Baptist but not a Calvinist?

[Blammo]

OK, I'll bite...

T - not as Calvinists state it. I am able, as unregenerate, to respond to the gospel by faith BEFORE being re-born.

U - Again, not as Calvinists state it. Though this one I guess I'd have to go along with, pretty much... just do not like how they express it or some assumptions made. (For example, it is assumed if God chooses me unconditionally, then I do not choose to believe... not true.) Norman Geisler's book handles this one pretty well - Chosen But Free.

L - Ugh - many Cs do not hold to this one either. Jesus died for the sin of the entire world.

I - John 6:44 is mis-interpreted. We can resist God's grace. But we cannot be saved unless God is at work in our lives.

P - I firmly hold to the security of the believer, but not as Cs describe it. We were regenerated not on the basis of our persevering in anything. It is a completely free gift received by faith alone. So IMO my position here is stronger than Calvinism states it.

So I usually refer to it as "tUP". Also, I do, FWIW refer to myself as a "moderate Calvinist." The problem is that they will refuse to accept my "membership," calling me an antinomian Arminian. Neither are true though.

BTW, not many Baptists are Reformed today, though many of the statements of faith throughout Baptist history were.

FA

This almost perfectly represents what I believe. However, I do not call myself any type of Calvinist. Why would I call myself a Calvinist based on what I believe? Call me a Christian, a Baptist, or a Biblebeliever, but don't call me a Calvinist.

 

[BD17]

HP: Are you just going to shoot the prophet or weigh in with a reasoned response?

Why HP you will only ignore the truth which happen to be things you as a fallen human do not like and then try to tell us "Calvinists" what we really mean when we say we believe the things we do. It is an endless circle that has no real importance, for your beliefs will not be changed nor shall mine. I can show scripture for what we "Calvinists" believe that falls in live with the ENTIRE Bible from begining to end, yet you will ignore or choose to believe in what makes you feel good inside yourself, choose to believe the in a god that suits what you believe he should be and decide what role he is allowed to have in your life, you all will continue to carry on living your life in less than complete surrender to the person you say is your Lord and Savior, yet has no real power over your life, because it would violate your unrealistic views of free will. Your will continue to drive-up to your Burger King Theology window and "Have it your way." You will make your god into a Mr. Potato head god and give him the attributes you like and take away the ones you do not. If you do not like the way he looks just give him a new nose, or lips, or eyes, as long as it suits your tastes, and does not interfere with YOUR wants or DESIRES than he can stay. Yet once those wants and desires get interfered with you find new ways to make scripture say what you want it to.

So you see there really is no reason to play your game of "This is what Calvinists really believe even though I really do not know what it means to be Calvinist."

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: In Romans 3 we see that the sinful nature in mankind is incapable of "doing good works" of its own volition.

HP: Could you point to the verse that states that “mankind is incapable” or that man is born with a sinful nature? If mankind is truly incapable, no blame can be placed upon them. If one can not do something other than what he does under the very same set of circumstances, no morality can be predicated of any intent or subsequent action. If one is forced or coerced by the nature they are born with, and it is impossible for them to be anything other than what they are, they are not subject to any moral law. Jesus said, “ Joh 9:41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.” Paul said, sin is not imputed where there is no law.”

The law governs over the intents of mans heart. The power of contrary choice must exist in order for blame to be established. When you try and establish that man is totally unable and that from birth, you destroy moral agency and subsequent accountability. To read into a passage inability, as you have done, is not synonymous with ‘has not,’ ‘have not,’ or ‘will not.’ If you read into a context of Scripture the belief that sin can be predicated of intents coerced and that from birth, you destroy all morality and accountability, and make God out totally unfair and yes even wicked for blaming and then punishing for eternity someone for something they could not have avoided. You make the sinner out to be a victim of his circumstances, not the willing rebel God states they are.

Again, show me in Romans 3 where it states that we sin due to the coercion of a sinful nature and that man cannot do anything other than what he does.

 

[Faith alone]

HP: Excellent way to express it I would say. If God is not at work we could have absolutely no influence for good. God is at work in the heart of the sinner prior to salvation, even in the heart of those that never accept His gift. Conscience testifies to this fact.

I agree completely.

FA:
P - I firmly hold to the security of the believer, but not as Cs describe it. We were regenerated not on the basis of our persevering in anything. It is a completely free gift received by faith alone. So IMO my position here is stronger than Calvinism states it.

HP: That one will take some further illustration or explanation for me to follow. It is not that you are necessarily unclear, it may be that I am just slow in understanding.

Sorry. I was pretty vague. What I am saying is that I firmly hold to the security of the believer. It is based on my faith alone in Christ's finished work alone. I refer to it as "eternal security." Calvinists refer to it as "perseverance of the saints." It all has to do with how each of us view how God preserves us.

I have also referred to it as not "perseverance," but "preservation of the saints." IOW, God does it - it does not depend on my persevering in good works. Reformed theology says that God will enable all true believers to persevere in faith and good works. I don't think that is true since we have a free will and can resist the work of the Spirit in our lives as Christians. God has changed us. We are children of God. But until we receive our new bodies, there are no guarantees that we will not fall, and significantly.

Reformed theology says that if I begin to blow it significantly and for a long enough time I demonstrate that I was never saved in the first place. IMO that is weak. I can have no real assurance of salvation, since I cannot know if I will persevere to the end until I am in His presence. I base my assurance on Christ - nothing else. The way that Cs typically handle problem passages, such as Hebrews 6, for example, is to say that this is not referring to genuine believers. I say that it does indeed deal with genuine believers. But the consequences are not loss of salvation.

The reason that I say my take is "stronger" is that it relies upon the grace of God more. They say that God's grace is irresistable and I do not agree there. We can resist His will both as unbelievers as as believers. I think common sense tells us this is true. But I simply look to the work of Christ. Cs look to our works as well. Ever been to a Reformed memorial service? People there typically share testimonies not of the person's initial faith in Christ but of there recent walk in good works. That is not what gives us assurance that we are children of God. His Word and His promises give us our assurance. And IMO Calvin himself agrees with me here, thoguh he does say that a true beiever will persevere in good works.

Anyway, that's basically the difference. I do not mean to be critical of Calvinists here... just trying to express our differences. We have much more in common than we differ.

Thx,

FA

 

[Faith alone]

...

This almost perfectly represents what I believe. However, I do not call myself any type of Calvinist. Why would I call myself a Calvinist based on what I believe? Call me a Christian, a Baptist, or a Biblebeliever, but don't call me a Calvinist.

Some who hold to similar positions as my own have done so (called themselves "moderate Calvinists" - Norman Geisler for one), and I have seen a couple of charts which referred to such a position as "moderate Calvinist."

And I do hold to so many of the same things that our Reformed brothers hold to... we just go about it differently.

FA

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

FA: Anyway, that's basically the difference. I do not mean to be critical of Calvinists here... just trying to express our differences. We have much more in common than we differ.

HP: Thanks for your explanation, as it makes things much clearer in a sense. One question I have is about irresistible grace, which I believe you said you disagree with, as it ties to preservation of the saints as you call it. Now it would seem to me that if by no effort of man that man, once saved, cannot in any way disannul his first standing of salvation, that such grace would indeed be irresistible. If man, by a choice of his own, could reject that grace and be lost, it would disannul as what I see you stating as preservation of the saints. It would then appear at least to me in my present understanding of your position that God’s grace of necessity would be irresistible. What am I not understanding here? I cannot see why you would deny a most essential and necessitated element, as I see it, of the preservation of the saints as again I see you explaining it.

 

[Jim1999]

Quote:

BTW, not many Baptists are Reformed today, though many of the statements of faith throughout Baptist history were.

------------------------------------------------

Hogwash! In bold print. There are more calvinistic baptists to-day than 60 years ago. The majority of historic Canadian Baptists are all reformed. The Canadian Baptist schools are all reformed.

I think there are a lot of people who fail to understand Calvinism, as readily displayed on these forums. They pick and choose the doctrines that centre around man rather than the sovereignty of God. It mostly has to do with the mythical "free will" of man.

The best man can do with so-called free will is under the permissive will of God, and that is limited by His sovereignty. I much prefer my sovereign God over the puny god that is so often displayed in other theological formulations.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[BobRyan]

HP: Could you point to the verse that states that “mankind is incapable” or that man is born with a sinful nature? If mankind is truly incapable, no blame can be placed upon them. If one can not do something other than what he does under the very same set of circumstances, no morality can be predicated of any intent or subsequent action. If one is forced or coerced by the nature they are born with, and it is impossible for them to be anything other than what they are, they are not subject to any moral law.

First of all I agree with you that God can not hold mankind accountable for "breathing" if breathing is in fact merely what is required to "live". Just so our sinful depraved nature can not be held against us if we have no choice.

Our "choice" is not in the context of Adam - being born sinless in a perfect world - a paradise of sinless holy harmless perfection where we then "choose" one day - to "sin".

Our choice is in the John 1 fact that Christ "IS the light of the world that enlightens EVERY man".

Our choice is in the John 12:32 fact that Christ "Draws ALL mankind to Himself".

Our choice is in the John 16 fact that the supernatural work of God the Holy Spirit is to "Convict ALL mankind of sin and righteousness and judgment".

If God simply LEFT us in the Romans 3 state of "total depravity" then your point is well taken - we would be lost and no blame could be placed n the leopard for BEING born with spots!.

As for the total depravity of that sinful nature ...

Rom 3

The Sinful nature of all mankind –


9 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin;
10 as it is written, "" THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;
11 THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;


12 ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE.''
13 "" THEIR THROAT IS AN OPEN GRAVE, WITH THEIR TONGUES THEY KEEP DECEIVING,'' "" THE POISON OF ASPS IS UNDER THEIR LIPS'';
14 "" WHOSE MOUTH IS FULL OF CURSING AND BITTERNESS'';
15 "" THEIR FEET ARE SWIFT TO SHED BLOOD,
16 DESTRUCTION AND MISERY ARE IN THEIR PATHS,
17 AND THE PATH OF PEACE THEY HAVE NOT KNOWN.''
18 "" THERE IS NO FEAR OF GOD BEFORE THEIR EYES.''


19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God;
20 because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: Our choice is in the John 1 fact that Christ "IS the light of the world that enlightens EVERY man".

HP: Tell us about that light. Would you say that everyman has the opportunity to hear the salvation message and respond? Or is that light in a universal sense simply the light of conscience that convicts the world of sin?

Tell us about that choice? Does that choice simply involve choosing obedience as opposed to selfishness, or are you saying that everyman has the choice of salvation?

BR: Our choice is in the John 12:32 fact that Christ "Draws ALL mankind to Himself"

HP: Again, are you suggesting that all have a choice of salvation due to the drawing of God upon all men?

BR: Our choice is in the John 16 fact that the supernatural work of God the Holy Spirit is to "Convict ALL mankind of sin and righteousness and judgment".

HP: Are you suggesting that mere ‘conviction of sin and righteousness and judgment’ is synonymous with universal enlightenment and opportunity of the gospel message?

Let me ask you a direct question. Do you believe that all men are born sinners as a result of Adam’s sin? If you do, Romans 3 establishes no such thing. First, the words ‘sinful nature’ are not even found in Scripture and are no where implied. There is absolutely nothing in Romans 3 or anywhere else for that matter that would suggest that men are born sinners and by the nature they are born with are classified from birth as sinners. “All we like sheep have gone (not were born) astray.” “ From their youth up” are the words often used in Scripture to depict the beginnings and path of sin.

Romans 3 does depict a state of total depravity, but does not establish that depravity as being from birth as you have indicated you believe in by the ‘T’ in tulip.

If we can establish this point, how can you refute unconditional election, seeing that man could not possibly, as a mere dead sinner floating down the stream, have anything whatsoever to do with any conditions for salvation on man's part? If man is saved, it must of necessity be unconditional, the mere selection of God to be granted the abilities to become one of the chosen.

If you tell me that all have the abilities to become chosen, such abilities would of necessity be universal, and as such from birth, meaniug that man is not simply 'totally depraved' from birth, or floating down a stream as a dead man, for man would possess enherited abilities of contrary choice, something total depravity from birth, or original sin, denies.

What do you believe?

 

[Faith alone]

HP: Thanks for your explanation, as it makes things much clearer in a sense. One question I have is about irresistible grace, which I believe you said you disagree with, as it ties to preservation of the saints as you call it. Now it would seem to me that if by no effort of man that man, once saved, cannot in any way disannul his first standing of salvation, that such grace would indeed be irresistible. If man, by a choice of his own, could reject that grace and be lost, it would disannul as what I see you stating as preservation of the saints. It would then appear at least to me in my present understanding of your position that God’s grace of necessity would be irresistible. What am I not understanding here? I cannot see why you would deny a most essential and necessitated element, as I see it, of the preservation of the saints as again I see you explaining it.

HP,

Understand your reasoning here. But they mean that His grace is irresistable in a much more significant manner. They mean that if God draws me to Him I cannot resist coming to Him. That says that I have no free will. And the basis for salvation for Cs is not His death alone but also our perseverance in doing good works as a result of a changed life (new birth). IOW, if someone does not persevere in doing good works then they were not changed, were not re-born, ever.

Now I realize that no Calvinist would express it like that, but the basis for my salvation is simply that Christ died for my sin and I have trusted in Him. I may fall into sin again, though I have been changed, but his promise is secure since it does not depend on my perseverance in good works but in His finished work at the cross alone..

FA

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

FA: Now I realize that no Calvinist would express it like that, but the basis for my salvation is simply that Christ died for my sin and I have trusted in Him. I may fall into sin again, though I have been changed, but his promise is secure since it does not depend on my perseverance in good works but in His finished work at the cross alone.

HP: If your salvation is based upon the finished work of Christ and that alone, it is a given that it has been accomplished and no man can alter such a notion. If that is not irresistible what can be? You yourself state very clearly that your perseverance or works have nothing to do with securing the promise, therefore the promise is indeed all of God, and of necessity must come to pass. If you deny this, you deny the effectiveness of what He secured. You make the sufferings of Christ less than effective to do what its intended object is, i.e., to secure the salvation of the elect. (according to the scheme presented)

Who are we to resist God’s accomplishment?? It has absolutely nothing to do with us and everything to do with God, and God is able to see to the necessitated object of His suffering, which again is in the scheme you present, none other than the salvation of the elect. How could anyone ever develop a more irresistible notion concerning God’s grace than this? If Christ died for your sins and literally paid the penalty for them, who are we to even consider that the work done by God could be resisted and made of no effect on our behalf? What possibly could alter the plans and accomplishments of Gods necessitated design and results??

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

HP: Where art thou FA?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

I am a Calvinist but not a Baptist -- how's that for a better sequence imperative?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

HP: If your salvation is based upon the finished work of Christ and that alone, it is a given that it has been accomplished and no man can alter such a notion. If that is not irresistible what can be? You yourself state very clearly that your perseverance or works have nothing to do with securing the promise, therefore the promise is indeed all of God, and of necessity must come to pass. If you deny this, you deny the effectiveness of what He secured. You make the sufferings of Christ less than effective to do what its intended object is, i.e., to secure the salvation of the elect. (according to the scheme presented)

Who are we to resist God’s accomplishment?? It has absolutely nothing to do with us and everything to do with God, and God is able to see to the necessitated object of His suffering, which again is in the scheme you present, none other than the salvation of the elect. How could anyone ever develop a more irresistible notion concerning God’s grace than this? If Christ died for your sins and literally paid the penalty for them, who are we to even consider that the work done by God could be resisted and made of no effect on our behalf? What possibly could alter the plans and accomplishments of Gods necessitated design and results??

How beautiful are the words of divine wisdom and revelation, for I can gaurantee, no one not GIVEN to see the truth and beauty of it, ever will.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

"Chosen but free" - yea, free because chosen!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Said by Faith Alone,
"... I am able, as unregenerate, to respond to the gospel by faith BEFORE being re-born."

Never have I heard the most incomprehensible untruth stated so bluntly! Or does he say it with the tongue in the cheek?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Said by Faith Alone,
"... I am able, as unregenerate, to respond to the gospel by faith BEFORE being re-born."

GE: Never have I heard the most incomprehensible untruth stated so bluntly! Or does he say it with the tongue in the cheek?

HP: I believe you heard him correctly. He may hold to some Calvinistic principles, but he has the wisdom to deny the logical consequences of those principles when in fact he knows intuitively the truth is at antipodes with their logical conclusions. That is at least I would read him.

He might in fact be more inconsistent than you GE, for you just swallow the maelstrom of Calvinistic principles and their illogical ends without the slightest twitch. This is one of those times one can be thankful for the inconsistency of FA and exclaim, Oh those blessed inconsistencies!

 

[Faith alone]

Guys,

I just started my new job as a HS teacher, and my availabletime is much limited now. This is the first time I looked at this in a few days.

Now just so Gerhard understands my position correctly, I should add a few comments. (It has been my sad experience to be labeled as an antinomian and Arminian by Calvinists because they do not understand that it is possible to not hold to all Reformed positions and yet not be Arminian.)

I do firmly hold to election. Absolutely. However, God has chosen to give humans a free will. Is it genuine love if one does not choose? Hence I am convinced that it is very possible to have a free will and also be chosen by God in His completely sovereign will.

Now it simply makes no sense nor does it accord with scripture that God regenerates us before we believe. Why would God make an appeal to us to trust in His Son if we cannto do that until He regenerates us? If one cosndiers scripture carefully, there are so many that make ity clear that the ordo salutis is such that we choose/trust before He regenerates us.

But it is not my intention to try to demonstarte through scripture that this is true since I simply no longer have the time for that. It is my hope that people will recognize that Baptists are not in general reformed, yet to also recognize that we have much more in common than that concerning which we differ.

Acts 26:17, 18 I will rescue you from the people and from the Gentiles, to whom I now send you, to open their eyes that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a share among those who are sanctified by faith in Me.

Ephesians 1:13, 14 In Him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation--in Him when you believed--were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit. He is the down payment of our inheritance, for the redemption of the possession, to the praise of His glory.

God MUST work in the heart of an individual, or he will not respond to the gospel message. I know that from the Bible as well from personal experience. I try to keep reminding myself that "unless God does it, it ain't gonna happen!" Anyone who's ever spent some time on the streets sharing Christ knows this truth intimately.

Some say that an unsaved man is like a corpse. And there are passages in the NT that metaphorically describe him in this manner. But some say that this unsaved man is spiritually incapable of even the slightest response to the gospel... that he is incapable of faith. This means that God must give him faith by regenerating him. Thus regeneration does not result from faith, but faith results from regeneration, because he is not capable of expressing faith in his depraved state.

But IMO this turns many NT texts on their head. The NT consistently makes regeneration (eternal salvation) dependent on faith. Paul did not tell the Philippian jailor: "Be saved, and you will believe on the Lord Jesus Christ!" But he did say, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved" (Acts 16:31).

That man receives eternal life as a result of his faith cannot be denied. We are justified as a result of faith.

Of course, from our finite point of view, faith and regeneration are nearly simultaneous. But the logical sequence is clearly set forth in the NT, IMO. So Paul can speak of himself as "a pattern to those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life" (1 Tim 1:16). The word "for" translates the Greek preposition EIS, which here carries its common overtones of purpose ("with a view to") or result ("resulting in"). Either view would fit here. But the NT never states that regeneration is "for the purpose of," or "results in," faith! It's always the other way around. Such ideas are derived, by reasoning similar to what you did above, not specifically stated as such.

Consider the parable of the sower/seeds in Luke 8:5ff. That seed sown by the wayside/path represents those who hear the word, but because they do not understand it, Satan takes it away before it can germinate. It says, "Those by the wayside are the ones who hear; then the devil comes and takes away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved."

Now salvation is the gift of God - it is not exactly biblical to call "faith" the gift of God. That's not what Ephesians 2:8, 9 says. Cannot be - from the Greek, BTW.

Nuf said. Hope that makes my position a bit more clear. I had just intended to jump in, give my 2 cents, and jump out again on this, cause I don't have time to do the give-and-take thing! Hopefully someone else who agrees with me here will respond if necessary.

OK, here's the point... Man IS hostile to God. God must draw him to Himself. I concur with all of that. But that is not regeneration, as I see it. That is the absolutely necessary convicting work of the Spirit. I do believe that man is thoroughly depraved... but not so totally that he is not able, in his unsaved state, to respond to the working of the Spirit in his life. People refer to those verse in Romans 3:10ff, and if they did not have them, they would not be able to make a very strong argument. The assumption there is that no one seeks God unprompted/acted upon by the Spirit. There are tons of passages in which man is commanded to seek God, to obey the gospel, to believe in Him. God does not ask man to do what he is not able to do. Clearly the unsaved can then be enabled to seek God.

So my conclusion is that, except for the working of God in his life, a person would not respond to the gospel. He would not seek God. He would not, eventually, believe. But I refuse to call that regeneration. Because the basis for the ordo salutis which places regeneration before faith is not founded firmly in scripture, IMO, but in reasoning, wondering how man could trust in God without God's work in his life.

FA

 

[Faith alone]

OK, I found something that I posted in a different board a couple of years ago...

OK, I'll say that faith is a gift of God... in thissense: the innate ability to believe was given by God at creation, and the word of God, which is the source of our faith, is given by God. But faith itself is not given through the direct means that Calvinists say. Faith comes by hearing. (Romans 10:17)

Paul had already shared with the Church at Ephesus the fact that Ephesians 1:4 "...He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world." Yet in Romans 9:11 it says that God chose Jacob over Esau before either of them had done anything, evil or good so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand. Yes, God choose them before the foundation of the world on the basis of His will that men be saved by faith, and on His ability to foreknow their faith (Romans 8:29 - it cannot be denied that predestination is based on foreknowledge). But more than that I firmly believe that God chose each who believe in Christ. He also determined to save them by bringing them to a point in which they freely choose to trust in HisSon - given for all. So God did it, yet man chose to believe as well - both are true.

IMO the choosing of Jacob over Esau was not salvific, but related to the choice concerning the one through whom the Christ would come. Yes, this chapter has much to say about election. But the statement, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated" was made concerning the nations, not the individuals. How much does this "corporate election" carry over into "individual election?" I'm not sure. But IMO we cannot be adament about taking a passage clearly speaking in a corporate sense of election and trying to apply it in an individual sense.

Is it true that in an individual sense that God chose us without regard to any inherent good or bad in us? Yes. Definitely. Does this naturally lead to the conclusion that God chooses me first, regenerates me, and then implants in me faith to believe the gospel? No.

Hebrews 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.

I pose this simple question: Do men have the innate ability to believe that God is, and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him?

Romans 1 affirms that they do.

This passage in Hebrews 11 affirms that they do as well.

And, if we are honest with ourselves, our own observations of mankind will affirm that they do. Consequently, man does have an innate ability to trust in God. God gave the innate ability to man through the preaching of His Word - the gospel - to respond in faith. yes, God is intimately involved in producing it. But man CAN respond to the preaching of the gospel in faith. The Bible assumes man has the ability, and an unbiased examination of human ability IMO will conclude that men do indeed have the ability to trust - which is all God calls for in His Word in order to receive the gift of eternal life.

Ezekiel 11:19 is often used to teach that God first regenerates man then gives him faith to believe."And I will give them one heart, and put a new spirit within them. And I will take the heart of stone out of their flesh and give them a heart of flesh." The typical appraoch here is to cite this OT passage that teaches God does something, then assume a reformed model of just HOW God does it. The question is not, does God give a new heart - clearly He does, but HOW does He do it? Does he do it through some direct operation on the heart, or does He do it instead through the preaching of the Word? I have a text that directly teaches my view on this: "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (Romans 10) Where is the passage that teaches, "Faith comes by insertion, and this insertion comes by God?" In Romans 8:29, If election is based soley on predestination, why mention foreknowledge at all?

The scriptures do teach that faith is a choice all men have the capacity of making, and calls upon all men to make that choice. The following 3 verses should be sufficient:

John 3:16 For God loved the world in this way: He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

1 Timothy 2:3-4 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

Romans 9 is defending God's choices in relationship to Israel, and is defending His right to save a remnant from among the Gentiles. Calvinists take it out of context to teach their particular view of the doctrine of election - which in my opinion goes beyond what God's Word teaches. It's similar to how some universalists take these verses that talk about the uniform appeal of the gospel to conclude that all men will be saved. Just as they have taken God's Word beyond what was intended, so has reformed theology in this instance, IMO. My issue is not with God's choosing, but with eliminating from scripture man's part in it.


OK, let's move on to consider the depravity of man. My position is that man is depraved, yet man is not totally depraved (T in TULIP).

Man IS depraved (physically and spiritually). As a result of the fall man is corrupt both physically and spiritually. After that first sin God pronounced a physical curse on man and on creation itself, and man also became separated from fellowship with God.

Genesis 3:17-19 And He said to Adam, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, 'You shall not eat of it,' cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; it shall produce thorns and thistles for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken. For you are dust, and to dust you shall return."

OK, this curse included physical death, hardship in life, and reveals a principle of decay in nature itself. Ultimately the saved and this world will be freed from this corruption.

Romans 8:19-23 For creation eagerly waits with anticipation for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility - not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it - in the hope that the creation itself will also be set free from the bondage of corruption into the glorious freedom of God's children. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together with labor pains until now. And not only that, but we ourselves, who have the Spirit as the firstfruits - we also groan within ourselves, eagerly awaiting for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.

Another aspect of the fall, and the resulting depravity, pertains to the spiritual side of man. Before Adam sinned God warned him that if he sinned he would die the very day that he sinned.

Genesis 2:16-17 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."

So then, Adam died the day he ate of the tree. Yet clearly he did not die physically that day. Did God change His mind? No. Adam did die - he died spiritually. Death is a separation. In the case of physical death it is a separation of the spirit from the body. In the case of spiritual death it is a separation of man from God. So as a result of the fall Adam was separated from God. This was the death he died that day, and it is the death everyone who chooses to sin dies when he violates God’s laws.

Isaiah 59:1, 2 For the Lord's hand is not short that it cannot save, nor is His ear deaf so that he cannot hear. But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear.

So the effects of spiritual death are separation from God. Some hold that spiritual death renders one unable to even respond to a divine invitation to trust God without a direct operation by God on the heart - regenerating him first. This is known as Total Depravity. I believe the Bible teaches that man is depraved as I have briefly explained above, yet I do not believe that this depravity amounts to complete inability to respond to a divine invitation to trust God (to believe). Let me give a few arguments in my next post to establish this. For it is clear that this post is definitely long enough.

IMO the issue of total depravity is the key to the reformed ordo salutis (order of salvation) which places regeneration before faith - which to me just makes no logical or biblical sense.

FA

 

[Brother Bob]

If you are a Calvinist Faith; If I understood all you have written with a quick read,
Then you are my kind of Calvinist. Amen,
Election is just another way of saying "believers".