A Biblicist Alternative To Calvin-Arminian

I didn't say it was. I challenged you to exegete this passage without abusing the context or attempting to change the meaning of words.

Why are you avoiding dealing with what this passage says? I posted the passage in context. You don't really need experts who want to deny that this scripture says what it says. All you need to do is read it and deal with it without abusing it.

This particular passage does not have Israel or the law in view. It is specifically about grace. It really doesn't matter what you say. It only matters what the passage says in its context.

 

Bib, I have read various attempts by non-calvinists to interpret Romans 8. They are all very weak and completely dependent on finding some way to deny that the passage says what it says... not unlike what you have alluded to.

 

Let's see if I've got this right. I google "God's decrees". The first three links produced are from well-known Calvinists. I copy and paste pertinent portions of their works, and you tell me their views aren't consistent with the Calvinist view of sovereinty because they're not consistent with your a priori assumptions of what the Calvinist view of sovereignty is?

I could have gone on, you know, cutting and pasting more quotes from famous historical Calvinists, but it seemed unnecessary, because they all said the same thing. They gave the same explanation that you say is inconsistent with the Calvinist viewpoint. Believe me, that's exactly what the classic Calvinist view is. I ought to know. I've been one for more years than you've probably known Calvinists existed.

Which is why debating this with you is a useless exercise. You've misunderstood some key points in Calvinism, but when people who know better than you do correct you, you just keep on holding tenaciously to your old misunderstandings and spouting the same arguments based on those misunderstandings. Which means your arguments are irrelevant because you're arguing against a position no Calvinist I've ever met (or even read) holds to.

BTW, Thomas Watson's statement is perfectly consistent with the other two. </font>[/QUOTE]I don't misunderstand Calvinism at all.

My point is that Calvinism is inconsistent. It uses double meanings for words, half truths, scriptures out of context, and the outcomes of its arguments don't logically fit together.

Calvinism makes God the author of sin. The argument of secondary causes is weak and lame. The explanations those men gave show how God works in history and can manipulate the truly free choices of men to His desired result.

It does not prove double predestination or a Calvinist view of sovereignty where God sets up a system that makes it impossible for someone to choose anything other than what He wants.

God is not willing that any should perish, but they do. He plays by the rules He set up.

God cannot do everything. He cannot lie. He cannot deny Himself, etc. He does not act in a way that is contrary to His nature. Ability to do everything including sin is not what Omnipotence is.

You guys think you are winning this debate but you have not addressed ANY of my questions.

Why did Adam sin in the Garden?

Show me a scripture where God regenerates a person prior to belief.

How do you deal with the texts I've mentioned where election is based on foreknowledge and calling is through God's word?

 

Are children innocent? Aren't they sinners in Adam and by choice?

Are you saying the 9 year old lost little girl that dies prematurely in an auto accident deserves eternal damnation because she has spit in God's face and mocked him?

Haven't YOU and I who are believers mocked God and spit in His face before salvation? Didn't WE deserve eternal damnation? Why did God regenerate us prior to salvation so that we would freely chose Him and not others as Calvnism teaches and as some of you have said already?

My illustration of children is absolutely appropriate and accurate of how you believe God works in history.

If you don't like the children analogy, how about convicted murderers?

Imagine a group of convicted murderers in a room when they find some rat poison. The convicts freely and willingly eat the rat poison which will kill them. You could intervene and stop them all from eating it, but you don't.

Instead, you chose some convicts in the group to be saved and others to die. You do not kill the convicts that eat the poison, you simply allow them to continue on the path that they are on without interference.

The other convicts you pull aside and explain that the poison is bad or maybe you take the poison from them. Either way, they then freely chose because of your intervention they no longer desire the poison and they choose not to eat the poison.

The result is that the convicts you chose to life are saved. The convicts you did not choose die.

Because of your wisdom. You assert that you have every right to make that decision and that you have not done anything wrong. Furthermore, you assert that all the convicts COULD have been saved if they had sought you out but they didn't because it wasn't in their nature. You could have chosen to save them all, but you did not. Nevertheles, you believe that its not your fault they are dead.

Lastly, you hold them accountable for their stupid decision to eat the rat poison even though they were unable to make any other choice. You then say that you really wish none of them had died and that its such a shame, but at least it brings attention to the fact that you know what you are talking about, which results in some well deserved glory for you.


Tell me that is not how you see God working in human history.

Also, you are all right this conversation will go nowhere because you will not look past what you have been taught, nor does it seem you possess the intellectual honesty to stand by the logical outcomes of your position.

[ February 25, 2005, 09:21 AM: Message edited by: Biblicist ]

 

Romans 8:28-30

And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.

For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;

and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.


Paul has just finished explaining the unity of believers to Christ. He has also just explained the stuggle that exists between the spirit and the flesh. The context is salvation history including the role of Israel in God's plan.

Questions that arise in the minds of the listeners include whether or not God is faithful to His promise to Israel and whether or not God has cast away His people.

Paul assures the believers that God can be trusted and He is in control.

That is where your verse comes up. It portrays salvation from God's point of view.

No where in that text does it prove a Calvinist view of election. Paul clarifies in subsequent texts that God drew them through the gospel, not Irresistable Grace, and it no where says that He regenerated them apart from faith. This verse shows God's activity in salvation, not man's perspective and responsibility. Man's involvement is clearly shown elsewhere including numerous times in this very book.

Note that the verse says "whom He justified, He also glorified". Are we glorified yet? We are not, but will be. This is God's perspective.

Finally note that it nowhere mentions individual salvation, the context is on the community of faith. This verse is consistant with my view that God predestined the community of faith to be conformed to the image of His son, that He elects based on foreknowledge and calls through His word.

There are plenty of conservative commentaries that will support that this verse is not talking about a Calvinist view of predestination. I've quoted Doug Moo, but there are others.

I do not agree with Moo 100%, but it is commonly accepted that this passage does not teach what Calvinism claims it teaches.

 

Also, have we at least settled the original point of this post?

Namely, that there are more than 2 positions regarding soteriology. "Calvinism" and "Arminianism" are not the only two choices.

 

It is interesting to note that Southern Baptists (definitely not a reformed group) state that regeneration is prior to faith. Read the Baptist Faith and Message.

 

JGrayhound

Again, which "church council" do you suggest Baptists to submit to?

 

Are you asking because I said Calvinism was not rejected by any church council?

I think your question is irrelevant.

I wasn't using that as a proof that Calvinism is true...it was simply a matter of stating that historically in the church Calvinism was never rejected by any church council as being heresy.

 

Whoaaaaa... cowboy.

The first two statements do not give rise to the last one. You may assume that because it is convenient for you but you didn't gain that context from the text itself.

The immediately preceding scripture deals with salvation, the Spirit's ministry, and adoption. It isn't history. The following scripture gives an OT example of God's sovereign choice of one person to the exclusion of another.

Is there a point of view that matters more with respect to this debate?

Perhaps not a view that you wrongly ascribe to Calvinists but the true view is very much proven. God foreknew, predestined, called, justified, and glorified.

You have created a false dichotomy. Only the hypercalvinists believe that man is saved apart from hearing the gospel.

The mechanics of accomplishing something (ie. the preaching of the gospel) are not the cause (ie. the sovereign election by God).

Huh? I know there is some discussion even amongst calvinists regarding whether regeneration occurs just before or simultaneously with saving faith... but I don't know of any genuine calvinist that believes that regeneration resulting in salvation occurs apart from faith.

Absolutely. This is partly how a calvinist would explain these verses. God's "activity" is that He sovereignly foreknew and predestined those who He would not only call but justify and glorify.

This is the effectual call. Those whom He called He also justified.

Yes. So?

When man is spiritually resurrected, he will do what comes by that nature... which is the actual context of John 3:16. Christ had just equated spiritual birth to salvation then He declares the mechanism.

Did you choose to be physically born? Was it a violation of your will to be physically born? Is God guilty by ordaining the physical birth of people He knows will never receive Him?

The conception of a child is not by the child's will but by the will of another. The birth of a child is what comes natural to him as a direct result of conception. That analogy holds for salvation.

Both. We do have a measure of glory even now- the Spirit being our "earnest". God does also view time from one end to the other at once... which doesn't help your case at all.

In fact, that is strongly supportive of calvinism. If you believe God foreknows and is omnipotent then any denial that He elects those who will be saved is pure semantics. He ordains every event that must occur for the person to be born and hear the gospel.

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever when applied to this scripture in context... even if it did, God would still be speaking to this "community of faith" that includes everyone who He will justify and glorify.

Sanctification is not corporate. Its personal. Being conformed to the image of Christ isn't simply something done to "the church"... it is the mark of genuine individual Christianity.

Your attempts to wrest this scripture out of its meaning and redefine words has failed.

So? Conservatives aren't perfect. I have read many of these commentaries and arguments based on them. They are all weak and follow some form of what you have attempted to do- deny that the words actually mean what they say.

I am sorry but this is exactly why I ascribe to calvinistic views on sotierology. They do not need to redefine words nor strip scripture from its context. They simply let it say what it says and build doctrine around it.

No. It is not commonly accepted. It is commonly accepted by non-calvinists but you are attempting to overgeneralize as if some consensus will make you correct.

 

Ok team. We've been around the rosie plenty of times by now. I said in the beginning that this forum is not the way to debate this with a bunch of type in little boxes.

I know everyone is busy so I'm not really surprised that:

No one has dealt with why Adam sinned in the Garden without a sin nature.

No one has dealt with the passages that teach God is not willing that any should perish, the availability of salvation to all, etc.

No one has own up to the fact that Calvinism makes God the author of sin, which it does as I have illustrated.

No one has outlined the tenets of Calvinism. Everyone has simply claimed that I don't know what I am talking about.

That is fine. The point of this thread is that there are more than two options. Are we agreed on that yet? Or, do you still deny other believers the christian courtesy to distinguish themselves from you?

I will close with this, I found an interesting section in Millard Erickson's SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY pages 851-852 where he explains the fallacies of the doctrine of limited atonement.

Here is his quote:

"We find that some of the verses that teach a universal atonement simply cannot be ignored. Among the most impressive is 1 Timothy 4:10, which affirms that the living God is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe. Among the other texts that argue for the universiality of Christ's saving work and cannot be ignored are 1 John 2:2 and Isaiah 53:6. In addition, we must consider statements like 2 Peter 2:1, which affirms that for some for whom Christ died do perish.

To be sure, there are also those texts that speak of Christ's dying for his sheep and for the church. These texts, however, present no problem if we regard the universal passages as normative or determinative. Certainly if Christ died for the whole, there is no problem in asserting that he died for a specific part of the whole. To insist that those passages which focus on his dying for his people require the understanding that he died only for them and not for any others contradicts the universal passages.

WE CONCLUDE THAT THE HYPOTHESIS OF UNIVERSAL ATONEMENT IS ABLE TO ACCOUNT FOR THE LARGER SEGMENT OF THE BIBLICAL WITNESS WITH LESS DISTORTION THAN IS THE HYPOTHESIS OF LIMITED ATONEMENT.

The underlying issue here is the question of the efficacy of the atonement. Those who hold to limited atonement assume that if Christ died for someone, that person will actually be saved. By extension they reason that if Christ in fact died for all persons, all would come to salvation; hence the concept of universal atonement is viewed as leading to the universal salvation trap. The basic assumption here, however, IGNORES THE FACT THAT OUR INHERITING ETERNAL LIFE INVOLVES TWO SEPARATE FACTORS: AN OBJECTIVE FACTOR (CHRIST'S PROVISION OF SALVATION) AND A SUBJECTIVE FACTOR (OUR ACCEPTANCE OF THAT SALVATION.)

In the view of those who hold to unlimited atonement, there is the possibility that someone for whom salvation is available may fail to accept it. In the view of those who hold to limited atonement, however, there is no such possibility Although John Murray wrote of Redemption-Accomplished and Applied, in actuality he and others of his doctrinal persuasion COLLAPSE THE LATTER PART, THE APPLICATION, INTO THE ACCOMPLISHMENT. THIS LEADS IN TURN TO THE CONCEPTION THAT GOD REGENERATES THE ELECT PERSON WHO THEN AND THEREFORE BELIEVES.

Advocates of limited atonement face the somewhat akward situation of contending that while the atonement is sufficient to cover the sins of the nonelect, Christ did not die for them. It is as if God, in giving a dinner, prepared far more food than was needed, yet refused to consider the possibility of inviting additional guests. Advocates of unlimeted atonement, on the other hand, have no difficulty with the fact that Christ's death is sufficient for everyone, for, in their view, Christ died for all persons.

THE VIEW WE ARE ADOPTING HERE SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AS ARMINIANISM. It is rather the MOST moderate form of Calvinism or, as some would term it, a MODIFICATION OF CALVINISM. It is the view that God logically decides to first provide salvation, then elects some to receive it........

.....Those who would construe this position as Arminianism should be reminded that what distinguishes Calvinism from Arminianism is not the view of the relationship betweent he decree to provide salvation and the decree to confer salvation on some and not on others. Rather, the decisive point is whether the decree of election is based solely on the free, sovereign choice of God himself (Calvinism) or based also in part upon his foreknowledge of merit and faith in the person elected. (Arminianism.)"

Erickson gets so close to the truth here and I am with him right up until the last part.

He totally deconstructs the fallacy of Limited Atonement which I applaud, but he is so accustomed to working within the theological constructs of the reformation he refuses to go all the way and call his position something other than Calvinism.

What he fails to recognize however is that whereas in Arminianism "the decree of election is based in part upon his foreknowledge of merit and faith in the person elected", the BIBLICAL position is that God's "decree of election" or rather God's choice was that whosoever should call upon the name of the Lord should be saved.

If there is individual election at all, it is in the sense that God foreknew NOT "merit" and "faith" of the person elected as in Arminianism, but the fact that man would respond in faith to the spoken word (after having been drawn by the Spirit through His Word), therefore entering the class of those whom God sovereignly chose to save. (whosoever should call upon the name of the Lord.)

That is BIBLICAL. No one has shown me where it isn't.

Now, Erickson IS a Calvinist and one of the greatest theologians of our time. He confirms many of the things I have been saying including that limited atonement leads to the belief that God regenerates prior to belief, yet you insist I don't understand Calvinism.

I do understand Calvinism, but I am not bound by the theological contructs of the reformation because I was saved reading the BIBLE with no Christian witness whatsoever. My "christian education" didn't come until two years after I was saved and had studied independantly.

When I went to bible college was the first time I started hearing this nonsense. Thank God I already had bible in my head before someone started redefining terms, taking verses out of context and linking unrelated concepts together.

Anyway, I'm not going around the bush anymore.

I am not the only one that holds my view. I just hope that there is enough here to motivate someone to further study to find the truth. You do not have to be EITHER Calvinist or Arminian, you can be a Biblicist, or a TRUTHICIST or a WORDIST or whatever you want to call yourself. How about Neithericist? Does that communicate that I am better than others? Maybe I'll try that.

Here is my personal entreaty to all of you Calvinists out there. I understand Calvinism dominated for hundreds of years, but Roman Catholocism dominated for twice that long. That doesn't make it right. Its over. Its no longer the best explanation for the scriptures that is available. That is why it is being CONSTANTLY modified and why VERY FEW IF ANY of you are 5 point Calvinists.

I predict in 25 years or less it will be totally passe. The trend is already there with Erickson, Moo, and others. Its just a matter of time. My opinion of course. Let's see if any of you remember 25 years from now.

So, thanks for the excercise and God bless. Enjoy your modified reformed position while it lasts.

 

Oh brother.

 

Bib,

I like that comparison with the Catholic church ... But, I do not know that the comparison by itself supports abandoning a doctrine. But, you may be right.

 

Actually, I showed you where your view of foreknowledge was wrong, remember? Your whole view rises and falls on this word...and you misunderstand and poorly define it. Thus your whole view falls on this misunderstanding.

You have yet to prove that election is not individual. Good luck with that one.

As for your stuff on atonement......what exactly is atonement? You have whittled the word into nothingness. It no longer has any meaning does it?
If you really believe in this uiversal atonement, as you have stated, then atonement does not mean much of anything more than making salvation possible...but is that how atonement is discussed in Scripture?
I think you have a warped view of these "universal texts". Now, I think there is a universal aspect of salvation...but I still believe Christ died effectually for the elect.
Your view reeks of universalism, no matter how hard you deflect it. But as I said in our private discourse....your view of foreknowledge is really the first thing that needs to get fixed, from that your view of election would get fixed, and then atonement.

Bad foundation...unsteady building.

 

I can't speak for this thread but I know that all of htese have been answered very adequately both on this forum and in many other media, such as the printed page and sermons. What I have seen from you indicates that you don't know much about Calvinism. And your four points above seem to indicate that.

In the end, there are two positions: You either believe God sovereingly elected individuals to salvation without regard for anything except his own purpose (Calvinist) or you don't (Arminian). That is exactly what Erickson said. I didn't know he said that, but I am glad you pointed it out. It is the truth.

I am a committed biblicist. Since the Bible teaches election by God of individuals I believe that. And most people call me a Calvinist. I prefer to be called a biblicist, since that is what I actually am.

When you say the BIBLICAL position is that God's "decree of election" or rather God's choice was that whosoever should call upon the name of the Lord should be saved you are not saying what God said. God chose "us," not some means or openended door. It certainly involves whoever will call, but your statement does not adequately reflect the Bible and therefore cannot truly be called biblicist.

Actually the reason I checked in here was because someone said you considered limited atonement heresy and would never let anyone who believed that preach in your pulpit. That was extremely shocking to read. I hope that isn't the case. I didn't see you state that so perhaps he was misquoting you.

Limited atonement adherents believe that Christ died to save, not to make salvation possible. They believe that the atonement is sufficient for all, but is efficient only for the elect. That is biblically supportable and is exactly waht 1 Tim 4:10 is talking about. In the atonement, all men are provided for, and common grace flows from God on the basis of the atonement. But all are not saved. Christ did not pay for the sins of unbelievers, regardless of why those unbelievers are unbelievers.

 

Here are the answers to you questions from this dyed in the wool Calvinist.

Adam sinned because he wanted to.

God isn't happy that people die. He doesn't delight in the death of the wicked. Everyone has an opportunity to be saved if they believe. Nothing to "deal with".

God ordains sin by way of permission, therefore he is not the author of sin. Nothing to "own up to".

Here you go. The tenets of Calvinism: </font>

• God Rules.</font>
• God Saves.</font>
• Men Sin.</font>

 

Lest anyone think I'm misquoting Biblicist, below are his quotes.

"If I were a Calvinist, I would at least be a consistent 5 pointer. By the way, some of my best friends are consistent 5 pointers and I love them dearly. I would never let them in my church to preach though, I'll tell you that."

And concerning limited atonement:

"I think most of Calvinism is just wrong. I'm not too worried about that. I believe the doctrine of limited atonement, however, is pure unadulterated heresy."

Another heresy quote:

"I have seen how Calvnists overwhelm new believers and lay people with their doctrine. I think its heresy and I've given you my reasons."

 

Wow. Let me get this straight. You're saying that God's "decree of election" was that he would leave the choice up to us? That's no election at all. How can it then be called God's decree? Wouldn't it then be each individual's decree of election? That does so much violence to the word "election" as to make it meaningless. Election isn't a word we're making up, it's straight out of Scripture. No where (that I'm aware of) does Scripture speak of election in terms of being man's choice, but always that of God's choice.

 

You guys will never get it. Thank God there are tons of churches and entire seminaries of people that disagree with you.

You are inwardly focused which is why you spend so much time in here rather than "out there". I'm not surprised at all that there aren't more people like me in here, we don't fit.

You guys talk right past my points either on purpose or because you can't see how you sound.

Russell,
Your responses to my points are ridiculous. "Adam wanted to" as a response when Adam had no sin nature and was created exactly as God wanted him to be totally avoids the question. The rest of your responses are the same.

J,
You haven't shown me at all where my view of foreknowledge was wrong in any private post. Should I post our private posts here?

Erickson's quote explains how to understand universal as well as individual atonement as follows: "Certainly if Christ died for the whole, there is no problem in asserting that he died for a specific part of the whole."

The same applies for the argument of corporate and invdividual election. Here it is in that format to make it simple for you (this are my words not Erickson's, using the same logic) "Certainly if Christ elected WHOSOEVER SHALL CALL UPON THE NAME OF THE LORD, there is no problem in asserting that he elected a specific part of that group, i.e. the individual"

Let me guess, you still don't get it.

I know. Be confident in your position becuase you have other people supporting you and keep talking to them about it. Time will take care of the fading popularity of this reformation view.

 

IT is actually experiencing a resurgence as people have turned back to a higher view of Scripture.