Calvinism and the God of Second Chances

[Jarthur001]

But note! It says God hardened Pharaoh's heart. How can a Calvinist claim this as proof of the Calvinist view? In the Calvinist view of Total Depravity, God wouldn't have to harden Pharaoh's heart. He would have to regenerate Pharaoh or leave him alone. No other action needed.

So Romans 9 proves that before Pharaoh's heart was hardened, it wasn't hardened. In other words, the reverse of Calvinism!

End of story.

End of our story maybe.

One thing wrong...your story is wrong.
This maybe the worse use of this passage I have seen.

God did not harden Pharaoh's heart so that he could not come to God on his own. That was already part of Pharaoh's sin nature. The Bible tells us why God would do this. God himself told us.

21The LORD said to Moses, "When you go back to Egypt see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders which I have put in your power; but I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go.

22"Then you shall say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says the LORD, "Israel is My son, My firstborn.

The reason Paul brings this up in Romans 9 is to show many ways that God is in full control.

He harden Pharaohs heart...
This is shown...for Pharaohs was King..and he thought he was in control. God said no...i controled Pharoh

He Picked the 2nd son over the 1st son.
This was shown for in most cases the 1st son got all the blessing...But God said..No..i pick who I want.

He gives mercy to some, and does not to others.
This was shown...for in mans limited thinking God is not fair..unless he has mercy on ALL men. God said..no I am in control...and I will have mercy on whom I please


God can do as He pleases...it would seem. Would you not agree?


Now...that is the end of the story


In Christ...James

 

[Jarthur001]

I forgot to post the "why"....see below.

"But I will harden Pharaoh's heart that I may multiply My signs and My wonders in the land of Egypt.

Gods name WILL be praised.

In Christ..James

 

[Jarthur001]

Originally posted by Wildfire:
Andy, You seem like a sincere and genuine guy. Please understand that I wouldn't be so adament and passionate if we were talking about an obscure passage of prophecy that we don't understand.

We're talking about the very nature of God. He has revealed to us that He is the God of mercy and love, as well as the God of judgment. He set the terms for salvation at the cross.

To accuse God of sending people to Hell because they didn't make a choice He won't let them make is blasphemy.

If I said to you, "Those with the winning lottery ticket are winners," would it be inconclusive which comes first ... winning the lottery or having the ticket?

That's how clear the Greek is in 2 Cor 5:16-17. Those in Christ are new creatures. You see, in Greek, verbs have very clear tenses. In fact, the Greek here really says "... in Christ are continuously becoming new creatures" because of the tense of the verb. So regeneration is ongoing.


When you admitted to me that we all continue to sin, you confirmed this translation. If you were fully and completely regenerated you would be the completely perfected person in Christ. That process doesn't come to completion in this life, so this confirms that regeneration is an ongoing process in believers. ("Christ is doing a work in you, which He will bring to completion.")

This is not just an academic discussion. If we believe in the God of grace, we must believe that He keeps His promises ... that the terms He established at the cross are the ones He will always follow. "For WHOSOEVER [anyone, without exclusion] believes [nothing here about any other qualifier preceding belief] ... "

"Only believe and you will be saved." Not, "If God elects you, you will believe."

Please, don't slander God by making Him the tyrant of Calvinism.

This post is so full of human logic and feelings that it changes the very nature of God. We need to get beyond our feelings and stop remaking God, and trust in the Bible.

Lets look at some of what was said above.

Was posted....
To accuse God of sending people to Hell because they didn't make a choice He won't let them make is blasphemy.

This view is wrong. This focus is on man, hell, and the fairness of God.

1st..it is Sin that sends the sinner to hell. Mankind is dammed from the moment of the fall to this day. It is his sin nature that places him there, not only his sin. In other words, Man needs not sin in order to be dammed to hell, but he needs only to be born. Man loves his sin nature and will go to hell loving it.

2nd...There was a call to all of mankind to come to Christ for salvation. Man was by Gods will given that choice. Yet man in his sin nature said no thanks. The elect are not born into this world with faith to believe. There is a time in the life of the elect that they too are unsaved. This call goes out to them as well. In ALL cases no man comes to Christ. "He came unto His own, and His own received him not"...is addressed to the Jews, but can also been seen in the elect of the gospel. ALL men, both the elect and the non elect do not seek to be saved. Election is the "unblinding" that sin nature has placed on all men by God so that salvation will come. The elect still must believe. It is thought FAITH that all are saved.

was posted...
If I said to you, "Those with the winning lottery ticket are winners," would it be inconclusive which comes first ... winning the lottery or having the ticket?

This is how man views election, but has nothing to do with election as we will see later.

was posted..

That's how clear the Greek is in 2 Cor 5:16-17. Those in Christ are new creatures. You see, in Greek, verbs have very clear tenses. In fact, the Greek here really says "... in Christ are continuously becoming new creatures" because of the tense of the verb. So regeneration is ongoing.


Regeneration is NOT ongoing. This is so far from the truth it is sad. Salvation is a one time event. Salvation is viewed and shown in many lights in the NT. This passage as you stated, talks about a growth. As NEW creatures, we are to show growth in our walk with Him. This passage is showing the state in which the elect finds himself after salvation. What puts the NEW in the creature. It is salvation. What happens to make us NEW? We are "born again"...a one time thing. We are not being born again..over and over. Heb talks about the babe that leaves the milk..and feeds on the meat. This is growth. Its not a NEW CREATURE each day...its a stronger creature as we get into the Word. We are born again one time, making us a new creature in Christ...and we are to leave the milk...and eat meat.

There is more to address..but i need to go to church. I'll be back later to finish this post.


In Christ...James

 

[Jarthur001]

PART 2

Was posted..as the MAIN point from the view of regeneration as posted above.
When you admitted to me that we all continue to sin, you confirmed this translation.

This has already been shown to be off base. Lets look at the word itself.

The English word “regeneration” is the translation of palingenesia, from palin (again) and genesis (birth). It means simply a new birth, a new beginning, a new order.

The NEW birth, means we were once born of the flesh from or mother and at salvation were were born again. (regeneration) (John 3) is only the beginning (genesis) of Salvation. This being only the start of salvation has nothing to do with our growth in Christ as was posted above.

1 John 1

8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.

9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

This passage was addressed to believers. We SIN. Both the saved and the unsaved. As seen before sin has separated us from God, where as the election makes us aware of our sin state and a new birth follows after faith comes in Christ. This can happen all at once, or in a few steps.

God made man upright in all his ways. After the fall man was dammed and knows not Gods will, nor does he care about Gods will. Sin is the only thing that controls Man. Not that all the deeds are bad deeds. Men have good deeds too, but have faith in the good in them to save and not God. These good deeds are nothing but dirty rags to God.

In the New birth we now have a desire to serve God and have God IN US, to fight this control that sin has over our flesh. We still sin when we do not walk in the Spirit buy walk after the flesh. This is called, our "Christain Walk".

This walk can NOT be part of salvation as claim above. If so, we would have works based salvation.


Was posted...
If you were fully and completely regenerated you would be the completely perfected person in Christ.

This is just not true. No one is perfect other then Christ. The new birth is much like our birth in our flesh. Babies are not born complete. They must grow into men and learn as they grow. They will make mistakes, but grow from this. To be saved is not to be perfect

Was posted...
This is not just an academic discussion. If we believe in the God of grace, we must believe that He keeps His promises ... that the terms He established at the cross are the ones He will always follow. "For WHOSOEVER [anyone, without exclusion] believes [nothing here about any other qualifier preceding belief] ... "

Indeed. And most Calvinist would agree with statement alone.

There are differences within the limits of the plan of salvation that are exhausting. Men must be either Naturalists or Supematuralists; Supematuralists either Sacerdotalists or Evangelicals; Evangelicals either Universalistic or Particularistic;

Each one of us must come to our understanding as God leads us. Some see election as part of creation. It seems to them that God sat with a 2 big boxes. In one box he places the elect and in the other box he places the dammed. To them this is done at creation as God made each man. This is the view that non-Cavinist think most Calvinst fall into. I do not hold to this view. I and most Calvinist hold to election, but the order in which we hold election is with salvation not with creation. I will be glad to share more of this view later if you wish. BTW..this too happened before the world.

But as to this one statement in your post, most Calvinist would agree with this statement on its own.

Was posted...
"Only believe and you will be saved." Not, "If God elects you, you will believe."

This is clearly not of the Bible.

it is very simple...

Who elects who?

I have many verse that I could post, but i'm sure the reader has read them before on any C/A debate.

Was posted..
Please, don't slander God by making Him the tyrant of Calvinism.

This shows no understanding of election. Election is about Gods love and mercy, not judgement. I'll be glad to address this too if you do not understand.


In Christ...James

 

[epistemaniac]

Originally posted by Wildfire:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
No. Wildfire's method and standard for debate is that we don't assume or interpret. It only means what it obviously means... from his perspective of what it means to be "obvious" of course.

Further, whosoever does not mean anyone within that context. "Who" might mean any one but whosoever is a qualified group.

A qualified group? Scott, you really need to get a better understanding of both Greek and English in these Scriptures. Whosoever is the broadest term possible. It means absolutely anyone without restriction. This is the historic, linguistic, and socio-anthropological definition of the word and comports with all other uses and references in Scripture.

You tread a very dangerous line when you invent such invalid new definitions of words for the purpose of making Scripture match your doctrine. </font>[/QUOTE]"whosoever" appearing 183 times in 163 verses in the whole Bible, 110 in 93 verses in the NT. In every case I examined , there was a group of persons that was to be distinguished from everyone in general:

Gen 4:15, the qualified group... whosoever slays Cain will face the wrath and judgment of God....

Ex 12:15 the qualified group...whosoever eats the leavened bread will be cut off

Ex 12:19 the qualified group... whosoever eats the leavened bread will be cut off

Ex 19:12 the qualified group.... whosoever steps foot on the holy mountain will be put to death

Ex 22:19 the qualified group... whosever "lieth with a beast" shall be put to death

Ex 30:33 the qualified group... whosoever puts the anointing oil on a stranger or mixes it shall be cut off from the people of God...

Ex 30:38 the qualified group... whosoever uses the perfume for the temple for themselves shall be cut off from the people of God...

Ex 31:14-15 the qualified group... whosoever works on the Sabbath shall be cut off from the people of God..

Mat 5:19 the qualified group…. Whosoever breaks Jesus’ commandments and teaches others to do likewise shall be considered least in the kingdom but whosoever shall do and teach these commandments shall be great in the kingdom….

Mat 5:21 the qualified group…. Whosoever kills will be in danger of judgment…

Mat 5:22 the qualified group…. whosoever is angry with his brother or calls his brother Raca shall be in danger of the council but whoever says “thou fool” shall be in danger of hell fire…

Mat 5:28 the qualified group… whosoever looks lustfully upon a woman is guilty of adultery….

Mat 7:24 the qualified group… whosoever obeys the sayings of Christ…

etc etc etc

the point being the "all" is often (in every case above, I did not look at every occurrence of the word) qualified to speak of a certain group of people, eg everyone who does X shall be Y

so that whosoever believes will be saved... this is not everyone without exception, it's simply everyone who believes.... this is the general usage of the word, namely saying that every single person who does, believes, or who performs some certain action pr who believes some certain belief, that activity will in some other consequence resulting from that belief or action.

That the word typically has restrictions placed upon it is shown here:
Joh 6:37 esv All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.”

Does this mean “all persons who have lived, were living at the time Jesus said this, or would ever live until the eschaton, without exception”? Of course not. So while the word itself may be “all”, how it is used in the context of the verse is what determines what is meant by the “all” . This is simple hermeneutics 101.

We see the same thing in Joh 6:39 esv And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.”
Here the word “all” means that out of all those whom the Father has given the Son, the Son shall lose none of those individuals.

Interestingly, I found no occurrence of the phrase “whosoever will”, though I often read people saying that God says “whosoever will may come”.

Blessings,
Ken

 

[whatever]

Ken,

For "whosoever will" check out Rev. 22:17 in the KJV.

"And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely."

 

[epistemaniac]

thanks for the info, not sure why my Bible program didn't catch that....

as an aside, re the real subject at hand, the use of the word "whosoever" Strongs 3739 are 1437 referred to at Mat. 5:19,
first is 3739: hos, hay, ho
Probably a primary word (or perhaps a form of the article G3588); the relative (sometimes demonstrative) pronoun, who, which, what, that: - one, (an-, the) other, some, that, what, which, who (-m, -se), etc."

Secondly 1437; ἐάν
ean
eh-an'
From G1487 and G302; a conditional particle; in case that, provided, etc.; often used in connection with other particles to denote indefiniteness or uncertainty: - before, but, except, (and) if, (if) so, (what-, whither-) soever, though, when (-soever), whether (or), to whom, [who-] so (-ever).

`nuff said?

as far as the "whosoever" in Rev 22:17 Thayers says

1) the definite article, “the” in its masculine, feminine or neuter gender
2) the demonstrative pronoun
Examples:
“this”
“that”
“these”
Part of Speech: definite article or demonstrative pronoun in all their inflections. The specific part of speech is dependent upon the context

Thus it is not saying that all, every single person without exception will come, it is an indication that "that person", whoever that happens to be.... "will" come....


in reference to the word "will" it is said
thelō / ethelō
Thayer Definition:
1) to will, have in mind, intend
1a) to be resolved or determined, to purpose
1b) to desire, to wish
1c) to love
1c1) to like to do a thing, be fond of doing
1d) to take delight in, have pleasure
Part of Speech: verb"

Thus the person that will come, the "whosoever", is limited by those who "will" to do so, those who have resolved or determined, to desire, to wish, indeed to love to do a thing will do it, in this case to drink from the fountain and to eat from the tree of life. Plainly, even in the Arminian scheme, not everyone wants to do this. Everyone that wills to... that wants to... will come to do these things. The question is, who will and why?

blessings,
Ken

 

[Andy T.]

Wildfire, I saw your post over the weekend but did have time to respond to it. Jarthur001 has responded to it well. What you are describing as regeneration being a process is really sanctification. Sanctification is a lifelong process, while regeneration is a one-time event. As Jarthur stated, nowhere does it say we are to be born again and again and again.

Since I only read English, I will have to take my English versions at their word when they say "is a new creation" not "is becoming a new creation" as you state the Greek says. I'd like to get a second opinion from another Greek scholar. If that's what the Greek really says, then why does no English translation translate it that way? They all say "is" not "is becoming". And even if the Greek does say that (and I would be sorely disappointed that every major translation missed it), then we know that it is speaking of sanctification, not regeneration, since we know from other Scriptures that regeneration is a one-time act of God.

So these verses really are inconclusive on the matter. I wouldn't use them to show regeneration precedes faith, and you certainly shouldn't use them to show the contrary.

Peace.

 

[Andy T.]

Originally posted by Wildfire:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Andy T.:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Once again, folks, here's the question. Throughout Scripture, God begs people to beieve in Him, and to repent.

This is the third or fourth time you've stated that God "begs" for people to repent all throughout Scripture. I did a search for "beg" and "plead" (NIV - because it appears that's what you use), and I didn't find one verse showing where God begs or pleads to us. I saw several verses of man begging or pleading to God, but none the other way around. </font>[/QUOTE]Are you now resorting to semantics? When someone repeats over and over again the same request ... "come to me," "turn to me," "put aside your false idols," "only believe," over and over ... that person is pleading with you to take an action. If I told you God asked a question, would you do a word search on the word "question" and then tell me that because you can't find "question," God never asked one? </font>[/QUOTE]I didn't respond to you on this one early on, but I thought about it some more. I do see your point, but I would not classify's God's commands as "begging" but as commanding. If an earthly father merely begs his children to be good, then we would call him a weak father. No good father will whine to their kids and beg them to obey. No, he will command them to obey; he demands their respect.

So I guess the problem I have with you characterizing God as "begging" is that it makes God weak and a whiner. I certainly don't picture the Prophets, John the Baptist, the Apostles and even Jesus going around all meely-mouthed politely begging people to repent. Rather, I see them commanding people to repent.

 

[epistemaniac]

James, you said

This post is so full of human logic and feelings that it changes the very nature of God. We need to get beyond our feelings and stop remaking God, and trust in the Bible.

Amen!! So much of today's humanistic man-centered theology mirrors Mark Twain's words...

in the beginning God created man, ever since that time, man has been trying to repay the favor.

blessings,
Ken

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Wildfire:
Now, which way do you want it?

The way the Bible presents it. All of us sin against God. We choose our way over his just as our corporate representative, Adam, did. We do so willfully and insistently.

First you tell me that God alone elects who goes to Heaven. Then you tell me that people go to Hell only because of the choices they make.

Two heroin addicts do drugs til both pass out. Both did so willingly but also because their wills had been completely corrupted by drug addiction.

A good man happens by and takes compassion out on one of the men- takes him home, treats his addiction, and sets him up in a new life.

The other addict continues in his addiction and eventually sets himself on fire while cooking heroin and dies.

Question: What did the good man do to cause either addicts' plight?

Answer: Nothing.

Question: What did the rescued addict do to deserve rescue?

Answer: Nothing.

Question: Did either deserve to be rescued? Weren't they getting what they "willed" to have?

Answers: No and yes.

Question: What responsibility does the good man bear for the fate of the other drug addict? Did he cause the man's destruction?

Answer: None and no.

If two drunks fall off of a bridge and you dive in to save one, that DOES NOT make you responsible for the other one.

If two sinners willfully make choices that result in condemnation, saving one DOES NOT make God guilty for the fate of the other.

This is not a non sequitur. This is what you're saying to me. If God alone decides who is regenerated and goes to Heaven, then how can you also say that people have free will in making the decision to go to Hell?

NO. Those are the words you are attempting to put in my mouth. It is NOT what I am saying to you.

There is only one way to Heaven. That's through the Son. No other way. So the only way to choose not to go to Hell is to choose the Son.

True. But men go to hell because they sin... not just because they willfully reject the gospel. Many have died and are dying without hearing the gospel. Yet they have sinned and know it.

If God elects who will make that choice, and doesn't let the others make the choice, how can you possibly tell me they have chosen anything?

I didn't say He didn't let them. You did. I said that they wouldn't unless God intervenes and changes their nature.

Their nature was not caused by God. Our representative chose it for us and we freely act upon it to sin.

Then, this merciful, gracious Calvinist God condemns to Hell those who didn't choose His Son, even though the only way they could choose is if He let them.

No. The only way they will is if He causes a change in their spiritual nature.

So God picks people to go to Hell because it pleases Him, not because they have made any choice whatsoever.

Nope. That is a straw man of your creation.

Because they're sinful? If only God can regenerate them, they don't have a choice.

Yes they do. Every sin is willful.

Because they didn't pick Christ? If only God can elect them to salvation, they don't have a choice.

Yes they do... they simply won't make the correct one because they are not "GOOD".

Nope. No non sequitur here. You're either saying that man has the choice, or your saying that God has the choice. You can't have it both ways.

Yes I can because that is precisely the way the scriptures present it.

*** You still didn't answer the question.

If the critical difference between you and the lost is that you made a good choice and they made a bad choice then aren't you saved by the merit of your good choice?

Your position necessarily comes back to the premise that Christ didn't save anyone. He simply made salvation possible. It is the "good will" choice of individual sinners that saves them.

I believe that idea is contrary to scripture.

It takes a good motive to achieve a good result... according to you, where does that good motive come from when someone gets saved?

 

[tfisher1]

Exo 4:21 And the LORD said to Moses, "When you go back to Egypt, see that you do before Pharaoh all the miracles that I have put in your power. But I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go.

Exo 7:3 But I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and though I multiply my signs and wonders in the land of Egypt,

Exo 7:4 Pharaoh will not listen to you. Then I will lay my hand on Egypt and bring my hosts, my people the children of Israel, out of the land of Egypt by great acts of judgment.

Exo 7:13 Still Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he would not listen to them, as the LORD had said.

Exo 7:22 But the magicians of Egypt did the same by their secret arts. So Pharaoh's heart remained hardened, and he would not listen to them, as the LORD had said.(ESV)

God says in the first verse (4:21) that HE will be hardening Pharoah's heart when delivering the Israelites from slavery... He says this before Moses ever confronts Pharoah. Notice then in later verses the phrase, "As the Lord had said".
He was hardened as the Lord has said. What did the Lord say "I will harden his heart" (4:21).
All of Pharoah hardening was a direct act of God!

Todd