Man Saved Out of Calvinism Gives Testimony at SBC

[Yeshua1]

One of the issues at work here (and in the discussions referenced by both parties) is the confusion of systematic theology and biblical theology. We all have a "systematic theology" where we make logical inferences from the biblical text. A biblical theology is, on the other hand, the complete story-line of scripture from Genesis to Revelation. Not all of our systematics are good; but, then again, not all of us have a good biblical theology either. And, if your biblical theology isn't good, your systematic theology will be quite bad.

The endeavor of "theology" has to start with biblical theology, progress to systematic theology, and result in proper application to one's life. If any one of those steps is skipped or is, in some way, defective, the whole process turns into what we generally see on this message board.

I've had friends who essentially argue logical conclusions based on their systematic theology. The problem is that you can logically leap past biblical theology because you are now two steps removed from it. In this case, you have constructed a theology based on people's theology rather than a biblical theology. The biblical text is, of course, our home base. Logical inferences from the text and storyline of scripture are unavoidable. Dogmatic and inviolable conclusions made from a systematic theology (rather than a biblical theology) are to be avoided because systematic theologies are not infallible.

In my experience, many Calvinists revere systematic theology more than the biblical theology. In doing so, they construct a new type of theology that is, again, too far removed from the Bible itself to be trusted.

We know--according to biblical theology--that God is absolutely sovereign and man is free and responsible for his actions. We also know that man is never presented as having a so-called "libertarian" free will as he is bound to the laws of the Creator and His universe. In creation, God did not make equals; He made creatures. Nevertheless, man's actions in scripture are presented as being free (Joseph's brothers sell him into slavery of their own free will and decision making process). Yet, God is presented as absolutely sovereign--even over the free and sinful actions of man (Joseph's brothers freely do what God has ordained they do, yet He doesn't cause their "evil"). So, there is a tension between the sovereignty of God and the will of man, but biblical theology provides a welcome corrective to both sides: God doesn't cause the brothers to sin against Joseph nor does He "turn" their actions for good.

The Archangel

very good points you have made here, as when i came over to calvinistic theology, indeed run into the situation at times where some seem to regard the System theologies and the Confessions to be on par with scriptures.
Woudl be good to have one use the Zondervan Niv sb, as that one uses biblical theology as its main way to view the scriptures, and complement that with the esv SB, who uses the Systematic theology approach!

 

[TCassidy]

Joseph's brothers freely do what God has ordained they do, yet He doesn't cause their "evil."

And this, I suspect, is the problem. Too many people equate "ordained" to "decreed." God "ordained" - in this case "allowed to happen" but was not the cause of their evil choice.

God doesn't cause the brothers to sin against Joseph nor does He "turn" their actions for good.

Exactly. The fact that God could use the consequences of the brother's evil act for good does not negate the fact the act was evil. Nor does it excuse the brother's from the consequences of their sinful choices.

 

[Yeshua1]

And this, I suspect, is the problem. Too many people equate "ordained" to "decreed." God "ordained" - in this case "allowed to happen" but was not the cause of their evil choice.

Exactly. The fact that God could use the consequences of the brother's evil act for good does not negate the fact the act was evil. Nor does it excuse the brother's from the consequences of their sinful choices.

Best example would be the Cross, as the Father had determined that Jesus would die for sinners, and yet those evil men were responsible for their wicked deeds done to Him.

 

[Bill Martinson]

Actually I didn't. But nice try. What I said was that those who say people don't make decisions on a regular basis have spoken folly. It is the statement that is folly, not the person making it.

You wrote, and I quote, "To suggest ... that anyone is saying otherwise, is pure folly." My post absolutely stated that people have said otherwise, because that is what has happened.

If you didn't mean what you wrote, then just say so. But that is what you wrote.

 

[TCassidy]

One of the issues at work here (and in the discussions referenced by both parties) is the confusion of systematic theology and biblical theology.

This is one of the reasons I like Emery Bancroft's approach to doctrine/theology. He starts with Elemental Theology which is a survey of Bible Doctrine. He then expounds on the above in Christian Theology, Systematic and Biblical. His approach starts with bible doctrine upon which he builds a Biblical Theology, which becomes the basis of his Systematic Theology.

Unfortunately I did not discover Bancroft's books until after I was out of Seminary (where we used Augustus Strong's Systematic Theology). But after studying Bancroft's books I made them the textbooks we used when I taught Theology. He did not go to the depths that Strong did, but he relied more on the bible than on the philosophical system.

 

[TCassidy]

If you didn't mean what you wrote, then just say so. But that is what you wrote.

I said exactly what I meant to say. What part of "saying otherwise, is pure folly" are you having a problem understanding? The saying is folly. I never said the word "fool" and I never said nor implied that anyone was a fool.

I can't help but think this is just more deflection on your part. You don't want to actually discuss the facts of the issue so you hurl baseless accusations at me. Such is the analogue to the debate tactic of responding to a well thought out argument with "Your mother wears combat boots!"

 

[Benjamin]

You wrote, and I quote, "To suggest ... that anyone is saying otherwise, is pure folly." My post absolutely stated that people have said otherwise, because that is what has happened.

Of course they say otherwise, they commonly deny and/or attempt to redefine free will either directly or in a roundabout way as to reach their Determinist conclusions, so to try to write it off as a mere suggestion and call it folly to raise that issue is a weak argument indeed, among other things.

All 5 points of the TULIP must necessarily logically hinge to strict determinism to even begin to hold water. Some will use semantic ambiguity tactics such as to rename Calvinism to things like Particular Redemption and try to preserve “free will” with failing philosophical theories of Compatibilism between logically mutually exclusive actions of Determinism and Human Volition in order to hold to what is typically known as Calvinism and to avoid theological fatalism, but it's all pretty much the same. I mean, you can't really blame them for trying to avoid being associated with the systematic determinism of "Calvinism".

If you didn't mean what you wrote, then just say so. But that is what you wrote.

I hear ya, but don’t hold your breath for a correction. "Reverse Ad Hominem" tactics are as rampant as the veiled "Ad Hominem" attacks here in these aggressive debates but just to let you know I can appreciate your goal as a Christian to stick to issues and avoid the personal harsh rhetoric and the frustration with it.

 

[Bill Martinson]

I'm discussing what words mean. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are not aware that fool and folly derive from the same root; thus perhaps when you accuse a man of folly and/or foolishness, you may not believe you are labeling him a fool. I will also assume you intended different implications than your sentence structure implied, and leave it at that.

Back on topic (or at least one of the topics), would I be correct in understanding that a consensus of some kind might exist along these lines?

1. A biblical theology would include statements such as God is eternal and sovereign; Christ is Lord, He is begotten but not created, and He eternally coexists with God; all mankind is sinful (save Jesus who was fully human but never sinned); there is no other way to come to the Father except through the Messiah; and so on.
   
   
2. Various systematic theologies would include various statements such as the rapture is pre- vs. mid- vs. post-tribulaton; the second coming occurred in 70 AD vs. is yet to occur; man has agency but not free will; salvation can be lost; Jesus entered hell following his death; torment in hell is eternal for humans vs. results in annihilation; and so on. (Not all in the same systematic theology, of course.) Note that these are merely examples, not proposed debate topics.
   
   
3. A person who claims that God was created, or that there are ways to be saved/enter heaven that do not involve Christ, or that some humans have not sinned, can thus be said to be unbiblical, unscriptural, and perhaps even non-Christian in the sense that they deny core doctrines that most of us would agree are unambiguously taught in scripture and are prerequisites to a valid Christian faith.
   
   
4. A person who claims that a saved individual can/cannot lose their salvation, or that mankind does/does not have free will, or that a particular mode of baptism is required/prohibited/meaningful/meaningless, can thus be said to be incorrect from the perspective of a particular systematic theology, but cannot be said to be unbiblical or unscriptural.

Am I using terminology correctly and citing valid examples?

 

[Iconoclast]

"Reformed" is something that I approach with some care and caution. Sometimes it means I'm in for some productive discussion, while other times it's a harbinger of cage-stage flexing. I think I need to get better at navigating between the two. Even if I can learn to give the latter a wide berth, right now I'm not in need of any more conversations where some well-meaning man tries to earnestly convince me that neither of us has ever had an ounce of free will and every decision we've ever made in life was pre-programmed. I especially enjoy the part where they eye me with pity when I don't readily agree.

Although that is still better than the tiny little church I visited because it advertised itself as "Berean," in which the pastor's entire sermon was on... geocentrism.

Hello BM,
Maybe you could help out here?
Where in the NT...does anyone speak of this term you use, free will?
You assume it exists because men make choices, however choices can be made while the will is bound
So can you produce one NT. Verse that teaches this?

 

[TCassidy]

Of course they say otherwise,

Uh, you do know what the claim was, right?

Here, I will paste it for you. He claimed that "Calvinists" have claimed that:

"neither of us has ever had an ounce of free will and every decision we've ever made in life was pre-programmed."

Can you provide a quote from a "Calvinist" that claims that nobody every made a decision or choice that was not pre-programmed? I am sure you can back up your claims, can't you?

 

[TCassidy]

when you accuse a man of folly and/or foolishness

I will try one more time to help you understand a rather simple concept. The folly is the saying of the thing. Understand now? Not the person doing the saying. It was what was said that was folly.

I can't help to suspect you do understand the distinction but want to continue your personal attack against me to avoid having to actually discuss the issues.

 

[Benjamin]

Uh, you do know what the claim was, right?

Here, I will paste it for you. He claimed that "Calvinists" have claimed that:

"neither of us has ever had an ounce of free will and every decision we've ever made in life was pre-programmed."

Can you provide a quote from a "Calvinist" that claims that nobody every made a decision or choice that was not pre-programmed? I am sure you can back up your claims, can't you?

Really?! How many times have Calvinists used these verses while trying to inforce their positions on predestination with their desperate logical necessity of upholding a sovereign God to strict determinism of all things in a debate? Simple enough, look up a debate on these verses and take note of the determinist’ views which unfortunately go as far as to attribute the creation of evil to God.

(Isa 45:7) I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

(Pro 16:4) The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.

…or a debate over Divine sovereignty. I have witnessed Calvinists going as far as saying God has even picked out the color of their socks several times right here on this board, and elsewhere by...probably at least a dozen Determinists over time.

Can you do your own homework, I have no time for the folly of those who would deny these events.

 

[Benjamin]

Hello BM,
Maybe you could help out here?
Where in the NT...does anyone speak of this term you use, free will?
You assume it exists because men make choices, however choices can be made while the will is bound

Oh, here goes Icon’s philosophical ramblings of “free agency” , yep, “man is free to choose… BUT …according to his predetermined [bound] nature”. Goes like this:

Calvinist: “God determined all things that ever happen, He is Sovereign."

Free Will: "Did God determine the things Jeffrey Dahmer did?"

Calvinist: "No, Jeffrey Dahmer did what he did because of his nature."

Free Will: "Who determined Jeffrey Dahmer’s nature?"

Calvinist: "God did, He determines all things, He is Sovereign."


Doesn’t take into account this:

(Jas 1:13) Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

(Jas 1:14) But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

..though, does it?

Hello BM,
Maybe you could help out here?
So can you produce one NT. Verse that teaches this?

I still got a minute:

Sure it’s easier for you to avoid, but better to start at the beginning to understand free will, an attribute that has never been taken away. FYI, God did not recreate man to not have free will after the fall, but what happened is man gained knowledge of his own free will.

Free will:

(Gen 2:16) And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: (Gen 2:17) But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Consequences, still involve free will:

(Gen 3:22) And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Onward:

2Pe 3:9) The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

(1Co 10:13) There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.

(Jos 24:15) And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.

(Mar 8:34) And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

(Pro 16:9) A man's heart deviseth his way: but the LORD directeth his steps.

(Rev 3:20) Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

(Rom 13:2) Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

(Gal 5:16) This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. (Gal 5:17) For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

(Isa 55:6) Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near: (Isa 55:7) Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.

(Deu 30:19) I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live: (Deu 30:20) That thou mayest love the LORD thy God, and that thou mayest obey his voice, and that thou mayest cleave unto him: for he is thy life, and the length of thy days: that thou mayest dwell in the land which the LORD sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them.

(Eze 18:30) Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord GOD. Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin. (Eze 18:31) Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel? (Eze 18:32) For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.


And of course one of my favorites:

(Rom 10:9) If you declare with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Note: You is used 4 times in this verse. You'll be surprised by how much "you" there is in a book that supposedly says that we do nothing.

Peace

 

[Iconoclast]

Benjamin,
It is good you posted many verses...did happen to notice, none mentioned free will at all...I can wait...
Oh yeah, I forgot....there is no such verse is there?
That is why our friend Bill has gone silent...help him out Ben.
I did not ask for dozens of verses...just one or two that teaches free will...still nothing??? Or you can admit...the Bible teaches no such carnal philosophy.

 

[TCassidy]

upholding a sovereign God to strict determinism of all things

Simply untrue.

 

[Benjamin]

Benjamin,
It is good you posted many verses...did happen to notice, none mentioned free will at all...I can wait...
Oh yeah, I forgot....there is no such verse is there?
That is why our friend Bill has gone silent...help him out Ben.
I did not ask for dozens of verses...just one or two that teaches free will...still nothing??? Or you can admit...the Bible teaches no such carnal philosophy.

Simply fallacious carnal denial of clear Biblically illustrated free will.

Um...So, I’m guessing by the standards you attempt to impose that you don’t believe in Trinity??? Since by the same standards, ...Or unless you're prepared to admit you're hypocrisy, because I did happen to notice that otherwise you must continue to proudly stick to using your non-philosophical reasoning that the Bible doesn't mention it at all, ... Got it.

 

[Iconoclast]

Simply fallacious carnal denial of clear Biblically illustrated free will.

Um...So, I’m guessing by the standards you attempt to impose that you don’t believe in Trinity??? Since by the same standards, ...Or unless you're prepared to admit you're hypocrisy, because I did happen to notice that otherwise you must continue to proudly stick to using your non-philosophical reasoning that the Bible doesn't mention it at all, ... Got it.

My friend...with the trinity it says the Son is God Hebrews 1:8,the Spirit is God,Acts 5....does not use the word trinity but state's they are God.
Your verses show no such thing.
Gen 2.....a directive to untested Adam....no mention of his will.
Gen3...God prohibits access to the tree of life...no free will
2pet3:9...God is not willing that any perish...bulemoi....God has decreed, destined,and purposed that none of the elect perish.
1cor10....God provides a way of escape, to obey....
Josh24....typically redeemed people exhorted to obey the terms of the covenant....not a salvation choice, but life or death, not addressing the condition of the will....
Mk8...self denial...mortifying sin....
All good verses, but off topic!

 

[Iconoclast]

Simply fallacious carnal denial of clear Biblically illustrated free will.

Um...So, I’m guessing by the standards you attempt to impose that you don’t believe in Trinity??? Since by the same standards, ...Or unless you're prepared to admit you're hypocrisy, because I did happen to notice that otherwise you must continue to proudly stick to using your non-philosophical reasoning that the Bible doesn't mention it at all, ... Got it.

Free will....a philosophical idea ...not taught in scripture anywhere....
Closest attempt was Lucifer...I will ascend, I will be like the most high.....he was mistaken..
You ....like Satan... are mistaken here..can you see that???

 

[1689Dave]

I think if we could separate the will from reason and human nature, and from the external forces bearing upon it, we could have free will. But every choice we make is for a reason. And God who works all things after the council of his will provides the reasons we choose what we do. So the will is always enslaved to the reasons it bases its choices on, and never acts apart from them.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 11: 45 AM Pacific.