Calvinism in a White Ford Van

The weekend of April 6-8, 2006 found the men of Grace Baptist Church of Odenton, MD on a semi-annual retreat on the banks of the Chesapeake Bay. It was a blessed time of God. We gathered for prayer, solid teaching from God's word and rich fellowship. The souls of some men were laid bare with Him who we have to do. Relationships between men deepened and hearts were provoked to action. Follow up was planned and will be executed. It was a marvelous, God-ordained time.

One the ride back I drove our large, 15 passenger Ford van. To be honest, it is kind of like driving an aircraft carrier on wheels. Riding shotgun with me was a young husband whose wife is expecting their first child. They are also missionaries who are on deputation. We are excited to be the sending church of these two precious saints. While the guys in the back of the van were carrying their own coversation, the brother riding shotgun and I entered into our own discourse. Somehow the conversation turned to the sovereignty of God. The brother whom I was talking to is undecided on the doctrines of sovereign grace (Calvinism). Of course, I have no such undecisiveness. I am 44 and this brother is just shy of half my age. The conversation lasted the entire 90 minute drive and was blessed by the Lord.

During our conversation some of the misconceptions of Calvinism were voiced. Additionally some of the truths were brought to light. Here is a bullet point summary of what was discussed:

* MISCONCEPTION: Calvinist are divisive.
* TRUTH: Some individual Calvinist's are divisive people in general. But so are some Arminians. The actual doctrines of sovereign grace are not divisive, they are biblical. God forbid that an individual take the message of God's word and use it to "divide and conquer" for his/her personal agenda. Me' genoito! May it never be!

*MISCONCEPTION: Calvinists always steer the conversation to Calvinism.
*TRUTH: Yes, sometimes this is true. Often times you find new Calvinists who are so consumed with God's sovereignty that they try to tell everyone they know in church or in their family about the doctrines of sovereign grace. The new Calvinist cannot understand why the other person does not "get it." For the new Calvinist, it is as though a light switch has been turned on. Next to their salvation it is one of the most mind-blowing experiences that will ever happen to them. They cannot help but talk about it. But lest we think that new Calvinists are the only group that radically proclaim their new belief, look to yourself first. When you first came to Christ, did not desire to tell everyone you met about the Savior?


*MISCONCEPTION: Calvinist's are more concerned about getting you to agree with them then they do about God's love, mercy and preaching the gospel.
*TRUTH: The TRUE Calvinist would be grieved over such an accusation. God forbid that he/she would be characterized as uncaring, unloving and nonevangelistic. First off, God is the one who calls the elect. He is the only one who knows who the elect are. We don't. Scripture says:

1 Corinthians 1:21 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. It is the message that is used by God to save. What is the message? The gospel. What should the attitude of the Calvinist be to the gospel? Preach it! God is the one who saves. He knows th e elect. The Calvinist can never place himself in the place of God. We do not know the end from the beginning. Only God knows that. But still we are called to preach the message because it is the means by which God will call the elect.

God's love and mercy are similar. We are to display genuine love and mercy, first to the household of faith.

John 13:34-35 34 "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. 35 "By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another." Galatians 6:10 10 So then, while we have opportunity, let us do good to all men, and especially to those who are of the household of the faith. But beyond loving the church we are to display love and compassion to the world...especially to our enemies.

Matthew 5:40-48 40 "And if anyone wants to sue you, and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. 41 "And whoever shall force you to go one mile, go with him two. 42 "Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you. 43 "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor, and hate your enemy.' 44 "But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you 45 in order that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 "For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax-gatherers do the same? 47 "And if you greet your brothers only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48 "Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. MISCONCEPTION: Calvinist's elevate "sola scriptura" into iconic worship (worship of the bible itself).
TTRUTH: Sola scriptura is the Reformation belief that the scriptures are wholly authoritative on all matters of faith in practive. It does NOT mean that all truth is contained within the pages of scriptue. It DOES mean that all spiritual truth is contained in the pages of scripture. When it comes to a spiritual issue, scripture has the final say. This is why we must study the scriptures diligently to know sound doctrine.

2 Timothy 2:15 15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, handling accurately the word of truth. By the time the van pulled into the church parking lot it was time to bring our conversation to an end. I got in my car and praised God for such and edifying discussion with a dear brother in Christ. Some misconceptions were dispelled.

 

Good job as dispelling those false assertions that people make about Calvinists. There certainly are false assertions and misconceptions about Calvinism. What I have found is that most of these misconceptions are based on hearsay. It is the bandwagon approach. It is easy to go with the crowd and attack Calvinism. Calvinism appeals to the quest for truth. Arminiansim appeals to human logic and the perception of fair-play and equity. It is based on human reasoning and not biblical reasoning. Now that sounds like a prideful statement, doesn't it? "It is based on human reasoning and not biblical reasoning." I suppose some would take this comment and label it as imflamatory. But just look at the facts. Allow me to parallel the Arminian belief that man is not completely fallen (total depravity)with scripture.

Arminianism vs. Scripture

ARMINIANISM: Man is not completely fallen. He is able to understand the gospel and can accept or reject it by free will.
SCRIPTURE:

Genesis 6:5 5 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Isaiah 55:8 8 "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Neither are your ways My ways," declares the LORD.

Ezekiel 18:29 29 "But the house of Israel says, 'The way of the Lord is not right.' Are My ways not right, O house of Israel? Is it not your ways that are not right?

Isaiah 64:6-7 6 For all of us have become like one who is unclean, And all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment; And all of us wither like a leaf, And our iniquities, like the wind, take us away. 7 And there is no one who calls on Thy name, Who arouses himself to take hold of Thee; For Thou hast hidden Thy face from us, And hast delivered us into the power of our iniquities.

Romans 3:10-18 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 have they not known." 18 "There is no fear of God before their eyes."

1 Corinthians 2:14 14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

1 Corinthians 15:22 22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive.

Ephesians 2:1 And you were dead in your trespasses and sins,

If you are Arminian, please do not be offended by this. Debate your position from scripture. Study to see what scripture actually teaches. If you believe it is Arminianism, then make a well-studied argument. We will still disagree, but at least I will respect your diligence. But if you are the type of Arminian who just throws accusations on the wall with the hope that some of them will stick...well...your problems are greater than believing in Arminianim.

 

Good job Bill.

You have been here for just a short while and already you are setting out to disprove the first three of your so-called "misconceptions".

And they sure aren't misconceptions on this board...you included it seems.

And I can attest that I left a Spirit filled Baptist church the Calvinists took over and it is now spiritually deader than a proverbial door nail.

The first thing that they commanded was that no one in the church, teacher or pastor, was ever to ask some one if they would like to receive Christ. The church is now a mere shell of it's former soul-winning self.

I do agree with you though that some Calvinist churches are still involved with soul winning. Like D.James Kennedy's church. Jack, I can't argue with your experience. All of us can provide examples of the good, bad and the ugly. It is a tragedy that your former church is now dead. How sad that is. Not knowing the situation, all I can do is accept what you have say on it.

I do have a problem with the attitude that the "Calvinists took over", just as I would have a problem with the statement that the "Arminians took over." When that is said the only thing we have done is set up an "us vs. them" mentality. It polarizes and does not continue dialouge. It also is stereotyplical. You made a statement (and I quote): "I do agree with you though that some Calvinist churches are still involved with soul winning." Some? How many is some? Two? Three? Twelve? What this shows is your predisposition against Calvinism and your belief that the majority of Calvinistic churches are against "soul winning." Jack, that is what you believe based on whatever criteria you have used to support your belief. I do not seek to embarrass you, but are your privy to statistics that can support "some?" I certainly do not have access to firm statistics on what Arminian sterotypes are held to by Calvinists. Truth be told, I wouldn't want them. I am more concerned with theological content. Substance. Meat.

I know of many Calvinist churches that have a passion for faithfully proclaiming the gospel. Jack, the majority of Baptistic churches prior to the late 19th century were Calvinistic. This is not an arguable point. It is fact. The Puritans were Calvinistic, yet the gospel was preached with fervency and many revivals took place during their time. My point? To dispell stereotypes. Are there hyper-Calvinists who have steeped into heresy and deny preaching the gospel? Certainly. Are there hyper-Arminians who advocate one can lose their salvation and open theism? Yes. Are they the norm? Thankfully, no. But if we listen to the rhetoric we may conclude the answer is yes.

I would happy to debate and discuss with you Jack. But I would like to do so from a biblical perspective.

 

Like for instance I just finished reading Brother Bill's post on calvinism in a white ford van. Tries to reprove all the misconceptions of calvinism and then goes into nothing but mis understanding of non calvinist! The above quote is by "Tim Toolman" from the thread, "Confessions of a non-Calvinist."

Tim, did you actually read my posts word-for-word? You seem content with moving beyond the debate but you don't get to do that after tossing down the gauntlet and then running away from the thread. Uh, uh. Doesn't work like that.

In my first post of "Calvinism in a White Ford Van" I did lay out the misconceptions of Calvinism based on the discussion I had with the young missionary who was in the vans passenger seat. This was a captive discussion between two men that I felt lead to share in the B.B. Later, in response to a reply, I paralleled the the difference between the Arminian position on the fall of man and the Calvinist position. You tell me where I mispresented the Arminian position (which I held to from 1979 - 1998). Arminians typically do not believe man is completely fallen. In fact, their theological system cannot allow that belief. Why? Because they believe man is able to understand the gospel and uses his free will to respond to it. In the 18th and 19th centuries this was often called the "divine spark." For the life of me I don't know why an Arminian would be ashamed of this pillar of their belief system. They should be able to defend it, not deny it.

 

Tim,

Before I respond to your post I want you to sit down and make yourself comfortable. Grab an iced tea and kick your feet up? Macaroon? Cookie? Angel-Food cake? Comfy? Cozy? Good.

Here is how I operate when in debate mode. All comments are fair game. I try to keep my response germane to the topic being discussed. I expect you to challenge me on what I say. If I cannot back up what claim to be fact without citing an authoritative source, by all means challenge me. If I am offering opinion I will make all effort to state that in my argument. I believe in being intellectually honest in any debate.

Does this sound fair to you? Yes? Good. Let's continue.

Okay, I'll go one more round with you if you want Bill be let me tell you I have been here on this board for months now debating the teachings of John Calvin. Tim, I'm not sure why you are telling me this. Whether you have argued against the teachings of John Calvin for months or for decades makes little difference to me. Perhaps you believe I am not well versed in the debate? Maybe you think I have no idea what I am talking about and you are placing me on notice that you do? I can only guess.

Let me give you my opinion of the term, "Calvinist." I only accept the label because it is a state-of-the-art term. I do not follow John Calvin. Those who are like-minded with me theologically also do not follow John Calvin. I am not a "mathetes tou John Calvin." I am not ashamed of John Calvin. He was a godly man who was able to articulate many of the doctrines of sovereign grace. I am grateful the Lord used him in that capacity.

Calvinists have had the term thrust upon them, much like the New Testament church had the term "Christian" given to them at Antioch. In some circles to be called a Calvinist is tantamount to profanity. In others it is a high compliment. For my part I accept the term to the degree that John Calvin's teachings accurately reflect my view of sovereign grace.

YOu challenge someone to give their biblical veiw as if it can't be done. Either you are new to the debate, which I guess I will have to give you the benefit of the doubt or...you are just too stupid or blind to really be in a conversation with another who is not a calvinist! To quote the famous theologian Forest Gump, "Stupid is as stupid does." I am going to try and play nice Tim. If you want to insinuate that I am stupid or blind (or whatever else you care to throw my way)then have at it. I will not respond in kind. I never know when some one may have soiled another persons Wheaties.

As a norm I have not dialogued with many Arminians who are able to put together a cogent biblical case to support their theology. I just haven't seen it. I suppose it is possible but most of what I see fails miserably in the arena of debate. It usually degenerates into sarcasm or name calling. Then...at the end...one or both sides normally run off in a huff claiming victory. Let me ask this question: is the object of the debate victory or are we seeking to glorify God by investigating the claims made by others against the truth of His word?

There is so much on these threads that show both sides. And too claim either side does not have bibilcal support is just foolish pride. I admitt that I have not gone back and researched months worth of B.B. archives. I have restricted my research to active threads on the Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate and I stand by my comments. IMHO what passes for Arminian scriptural support is sorely lacking. The scholarship is suspect. There is a propensity to cite verses, seemingly out of thin air, that have nothing at all to do with the context of the passage.

It is you thinking that you have solved the problems of calvinism where over hundreds and thousands of years. I am not sure what you mean by this statement. I'm having a hard time understanding your grammar. Are you suggesting that I believe I have solved all the problems of Calvinism? I am not sure what those problems are since you did not illucidate them. But just in case I did read your statement correctly, let me put you at ease. I have definite opinions on those issues that I have studied and prayed about and found myself having reached a conclusion. The doctrines of sovereign grace (Calvinism) in the arena of soteriology is one of them. Could I be wrong? Absolutely. Do I believe it is probable or likely? No. Do I try to pass myself off as a know-it-all? I try not to. If I make a dogmatic statement understand that is because I am completely convinced on the issue based on the teachings of God's word.

And all of the great minds have argue it over and over through time. And YOU my friend may believe that the majority of evedence of scripture supports your veiw. I may even agree. But I tell you that the arguement on both sides makes for problems that show neither have it right. Except you brother, you are the divine one. You have the final answer. Again, I am going to play nice so I am not going to respond to your sarcasm. Yes, for nearly 2000 years minds (both great and small) have debated this issue we are discussing. From Pelagius to Augustine. Arminius to Calvin. Luther to Erasmus. Ryrie to Sproul. Then there are "average" Joe's like you and I. But just because theologians have debated the issue for centuries does not mean we must agree to disagree. Do Calvinists have all the right answers? Of course not. Do Arminians? No. Should both sides seek to study their positions in light of scripture to prove whether they are rightly dividing the Word in this matter? We should hope so. But it is an unfair accusation to take a confident assertion by your opponent and turn it into an accusation of being divine and knowing everything there is to know on a topic.

Now to deal with the very weak or non exisitant arguement you put up for calvinism. Is where you really want to go? Do want to start a debate with an ad hominim attack? I suppose you do want to start this way since you did type it.

Gen 6:5 Says that God say that He saw that the wickedness of was great on the earth. NOw was it always so. Why did not God destroy adam and eve from the beginning. Look, Adam and eve gain a concious from sinning. The Lord God says that they now knew good and evil,Gen 3:22 They have become like US! So things got worse in the days of Adam and Eve and NOah. It CAME to a pt where man's thoughts were continuely evil. I think it is coming to that again. So here is the thought at least that there where times that man's thoughts were not continuely evil. In other words it is not a state that all mankind is in from birth but is headed that way. Now what is spiritual death, which I think answers what depravity is. And it clearly shows it is not the def. that calvinist use which is total inability! On the day that Adam and Eve sinned what happened? First lets look at what God said would happen! Gen 2:17....in the DAY that you eat from it you shall surely die! When we read the account what happened? Did Adam and Eve die a physhical death?! I don't think so. They were cast out of the garden of edan, seperated from God. THAT IS SPIRITUAL DEATH. Otherwise God is a liar and satan is correct when he said they would surely not die. Now you have Adam and EVe in their sinful deprave state talking to God and God to them. Hmmmm. And understanding each other. Replying. When Adam and Eve were thrown out of the garden did they retain their knowledge of God and who He was?! Now get this straight the arrangement for the sacrafices of bullocks and rams had not been set up yet. So they were still in their depraved state. Now the Bible tells us that they maintianed God in their conscious and that men surpress the truth. So if they can surpress it they have it! Your verses of Gen 6:5 actually show the opposite of calvanism. It shows that people are not as bad as they can be. That they did not in fact have evil thoughts all the time.
Tim, I am going to try to understand this paragraph. You seem to go all over the place but I am going to do my best to capture what you are saying.

Here is Genesis 6:5 quote for the sake of discussion:

Genesis 6:5 5 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

In reponse to acknowledging this passage you stated, "NOw was it always so." I think you meant to type that it, "it was not always so." I agree. When Adam and Eve were created they did not possess a sin nature. Morally they were a clean slate. But they were not non posse non pecare (not able to sin). They were able to sin. As a result of Adam's sin (not Eve's), mankind was plunged into a perpetual bent towards sin. The very nature of man changed. 1 Corinthians 15:22 22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive. In Adam all die. Adam became the fair representative of the human race. There was no human being who ever existed (outside of Christ) who was created/born without sin except for Adam. Therefore Adam was in the rightful position to act on our behalf. When he sinned he placed the human race at perpetual emnity with God.

Did Adam die spiritually? Yes. How do we know this? Romans 6:23 23 For the wages of sin is death...and Ezekiel 18:4 4 "Behold, all souls are Mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is Mine. The soul who sins will die. But what did God do in order to cover the sins of Adam and restore Him? Let's continue looking at Genesis:

Genesis 3:17 17 Then to Adam He said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat from it'; Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you shall eat of it All the days of your life.

The first thing we notice is that God did not say, "Cursed are you." God did not cure Adam himself.

Genesis 3:21-23 21 And the LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them. 22 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever "-- 23 therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken.

The Lord had to kill animals in order to make garments of skin for Adam and his wife. This is an act of God's provision (the skins for clothing) and an act of forgivness (a blood sacrifice). The knowledge of sacrifice was unknown to Adam and Eve at the time. God initiated the concept. OPINION: I believe (from the text) that God forgave Adam and Eve for their sin. The horrible results of sin continue to this day, but I believe Adam and Eve were forgiven. In other words they were saved. They became believers in Yahweh. They also knew the prophecy proclaimed by Yahweh Himself when He said, Genesis 3:15 15 And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel." They knew that God had promised a redeemer who would ultimately defeat the serpent.

An interesting note: who sought the garments, sacrifice and forgiveness? Not Adam. Not Eve. It was brought into being by God after the counsel of His will. We see the sovereign act of God in displaying mercy to Adam and Eve.

End result of Genesis 3, it does not disprove total depravity. And while we are at it, why don't we seek a definition in terms. How do Reformers define total depravity? Does total depravity mean that man is always as bad as he can be? Does total depravity mean that every person is a homicidal nutcase? The answer to both questions is no. Total depravity means that the character and intent of mans heart is inherently fallen. Mankind is under the dominion of Satan: Ephesians 2:2 2 in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience.

Roms 3:10-18 yes I believe all men are sinners. I believe sin has infiltrated all of man. Does that mean scripturally that man is evil all the time and continuely does evil all the time. The Bible shows differently. So I do not believe this passage proves total inability. Unfortunately scripture disagrees with your position. Romans 3:10-18 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 have they not known." 18 "There is no fear of God before their eyes." Tim, Paul is using definite article language. There is NONE righteous. NONE. Look at the discriptors Paul uses about the unrighteous man. I don't know how they can be misunderstood.

Now about total inability. I am taking a stab here at what you mean by the term. Do you mean that total inability teaches man is not able to do anything that pleases God or is incapable of understanding God while in his sinful state? If that is what you mean then I would agree with total inability. Even though you attempted to refute 1 Corinthians 2:14, I am not in agreement with your response. You stated:

Cor 2:14 I have no problem here that the natural man cannot understand the spiritual things of the family of God. So for me to try and explain justification, Holy Spirit, and deeper things of the word would be fruitless. However I believe God has made it possible for man to know how to enter into that family and THEN understand that spiritual things of God and the christian family. How do I know this. I could post thousands of verses that God says for man to call, choose, believe, repent, turn, seek and know that God is not toying with mankind. God has given us the HS also that guides us to all truth. So this verse I have no problem with either. You start off stating that the natural man cannot understand the spiritual things of the family of God. Actually the passage does not state the family of God, it indicates the Spirit of God. The natural man is unable to understand the things of the Spirit of God. I will chalk up "family" to a typo. But then you go on to state:

So for me to try and explain justification, Holy Spirit, and deeper things of the word would be fruitless. Fruitless? You mean the meat of the argument is fruitless? Tim! How in the world can you ignore the central part of your position? You took umbrage with me when I accused Arminians of not debating from the text and making a convincing biblical defense for what they believe. Can't you see that is actually the stereotype you are falling into when you choose not to include the meat of your argument? I am not using sarcasm here. I am genuinely perplexed by your omission.

Eph. 2:1 dead in sins and tresspasses. What does this mean? Is this another verse that says man is dead in the sense he cannot respond? Or does it mean he is seperated from fellowship with the creator who made him? Let me put it too you this way. If man cannot respond to God because he is dead in "sins and tresspasses", unable to respond then when we are saved and it says later in Romans that we are now dead to sin then we should be UNABLE TO SIN. UNABLE TO RESPOND. So lets keep the def. the same. It is the same word from what I understand. Ephesians 2:1-7 And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, 2 in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. 3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. 4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places, in Christ Jesus, 7 in order that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.

Tim, the word for dead in this passage is "nekros." It means to be dead as a corpse. It would be used to describe a dead body in a casket. There is no mixed meaning to the word. It is not hidden. It is straight-forward. Paul is saying that the unsaved person is spritually dead. In other words they are dead to things of God. We know previously from 1 Corinthians 2:14 that the natural man cannot even understand the things of the spirit of God. You then cite a passage from Romans without quoting it. Let me take the opportunity to quote the passage: Romans 6:1-2 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace might increase? 2 May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? You're trying to carry on a point from multiple angles. Let's see if we can get these ducks to fly in formation.

First off, back to Ephesians 2. The person who is dead in their trespasses and sin is still a spritual creature. He or she is under the dominion of Satan. In a sick sense, they are alive to sin. It is sort of a living death. But as to the things of God, they are a lifetime apart. If left to their own devices, they would continue in sin serving the "prince of the power of the air." But Paul introduces us to the wonderful mercy of God. Paul writes, Ephesians 2:4-7 4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places, in Christ Jesus, 7 in order that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. Wow! Even while we were dead in our trespasses, God made us alive together with Christ! Who made us alive? God! God acted sovereignly after the counself of His own will. Nowhere do we read about the volitional will of man in the process. It is all of God.

Now, as far as Romans 6:1-2, Paul introduces a fair question. How can we continue to live in sin if we are under grace? The answer is that we can't. We can't LIVE in sin. Paul is not saying that cannot sin. That is a reading into the passage what is not there. Paul is simply saying that if we name the name of Christ we cannot contine to sin willingly. A believer in Jesus Christ would never suggest that. But lest we think that Paul is the only one who introduces that teaching, let's look at 1 John.

1 John 1:5-10 5 And this is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. 6 If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth; 7 but if we walk in the light as He Himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin. 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. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.

John is telling us that there is no darkness in God. John also tells us that believers cannot walk in darkness. We walk in light. Is John saying that believers cannot sin? No. In fact he tells us that we have sinned (verse 8) and that if we confess our sins we are forgiven (verse 9). The point of this passage is that believers cannot walk in darkness. Walking in darkness is only possible for unbelievers because they are under the dominion of darkness (Satan). Believers are under the dominion of Light (God). So it is not a wild extrapolation to say that believers are dead to dominion of sin and darkness although we still sin. It is a finer point of theology, but one that needs to be made.

And lastly why do you throw out your questions to arminians only. What about the rest of us who do not follow the teachings of calvin but are not arminian. Tim, I can appreciate the fact that labels are bothersome, especially when we are given a label that we disagree with. But from a classic theological point of view, if a person believes that they can excercise their free will independent from the complete sovereignty of God, they are Arminian in at least part of their theolgy. I don't enjoy being called a Calvinist but it is thrust upon me. So instead of fighting it I have chosen to accept it as self-defining. In other words I have learned to love it!

NOw for the disclaimer.....if you follow the teachings of a man called calvin do not be offended. State you case with scripture. NON calvinism is the biblical teachings that is so clear in scripture that most can see it! However there are a minority that claim otherwise. (by the way this is sarcasm)
Is this the way too learn or just to tell others you have arrived? Hopefully I have supported my views biblically. Of course you will disagree and I fine with that. I am interested in hearing back from you.

 

Gina, as thick-skinned as a I am I am not immune to the emotional feelings after being attacked. But as time as gone by I start to realize that dripping sarcasm and name calling are indicative of person who can no longer carry the argument. I'm not talking about a good natured "zinger." We all get and deliver them from time to time. But when someone gets to near-personal in their attacks, take a moment to pray for them. They could be hurting, angry and dealing with serious issues.

Semper Reformanda!

Bill

 

Calvinism appeals to the quest for truth. Arminiansim appeals to human logic and the perception of fair-play and equity. It is based on human reasoning and not biblical reasoning. Now that sounds like a prideful statement, doesn't it? "It is based on human reasoning and not biblical reasoning." I suppose some would take this comment and label it as imflamatory. But just look at the facts. Allow me to parallel the Arminian belief that man is not completely fallen (total depravity)with scripture. Tim, I don't back down, retract or retreat from anything I said. I just don't say it with malice. The typical Arminian reponse is usually (and I'll be generous here) light on substance and heavy on opinion. You took it personal because you must have thought I was indicting you personally. I'll reserve that judgment based on the substance of your replies.

But just as you said that you have been refuting Calvinism for the past two months, I have equally been debating against the the free will position (in various genres) for years. The only thing that means is that I am acquainted with the free will position. Having held it for nearly 20 years I would hope I am well versed.

Yes Bill it is all that I said in my last post. I am not backing down from it. You used the same tactics that I just did and now you are crying I am being unkind. Oh really? When did I suggest that you may be stupid or blind? All I did was sharply question the substance of the Arminian debate. You took it personal. Time will tell if my criticism applies to you. I hope it doesn't.

Notice the absence of the attacks on others that they are either not spiritual or as smart as you? So now you are saying that I am smarter than others? Forgive me if I can put together a string of sentences and pen an intelligible argument. I am not trying to compare my intellect with others. Why in the world do you even need to go there?

 

So then according to Bill, Calvinists are just searching for the truth while Arminians are just carnal dolts that appeal to the baser feel good "human reasoning" and not "biblical reasoning" like his better educated and better grounded Calvinist compadres. How gracious of you Bill.

And then this total insult:

Need I even go into his argument? Hense my rebuttal in my opening post.

And just for the record Bill, I am not an Arminian. In fact if I had to choose between one or the other if Jesus Himself was to appear to me and say that one or the other was true in all their five points, I would choose Calvinism based on my dogmatic believe in the eternal security of the saints. </font>[/QUOTE]I'm only going to deal with one part of your post since I find the rest of it to be ridiculous.

Your comment about my post comapring "Arminianism vs. Scripture." You found that insulting? Why? I wouldn't have found it insulting if someone posted, "Calvinism vs. Scripture." My goodness man, isn't that what we want to do....contrast our theology against the truth of God's word to make sure it stands up? You rush to judgment and take it as some type of callous remark. I saw it as nothing more than a comparative analysis.