is instrumental to regeneration and thus logically prior to it.”
Erickson, like Spurgeon, regards being “saved” and “regenerated” as identical. If one is regenerated he is saved, and conversely. So then, I have already noted quite a few Reformed scholars that builds upon and strengthens my case. It would be a boost of credibility for everyone here if Arminian scholars can be quoted that supports your views.
Altrilark: Millard Erickson is Reformed/Calvinist.
Umpire: Strike!
Macasil: The text says that “believing in Him” results in eternal life (Jn. 3:15-16) and that only those “born of God” believes (1 Jn. 5:1).
Altrilark: Whoa(!), what hermeneutical sacrilege did you just commit here? Is 1 Jn. 5.1 part of the running and concurrent didactic narrative of Jn. 3:15-16? (It’s a simple question; try not to overload to dodge the implication). Obviously, no! Did you just cut & paste two remote passages and repackaged them into a false context to make your point? Absolutely.
Macasil: The analogy of Scripture! No hermeneutical violations whatsoever. I did make, probably, one blunder though. When I said “the text” I meant “Scripture.” My theology is based on the entire Scriptures (tota Scriptura)! I woulld have no problem if you gave a summarization that validly utilized passages from opposite sides of the canon to make a theological point. Try to establish the doctrine of the Trinity, you’ll see what I mean. I must warn you against cultic hermeneutics, which you are bordering on… Maybe another day.
Altrilark: John’s gospel (at least the first part) explains *how* to receive eternal life (i.e., “whosoever believes”), whereas 1 John is a letter to a community that are *already* Christians.
Macasil: Makes no difference. Both are soteriological passages and are even by the same author. BTW, John’s gospel claims to be much more than you’ve reduced it to. See the last verse (20:30).
Altrilark: 1 Jn. 5.1 is explanatory decayed in this discussion, as Dr. Wilkins explains: “The point of 1 Jn 5.1 is that if a person believes that Jesus is the Christ, they’ve been born of God. In fact, the perfect tense could be interpreted “*is* born of God.”
Macasil: Well, perhaps that is in fact what Dr. Wilkins said, but the Perfect Indicative Tense according to Burton is the perfect of completed action.
“In its most frequent use…represents an action as standing at the time of speaking complete. The reference of the tense is thus double; it implies a past action and affirms an existing result. HA. 847; G. 1250, 3.”
Burton references Acts 5:28, Romans 5:5, and 2 Tim. 4:7 for the perfect indicative tense.
Dr. Reymond comments,
John’s statement in 1 John 5:1, “Everyone who believes [pisteu?n] that Jesus is the Christ has been begotten [gegenn?tai] by God,” also bears out the sequential cause and effect relationship between regeneration as cause and faith as effect. (NST, 708)
Then when he later makes the simple statement in 1 John 5:18 that “everyone who has been begotten [perfect tense] by God sins [present tense] not,” though he does not say so in so many words, it is surely appropriate, because of his earlier pattern of speech in 1 John 3:9, to understand him to mean that the cause behind one’s not sinning is God’s regenerating activity. What is significant in 5:18 for 5:1 is his pattern of speech. When John declares in 5:1 that everyone who believes (pisteu?n) that Jesus is the Christ has been begotten (gegenn?tai) by God, it is highly unlikely that he intended simply to say about the Christian, in addition to the fact that he believes that Jesus is the Christ, that he has also been begotten of God and nothing more. His established pattern of speech would suggest that he intended to say that God’s regenerating activity is the cause of one’s believing that Jesus is the Christ, and conversely that such faith is the effect of that regenerating work. (NST, 709)
Altrilark: What John is simply saying is, you find a believer, you find a born again person.
Macasil: That’s nice, but the perfect indicative gegenn?tai implies a past action and affirms an existing result. So, if you find a believer, you find a born again person is too simple a translation. A better, more faithful rendering would be, if you find a believer, they have been born *of God* (ek tou theou). The paraphrase you’ve chosen omits “out from God,” hardly a minute detail to overlook.
Karl Brain comments, (dude’s last name is Brain!)
The tenses, the Present pisteu?n and the Perfect gegennetai denote the regeneration, the birth out of God as the ground, and faith, which is a Divine work (Eph. 2:8), as the consequence; only a child of God believes in Jesus the Son of God.
Lenski comments, Before giving the final explanation John states who a child of God is, and who is thus a brother of a child of God, and thereby takes us back to 2:29–3:1, 9; 4:7, (“everyone having been born from God,” etc.), and at the same time back to 3:23, “believe the name of his Son” (4:16, “believe”). Only the believer is the believer’s brother; only the reborn is brother to the reborn. Everyone believing that Jesus is the Christ has been born from God….The true believer “has been born from God,” he alone. With this verb (which has the same tense it had in 2:29; 3:9) John refers to these passages. By this birth God made the true believer one of “the children of God” (3:1), a brother to all his other children.
I can go on and quote Akin, Marshall, Smalley, et al, and repeat the emphasis placed on the verb gegennetai suggesting a past action with results that continue in the present. For example, Smalley concludes, “The regenerate Christian (past) must constantly live out (present) his faith in Jesus as Messiah, and also give his sustained allegiance to the love command.” (Smalley, 1, 2, 3, John, 266-67: cited in Akin, NAC Vol. 38
Altrilark: In fact, the NKJ version translates that passage: ‘Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ *is* born of God;’ emphasizing the abiding present result…faith which is eternal life.”
Macasil: So? Young’s, HCSB, ESV, et al have translated otherwise. Besides, are we going to appeal to English translations now to settle issues of Greek grammar?
Altrilark: So then, considering the (1) audience as an already believing community; (2) coupled with the justified NKJ translation of the perfect tense; the *is* from the perfect, is an *is* of “essential predication” expressing reciprocal identity, i.e, believer = born again. Within grammatical confines, this is all that the passage can muster.
Macasil: Grammatical confines? Look, the verb is an indicative perfect passive 3rd person singular. Besides, the passage does not state the terms “born again,” but “born of God” (ek tou theou gegennetai). This is right in line with what I said about regeneration being monergistic (i.e. God is wholly active, man is wholly passive).
It is too late to continue tonight, so…tomorrow.
Last for tonight.
Altrilark:One must *first* be born of water and the Spirit *in order to* enter the Kingdom of God, NOT *in order to* have faith.
My question, and please, a yes or no answer, does entrance into the KOG require faith?
The observation to be made here is, that if the identical approaches, reasonings and argumentaion patterns are warmed up over and over again, century by century, debate by debate, dialogue by dialogue, then one likewise yields identical results over and over again century by century, debate by debate, dialogue by dialogue without any novel insight whatsoever — is this somewhat surprising? The figures of speech satisfy the rules of treadmills. There is nothing new to come about!
Macasil,
First your latest post doesn’t even begin to answer all the questions and objections I raised thus far. The majority focuses on a baneful attempt to salvage 1 Jn. 5.1. So let us not pretend your task has been complete. I’ve clearly post (Q1) and (Q2) as questions that cuts to the grain of the issue, which you should have dealt with. Also, you must affirm or deny the axiom that is grounding my whole argument (Q3). You need to confront and stop picking and choosing what is easy for you to answer as I’ve proven in an earlier post; in the meantime I’ll provide a reply on your supposed defense of 1 Jn. 5.1.
———
Macasil: Umpire: Strike!
John Murray denies his own position, and he’s Reformed as they come. “He’s safe!”
Macasil: BTW, John’s gospel claims to be much more than you’ve reduced it to. See the last verse (20:30).
O.K. this is where things, as I’m accustomed to, tend to get sloppy. By “first part” it can only be taken, for anyone familiar with Johannine literature and literary structure, to mean the way scholars structurally categorize, not “reduce”, John’s Gospel. Donald Guthrie, for instance, “divides the book into two main parts…” chapters 2-12, and 13-20 (p. 329). Craig Blomberg, an expert on Gospel studies acknowledges that “many commentators recognize that the first main ‘half’ of the Fourth Gospel (2:1-11:57)…present seven related discourses (see. E.g. Morris 1995)…Chapters 12-21 further the identical aim by means of the testimony of Christ’s death and resurrection (Blomber, p. 55). Therefore, that is what I meant by “first part.” Am I overestimating your savvy-ness with NT studies in general?
Macasil: The analogy of Scripture! No hermeneutical violations whatsoever…I would have no problem if you gave a summarization that validly utilized passages from opposite sides of the canon to make a theological point.
There are egregious violations, and it lends a window into how far you’ve studies interpretive method. It’s shallow at best. I’ve already explained above somewhat the subjectivity of this approach if I were to hop-skip-and jump, skirt-prance around anything but the very passage in dispute. I will hold-off on further comments until I examine in another post the deficiencies in the analogy of faith, which in turn will invalidate you running to other places when the text in question, on its plain reading, doesn’t support your position.
Macasil: Try to establish the doctrine of the Trinity, you’ll see what I mean. I must warn you against cultic hermeneutics, which you are bordering on… Maybe another day.
Actually, it is *you* that endorses (see later post) and practices a cut & paste method and repackages it in a false context to buttress a point. Cults do it all the time. Similar authorship is irrelevant and doesn’t justify such fallacious maneuvers, since each context is controlled by relevant theme and not merely by the same hand from which the ink spilts in both books. I could very well make a strong case on the Trinity within a single passage (paragraph)! But the success of this very well depends on how strong one’s exegetical methodology is. By the looks of it, it seems you won’t fare well against a Unitarian.
Macasil: Makes no difference. Both are soteriological passages…
“Both are soteriological”…so what? It begs to be asked: in what precise *sense* are they soteriological? We are investigating the “how” question of the logical order of salvation. John’s gospel presents *how* one can have eternal life, which is the logical, relevant, and appropriate hunting ground for investigating which position is correct. 1 John, however, assumes people who are *already* Christians, and so doesn’t gives us the “how’s” and manner of the ordo salutis. 1 John presupposes what is explained and cashed out in the gospel. Our point in question is: How is a sinner saved(?), not how is one who is already a Christian has been saved. 1 John does not deal with this retrospectively. He deals with this question in his Gospel account. Therefore, John’s gospel will give us the briefing on the ordo salutis, while 1 John assumes people who are already Christians, which offers no insight into what we are investigating.
Macasil: Well, perhaps that is in fact what Dr. Wilkins said, but the Perfect Indicative Tense according to Burton is the perfect of completed action…That’s nice, but the perfect indicative gegenn?tai implies a past action and affirms an existing result.
Your emphasis on the perfect verb gegennetai is beating a dead horse. It has no traction in this discussion whatsoever. First, I quoted, Dr. Wilkin’s emphasizing this very point which your post reflects a good chunk: “…emphasizing the abiding present result…faith which is eternal life.” Try to pay attention. Therefore, it’s of no use to spearhead this emphasis since I agree with it. This is either a strawman, or you’re simply not grasping the issue.
Macasil: Dr. Reymond comments…“also bears out the sequential cause and effect relationship between regeneration as cause and faith as effect. (NST, 708)
Dr. Reymond is begging the question. First, it doesn’t preclude my argument of an *is* of “essential predication”. It faithfully summarizes what the text limits. Second, a “cause and effect” notion, unfortunately, is textually non-existent. In exegetical parlance, to exegete a causal-clause (which would be in favor of your position), there must be one of the following: a temporal modifier (“then”), or a copula (kai), but more relevant, a resultative-causal conjunction (hoti, e.g., 1 John 4.19), a causal preposition (“dia,”, e.g., James 4.2), etc. For instance, let’s take the causal-conjunction “hoti”. 1 John 4.19 says: We love *because* [hoti] he first loved us. A “cause and effect” can be exegeted in virtue of the causal-conjunction “because.” We have two independent clauses and sandwhiched is a causal-conjunction that stipulates the “cause and effect” relationship between them. If this was the exact word-pattern in 1 John 5.1, my position would suffer critical damage. 1 John 5.1 does, however, contain “hoti” but it is used as an explanatory demonstrative, “…*that* Jesus is the son of God.” Therefore, Reymond goes beyond what the textual evidence allows, and so the text lacks the necessary textual causal-indicators from which a “cause and effect” concept can be derived, as we’ve seen in places like 1 John 4.19. So Reymond, like you, is simply reading into the text something that is not there, textually. My argument of “essential predication” stands. In fact, Reymond seems to affirm this when he says, “…in addition to the fact that he believes that Jesus is the Christ, that he has also been begotten of God and nothing more.” That is all that that says, “and nothing more.” Writing in the ECB, Dr. Painter notes, “To counter their position he asserted that every person who believes that Jesus is the Christ *is* born of God, is a child of God” (p. 1522). Judith Lieu makes a similar statement: “Right belief in Jesus as the Christ…*is* the mark of the one born of God” (p. 1279), and conversely. In effect, 1 John 5.1 is simply a de facto statement: The one who believes in Christ, has been born of God, and Whoever has been born of God, is one who believes in Christ. They are simply two run-on indepedent clauses with no conjunction to further explain their relationship. Since no causal conjunctions, or modifiers are present, it is a case of special pleading to eisegete the causal connector “because of” when the text itself does not explain the relationship between the two clauses but states them as a statement of fact.
Macasil: So, if you find a believer, you find a born again person is too simple a translation. A better, more faithful rendering would be, if you find a believer, they have been born *of God* (ek tou theou). The paraphrase you’ve chosen omits “out from God,” hardly a minute detail to overlook.
It’s simple, but it is faithful to what is available to us as textual evidence. Your correction adds nothing to support your argument.
Macasil: This is right in line with what I said about regeneration being monergistic (i.e. God is wholly active, man is wholly passive).
I agree; I do not, and cannot, believe that man can self-regenerate himself. It is wholly a divine act. I seriously think you cannot grasp where I’m coming because you’ve been scripted.
Macasil: My question, and please, a yes or no answer, does entrance into the KOG require faith?
If you don’t know the answer to this question as of yet, then you still do not grasp what I’m communicating here. At this point, my goal should just be to get you to understand my position rather than argue it. As Prager says time and again: I prefer clarity over agreement. Here is what you must confront: (Q3) The instrumental means is always logically prior to its end-goal. If you deny this, explain why, and offer an alternative. Faith in scripture is always the instrumental means by which (i.e., “by faith”, “through faith”) we enter the Kingdom of God or possess eternal life. And, its exactly what Paul presupposes theologically: “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved.”
Ans: Yes!
A Helmet,
We still believe in Hell, too, but if we could just somehow reach the peak of enlightenment and invent a novel doctrine that will undo the clear biblical teaching that eternal conscious torment awaits all those outside of Christ, then when the flicking finger of God coils to punt the wicked through the uprights of justice, we can inform him that we’ve decided on earth through new patterns of argumentation that there is no Hell therefore leaving him without an end-zone.
More unfair treatment from Altrilark: “First your latest post doesn’t even begin to answer all the questions and objections I raised thus far. The majority focuses on a baneful attempt to salvage 1 Jn. 5.1. So let us not pretend your task has been complete.”
Macasil: [Recall from my last post (from 3AM last night!)]: It is too late to continue tonight, so…tomorrow.
Macasil,
I just consulted a Greek grad-student friend of mine regarding the usage of “hoti” in 1 Jn 5.1. He says that “hoti” is a demonstrative pointer insofar as it is a conjuction that modifies the present participle (pisteuown). That is, the conjunction grammatically points to the content or object of what is believed (pisteuown), namely, Jesus is the Christ. Essentially, “hoti” cannot function causally, for, it modifies the participial clause which is its nearest antecedent. He further noted, as I’ve argued, that in order to drive-out a “cause and effect” relationship you need a causal-conjunction between the two clauses just as it is exemplified in 1 Jn. 4.19.
Otherwise, Calvinists’ insistence of a “cause and effect” relationship is either out of rebelling against the text, or it betrays idolotrous clinging to one’s religious tradition despite evidence to the contrary.
Rather than hunting for verses that supports your view, try to exegete the passages in John’s Gospel as I’ve presented them above.
Macasil,
It’s not cool for you to be up that late waiting if I would respond, unless your doing something else. I’ll just simply give you a heads-up to avoid dissapointing certain expectations. I am a mid-night owl, which explains my nocturnal writing at times.
Macasil,
From the assessment of Dr. Reymonds comments, we learn that he merely regurgitates his presuppositions and argues them to said conclusion without offering exegetical evidence. His comments are stifle at best, stagant at worst in this discussion. As a friend of mine has said, “This leaves the Calvinist desparate to prove their doctrine with proof texts, which are based on presuppositions, and not careful exegesis.”
(Q4): Please answer yes or no. If yes, produce the passage for us here. Is there any passage in the New Testament that explicitly accounts for where “faith comes from”? 1 John 5.1 is woefully irrelevant to answer this question. Again, is there a *relevant* text that explicitly and unambiguously tells us where “faith comes from”?
Stephen:
Im sorry, I was part of the bait and switch. Altrilark baited the thread only to get you to argue with him. As soon as he got you online the whole Acts issue is dropped like a hot plate and a massive series of posts on how you cant exegete (according to altrilark) followed.
It appears this is a war he wants with you and I wonder that the actual scriptural truth is only secondary.
John
A friend of mine recently touched on the current topic of discussion, and demonstrates the Calvinist’s false presumption to be guided by textual exegesis, as oppose to their humanistic confessional tradition. His comments are, in part, an examination of 1 John 5:1 as a weak pet verse to sanction confessional theology.
———————–
John the elder writes: “Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Messiah is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well” (1 John 5:1 TNIV). It may seem amazing to the student of Scripture that from a prima facie reading of this text anyone could exegete the notion that regeneration must precede faith in Jesus Christ.
However, this is one text which Calvinists often use in defense of the doctrine. It is, in my opinion, one of the weaker proof-texts which they employ for their arsenal in proving their point ~ it is a presupposition in search of scriptural proof.
THE CALVINISTIC ARGUMENT FOR 1 JOHN 5:1
James White, in his book The Potter’s Freedom, writes: “The doctrine of irresistible grace is easily understood. Once we understand the condition of man in sin, that he is dead, enslaved to a corrupt nature, incapable of doing what is pleasing to God, we can fully understand the simple assertion that God must raise the dead sinner to life”1 (emphases added).
One might rightly say that White is already doomed to believe that regeneration must precede faith because of this presupposition (which determines his exegesis of 1 John 5:1). By interpreting the “deadness” of the sinner to that of a corpse, then yes, God must “raise the dead sinner to life” if anyone is to be saved.
So, at the outset, White (and all Calvinists who follow this logic) has backed himself into a corner. He must now view the entirety of Scripture on this matter through that lens. He has a presupposition, and now he must find scriptures to fit into that mold. Granted, we all have presuppositions. White is allowed his as well as anyone else. But when he and those like him suggest that all they are doing is merely exegeting a passage, we believe that that is not being entirely honest.
Commenting on 1 John 5:1 White writes:
Generally such a passage would be understood to present the following order of events: 1) Believe that Jesus is the Christ, and 2) you are born of God. Yet, the original readers of this text would not jump to such a conclusion.
In reality, the most literal rendering would be, “Every one believing [present tense participle, Greek: o pisteuon], has been born by the agency of God”. In John, “the one believing” is very common, and it is no accident that the emphasis falls upon the on-going action of faith. The one believing that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God. If a person is now believing that Jesus is the Christ in a true and saving fashion, they are doing so because, as a completed action in the past, they were born again through the work and agency of God.2
Exactly how “Every one believing,” as he puts it, and how the TNIV or NASB states it, “Whoever believes” differs in any way whatsoever is, I admit, beyond rational thinking. One can say “every one believing” and “whoever believes” and there is no difference in meaning whatsoever. But I digress.
Was John’s intent to teach that regeneration must precede faith at 1 John 5:1? Most scholars, even Calvinists, would say no: John’s intent was not necessarily to teach the doctrine in that verse. However (some Calvinists will argue), that does not mean that the principle is not present. Granted, but let us focus on the context, the syntax and the object.
CONTEXT, SYNTAX, AND OBJECTIVE
A. Context
New Testament scholar I. Howard Marshall writes:
He begins by affirming that everybody who holds the true confession of faith about Jesus has been born of God. Faith is thus a sign of the new birth, just as love (4:7) and doing what is right (2:29; 3:9f.) are also indications that a person has been born of God.
At the same time, however, faith is a condition of the new birth: “to all who received Him, to those who believed in His name, He gave the right to become children of God” (John 1:12). Here, however, John is not trying to show how a person experiences the new birth; his aim is rather to indicate the evidence which shows that a person stands in the continuing relationship of a child to God his Father: that evidence is that he holds to the true faith about Jesus.
White’s intention is to highlight the present tense of the believing ones in an effort to prove his thesis that the ones believing are believing due to having first been born again. But his interpretation is entirely unwarranted, for who could deny that the believer has been born again? It simply does not necessitate the notion that the believer is believing only as the result of having first been born again.
B. Syntax
Calvinist Stephen Garrett, who disagrees with the theory that regeneration must precede faith, writes: The answer to the seeming incongruity of John putting faith in a present tense participle while putting “is born” in a perfect [past] tense indicative, is the same I gave in the preceding chapter about John 1:12, 13.
John, again, could have accurately written the verse as follows: “Whoever has believed [past tense indicative] has been [past tense indicative] born.” But John’s habit, as White admits, is to describe “believing” as an ongoing action, rather than a one-time completed action in the past. This is contrary to how he expresses being “born,” which he always puts in the past tense, as a one-time completed action.
Thus, all John is saying is that the one who is believing, who is living the life of faith, is the one who has been previously born of God, that is, is the one who has previously “received” him, the one who has previously and initially believed unto salvation.
Once again, then, nothing in the text (even in White’s use of the Greek) necessitates the theory that regeneration must precede faith. To force the text to suggest such is called eisegesis, a reading into the text a meaning that the reader wishes it to convey, rather than exegesis, a reading out of the text “to determine the meaning intended by the author and understood by the first readers.”
Regeneration preceeds faith, because faith[true faith] is not irrational. Since the rational un-born again man cannot discern the things of the spirit he cannot worship God nor can he believe. All he can do is lie to himself and others as he suppressed the truth in unrighteousness. Contrary to the dead man, born again[regenerated] can rationally believe, and find[read discover] within themselves the necessary conditions which all believers must have to worship God–in spirit and truth.
Does Altrilark want us to believe that the first step in salvation is irrational or make believe pretending against all evident truth? I think he does. : (
Since this act[being born again/born from above] is performed by God, and He doesn’t make mistakes or break covenants, this is a one way process that He nurtures to maturity in all genuine cases. Like the Father that He is would do with the adopted sons that He’s clothed in righteousness, He cares for, protects, discliplines, teaches, and is glorified in His workmanship.
At least Altrilark is admitting that presuppositions are driving exegesis, but why he wants to argue points that his presuppositions allow and our presuppositions will not allow I dont know. Why not defend the low view of sovereignty presupposition that sits underneath the exegesis of these scriptures? Like I said before Alrilark, if you really want to rescue us from Calvinism, prove that our view of God’s sovereignty is in error and you’ll have won the war. This would seem far better than ducking in and out of skirmishes. For all of the effort to write, research, and post these detailed and usually intricatly woven proofs, it seems that it would be much easier to post a logical proof for your view of sovereignty.
So, if your veiw is corrrect, Calvinism is proven unsustainable, any of us who are honest would/will abandon it, so please stop teasing us and rescue us outright–if it even be possible.
Brad: Regeneration preceeds faith, because…
Seems you’re the type that comes real late to the movie, and spill your whimsical critical review being utterly unaware of all introductory and developed footage. Next time, before you comment, read all the posts, otherwise, you’ll end up sounding annoyingly redundant, as you do here. I already know what your presupposition *is* in this topic. At a minimum, you could have exposit a text to prove [not take for granted] your assumption, or take issue with one of the arguments provided above, rather than regurgitate what your archaic authoritative fallible confessional assumptions say.
Brad: At least Altrilark is admitting that presuppositions are driving exegesis, but why he wants to argue points that his presuppositions allow and our presuppositions will not allow I dont know.
Simple; the reason you “don’t know” is because I have ruled out (see above) that the Reformed presupposition of regeneration preceding faith is antithetical to the text at best, and exegetically reckless at worst. If you want to expose that it is *my* presuppositions that is forcing the text, well, again, there is plenty of hunting ground above. Choose one of my exegetical arguments, and explicitly and compellingly, ground your accusation. I’m not going to reinvent the wheel every time someone asks something I’ve already covered above.
Brad: This would seem far better than ducking in and out of skirmishes.
That is disingenuous. It is *you* who’s ducked and has skirted around the exchanges above.
Brad: …it would be much easier to post a logical proof for your view of sovereignty.
I have a better way of showing that your view of sovereignty is actually more humanistically controlled than the popish opponents you disparage. If “faith” necessarily arises and “comes from” regeneration, which scriptural passage in the NT, that you know of, teaches directly and explicitly [pay attention to this next phrase] that says to the effect: *FAITH COMES BY*…. If your assumption is correct, if *FAITH COMES BY*, say, regeneration, then we should, without difficulty, find a scriptural passage stating de facto that such is the case. On the other hand, if the principal cause of faith is *not* regeneration, then the relevant passage should say otherwise.
So then, is there a passage in the NT that tells us that *FAITH COMES BY*…what exactly? You find the passage, and you tell us which position is vindicated by the found passage. This is (Q4) above.
Altrilark:
I read your friends response to regeneration. I suppose what was written is going to be called “compelling”, or “explicit”. Ive got new for you its neither.
Its to bad that your friend didnt stand back from this response and just read it to himself. If he/she did, your friend would have noticed that the whole argument is nothing more than a confusion on two issues. 1. Differing regeneration from conversion and 2. Time.
If you would have read Stephens post on regeneration, God may regenerate at the moment of conversion so that the two appear as one. Your friend has enough caveats to have red flagged you that no compelling argument is going to come out of it.
Im being honest with you, Ive read your posts over and again, looking for something that might be amiss in what I believe. In the end, what has been written is a “throwing of straw” at a granite wall. If your friend is offering up the best “compelling” argument youve got, I suggest she/he become a calvinst and end the confusion.
John
John,
Actually, *my* grammatical-exegetical refutations of Dr. Reymond above seem more compelling and refutes his assumptions. BTW, John, I am not looking, nor am I failing to *see*, as you seem to imply, if my analysis carry this “confusion” you allege. My task is to deal squarely with the text itself, exegete it grammatically, syntactically, and objective where possible, and then, see whose presuppositions fits the exegetical outcome. You want to reverse the process, it seems. If you think John the elder penned 1 John 5.1 with the these presuppositions in the back of his mind: (1) distinguishing between regeneration from conversion; and (2) time, then, by all means be my guest in showing *that* to us exegetically, but don’t beggarly assume them since those are the points that we’re seeking justification for. Therefore, my friend, as far as I can tell, did not *miss* anything in the text, but rather dealt with it frontally.
If I can get a powerful exegetical demonstration of this so-called “cause and effect” (as Dr. Reymond puts it) concept, then I’ll know when to throw my hands up in the air.
Try answering (Q4) above, to see whose position is biblically correct. (I might have to ask this question numerous times before somebody finally gets to it.)
Macasil: The text says that “believing in Him” results in eternal life (Jn. 3:15-16) and that only those “born of God” believes (1 Jn. 5:1). This is consistent with regeneration preceding faith seen in Jn. 3:5, and further verifies that the domain where faith acts occur (the Kingdom of God) requires regeneration prior to entrance.
Altrilark: Dr. Wilkins explains: “The point of 1 Jn 5.1 is that if a person believes that Jesus is the Christ, they’ve been born of God.
Macasil: This is enough to establish that “having been born of God” (Regeneration) is logically prior to “believing.” Even if we were to allow “if you see a believer you see a born again person,” as suggested earlier, it still stands that in order for the first clause to be true, the other must (i.e. be logically prior).
In this case it is the invisible preexisting “born of God” status that is “authenticated” (i.e. confirmed) by seeing a “believing one.” Try the reverse, “whoever has been born of God believes that Jesus is the Christ.”
The participle “believes” (everyone who…) cannot, in this case, be the major categorical term in the syllogism, “born of God” is. Gegennetai is the main verb in the sentence that establishes the main category in the following non-soteriological) categorical syllogism:
Whoever is alive has been born.
Tom is alive.
Therefore, Tom has been born.
In this categorical syllogism, Tom is now alive (at the present time) because he has been born (at one time in the past). He was not born (past) because he is (presently) alive. It doesn’t seem difficult to understand that Tom’s birth in the past logically precedes his now being alive in the present. IOW, in order for him to *be* alive now, he must have *been born* in the past.
Similarly, John states,
Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God.
Let’s work this too in a categorical syllogism:
Whoever believes (now) that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God (in the past).
Tom believes.
Therefore, Tom has been born of God.
Tom believes because he has been born of God. He was not born of God in the past because he is believing now in the present (the grammar does not allow this, hence the emphasis on the present indicative verb gegennetai and participle verb pisteuown). IOW, in order for him to *be* a believer now, he must have been born of God in the past.
Being born of God is logically prior to believing.
Altrilark: (Q4): Please answer yes or no. If yes, produce the passage for us here. Is there any passage in the New Testament that explicitly accounts for where “faith comes from”?
This seems like a potential rabbit trail, but since you’ve asked 4 times (and no doubt won’t stop repeating it, giving the false impression that it is unanswerable), I’ll go ahead and give an answer.
Ans. Yes!
Rom. 12:3 is one passage that explicitly states that faith comes from God.
Lk. 17:5 also testifies to this (that faith is from God).
Human-produced “faith” has nothing to do with God’s plan of salvation (Rom. 3:3; 2 Tim. 2:13).
Hi Altrilark, I want to say first that you’ve misunderstood my “ducking in and out of skirmishes” comment, since even in the same context of saying that, I’m recognizing the evident effort you put in in writing and researching. I just don think you focused on the part I intended that you would, namely that you are trying to trim branches and why not go to the root. Also, I have read all of the posts all along, I rarely miss a day, I read all you’ve had to say and I dont think you are dealing with the presuppositional aspect of sovereignty that I am.
Speaking of the root, the view of sovereignty that Calvinists recognize will not allow for any autonomous or independant activity by any creature. Whatsoever comes to pass is by decree. This presuppositional view of the nature of God drives our exegesis and aims the use of the analogy of faith [however woeful you might believe it is, it's indespensible even for you] [unless you deny scriptural coherency]. Your view allows for men to be autonomous from God’s decree[at least in his "choosing" to believe, which drives your exegesis and aims your use of the analogy of faith[I'm not sure why you have used it even while criticizing it].
Macasil,
First, the passage in Romans 12.3 says that it is a *measure* of faith that is allotted. The term “faith” here is used as a genitive of content, and so it misses the mark. The question does not ask “Who or what gives the *measure* of faith?” No, rather the question concerns *faith* in and of itself. Moreover, Roman 12.3 describes individuals who have *already* believed. So it doesn’t answer the question. Same thing with Luke 17.5! The source of “increase” is from God, but the possession of faith is presupposed, thus lacking its place of origin. Try again.
I’m looking for the *cause*, of faith or if it comes *by* or *through* regeneration, not its “increase” nor its “measurement” since these terms presuppose faith already possessed by the individual:
If “faith” is necessarily caused by regeneration, which scriptural passage in the NT, that you know of, teaches directly and explicitly [pay attention to this next phrase] that says to the effect: *FAITH COMES BY*…. If your assumption is correct, if *FAITH COMES BY*, say, regeneration, then we should, without difficulty, find a scriptural passage stating de facto that such is the case. On the other hand, if the principal cause of faith is *not* regeneration, then the relevant passage should say otherwise.
So then, is there a passage in the NT that tells us that *FAITH COMES BY*…what exactly? You find the passage, and you tell us which position is vindicated by the found passage. This is (Q4) above.
Macasil,
Unfortunately, your recent post labors, again, in circular reason, and consciously ignores the positive exegetically case presented above, which already offers substantial defeaters for what has been said above. By circular reason I mean to say, the disputant uses his assumptions to argue his case, and smuggles them into the conclusion, which are the very points at issue. This is the flip-side of an ad hominem argument. Now, it’s regurgitated here with nothing new, except disguised in balk formulation. It’s becoming apparent that you are so utterly incapable of textually proving your presuppositions such that, you cannot help but use your assumptions to argue, which means they are either unprovable or they are feideistic. Frankly, every time you pointedly posed a question to me directly (answer either yes or no), I’ve never backed down, as most recently attested. On the other hand, I have posed to you Qs 1-4, and a direct response does not seem forthcoming–even the first attempt misconstrues the nature of the question. Nonetheless, since you impose a standard of fairness, by the same token, I too should ignore this recent post until you deal with all questions and refutations for productive progress. Nonetheless, I will still offer, not a refutation as though anything that was said has any teeth to it; rather, simply expose in your latest attempt what seems brimming with fallacies and misrepresentation.
—————–
Macasil continues to vacuously ground a “cause and effect” notion on his misguided understanding of the perfect tense in the Gk. Daniel Wallace, one of the most authoritative scholars on Gk. grammar defines it, thus: “The force of the perfect tense is simply that it describes an event that, completed in the past (we are speaking of the perfect indicative here), has results existing in the present time (i.e., in relation to the time of the speaker). Or, as Zerwick puts it, the perfect tense is used for “indicating not the past action as such but the present ‘state of affairs’ resulting from the past action” (573-74).
According to Wallace the perfect is limited in denoting a “past action”, but explanatorily lacks the tensely precision to locate itself, logically or causally, in time-comparison against other events, i.e., “belief.” Macasil too simply sees the perfect as simply “in the past”, but he illogically and unwarrantedly, smuggles in a time and causal designator simply in the vague phrase “in the past,” and from that cue illogically argues for a “cause and effect” event which no grammar allows by definition. Where it is vague, Macasil helps himself to fill in the void with the very assumption that needs objective grounding—begs the question. Had there been a technical definition that spells precisely a relationship with other events to critically adjudicate a temporal or logical order, then, that would create some level of ground for discussion. So his relying on this grammatical point is an abject failure, and does nothing to either prove what he sets out in the beginning.
In a syntactical point, of 1 John 5.1, Macasil states that “in order for the first clause to be true, the other must (i.e., be logically prior).” Well, this simply regurgitates what must be proved. Again, we have an unprovable assumption used as a point of argument to reach a conclusion without offering evidence. Briefly, an exegetical casual-conjunction (“hoti”) would end the debate in a heartbeat. That is to say, “x clause, *because* y clause.” In effect, the “because” (hoti) serves as a predicative causal designator—the very exegetical term needed to drive Macasil’s point home—that explicates the relationship between both clauses as exemplified in 1 John 4.19 (see above for an extended argument).
Macasil: The participle “believes”…cannot, in this case, be the major categorical term in the syllogism…
Macasil resorts to prejudicial selectivity. Does he set the major emphasis on “gegennetai” because scripture itself authoritatively informs him, or, again, his presuppositions dictates the whole argumentative process? Obvious, scripture does not parenthetically qualify this for us. Macasil, again, picks up where scripture is silent. Of course, neither would I put an emphasis on the word “believing” since the tenses are explanatorily effete; rather, it is a casual-conjunction that would settle the heart of the matter.
Macasil: It doesn’t seem difficult to understand that Tom’s birth in the past logically precedes his now being alive in the present.
Now Macasil ventures into switching and confounding the real issue with a non-issue, and further exposes that he has yet to grasp opposing counterarguments. The issue is not whether or not being alive is a result of Tom’s birth. Anyone will agree that being alive is an efficacious redemptive result of being born again. That is not the point of contention. The real issue is whether or not “*faith* is the instrumental preceding logical *means* by which we attain the end-goal, i.e,. being born again. For this, of course, “it doesn’t seem difficult to understand” once you have switched through smoke and mirrors what the real issues are. As a result, his contrived syllogism becomes woefully irrelevant.
The crux of this issue is in the following logical transcendent principle: “The means is always logically prior to the end.” This is the third time I ask you: Do you agree with this, if not why not, and offer an alternative (Q3). Further, (Q4) asks is there a relevant passage that tells us explicitly that “FAITH COMES BY”…_____. If Macasil is correct, the passage should fill-in the blank with “regeneration.” If not, it should say otherwise.
Do not disappoint, please answer the above exegesis followed by clear answers to (Q1), (Q2), (Q3), and (Q4).
(Q4)(a): Please answer yes or no. If yes, produce the passage for us here. Is there any passage in the New Testament that explicitly accounts for where “faith comes from”?
(Q4)(b): So then, is there a passage in the NT that tells us that *FAITH COMES BY*…what exactly?
These are two different questions. (Q4)(a) asks where faith COMES FROM, and (b) asks what faith COMES BY.
Which one do you prefer is answered?
I’m looking to hone in on a text that explicitly tells us the *cause* of faith. By way of deduction we can extract its causal origin either through a casual preposition of some sort (i.e., “by”, “out of”, “from”, etc). Is there any passage in the NT, whose specified subject is faith, and the syntax is followed by a causal designator followed by an explanatory object or content of which causes “faith.” For instace, “faith comes (“caused by”, “caused from”, “out of”, etc)…and then followed by the object.” Is this clear? Such passage, deductively, should settle the score.
Your examples fail, for they presuppose faith as already intact and emphasizes other aspects thereof.
Altrilark: Your examples fail, for they presuppose faith as already intact and emphasizes other aspects thereof.
Faith already “intact” simply assumes present possession. We all agree that some people possess faith. These passages appeal to the source of that faith as God who gives, and therefore has the power to increase, assign measure, etc.
Why are these not acceptable? Do you disagree with the conclusion? Would you rather have passages that speak of human-produced faith?
Altrilark: The real issue is whether or not “*faith* is the instrumental preceding logical *means* by which we attain the end-goal, i.e,. being born again.
Macasil: Where does the idea come from that faith has as its end-goal being born again?
Macasil: These passages appeal to the source of that faith as God who gives, and therefore has the power to increase, assign measure, etc.
The verses establish the latter, not the former, which is the reason I pose (Q4). You’re reading into the text more than what the evidence allows! Just because source x increases or assigns measure per se, it doesn’t follow that the increasor or its measurer, is *also* its source, or cause, of origin. There could be hundreds of examples where an object can be obtained by one source, but can be increased by another. It doesn’t follow either logically or by necessity. Those are two separate questions; hence, (Q4).
Macasil: Where does the idea come from that faith has as its end-goal being born again?
That is the very point of contention. Again, (Q4) can help us here.
???
Phil. 1:28b-29 states that faith, among other things (such as suffering for His sake) has been given (granted) to the saints by God.
I don’t see the point of this. Faith is from God.
To say that Phil 1:29 states that the ability to have faith in Christ is a special gift of God and natural man unable to believe the gospel in the reformed sense, is a blatant overstretch of the verse:
“For to you it has been granted for Christ’s sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake”
The Philipians had received the gospel through Paul and so been granted to believe in Christ as an alternative to the various false gods before. They had been delivered the news about Jesus Christ. Faith comes by hearing the gospel preached. So what was granted to the addresses in this epistle? They were granted to believe in Him. Calvinists, read this as they were enabled to believe in Him, emphasizing the act of faith rather than the object of faith. The good news is about the object (“whom”), Jesus Christ, not about the exercise of faith. It is the object of faith which is the focus, not the exertion of faith, or the ability to have faith. Furthermore, they were also granted to suffer for Christ’s sake. Are we to think that suffering is likewise a deed which natural man isn’t able to? Did God by a miraculous work enable the Philipians to suffer? Surely not.
Thus, Phil. 1:29 is not a voice in support of “Total Depravity”.
10 Then the disciples came and said to him, “Why do you speak to them in parables?” 11 And he answered them, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. 12 For to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. 13 This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. 14 Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says:
“‘You will indeed hear but never understand,
and you will indeed see but never perceive.
15 For this people’s heart has grown dull,
and with their ears they can barely hear,
and their eyes they have closed,
lest they should see with their eyes
and hear with their ears
and understand with their heart
and turn, and I would heal them.’
16 But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear.
Matthew 13:10-16
So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe…They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do. (1 Pet. 2:7a,8b).
A Helmet: So what was granted to the addresses in this epistle? They were granted to believe in Him.
Macasil: IOW, “faith” in the Jn. 3 sense… That’s what we’ve been talking about.
Brad: Speaking of the root, the view of sovereignty that Calvinists recognize will not allow for any autonomous or independant activity by any creature.
You don’t say. Who doesn’t know what Calvinists’ allow and won’t allow? Who gives a rat’s patoot anyway? As far as I’m concerned, the WCF is as useful as toilet paper. I care about *scripture’s* view of sovereignty and not of a fallible dead man’s tradition, that includes Arminius.
Brad: This presuppositional view of the nature of God drives our exegesis and aims the use of the analogy of faith [however woeful you might believe it is, it's indespensible even for you]…
I know this already; you put the cart before the horse. I follow the inverse: it is exegetical methodology that determines theology, not theology that determines exegesis. The later is a blanket confession of eisegesis. You confession betrays any credibility in your comments from here on out.
Brad: Your view allows for men to be autonomous from God’s decree[at least in his “choosing” to believe, which drives your exegesis and aims your use of the analogy of faith…
Insofar as scripture allows it, then yes. Since it is exegetical method that drives my theology, not, as you have confessed, theology that determines exegesis, which is eisegesis…and, you last comment is an outright lie. I’ve labored in exegeting the passage in question; it is Macasil that cannot dwelt on a single passage but fallaciously and radomly scatters all over the scriptural-map to warrant his assumptions. Him, like you, is driven by his assumptions and not by methodology.
The apparent weakness in one’s position is glaringly noticeable when exegetical counterarguments become virtually unanswerable. When Macasil is rammed with exegetical evidence to the contrary, rather than confronting it dead-on, he instead retreats to another passage to look for cover for his position since the previous passage under which finds temporary cover is no longer sustainable for his view. This pattern can continue, in which sense, every presupposition that he wants to smuggle and hide itself in a passage, I can continue to flush him out until he has exhausted all prooftexts. Since this sounds tendentious at the outset, its best to decapitate his gangrenous assumption that certain passages can be imposed upon others as ones sees fit via analogy of faith. In what follows, I will reveal the subjective-relativistic nature of, not the analogy of faith per se, but the abuse thereof.
Let’s recall a bit of context to show that Macasil cannot hold the forte contextual in one passage but runs and hides to another, which in turn is used to interpolate the newly found passage into the one which he cannot answer for—as if both are bereft of a narrative that contextually and thematically interlocks the train of thought. I’ve posted insurmountable exegetical evidence to show that 1 John 5.1 is utterly useless for the Calvinist. Rather than offering a counterargument, he switches to a confused topic that is not in dispute, namely, being “alive” is a result of being “born again.” Recently, he prooftexted Romans 12.3 and Luke 17.5 to show that faith’s “increase” and “measurement” shows that “causal” nature of faith. After those have been shown to be explanatorily vacuous, he now has retreated to Phil. 1.29, to which a recent commentator has shown that it too is useless. As of late, his location has been tracked, and so he is currently hiding in Matthews gospel, and so I presume he expects some sort of response for this new appeal. But as I said, it’s time to cut him at his knees to handicap his running and playing hide and seek.
——-
THE ANALOGY OF FAITH AND SUBJECTIVITY
There are several problems with Macasil’s usage of the analogy of faith (AOF). First, New Testament historians show a consensus that the NT writings, specifically the Pauline corpus, are ad hoc letters that were prompted by various socio-religious circumstances which required answers of spontaneity. Fee & Stuart call it “occasional documents” (p. 58). For, the AOF egregiously misunderstands the original character of Scripture. Rather than understanding the N.T. books arising from the situational-contingent pioneering missionary journeys of the apostles, Reformed dogmatics makes the strange presumption that the collation, or a compiled final codex form, of the N.T. was in prominent use throughout the incipient history of the church given the presupposed interpretive nature of the AOF. The nature of scripture is such that, almost all writings were prompted by pastoral-ecclesiastical historic circumstances in various churches scattered through the Mediterranean world. The AOF presumption that the primitive church enjoyed a canon of Scripture (i.e., New Testament) by which to employ macro-reading from book to book is a historic anomaly.
The so-called systematics (not coherency) of the canon is illusory since it mistakenly assumes a full-orbed N.T., when in fact, such canon was virtually non-existent in the first few centuries of the primitive church by which to employ macro book-to-book reading (Frend, Young, Davidson, et al). Writing in “Modern Reformation” the Reformed scholar Keith Mathison who is associate editor of Tabletalk magazine put out by Sproul’s ministry says, “It took many years before the NT as we know it was gathered and available as a whole” (p. 28). They relied, instead, on oral and rhetorical traditions, and assumptions shared between a specific nexus of relationship between the writer and its recipients that are not immediately available to us.
Secondly, to perceive the NT as some sort of cosmic scattered theological jigsaw puzzle whereby its arranged apparatus is left to human autonomy to piece the puzzle together to arrive at a whole summary, is itself an endeavor in autonomous subjectivity. Scripture does not directly piece verses in a macro fashion, it is one’s presuppositions that dictates where one is to cross-text to paint a bigger portrait. Systematics itself, therefore, is deficiently subjective. Worse yet, the metaphysical picture that AOF paints is one in which Scripture is seen in mereological parts, which is the sum of a cosmic jigsaw puzzle. I take this to mean that, some parts are unintelligible on its own historic context apart from the other pieces of the puzzle. One dastardly implication is that it makes an affront to God’s sovereignty in that God is *un*-able to convey His original thoughts to a particular audience because it necessitated subsequently the addition of another piece of the scriptural puzzle to complete his thought holistically.
Third, the subjective deficiency in systematics becomes all the more troubling since scripture itself does not point to what is clear or unclear. It is up to the whim of the interpreter’s assumptions to designate categorical clarity status, which is itself question begging, not least the pesky subjectivity inherit within it. Again, some portions of scripture which are meant to be clear to its contemporaries may not be clear to us since shared assumptions are private and not necessarily passed down for posterity.
I could go on, but enough has been said to rid the trump card played to suggest that, in the original argument, Acts 16:30-32 as insufficient, and therefore requires additional “outside” clarity to make it more holistic. If the passage is mired in ambiguity, the burden of proof is on Macasil to (B1) produce clear alternative readings to ground its ambiguity, and consequently, showing the difficulty in choosing between them, which would in turn require “outside” help. Then, his next burden would be (B2) to justify objectively his choosing to cross-reference one a-contextual text over another. Given what’s been said above, to avoid subjective and autonomous elements, an appeal to its own context, categories, and precepts, encourages objectivity.
We should always let the idiosyncratic text speak on its own terms and categories, even if that means adjusting previous held assumptions that the text did not envision before. This is the objectivity for which a text is appropriately handled. The subjectivity creeps in by stripping the verse out of its own context and filtering its meaning through a remote passage by which the disputant feels more comfortable in making his case, and illegitimately interpolating that cross-text meaning into the previous one until it has entirely swallowed up the original meaning derived from its own context in which it was originally situated.
All in all, this doesn’t seem to bother Macasil; for, it is only by lifting passages from their original contexts, is he then able to cut and paste together passages to repackage them into a false context to say what he wants it to say, and proceeds with an illusory refutation.
Altrilark,
You’re too dishonest for me to put any more time into “discussing” anything with you. Your intellectual and moral dishonesty is too far on the other side. It is a waste of my time. I’m probably going to revoke your privelage to post here. I’ll leave what you’ve posted for all to read, but due to your overall dishonesty and disrespect for the truth and others you’ll most likely be banned.
I may pour time into one more post that quotes from your posts showing your dishonest and underhanded ways, but I’m not interested in attempting to unravel all your lies.
Altrilark, are you saying that you bring no presuppositions at all to your exegisis? Come on!!!
Even if you maintain that you do not, you still must appeal to other scriptures to support any theological position you endeavor to promote/defend. So, you use some form of an analogy of faith. Rail against systematics if you want, but I dont see how you’ll demonstrate any kind of coherency without one. Although it’s surely my inadequacy, your efforts have done nothing to expose any kind of coherency except as it relates to contradicting Calvinism. I have no idea where you are coming from at all. I admit your evident scholarship, the efort you must be puting in, and the sincerity of your commitments, but having said that, I do not trust a thing you say because it’s lacking anything in common but an attack on Calvinism. I guess your systematic is anti calvinism, but this system must have a powerful prior commitment brought to the scriptures. Are you sure that you dont have presuppositions driving your exegesis?
BTW, I’m not arguing that any ultimate presuppositions aren’t amendable, because they are, especially when one becomes regenerated and then has eyes to see and ears to hear.
Macasil: I’ll leave what you’ve posted for all to read, but due to your overall dishonesty and disrespect for the truth and others you’ll most likely be banned.
This is odd leniency, Macasil. If I were you, if I had a strong conviction of a post that is deliberately dishonest, I would not leave it there “for all to read.” Such post, wherever relevant, should be immediately erased. That is to give some sort of credit to something you believe to be outright dishonest. On the other, if you want to still “expose” this dishonesty, then, by the same token, I should be able to defend it if it’s incorrect. I want to avoid this, and just stick to the topic at hand. Second, of course, that was not my intention. Everyone is working here within some limited perspective, mishaps are inevitably to some degree; something is always going to be misinterpreted just like I’m prone to misunderstand you, which, I suspect, is what happen here. Don’t waste your time to correct “dishonesty,” just erase it and leave what you think would be a descent contribution to the discussion. Perhaps you can leave the sketch on the analogy of faith, and erase what you think is no true. I’m fairly wiling to comply so your energy is invested on the topic at hand.
Hi Mario,
After a week’s absence for a demanding report, I’m back as promised, thanks to God’s grace.
You used red letters to highlight some words of Pink’s that you consider fitting for Atrilark and me:
During and since my 15 years of being a John Gill type of Calvinist, I often heard Arminians accused of having proud hearts and being resentful of God’s sovereignty. Never, however, did I hear Arminians object to God’s sovereignty or complain that Calvinism promoted too low a view of mankind. Arminians complained primarily that Calvinism makes God appear capricious and even culpable for sin.
Anyone seeking proof that Arminians are comfortable with humility should consider the closing paragraph to John Wesley’s Standard Sermon V, “Justification by Faith”:
While agreeing with Pink that God can do what he wills with his own and that he, as Judge of the earth, does right and treats his creatures justly, I must say that those truths wouldn’t be comforting if I believed what Stephen Macasil told George Bryson, namely, that justice is whatever God does. I’m comforted that there’s an absolute standard to the justice God practices; in other words, God has his perfect reasons for what he does, and we can discern them to the extent that he reveals them.
I’m curious why Pink would use the potter-and-clay illustration (Romans 9:21-23) without considering God’s offer to rework the vessels that are willing to repent:
Could Pink have been avoiding the evidence that undermined his position? His special pleading (selective citing) seems inexcusable since Romans 9:21-23, like Jeremiah 18:5-9, concerns promises to nations as well as to individuals. Something else Pink avoids is 2 Timothy 2:20-21, where Paul teaches: “20 Now in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver but also of wood and clay, some for honorable use, some for dishonorable. 21 Therefore, if anyone cleanses himself from what is dishonorable, [3] he will be a vessel for honorable use, set apart as holy, useful to the master of the house, ready for every good work” (ESV). So God sometimes expects his servants to do some self-cleaning.
Indeed, I agree with God’s right to operate as he pleases. The evidence above, however, shows that Pink sometimes misunderstands God’s operations and mankind’s obligation to cooperate.
Brad: Altrilark, are you saying that you bring no presuppositions at all to your exegisis? Come on!!!
Everyone *has* presuppositions. The question is: Should exegetical methodology determine our assumptions, or should we allow our assumptions to drive our exegesis?
Brad: Even if you maintain that you do not, you still must appeal to other scriptures to support any theological position you endeavor to promote/defend.
I’m repeating my self: It’s not the analogy of faith per se that I critique, but the abuse thereof.
Brad: Rail against systematics if you want, but I dont see how you’ll demonstrate any kind of coherency without one.
I already provided an answer to this. See above.
Brad: I guess your systematic is anti calvinism, but this system must have a powerful prior commitment brought to the scriptures. Are you sure that you dont have presuppositions driving your exegesis?
A good test to find out whether one is driven by methodological exegesis and not by assumptions, is when they ask: “Are you sure that you don’t have presuppositions driving your exegesis?” If they can’t tell, then the method is in the driver seat. If I do have prior commitments it’s because exegesis tells me so and not the inverse.
If you can snuff out these presuppositions of mine, as I said, there is plenty of exegetical hunting ground for you to flesh out. Pick one example, and expose how my assumptions are mending the text to say what I want it to say. Get to it.
Phil 1,29.
I read the verse as “For to you it has been granted to believe in Him. I see the emphasis on the object, rather than the the predicate. I see the emphasis on Christ and not the verb “to believe”. Why?
Because it is in direct parallel with “to suffer”, which has also been granted to the Philipians and this is hardly to be understood in terms of a specially bestowed ability. The forensic function of parables and the different responses to parables isn’t at issue here. Coherence determines the meaning of a saying.
-a helmet
a helmet,
No dispute here. It has been granted to some to believe in Him. Believing in Him results in eternal life. Therefore, whoever is granted to believe in Him has been granted eternal life. What a marvelous Calvinistic truth! Without God granting belief in Christ to some, they would not have eternal life.
ON REGENERATION (Aug. 5th)
———-
What does it mean to be “born again”?…
The best expository note that I can give is from a Reformed scholar himself, Don Carson explains: “To a Jew with the background and convictions of Nicodemus, ‘to see the kingdom of God’ was to participate in the kingdom at the end of the age, to experience eternal, resurrection life…but it is far more characteristic of him to stress entry into life and participation in the eternal life *now* (e.g., Jn. 3:16)” (PNTC, p. 188). Even Spurgeon declared: “A man who is regenerated…is saved” (”The Warrant of Faith” Ser. 531).
Ergo, to be “born again” is to have eternal life, be a part of the Kingdom of God, become children of God, etc. This is a theme that well dominates, if not controls, John’s gospel.
To Macasil’s credit, it turns out he’s found a passage (Phil. 1.29) which the Greek explicitly says God has given “to some” to believe.
Assuming that he carefully follows airtight textual syntactical exegesis to determine his theological conclusions; moreover, assuming that it is Phil. 1.29 in the crosshairs of such exegetical methodology without autonomous interpolations; incredibly, not only does he extract from the passage the notion that “Believing in Him *results* in eternal life”—aligning himself closer to the scriptural account—but even an element of unconditional election is made textually plain (i.e., *to some*). At this point, it is a welcome confession that he has abandoned the Calvinistic notion that “eternal life results in believing”, and now the scales have fallen from his eyes adopting the scriptural notion that “Believing results in eternal life”! Quick comparison:
Man’s tradition (Calvin): Regeneration (i.e., eternal life) *results* in belief.
Scriptural apostolic (now Macasil): Believing in Him *results* in eternal life (i.e., regeneration).
My Greek is a bit rusty today, can someone verify if the adjectival qualifier (*to some*) is in the Greek text by which we derive Calvinistic particularity?
Brother Atrilark,
It seems that Philippians 1:29 in context (see below) speaks of our being granted the opportunity to do two things: believe in Christ and suffer for his sake.
In this passage, believing and suffering are presented, not as what God does, but what we should do. In addition, this believing doesn’t appear to be the faith that initiates salvation but the daily faith that persists despite trials and persecution. For the context speaks of standing firm and striving without being frightened by opponents’ threats, just as Paul himself was doing.
Frank,
I have yet to give a rendering of Phil. 1.29. If D.A. Carson, Spurgeon, and many other, are correct that regeneration is equivocal to eternal life, then, Macasil has just thrown in the towel. Read his “result and effect” comment very carefully.
Macasil: Believing in Him *results* in eternal life.
Now I generally agree with your statement. Especially since, as you emphasize, the key to understanding the passage lies in the text, and in the larger context of the letter. Believe and suffer are parallel, and it follows by necessity that if faith is a gift of God (i.e., God’s faith[?]), then so too is suffering. But you will search in vain of “suffering” as a divine gift. In terms of who “believes,” Calvinists’ almost always erroneously make God both the object of faith as well as the subject of faith. In effect, as I have said time and again, this replaces sola fide with nola fide (i.e., faith as an effete and gratuitous consequence). What is even more textually staggering is the fact how the passage is thoroughly Christocentric. That is to say, no one can experience eternal life (i.e., regeneration) apart from belonging to, or in the sphere of, being “in Christ.”
Therefore, the text is speaking to a community that is *already* Christian, and it is hardly a relevant *explanation*, such as we have in John 3, of which comes first: the regeneration or faith. Interestingly, Macasil defines “regeneration” in the following way:
Macasil: Regeneration makes us capable and willing to obey the gospel which requires faith….
To which, long ago, I posed this question: (Q1) Where in the Nicodemian-Christ dialogue does Jesus explain that one must be born again *to* become “capable and willing to obey the gospel”? Jesus states unequivocally the purpose of regeneration. Macasil should simply point us to the verse where Jesus explains that the purpose of regeneration is to become “capable and willing to obey the gospel.”
Atrilark,
It’ll be interesting to see Stephen’s next move. Mario and he have championed James White, who advocates pre-faith regeneration, a doctrine popular among Presbyterians, who sprinkle infants, and Primitive Baptists, who think quite a bit of time may lapse between regeneration by God and faith from exposure to the Gospel.
There’s another form of Calvinism which holds that God simultaneously gives people faith and regenerates them. John Gill, Charles Spurgeon, and many others promoted that kind of Calvinism. A modern vocal proponent is Bob L. Ross.
It’s interesting that while James White and Dave Hunt were carrying on the debate that appears in their book, Debating Calvinism—Five Points, Two Views (ISBN 1-59052-273-7), Bob Ross was complaining that Hunt was wasting his time in arguing against the wrong kind of Calvinism (Ross branded it “hybrid Calvinism” versus the older, “creedal Calvinism” of Gill, Spurgeon, etc.).
Anyone interested in hybrid versus creedal Calvinism may check out Ross’ blogs:
Reformed Flyswatter
http://reformedflyswatter.blogspot.com/
Calvinist Flyswatter
http://calvinistflyswatter.blogspot.com/
If forced to acknowledge that regeneration is through faith instead of vice versa, Stephen may retreat from Presbyterian and Primitive Baptist Calvinism to the Calvinism of Gill, Spurgeon, and Ross, etc.
Atrilark,
While may not specifically call suffering a “gift” from God (I have not searched yet so I’m working off memory), the Bible does say that we are blessed when we suffer for Christ’s sake (Mt 5:10-12).
Glen,
So what? Does this imply that natural man is unable to suffer due to Total Depravity and must first be enabled to suffer by a supernatural intervention of God? Of course that`s ridiculous, so why do the vain attempts not stop that read this concept into Phil 1,29 — come what may, by hook or by crook? Why don’t we adopt the much easier understanding that the very circumstances and the blessing of the gospel is the thing given to the Philipians? Why are some people so zealous to read the capability concept à la Total Depravity in that text?
Suffering is paralleled with Faith in Phil. 1:29! And suffering is not inhibited by Total Depravity. That’s just outlandish.
A Helmet,
Man, you can sure read a lot into what was written. Where in my comment did I even mention Phil 1:29 or total depravity? Next time try reading the comment for what it is and try not to read in between the lines. I was simply pointing to to Atrilark that the Scriptures do say that we are blessed when we suffer for Christ’s sake. When you tie that to other Scripture you can make a case that even suffering is a gift from God.
Glen,
Even if “suffering” is downplayed and redefined from being a “gift” to now a “blessing” of some sort, Macasil has conceded that man’s belief causes and results in eternal life (i.e., regeneration). Read his comment carefully:
Macasil: Believing in Him *results* in eternal life.
Besides, being “blessed” with suffering for Christ’s sake, is hardly a phrase that can be turned to mean “it is a gift.” The latter is a necessary element in salvation, the former is contingent and circumstantial, for which reason it is not a universal “gift.” We must let scripture itself dictate this to us. Since the text doesn’t say what you want it to say, you have to resort to redifining terms, and autonomously and indepedently extract meanings that the text does not, and will not, envision.
BTW, what do you make of the fact that in Phil. 1.29, Macasil says that *to some* it has been granted to believe! I like to be textual. To the Greek reader of Phil. 1.29, where is the adjectival qualifier from which Macasil exegetically derives a restrictive particularity in this verse?
If you all read and interpret your Bibles in the same manner you’ve read and interpreted my posts here, then it is no shocker to me if your doctrine is as aberrant as your interpretation of my posts.
Macasil,
Is a complaint supposed to be a substitute for a counterargument?
Not anymore than a straw man is supposed to be a substitute for an actual opponent.
Macasil,
We already got the impression of a strawman! Is it your understanding that an alleged “strawman” functions as a blanket dismissal of said arguments? This may come as a surprise, but it is you who shoulders the burden of proof to *demonstrate* what you accuse . You can start to clarify or justify anyone of your comments:
Macasil (C1): It has been granted to some to believe in Him.
Your comment was strictly on Phil. 1.29. What is the Greek adjectival qualifier from which you conclude *to some* it has been granted to believe in Him? Just the Greek term will do fine.
Macasil (C2): Believing in Him results in eternal life.
Those are your words unvarnished-unedited. How is this not a denial of your “cause and effect” assertion?
C3: Regeneration makes us capable and willing to obey the gospel which requires faith….
To which, long ago, I posed this question: (Q1) Where in the Nicodemian-Christ dialogue does Jesus explain that one must be born again *to* become “capable and willing to obey the gospel”? Jesus states unequivocally the purpose of regeneration. So then, just simply steer us in the right direction and quote the verse or purposeful clause that shows Jesus explicating regeneration whose end purpose is to become “capable and willing to obey the gospel”?
(Q4): What is the scriptural justification for the effecient cause from which “faith” springs forth?
All the passage you quoted are irrelevant examples, for, as I’ve said, “for they presuppose faith as already intact and emphasizes other aspects thereof.” FAITH “comes by”….?
A) Regeneration
B) The Holy Spirit
C) God’s eternal decree
D) Conviction
E) None of the above
There is one Sovereign and all others by definition are in subjection and thus not free to do other than the Sovereign’s will.
There’s a considerable mountain of supporting scriptures in the OT and NT that gives a clear picture of the absolute authority over the creation that God has revealed to men. James says this below as an appropriate way that men ought to consider their everyday actions as they live before the Almighty:
“Jam 4:13 There is {only} one Lawgiver and Judge, the One who is able to save and to destroy; but who are you who judge your neighbor? Jam 4:13 Come now, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go to such and such a city, and spend a year there and engage in business and make a profit.” Jam 4:14 Yet you do not know what your life will be like tomorrow. You are {just} a vapor that appears for a little while and then vanishes away. Jam 4:15 Instead, {you ought} to say, “If the Lord wills, we will live and also do this or that.” Jam 4:16 But as it is, you boast in your arrogance; all such boasting is evil.”
I suspect that we agree in the absolute authority God has over the creation in all areas except one–that of believing.
You might like to say that the Sovereign has given some level of autonomous freedom, but how free can we suppose it to be when by definition creatures are contingent and only free to be what they were created to be. In Him we move and breathe and have our being.
The Altrilarkian scheme allows for one area God is no longer the supreme being, but just a [small "s"] sovereign while man is exalted over God [as though that is possible--I believe it's a logical contradiction]. For God to decree even 1 thing with certainty logically necessitates that He *determine* all things.
Brad B.,
You claim, “There is one Sovereign and all others by definition are in subjection and thus not free to do other than the Sovereign’s will.”
So why is there sin?
If you re-examine your statement and your supporting evidence (James 4:13-16), you may realize that you’re actually saying mankind is’nt free to do the Sovereign’s will, which would include trusting and obeying him. (We do pray for God’s will to be done on earth as it is being done in heaven, don’t we?)
Scripture makes it clear that the Sovereign has allowed mankind a time of grace for choosing whether to trust and obey him and that he will ultimately condemn all people who have not repented of their sins and trusted Christ prior to their deaths. Apparently it’s the Sovereign’s will to operate that way.
Brad,
What dialogical travesty is this? You just plunged into another trajectory, derailing you from your previous comments to which I rebutted. Why so mentally scattered?
Brad: This presuppositional view of the nature of God drives our exegesis…
This is a throwaway line; you may not realize it but your admission destroys—I repeat myself here (habitual and nauseating with you)—your credibility to merit any attention. Here’s a tutorial: (1) as you admit, your ultimate authority of reality binds you to fallible archaic confessionalistic assumptions, and in turn, this lens determines (i.e., “drives”), biblical exegesis, rather than textual syntactical exegesis informing and correcting your assumptions. As a friend of mine says, “once you put the cart before the horse: game over.” Thus your admission is humanistically rotten to the core; (2) Since your self-confessed internal assumptions are not open to correction from an external source (i.e., the bible), semper reformanda becomes illusory, and your views, on the face of it, becomes non-falsifiable, for, the fallaciousness lie in the difficulty in assessing with any objectivity, assumptions that are cognitively private and virtually non-accessible. Therefore, they can never be interpreted, much less falsified. In affect, dialogue becomes stifled and viciously circular; (3) since your ultimate authority are your subjective assumptions controlling (i.e., “drives’) your exegesis, there is an inevitable idolatrous clinging to them, which is condemnatory, according to scripture.
Brad: There is one Sovereign and all others by definition are in subjection and thus not free to do other than the Sovereign’s will.
Is this statement itself determined by the Sovereign will? Taken to its ultimate entailment, if Brad rapes a 14 year old, would he defer and pin the charge on the Sovereign’s will? After all, if God decrees 1 thing, this logically necessitates He determine *all* things, right? In order to annihilate in level of responsibility, Brad assumes a material-neo-darwinian naturalistic view of personhood and non-conscious agency, stripping them of any voluntary volition and inclination. (I’m expecting him to dodge these questions. Wait and see!)
Brad: I suspect that we agree in the absolute authority God has over the creation in all areas except one–that of believing.
His materialistic constitution of personhood reeks all the more here. Worse, his view assumes God as the only existing agent in the universe, and so his god efficiently causes human beings to believe in himself given their total lack of voluntary inclination and volition. Thus god believes in himself through these materialistic non-agent beings. But if god causes belief to believe in himself through non-agent beings, it presupposes god lacks faith in himself which is absurd. But since Brad regards his confessionalistic assumptions as ultimate, it’s useless to correct him with the bible.
Secondly, your approach is so thoroughly bungle, botched, petty, and conversationally malignant, that even strong classically Reformed representatives don’t follow your curlicue utterances. Berkohof, contradicted by you, acknowledges that “when the Bible speaks of faith, it generally refers to faith as an activity of man (p. 503). W.G.T. Shedd affirms this: “Evangelical faith is an act of man (p. 788). At this point, it is beyond any shadow of a doubt that Brad has picks up his theology in the same way that a dog picks up fleas. Part of the problem, needless to say, is such an atrocious disfigurement of common ground that Brad becomes an island on to himself, making him utterly raw conversant since his coming from his own blur and jumble.
He won’t answer any of the raised objections, but cowardly run off into another trajectory. It’s the only thing he’s good at here. Neither will he pick a quote above, and engage it dead-on because his ultimate authority is not scripture, but the center of his humanism (i.e., *his* unproven, and unprovable, assumptions) “drives our exegesis.” We might hear another tiresome mantra of sovereign will in the Greek pagan fatalistic sense to avoid direct engagement. As far as I’m concerned, he’s done here, unless he is willing to denounce his humanism in exchange for methdological exegesis of the text.
Brad: The Altrilarkian scheme allows for one area God is no longer the supreme being, but just a [small "s"] sovereign while man is exalted over God [as though that is possible—
This is desperate, and assumes I’m operating on an assumption that is manipulating the Greek text to fit my scheme. He has yet to *demonstrate* this, and he can’t and he won’t. Second, it completely evades what I’ve said previously: Calvinists’ almost always erroneously make God both the object of faith as well as the subject of faith. In effect, as I have said time and again, this replaces sola fide with nola fide (i.e., faith as an effete and gratuitous consequence). Third, I already put out an invitation above, I’ll repeat it here a third time: There is plenty of Altrilarkian expositional hunting ground above. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate, not just assert it, where any prior commitments are twisting the text to say what I want it to say. Why don’t you venture off, and when you have proof, then you can talk about an “Altrilarkian scheme.” Meanwhile, the conclusions I’ve offered thus are exegetically textual; but you wouldn’t know what that is.
Brad: For God to decree even 1 thing with certainty logically necessitates that He *determine* all things.
If you *know* that God cannot decree even 1 thing without determining all things, then this reduces God to your level of understanding. Such god is a human invention. The reason you can’t fathom God decreeing 1 thing without necessitating all things, is because your feeble and fallible cognition cannot register it. Therefore, what you can’t perceive, God must bite the bullet and He’s reduced to the vortex of your primal intellect. This is a pagan god through and through. The God of the bible, as classically understood, is so incomprehensible, that to issue, say for instance, a decree and create agents that are capable of free choices, is much more complex and leaves an antinomy that the human mind cannot resolve. But Brad is not content with this. What the synapses in his brain cannot register, God is reduced to what *he* thinks god is capable to sovereignly actualize. Ironically, “God is no longer the supreme being, but just a [small "s"] sovereign while man is exalted over God [as though that is possible—…”
Frank,
I see equivocation of the term “will.” The term used by Brad refers to the decretive will that causes every event, action, choice, etc., (i.e., eternal decrees). The term used by you refers to the preceptive will, God’s commands to men to do this and not do that, etc.
At first it seems contradictory that God would decree immoral acts, but the Scriptures reveal that He did.
You said: “Scripture makes it clear that the Sovereign has allowed mankind a time of grace for choosing whether to trust and obey him and that he will ultimately condemn all people who have not repented of their sins and trusted Christ prior to their deaths.”
May I offer a correction and point out that the Scriptures declare “them” to be already condemned?
Stephen,
Something I’ve always wondered about… If God wants/desires ALL men to be saved (1 Tim 2:4) and He is sovereign over the time of our death (which I don’t think even Armenians would disagree with) then why are there not a whole bunch of extremely old people walking around? And before people start to say that God can’t let us live forever, what about God’s patience (2 Pet 3:8-9)? Does this mean that God is violating His own desires?
Glen: “…then why are there not a whole bunch of extremely old people walking around?”
Ha!
Since there is a Calvinistic pattern of dropping assertions, and executing switch routines to avoid having to account for stated assertions—because above rebuttals expose them to be either unsustainable or absurd—by the same token, I to will make an utterance without necessarily having to account for it.
Macasil: At first it seems contradictory that God would decree immoral acts, but the Scriptures reveal that He did.
James 1.13: “God cannot be tempted.” A being who is intemptable is impeccable. Therefore, God is incapable of causing immoral acts—actions which are ascribed to finite sinful beings that are mutable by nature, having potentialities to change, thus actualize actions contrary to holiness. Since Macasil’s god is ex lex of the Occamian medieval sort, his god can do anything and everything because his god has no nature according to which he must act. In the case that that he so happens to rape a 14 year old, his theology gives him a free-out-of-jail free card. That is to say, he immediately pins the primary fault on his god who shoulders the full brunt for such a despicable act…oh, wait, he has another card he can play: it was god’s “perceptive” will. How convenient, right?
Plainly put, Reformed theologians invented these ad hoc distinctions (decretive-perceptive) to avoid apparent difficulties in their authoritative confessionalistic theology. Scripture itself never warrants, much less dictate, such distinctions. Ultimately, it is preconceived subjectivity that dictates the categories, and so it is question-begging at its core. When God’s will appears frustrated, the Calvinist conveniently employs the “perceptive” card; however, when something comes to pass, they deal the “decretive” card. Essentially, the categorization is already prejudiced against notions that God’s will can never be frustrated. Interestingly though, Calvinists only make this subjective judgmental calls a posteriori which makes it all the more convenient to link their assumptions with the categorization that are designed to uphold what they deem more sacrosanct and authoritative—fallible archaic confessionalistic medieval ideologies. Pay careful attention to the rotten idolatrous nature worship, rather than giving scripture primacy:
Macasil: What a marvelous Calvinistic truth!
Though speaking on another topic, it’s staggering how his outburst of awe and wonder is given to a fallible man rather than “scriptural” truth. His candor runs afoul of humanism.
Macasil: At first it seems contradictory that God would decree immoral acts, but the Scriptures reveal that He did.
>>It was immoral of the Jews to demand Jesus’ crucifixion. God decreed that they do so in order for Him to be killed.
The immorality is established as immoral from the preceptive (not perceptive) will of God which commands men what “ought” to be done. The preceptive will should not be referred to as “will” since it is ambiguous as seen in the example of equivocation above. Rather, the terms commands, precepts, laws, etc., since they are requirements for morality and not the same as the eternal decrees that cause every action, choice, event, etc.
Jesus’ death was decreed to go down exactly as it did (Ac. 2:23; 4:27-28). This was according to the eternal decree for Christ to come into the world and atone for the sins of the elect. This eternal decree by definition was in place and finalized (logically) prior to the world’s creation. The apostle Paul, speaking of the salvation of the elect, referenced the eternal decree when he wrote:
“having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will”
The anti-Calvinist rhetoric regarding rape and blame is designed to scare minds from accepting Calvinistic claims on the absolute sovereignty of God. This poisoning of the well has been effective to a degree. Apart from the propaganda though, it should be agreed that the logical implications of the absolute sovereignty of God include such acts as rape, murder, and so on.
However, what should no be agreed on is that anti-Calvinists such as Altrilark understand the position which they oppose. A perfect example of wholesale confusion takes center stage in the following:
Altrilark: In the case that that he so happens to rape a 14 year old, his theology gives him a free-out-of-jail free card. That is to say, he immediately pins the primary fault on his god who shoulders the full brunt for such a despicable act
>>This is simply, in the clearest terminology possible, A STRAW MAN. Altrilark’s claim that any Calvinist, me or whoever, “immediately pins the primary fault on his god who shoulders the full brunt for such a despicable act” is an ingenious invention of her own mind designed to shock. Dialogue with such uninformed people as Altrilark aren’t worth much effort since 1) they don’t understand and therefore misrepresent our position, and 2) they have such a spiteful vitriol against Calvinism that their supposed objective exegesis of Scripture is really eisegesis as they approach each text with the predetermined goal of disproving Calvinism, as if it were possible… Such presuppositions drive the anti-Calvinist exegesis of Scripture as the voice in their head whispers: “How can we make this passage disprove Calvinism?”
Altrilark has been watching too much Monica Dennington, or *is* Monica Dennington…
Notice how I simply ignored Altrilark’s slander… All should do the same if she directs such to you.
Brother Atrilark,
Thanks for picking up on Calvinists’ supposed distinction between God’s decretive will and his preceptive will. Brad hadn’t mentioned this distinction in his last post on Aug. 11. Stephen, who later brought it up, offered no scriptural evidence for his assertion, “At first it seems contradictory that God would decree immoral acts, but the Scriptures reveal that He did.” I doubt there’s any evidence for this distinction in wills just as there’s no evidence for God’s supposedly irresistible, internal call versus his resistible, general, external call.
It would be schizophrenic of God to have two wills contradictory to each other. You’re right that if God tempts no one (James 1:13), we shouldn’t think he decrees immoral acts. Should we remind Stephen and Glen that Christ taught, “Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand” (Matthew 12:25 ESV)? How could God’s kingdom stand if his decretive and preceptive wills were warring against each other?
Without mentioning these two wills, Jesus taught his disciples to pray to his Father, “… Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven” (Matthew 6:10 ESV). That’s proof that God, though sovereign, isn’t yet preventing any deviation from his will on earth. The decidedly Calvinistic ESV Study Bible admits the same:
It would be nice if our Calvinist debaters would stick to the issues instead of running rabbit trails.
Hi Altrilark, I can see why Stephen has called you dishonest, because you know full well what Reformed believers mean and yet you present a strawman to slay. The reason I’m not inclined to waste time running down rabbit holes with you is that your intellectual steamroller routine is a lot of blather meant to dazzle poor souls who’d rather not contemplate the God of the Bible in His fullness.
You didn’t really deal with the inconsistency in the Altrilarkian scheme where sovereignty is compromised in order to give man some level of freedom or autonomy from God. I guess you believe dead men can raise themselves, and then against nature proceed to do good! In the anti Calvinism systematic, or Altrilarkian shceme, there is no scripture that can possibly support an absolute sovereign God, one where an apologetic like Rom 9:19-24 seems a waste of words since they cannot be read plainly
Rom 9:19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” Rom 9:20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? Rom 9:21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? Rom 9:22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? Rom 9:23 And {He did so} to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, Rom 9:24 {even} us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.
Since it’s not been directly stated by Altrilark what the alternative meaning of this is, we can only speculate for now but it must have as it’s basis, mans free choice above and superior in importance to God’s plan–you know the one conceived before the foundation of the world. One cannot violate mans freedom in the Altrilarkian scheme because although God gave man his freedom, He immediately upon doing so lost all omnipotence in that area, in other words, He ceased being God to man–what a sad story, where God finds Himself impotent and subject to mans will having to react to the transitory decisions of men.
Macasil: The immorality is established as immoral from the preceptive (not perceptive) will of God which commands men what “ought” to be done.
As accustomed, Macasil does not clearly and compellingly rid the stubborn ad hoc-ness that such categories inherit. As usual, he begs the question. He doesn’t deal with the ex lex argument, does not deal with the fact that God can’t even commit immoral actions, much less cause them and think them, and does little to rebuff exculpating divine responsible for rape acts, only to do a blanket dismissal by sounding the “strawman” alarm, which is a cop out to otherwise avoid a direct reply. Notice also that he avoided commenting on his nature worship.
Macasil: Jesus’ death was decreed to go down exactly as it did (Ac. 2:23; 4:27-28).
This now moves into a drastic change of subject, which I am all in favor of discussing, but there is still unfinished business to discuss from the above posts.
Macasil: This is simply, in the clearest terminology possible, A STRAW MAN.
Again, that’s all Macasil’s responses amounts to; that is, a screeching boisterous sounding alarm. It’s like a city officer that sounds the warning alarm but does nothing to destroy or inhibit the danger itself from causing actual harm. So the threat persists, unthwarted.
Macasil: …their supposed objective exegesis of Scripture is really eisegesis…
Really? This is just a random charge with no evidence whatsoever. Then why don’t you wipe off the smear of the eisegesis-sentence that lingers over your head by justifying your comments above. Let’s see if you fare any better—not that the charge you make is legitimate, much less demonstrated. I’ll reiterate them in a later post.
Macasil: …as they approach each text with the predetermined goal of disproving Calvinism, as if it were possible…
So is it a more idealistic predetermined goal to disprove scripture and not Calvinism? We all know you ascribe glory to “Calvinistic truth”! If you’re proud of such idolatrous contrivances, then, that is your affair.
Macasil: Such presuppositions drive the anti-Calvinist exegesis of Scripture as the voice in their head whispers: “How can we make this passage disprove Calvinism?”
This has neither been proven or shown, and I even extended an open invitation to Brad and co. to *demonstrate* above such alleged eisegesis.
Now, let’s see if Altrilark sharply reproves Frank according to the same standards she’s held John and Brad to, or if she grants Frank a pass to be irrational since he too hates Calvinism…
Frank: It would be schizophrenic of God to have two wills contradictory to each other…How could God’s kingdom stand if his decretive and preceptive wills were warring against each other?
>>Frank, where are these two contradictory wills mentioned in my posts? You too must avoid falling into the pattern of erecting straw men or you’ll misrepresent yourself into the abyss of irrelevance like Altrilark.
Brad: You didn’t really deal with the inconsistency in the Altrilarkian scheme where sovereignty is compromised in order to give man some level of freedom or autonomy from God.
What part of: “I already put out an invitation above, I’ll repeat it here a third [FOURTH] time: There is plenty of Altrilarkian expositional hunting ground above. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate, not just assert it, where any prior commitments are twisting the text to say what I want it to say. Why don’t you venture off, and when you have proof, then you can talk about an “Altrilarkian scheme”, did you not understand!?
Can you comprehend basic English? Do you know the difference between making an accusation and demonstrating an accusation? Or do you need a tutorial in this area as well? And you didn’t deal with Berkhofian and Sheddian scheme when they say “faith is man’s activity”?
Hi Frank, you said this: :” we shouldn’t think he decrees immoral acts” above, did God [or did he not] send lying spirits on several occasions to convince evil men to commit acts that doomed them? I seem to recall a few times, but I’ll trust that you’ll set me straight if I misremember. Or, maybe you dont consider this immoral in your judgement.
Altrilark: In the case that that he so happens to rape a 14 year old, his theology gives him a free-out-of-jail free card. That is to say, he immediately pins the primary fault on his god who shoulders the full brunt for such a despicable act
Macasil: Is this not a straw man?
And, why should I labor to unravel each and every polarized misrepresentation that you deceitfully imagine out of thin-air? Your pattern is to wreak havoc and create confusion by selectively quoting me out of context, attributing false views to me, then reasoning from those false views to present the absurdities they entail. Then you whine and complain that your conventions aren’t addressed giving the false impression that your points are unanswerable – when all they are are straw men! If you want dialogue then *you* need to do the work to read, comprehend, and faithfully re-present (not mis-represent) the position you oppose. Is this a new concept to you???
The above quote is prime and requires no further justification. Many more just like it can be found in each and every Altrilark post.
If I were to believe you had just honestly (innocently) overlooked some nuanced feature in my theology, then sure I would take the time to respond by explaining to you my distinctions between primary and secondary causes and explain how and why your conclusions reflect a fundamental lack of understanding of my position.
But I don’t believe you’ve honestly (innocently) overlooked anything, rather, according to the jesuitical laws of the devil who hates truth, the pattern to which you fit snugly, you’ve dishonestly plotted a method of deception to continue in the strength he’s provided you. Your posts seem more interested in raising issues that bring you a stage to unleash abusive insults than an interest in pursuing the truth. I don’t think at this point you even have the capability to *try* to be otherwise!
Maybe, if one day you find yourself changed by God’s power and the insatiable, uncontrollable desire to continually lie and intentionally insult others – regardless of the topic or point – has left you (saving grace does this), then perhaps we can move into discussing topics thoroughly and biblically. But right now the Accuser (Satan) has a firm grip around your neck and we’re praying for your release as his tool.
All Christians should know that such characteristics are satanic and ungodly. Besides, if you aren’t Christian then you wouldn’t understand anyway because we’re in separate cognitive universes – not on the same epistemological turf. At this point you’re a hindrance to progress in any of these discussions and as a result your posting privileges will soon be revoked. According to the world’s standards I am a fool for not dropping the ban-hammer on you already (I’ve done it only twice here on BT over the 3 years this site has been active). Can it be that I am too longsuffering?
Question to Frank and Altrilark,
1. Do you believe that it was a sin for the Jews to request of Pilate for Jesus to be crucified?
2. Do you believe that it was a sin for Pilate to crucify Jesus?
Altrilark, please don’t give a long answer these are very simply yes or no questions.
Stephen,
On Aug. 12, you wrote:
I don’t intentionally erect strawman. Please say whether you wrote the following:
In a different paragraph you said, “May I offer a correction and point out that the Scriptures declare ‘them’ to be already condemned?”
True, in John 3:18 we read that unbelievers are condemned already. Apparently condemnation is progressive like salvation. We have been saved from sin’s penalty, are being saved from sin’s power, and will be saved from sin’s presence. Likewise, there’s a future condemnation (Mark 16:15; John 12:48; Matthew 12:36-37).
Because of major local outages from a thunderstorm last night, my postings will be scarce over the next few days.
Brother Glen,
Here are my answers to your questions:
Yes. Let me add, though, that not all Jews made this request and that the Jews who did make the request were not compelled or programmed by God to do so.
Yes. Let me add, though, that Pilate was not compelled or programmed by God to do so.
Glen,
Your questions venture off into another theological domain. I’m trying to stick to the topic so things won’t get mentally scattered, that is, does regeneration precede faith?
Altrilark,
Then that would be a whole different thread altogether. This thread is about the sovereignty of God over salvation. I know the questions were not exactly on target, I wanted to get your answer before making my point which I assure you will be on target. Stephen probably already knows where I’m going with this as he read and posted my paper on this subject.
Please answer the question.
Frank, thanks for the answer.
Glen,
It is about the sovereignty of God over salvation in one key aspect that we’re covering, namely, is regeneration logically prior to faith(?). (This is ambiguous because even if the converse is textually proven, it doesn’t diminish God’s sovereignty!) The issue whether or not it is a sin for Jews and/or Pilate to crucify Jesus is irrelevant to the topic that is “on target.” If you are attempting a rebuttal, pick one of of the *relevant* exegetical responses above, and offer a response, or exegete a *relevant* passage that explicity teaches that regeneration is logically prior to faith.
The grammatico-historical method honors a contextual authorial intent approach, not the stringing together of assumed inferences (which are themselves questionable) from irrelevant-remote contexts (See above my take on the AOF).
Altrilark,
So you won’t answer a very simple question? I’m asking the question to make a point that is on target. I want your commitment on the answer before I do.
Glen: So you won’t answer a very simple question?
…I “won’t”? Is that how you understood my replies thus far? Hm…not much hope that, as an exegete, authorial intent is not an area you have sympathy for.
What is “on target”, is the issue if generation is logically prior to faith or not! If you are compelled that you have a passage that settles the issue (even the passages that has Jews and Pilate instigating the Crucifixion, though this seems irrelevant), then by all means, *exegete* the passage, and derive your conclusions from them. If you can biblically, prove the idea: regeneration is logically prior to faith through the Jews-Pilate-Crucifixion passages, now that, as fantastical as that sounds, would be quite a feat.
Altrilark,
I’m in the middle of things at work to do a long post right now, I’ll get the the in-depth exegesis later. But for now let me say again that this post did not start discussing which came first, regeneration or faith. It started as a discussion on God’s sovereignty over salvation, not the process of salvation.
Glen: It started as a discussion on God’s sovereignty over salvation, not the process of salvation.
This is a radical disjunction. Is this to say that one has nothing to do with the other? Au contraire, God’s sovereignty over salvation presupposes the process he has foreordained, and conversely. We can only know the extent of God’s sovereignty over salvation insofar as He has revealed it to us in scripture, not in archaic fallible confessions.
Glen: …I’ll get the the in-depth exegesis later.
This is where we part ways, thereby unfit for dialogue. Methodological syntactical exegesis, apropos, has ultimate priority, not “later” as you seem to belittle, in principle. My fundamental axiom: Textual exegesis informs readers the extent (if any) of God’s sovereignty over salvation, and its logical corollary, that is, the process itself. I discourage, in the strongest of terms, our assumptions as a starting point in exegesis so that, “in-depth exegesis” comes “later.” Unless you deny putting the cart before the horse, pick a passage, exegete it, and then extract your theological conclusion.
BTW, whether or not regeneration is logically prior to faith, has massive implications on *how* God has chosen to exercise His sovereignty over salvation. Again, textual exegesis authoritatively informs, shapes, and dictates our assumptions, *not* the other way around.
Hi Altrilark, my bad for not being clear enough, so here is the challenge to your exegetical scheme, please tell me how it is that God can be Sovereign and non Sovereign at the same time in the same sense.
Brad: …please tell me how it is that God can be Sovereign and non Sovereign at the same time in the same sense.
If you got this idea from my writings above, this evidences a massive failure on either part. I would ask you to quote me above, but I’ve asked you numerous times to derive a quote, and for some strange reason, you’re either too lazy to grasp some context above, or something is terribly wrong with your ability to comprehend…I tried, sorry.
Brad,
ALTRILARK said “, or something is terribly wrong with your ability to comprehend…I tried, sorry.”
If you notice throughout the posts, he accuses any that does not swallow his/her philosophical babble as being terribly wrong with their ability to comprehend.
Note how he tells Glen: “I discourage, in the strongest of terms, our assumptions as a starting point in exegesis so that, “in-depth exegesis” comes “later.” Unless you deny putting the cart before the horse, pick a passage, exegete it, and then extract your theological conclusion.”
What does ALTRILARK proceed to do? He/She begins with “BTW,” and give his assumptions.
I wonder why an individual comes here to exercise his intellect, so confident of his assumptions, but then comes in with a pseudo name. As he lacks the intestinal fortitude (guts) to reveal who he is, so his theology is lacking because of his/her love affair with philosophy. Otherwise, he’d come as a brother/sister, being able to reveal who he is, edifying and encouraging the brethren, but because he is not able to do so, he hides behind a name, lest he be found out and then have to take responsibility for what he/she believes.
ALTRILARK is like the individual Paul warns Timothy about in 1 Timothy 6:4-5
“he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth…”
Paul closes the first letter by exhortation saying, “O Timothy guard the deposit entrusted to you, avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called “knowledge” for by professing it, some have swerved by the faith.” Grace be with you.
Mario: Im not sure why Altrilark asks questions to us he/she already knows. I dont know of a scripture that defines in one verse regeneration preceeding conversion. But I do have plenty of verses that speak of one or the other and verses that speak to mans spiritually dead condition.
Calvary chapels, southern baptists, assemblies of God all have taught over the years in their sermons and in their altar calls that conversion preceeds regeneration. It is fastened in the minds of all their congregations and all their young preachers that this is the way to get someone ‘born again’. It is a complete reversal of SOP for many preachers to rethink their conversion/regeneration doctrines.
But until Altrilark have I had anyone who is so intellectual about everything act as if the doctrine we espouse has just now arisen.
There is so much written on it, plenty of exegesis of scripture yet the real fight is with Stephens brand of calvinism and some sort of plan to treat the rest of us as though the bible is something foreign to us.
John
Well from Altrilark’s response “This is where we part ways, thereby unfit for dialogue. Methodological syntactical exegesis, apropos, has ultimate priority, not “later” as you seem to belittle” in light of the reason I could not get to it at that point must show that he/she has no job, or at least one at which time is allowed for posting on the computer, and all the time in the world to post on blogs.
Altrilark… I’m done with you. You are not open at all to hearing from others. You simple misquote and misrepresent what they have said and then come back with biting comments.
Frank… If you are still interested in why I asked the question above I will be more than happy to converse with you.
I agree John. ALTRILARK wants to be the one seated on the throne of interpretation. In his/her mind, he alone knows how to exactly interpret the Scripture.
Brad,
Sorry to have missed your earlier question: “… Did God [or did he not] send lying spirits on several occasions to convince evil men to commit acts that doomed them? I seem to recall a few times, but I’ll trust that you’ll set me straight if I misremember. Or, maybe you dont consider this immoral in your judgement” (Aug. 12).
Yes, God sometimes sent lying spirits to lead evil men to their doom. One example involved wicked King Ahab.
You may recall, though, that King Ahab obeyed the lying spirit even though God counterbalanced the lie with a dramatic warning from the godly prophet Micaiah. King Ahab, of course, disliked Micaiah and wouldn’t even have heard from him were it not for King Jehoshaphat’s insistence. You know the outcome, I’m sure—Ahab was slain as predicted despite his effort to conceal his identity.
So let me ask you, Did God lie to Ahab, or give him a choice with ample warning?
Here’s another question: When God sends strong delusion upon people who have rejected the love of the truth, will he do so without ensuring that they’ve been amply warned?
Brother Glen,
You asked if I still want to know why you asked your questions. Yes, I do. Now that one shoe has dropped, I’m waiting for the other one.
If I’m slow replying, it’ll be because of effects from storm-related power outages in my area.
John: I dont know of a scripture that defines in one verse regeneration preceeding conversion.
Though relevant, you just either deliberately changed the subject, or you have as to no clue what’s been discussed.
John: There is so much written on it, plenty of exegesis of scripture…
Then let’s have it.
Glen: …in light of the reason I could not get to it at that point must show that he/she has no job…
I already understand you being at work is an impediment. I give no impression I want to squash what you have to say, much less demand an immediate discourse. ‘Til you’re able to get to “that point” then, I’ll read your exegesis demonstrating “regeneration is logically prior to faith.” Though you are asking me to commit to a notorious statement that is so ambiguous, it leaves too much room for alternate explanations, which in turn, ends up having to mean nothing. I will, however, commit to a scriptural passage you can signal out to that effect, and then you can request to commit to the truthfulness of stated infallible proposition.
If you have a strong aversion to begin with scripture as a starting point, and not fallible assumptions (which themselves need scriptural grounding), then just say so; otherwise, guarantee we’ll continue to cross an impasse.
Here’s an excerpt from John Piper’s new book, “Finally Alive,” p.118. The book is on the subject of Regeneration. I downloaded it for free this afternoon from his website and got through about half of it so far. It appears that the exegesis in this thread of 1 Jn. 5:1 extends beyond Bob Reymond and I…
—–begin quote—–
John tells us plainly in 1 John 5:1. This is the clearest text in the New Testament on the relationship between faith and the new birth. Watch the verbs closely as we read 1 John 5:1:
“Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of
God.”
Here is what John Stott says on this verse, and I agree
totally:
The combination of present tense (believes) and perfect
tense [has been born] is important. It shows clearly that
believing is the consequence, not the cause, of the new
birth. Our present, continuing activity of believing is the
result, and therefore, the evidence, of our past experience
of new birth by which we became and remain God’s
children.19
19 John Stott, The Letters of John (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988), 175.
—–end quote—–
If you scroll up in this thread you will see that this is one of the arguments I made.
Click here to download a copy of Finally Alive for yourself
Hi Frank, you asked these two questions:
So let me ask you, Did God lie to Ahab, or give him a choice with ample warning?
Here’s another question: When God sends strong delusion upon people who have rejected the love of the truth, will he do so without ensuring that they’ve been amply warned?
I dont see these questions answerable because of the way you frame them–I cant give an answer without accepting unreasonable assumptions. The reason why is because your questions imply that God has to bargain or coax to get what He wants.
Why dont you object to God’s interference into the free choices of men, you know those creatures to whom God gave up sovereign authority over so that they could have “real” freedom? I find it odd that you would just accept this as though it were no big deal. If I still believed in any sort of semi-Pelagian scheme, I’d cry foul and it’d be right to.
Also, believing the way you do, why do you give God a pass for taking part in ensuring that a lie is perfected? If any person perpetrated such an act against another person I think it’d be judged differently by you. I guess what I’m thinking is that your position is a little intellectually disingenuous–not necessarily premeditated, but not completely innocent either since it’s logically at odds with the freedom you purport men to have. I dont know, maybe you’ll have more to say. I hope the weather situation in your area eases up.
Hi Altrilark, your formula that says that execegical work ought to inform our assumptions and not the other way around is much too simplistic for such an intellectual giant as yourself. You know full well that even while you exegete, your presuppositions drive your supposedly purer than the wind driven snow exegetical endeavor. What you believe to be true about the nature of God is going to show up in your systematic theology–just like it does in the Calvinistic system.
God is either THE absolute Sovereign or He isn’t, which is it?
Brother Stephen,
To me, 1 John 5:1 isn’t clear on whether regeneration or faith comes first, because it doesn’t address the beginning of faith but speaks of a continuing action—”believes [present tense] that Jesus is the Christ.” The present perfect tense in “has been born of God” is appropriate since the new birth, unlike faith, takes place at a point of time, so that we have a point action (“has been born”) linked to a continuing action (“believes”).
Regeneration can’t precede faith, because faith is presented as the means to regeneration: “… In Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith” (Galatians 3:26 ESV).
More to the point is John 1:12-13: “… To all who did receive [= welcome] him [Christ], who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God” (ESV). Here receiving or welcoming Christ amounts to starting to believe; and the new birth (or regeneration), which is not something people can do for themselves, is attributed to God’s will while the question of whether man wills to believe seems answered in that men received [= welcomed] Christ.
Getting back to 1 John 5:1, the restrictive adjective clause “who believes that Jesus is the Christ” modifies the pronoun “everyone” and has conditional force, so that we may reason, “If anyone believes that Jesus is the Christ, that person has been born of God.”
Frank,
I agree as I wrote previously: (Q3) The instrumental means is always logically prior to its end-goal. Faith in scripture (i.e., as it appears in scripture: *by* faith, *through* faith) is always the instrumental means by which we enter the Kingdom of God or possess eternal life. On this logical point alone, regeneration cannot possibly precede faith, unless an alternative is put forth.
However I think you misquoted 1 Jn. 1.12-13. It should say: Those who “received him..that believe on his name…gave He power who already *are* [not *become*] the sons of God.”
Brad B,
Do you think the most holy one is the author of sin?
Frank,
Thanks for the thoughtful and cordial response. I want to address what you’ve posted, but I must do so in parts. First, Re:
—–
You said: “To me, 1 John 5:1 isn’t clear on whether regeneration or faith comes first, because it doesn’t address the beginning of faith but speaks of a continuing action…”
—–
>>The continuing action of faith, says John, is an evidence of regeneration. Since it is an evidence of the main verb gegennetai (has been begotten/born), and since gegennetai indicates a beginning, I conclude that the evidence (the continuing action of faith) also had a beginning and that that beginning was posterior to the thing it evidences. This is a simple explanation, but let’s look at it from this angle:
1 Jn. 2:29b – everyone who practices righteousness has been born of him
1 Jn. 5:1a – Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God
Here we have an identical parallel in terms of grammar/syntax. If your exegesis of 1 Jn. 5:1 produces the conclusion that faith precedes regeneration, then you must also conclude that practicing righteousness precedes regeneration.
Of course, the difficulty begins to surface once one faces the textual challenges presented by the rest of Scripture which seems to indisputably state otherwise.
Then we have 1 Jn. 4:7 which states: Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God.
According to the consistent application of exegetical/hermeneutical principles used to render 1 Jn. 5:1, you must conclude that “loving one another” precedes regeneration. But then more difficulty arises just a few words later (v.12) in the passage where John states,
“if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us.”
This would force you to hold that God abides in the unregenerate and his love is perfected in them. This is simply an absurd, antibiblical proposition.
The natural reading of 1 Jn. 5:1 in context and in harmony with the several examples of authorial intent with such constructed phrases is that regeneration (born of God/Him) precedes believing, practicing righteousness, and loving one another. Those evidences of regeneration are the result and not the cause of regeneration.
Therefore, the charge that Calvinists read confessional/theological presuppositions into 1 Jn. 5:1 in order to establish that regeneration precedes faith evaporates and the tables are turned as it is asked, “why then do you switch and reverse the plain order given in Scripture?”
“We love because he first loved us.” –1 Jn. 4:19
[COMMENT DELETED BY MODERATOR - DUE TO UNBIBLICAL CONDUCT]
Hi A Helmet, I have to say that I’m not sure what you mean by “author”, but I see no problem with the WCF ch. 3 where it is stated thus:” I. God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established”.
So, no God isn’t the “author” of sin.
Do you believe that certainty and contingency are incompatible?
One cannot escape the reality that God did create while knowing all things that would come to pass and He called it good. Unless people think that He was not even wise enough to “count the cost” and had to go to plan B.
Frank,
Regarding the two passages you’ve cited (Gal. 3:26 & Jn. 1:12-13):
It should be mentioned here that Reformed Theology recognizes and considers biblical distinctions between Regeneration and Adoption, hence our ordo salutis’ inclusion of both as distinct. So when you say that Regeneration cannot precede faith since Gal. 3 & Jn. 1 present faith as the means to Regeneration (and therefore, logically prior), we view the objection as a simple category fallacy.
Since these passages are speaking of the relationship of faith to Adoption (not Regeneration), and since Adoption is posterior to Regeneration, Faith, and Justification, we have no problem in agreeing that faith precedes Adoption.
Hello Brad,
With “author of sin” I mean
–the sower of tares (Mat 13,24-30),
–the potter of vessels for dishonor (Rom 9,22-23),
– the planter of poisonous plants (Mat 15,13) or fruitless trees (Luke 13,6-9) or
–the originator of sin (1 John 3,8)
In short, “author of sin” denotes the very first, wilful cause of sin.
–a helmet
Do you believe that certainty and contingency are incompatible?
No, but this doesn’t allow us to make God the ultimate origin of sin in any way.
BTW, what the WCF says is secondary, because “Sola Scriptura” demands that human works like the WCF be measured by the bible and not vice versa. There is the danger of a form of “Sola Ecclesia” (=bible + one’s favored authorized interpreter) when drawing on works like the WCF at difficult questions.
–a helmet
Hi A Helmet, the Westminster Divines wrestled with the difficult questions and insofar as they considered the scriptures rightly, they speak the Word of God. This is the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Your smug answer to the question about certainty and contingency makes me think that you haven’t really looked into what WCF says here because in chapter 3’s exposition, it is careful to protect Gods purity in holiness.
Do you believe after Satan’s fall or Adams fall, or at any time after creation[or ever for that matter], that God had to react to what happened?
Atrilark,
Thanks for backing me up concerning faith and regeneration.
I agree that most Bible versions have “believe” instead of “believed” at John 1:12, but I’ve been quoting from the English Standard Version since it’s the darling of Calvinists such as John Piper, R.C. Sproul, Mark Driscoll, and Albert Mohler Jr. I mean, how can people complain if I answer them with their own Bible version?
Anyone interested can find the ESV online at StudyLight.org.
A Helmut:
To author sin in a human, to tempt or to externally force a human to act or think contrary to the divine command is never something God will do or has ever done.
Yet, I wonder why clever inclusions of Romans 9 are inserted under God “authoring sin”? This is a confusing and poor way to determine the concurrence of divine agency and human agency mixing together.
You ought to read Turrentin on the divine decrees he may help you out.
God making a vessel unto dishonor does not include God forcing that man to sin in order for him to accomplish his own plan for that man.
This kind of entanglement of thinking drags the calvinist down into defending decrees at the expense of making God culpable for the sins of men. God is righteous in all his acts, therefore he will not exert power upon sinful men to break his preceptive will in order to establish his decretive will. God is perfect and his wisdom is past finding out. If you cannot figure it out fine, but dont lay traps for your brothers in order to substantiate some doctrinal point of your own.
John
A Helmut:
So, the Calvinist uses the WCF or he quotes Calvin or he quotes some other divine or some other creed so what? At least you know our sources, Im waiting for you and Altrilark and Frank and the rest to be forthcoming with your sources. Maybe you dont have any but yourself? Maybe youre giving us a mish-mash of different theologians and cant put your finger on any of them. I dont know. But that sword of “the bible is final authority” cuts both ways and its far more honest to quote our sources and to lay openly before you all how we come by our conclusion for scripture and theology. I dont see any from the Arminian camp. What I do see is a life like representation of the free-will theology played out in front of us. Autonomous, independent, self asserting declarations made simply because “I have said so”…its done with your greek its done with your exegesis, its done with your judgments..its all done based upon what you think is right.
Altrilark and A Helmut go to great lengths to devise well crafted arguments and yet can connect them to nothing but themselves. Why you dont even need history, youve got a self-authenticating validation.
Ah..I know, but they said the “bible says”…Well, yea duh, but its not what the bible says is it? Its what you say that is the whole problem.
John
Good day John,
I wonder why clever inclusions of Romans 9 are inserted under God “authoring sin”?
I was defining what “author of sin” means. The potter of vessels unto dishonor is the author of sin. That was my point.
You ought to read Turrentin on the divine decrees he may help you out.
No, because I am strongly convinced that Turretin–like all the reformers–was in error regarding that issue. I acknowledge that reformed theology brought a lot of blessings and true insights and were an enrichment to the christian body. There’s no doubt about that. But in their zeal to press everything into an easysolutionistic box, reformers like Turretin went too far out on a limb — and suggested dogmas that now prove wrong. Yes, I’m really convinced that the reformers fell into the trap of easysolutionism and overstretched the revelation of God in a way that is improper. They went too far and these errors have become apparent. And I, a helmet, am not getting tired to point that out.
And when you refer me to Turretin (or some other reformed Father), then to me this smells like another case of “Sola Ecclesia”, which means nothing else than “Bible + favored interpreter”. In this case of course, the favored interpreter is Turretin or some reformed father.
I, a helmet, challenge everyone to bolster their doctrines on the scriptures again, for the conviction that everything was solved without blemish in centuries pastSicherheit wiegen and need never be scrutinized again, can cause a false security. And “Sola Scriptura” was once meant to prevent that kind of error.
God making a vessel unto dishonor does not include God forcing that man to sin in order for him to accomplish his own plan for that man.
Does this hold true for the sower of weeds, too?
BTW, there is no mentioning of God being the creator of a vessel unto dishonor in the scriptures!!
-a helmet
Hello A Helmut:
Romans 9 speaks of vessels unto “dishonorable use” and “honorable use”
in conjuction with the wrath of God towards the former and the riches of his glory toward the later.
I recognize that the reformers are men and men can be wrong. I dont dispute that, I do agree with them that they were accurate in their biblical
exegesis of the scriptures in the formation of the doctrine of election and predestination.
But, A Helmut, unless someone declares their doctrines are of their own creation, every doctrine has behind it bible+favorite interpreter. You have yours I have mine. We dont live in a vacuum. In fact if the church is the pillar and ground of truth, the proper place to look for confirmation of sound doctrine is the Church. Please dont go RCC on me here, Im not asking the Pope what to believe, Im saying the Spirit of God has given to the Church the message of the gospel and it didnt start with me and you.
John
Brad,
You wrote in part:
I wish you had answered my questions. Nowhere did I say or imply that God must bargain or coax to get what he wants. “He does all that he pleases” (Psalm 115:3), and he pleases to “be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus” (Romans 3:26). Though he turns kings’ hearts wherever he will (Proverbs 21:1), he does so in such a way as allows kings and others the flexibility necessary for them to be accountable for their actions, which is why King Ahab, not God, is to blame for his believing false prophets instead of God’s true prophet. Were God to exert as much control as Calvinism calls for, I don’t see how he could avoid being responsible for sin—except that his omnipotence would prevent any charge from sticking to him.
I know of no evidence that Arminianism is Pelagianism or semi-Pelagianism warmed over. Early Arminians such as Melancthon and Arminius himself came out of Calvinism, and their doctrines were closer to Calvin’s than to Pelagius’.
Stephen,
I apologize for not replying sooner. Even while my computer was off because of thunderstorms, I was thinking about your two posts on regeneration and faith. I appreciate the spirit in which you wrote them.
I had written, ““To me, 1 John 5:1 isn’t clear on whether regeneration or faith comes first, because it doesn’t address the beginning of faith but speaks of a continuing action….” You responded:
Your logic is good and nicely put. A person’s continuing faith in Christ is evidence of the person’s regeneration, which took place at a point in time, and this faith does have a beginning. What concerns me is that you relied on logic, rather than Scripture, to conclude that this continuing faith began after the regeneration it evidences. I express this concern because, since this continuing action of faith is linked to this point action of regeneration, we’d have to use the same combination of present (“believes”) and present perfect tenses (“has been born”) in 1 John 5:1 even if the two actions began simultaneously. What is more, Scripture nowhere mentions a regenerated unbeliever who, for lack of saving faith, would be an unjustified child of God.
To support your conclusion, you appealed to the parallel syntax in 1 John 2:29: “… everyone who practices righteousness has been born of him” and in 1 John 4:7: “… whoever [= "everyone who"] loves has been born of God. …”
But faith works through love (Galatians 5:6), and love is part of the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22), through whom God’s love has been poured into the heart of everyone whom the Spirit has been given to. Righteousness begins with faith since faith is necessary for pleasing God (Hebrews 11:6). “Faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ” (Romans 10:17). To not believe God’s testimony about his Son is to make God out to be a liar (1 John 5:10); and regenerated unbelievers, like unregenerated ones, would be liable for not believing whatever Gospel they’d been exposed to while unregenerate (please see Leviticus 5:17-19 regarding liability for sins committed unintentionally and in ignorance).
That righteousness includes faith as well as love is evident from 1 John 3:22: “And this is his commandment, that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has commanded us.” Jesus taught, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent” (John 6:29). Thus, Paul and Silas commanded the Philippian jailer, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household” (Acts 16:31).
When I cited Galatians 3:26 and John 1:12-13 as proof of faith’s role as the means of regeneration, you countered that those passages concern adoption rather than regeneration. Checking some commentaries, I’ve read that it was customary among Romans to adopt children privately, then bring them out publicly in a ceremony known as an adoption. Since the context of Galatians 3:26 speaks of a former guardianship (3:25; 4:1-7), I admit being wrong to consider Galatians 3:26 a reference to regeneration.
John 1:12-13, however, seems to speak of regeneration. For it says, “… To all who did receive him [Christ], who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” Here, receiving or welcoming Christ (that is, starting to believe in him) is presented as essential for receiving the right, power, or authority to become God’s children; and being born of God is said to be the way to become God’s children.
You quoted 1 John 4:19: “We love because he first loved us.” Here the adverb “first” and the subordinating conjunction “because” clearly show that God’s love for us preceded and produced our love. Had you found such a verse showing the same time frame with regeneration and faith, I’d agree with you. Of course, neither you nor I think God’s love for us began with our regeneration.
I hope this post hasn’t rambled. I must sign off since it’s late.
By the way, doesn’t gegennetai (Strong’s 1080) appear at 1 Corinthians 4:15, where Paul said, “I became your father [= begat you] in Christ Jesus through the gospel”? Doesn’t the gospel’s role in begetting link faith to the new birth?