Wrong Take On Romans 12:3c

[J.D.]

It's not prejudice, I base my views on my conversations with calvinists on this board. Before I came to Baptist Board, I knew very little about calvinism. I have been trying to learn more, because I find myself in agreement with calvinists to a point. I, however, would not ever want to be associated with a man who believes in infant baptism, burning heriticks to death, and other such garbage.

I agree, "God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked". So, if I were a calvinist, I would wonder why God doesn't give everyone the ability to hear, understand, and believe the gospel.

Romans 10:21 But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.

Luke 13:34 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!

Blammo, you've described a phenomenon that I struggle to understand - the seeming inability of some to understand calvinist doctrine. For me, although my conversion to full Calvinism happened over a long span of time and in a multitude of small increments, nevertheless, for me the Calvinist system always made perfect sense. It was only my determination to find fault in it that I did not convert sooner, and the only reason I was determined to find fault in it to begin with was because I had so much time, energy, and yes, money, invested in the "arminian" system. The calvinistic system has the answers - the arminian system does not. The only question that can not be answered by any man is "why would God choose to save some but not others?" Well, now that I think about it, the calvinist system answers that also, because we understand the question to have a wrong premise. The real question that we should be asking is "Why does God save ANYONE, seeing the no one deserves the mercy of God?"

All references to God's commandments and man's refusal to obey them are proof of the first letter in the infamous TULIP. "Ye would not" is descriptive of the fallen nature of man, and therefore, of Israel also. The Lord would have gathered them, and His tears are shown to prove the reality of that. But you must understand that salvation under the law was CONDITIONED on man's obedient response. And IF man had responded obediently, HE WOULD HAVE BEEN SAVED. The fact that God knew, ye, FOREKNEW, that man would not, ye, COULD NOT, obey the law does not in any way make His offer of salvation under the law any less sincere.

Now, that God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked, is self-evident. Calvinism does not and has never painted the picture of a sadistic God, reveling in the suffering of the lost. That is a caricature painted by opponents of Calvinism. However, the punishment of the lost is a glorification of the justice of God, and it serves his righteous purposes. You have to remember that NOT ONE person will be in Hell undeservedly.

As for your issue with the man John Calvin, I wonder if you are sincere in your statements. This is nothing but a red herring - you can't possibly believe that we Baptists that are called "calvinists" associate ourselves with the MAN John Calvin or his non-soteriological theology? We do not believe in a church ruled by a Presbytery. We do not believe in magistrial powers for the church or its officers. We do not believe in a covenental relationship confered on children by baptism. Why would you make such an accusation if you are interested in a serious conversation on the matter?

Keep studying the issue. The resources available today are innumerable. You could spend years just reading the books and articles available on monergism.com alone. And that's just the tip of the ole ice burg.

 

[Blammo]

J.D., I want to thank you for, once again, offering a well thought out and sincere argument for the Doctrines of Grace.

"Why does God save ANYONE, seeing that no one deserves the mercy of God?"

I agree. This is a far better question.

All references to God's commandments and man's refusal to obey them are proof of the first letter in the infamous TULIP. "Ye would not" is descriptive of the fallen nature of man, and therefore, of Israel also. The Lord would have gathered them, and His tears are shown to prove the reality of that. But you must understand that salvation under the law was CONDITIONED on man's obedient response. And IF man had responded obediently, HE WOULD HAVE BEEN SAVED. The fact that God knew, ye, FOREKNEW, that man would not, ye, COULD NOT, obey the law does not in any way make His offer of salvation under the law any less sincere.

This may illustrate the greatest remaining resistence in me to accept all five points refered to as "TULIP". I'm not sure I can ever understand why God would be grieved or angry over people who He knows "do not possess the ability to respond to the gospel." There are verses that clearly show God as being grieved over the resistence of man to His word and the Holy Spirit. Why would that be, if God is aware of the inability of man to understand and respond?

Now, that God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked, is self-evident. Calvinism does not and has never painted the picture of a sadistic God, reveling in the suffering of the lost. That is a caricature painted by opponents of Calvinism. However, the punishment of the lost is a glorification of the justice of God, and it serves his righteous purposes. You have to remember that NOT ONE person will be in Hell undeservedly.

As for your issue with the man John Calvin, I wonder if you are sincere in your statements. This is nothing but a red herring - you can't possibly believe that we Baptists that are called "calvinists" associate ourselves with the MAN John Calvin or his non-soteriological theology? We do not believe in a church ruled by a Presbytery. We do not believe in magistrial powers for the church or its officers. We do not believe in a covenental relationship confered on children by baptism. Why would you make such an accusation if you are interested in a serious conversation on the matter?

I never said calvinists rejoice over the death of sinners on the way to hell. The point was: Why, according to calvinists, doesn't God give all men the ability to respond in a favorable way to the gospel, unless He does not care to save them?

How can one call himself a Calvinist without associating himself with all of Calvins actions and beliefs?

Keep studying the issue. The resources available today are innumerable. You could spend years just reading the books and articles available on monergism.com alone. And that's just the tip of the ole ice burg.

I will, and I want you to know, you and Npetreley have made the most compelling arguments. (As always)

 

[Blammo]

If I were a non-Calvinist, I would ask the same thing - why doesn't God save everyone? Oh, I know the cookie-cutter response is that he doesn't want to violate man's free will. What? You're telling me that God has the power to save someone, but because of some lofty ideal about not violating free will, God simply just lets that guy go to hell? Talk about unloving! Talk about lack of compassion! God says, "I could have saved you if I wanted to, but your free will is soooooooo important, that I would rather let you go to hell. See ya."

You see, the table turns both ways, unless you deny God's omnipotence...or you are an atheist.

I have never claimed that God does not "violate" man's "free-will". It is clear from scripture that God is sovereign, and can override man's will at any time. And, I would not call it a violation, I'm sure you agree. I think God says, "I have made a way for you to be saved, it is finished, all you have to do is take it. If you choose your own way, because of your pride, you will go to hell, and it's your fault."

 

[Andy T.]

I have never claimed that God does not "violate" man's "free-will". It is clear from scripture that God is sovereign, and can override man's will at any time. And, I would not call it a violation, I'm sure you agree. I think God says, "I have made a way for you to be saved, it is finished, all you have to do is take it. If you choose your own way, because of your pride, you will go to hell, and it's your fault."

Your response is basically the same thing I was trying to point out in my rhetorical post on free will. Why does God not save everyone? According to you, it is because God gives us a choice and some choose, "No." So why doesn't God save them anyway? I assume your response is that he does not want to violate their free will, or he does not want robots in heaven. Well, my retort to that is, I'd rather have robots in heaven than people in hell.

The point in all of this is to show that the age-old charge against Calvinists that their God is evil since he chooses some and not others can be turned against the non-Calvinist just as easily - their God is evil too since he could have saved everyone but chose not to, out of some lofty ideal about the integrity of man's free will, blah, blah, blah. If I were an atheist, I would say both camps have an evil god: One chooses some and not others. The other lets people choose hell, even though he could have stopped it. Makes no difference.

This all goes back to your statement here:

"I agree, "God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked". So, if I were a calvinist, I would wonder why God doesn't give everyone the ability to hear, understand, and believe the gospel."

Well, the question for the non-Calvinist is, If God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, then why does he not save everyone? I have shown above that "free will" or giving man a "choice" does not excuse God from that baseless charge.

 

[Blammo]

Your response is basically the same thing I was trying to point out in my rhetorical post on free will. Why does God not save everyone? According to you, it is because God gives us a choice and some choose, "No." So why doesn't God save them anyway? I assume your response is that he does not want to violate their free will, or he does not want robots in heaven. Well, my retort to that is, I'd rather have robots in heaven than people in hell.

I'll go with..... robots.

The point in all of this is to show that the age-old charge against Calvinists that their God is evil since he chooses some and not others can be turned against the non-Calvinist just as easily - their God is evil too since he could have saved everyone but chose not to, out of some lofty ideal about the integrity of man's free will, blah, blah, blah. If I were an atheist, I would say both camps have an evil god: One chooses some and not others. The other lets people choose hell, even though he could have stopped it. Makes no difference.

This all goes back to your statement here:

"I agree, "God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked". So, if I were a calvinist, I would wonder why God doesn't give everyone the ability to hear, understand, and believe the gospel."

Well, the question for the non-Calvinist is, If God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, then why does he not save everyone? I have shown above that "free will" or giving man a "choice" does not excuse God from that baseless charge.

I believe that all men do have the ability to respond to the gospel. Therefore, when they don't, it does not make God evil, it means the sinner has chosen to pridefully continue in his own way, and remains evil.

 

[Jarthur001]

I'll go with..... robots.



I believe that all men do have the ability to respond to the gospel. Therefore, when they don't, it does not make God evil, it means the sinner has chosen to pridefully continue in his own way, and remains evil.

Hello Blammo,

If you have the time, you may love this link.

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?sermonid=122503205557

“The Sovereignty of God” by Pink on mp3.

This link is to the 1st part of 11 parts. It is over 11 hours long. This book by Pink is one of the best books LOADED with verse after verse and hammering home the Doctrine of Grace. Pink covers every angle. He leaves no stone unturned. Every reason given by others, as they change the meaning of election to mean other things is covered and anwsered strongly. The 2nd chapter and the 4th chapter are RICH. I do not know of a book other then the Bible itself with so many verses in it.

I read the book a few years ago. My brother-in-law just gave me this link last week. I am now listening to it on my laptop. I think you will find it worth your time.


In Christ...James

 

[Blammo]

Thank you, James. I'll check it out.

Lots of good stuff on sermonaudio.com. Haven't been there in awhile.

 

[Andy T.]

"I believe that all men do have the ability to respond to the gospel. Therefore, when they don't, it does not make God evil, it means the sinner has chosen to pridefully continue in his own way, and remains evil."

That's fine. So God has passed over those who did not respond. He passed them over in favor of letting them choose their own destruction. And the same thing is true in the Calvinist system - he passes over some and lets them choose their own destruction, which they always do, because of their sinful nature.

So we are in the same boat on this one.

 

[Blammo]

"I believe that all men do have the ability to respond to the gospel. Therefore, when they don't, it does not make God evil, it means the sinner has chosen to pridefully continue in his own way, and remains evil."

That's fine. So God has passed over those who did not respond. He passed them over in favor of letting them choose their own destruction. And the same thing is true in the Calvinist system - he passes over some and lets them choose their own destruction, which they always do, because of their sinful nature.

So we are in the same boat on this one.

We are in the same boat. We may be on different sides, but it's the same boat. I am saved by grace through faith, and you are saved by grace through faith. I believe the drunk on the corner could be saved the same way, you are not so sure about that.

 

[EdSutton]

Matt: 17
15: Lord, have mercy on my son: for he is lunatick, and sore vexed: for ofttimes he falleth into the fire, and oft into the water.
16: And I brought him to thy disciples, and they could not cure him.
17: Then Jesus answered and said, O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? bring him hither to me.
18: And Jesus rebuked the devil; and he departed out of him: and the child was cured from that very hour.
19: Then came the disciples to Jesus apart, and said, Why could not we cast him out?
20: And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

We see here Jesus calling faith and belief the same.

Your last sentence is exactly what I have argued many times on many threads, here. It is absolutely Biblical to not attempt to divide this on the sole basis that one is a noun (pistis- usually rendered faith); the other a verb (pisteuO- usually rendered believe) in the Greek, and still be the exact same root word.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

wonder why they were told by Jude to contend for the faith once delivered unto the saints is they already had it.

Even if you are right about the Scripture being to the church does not have anything to do with people having enough faith to come to the Lord as the Bible so clearly states.

contend for:
75. agonizomai ag-o-nid'-zom-ahee from 73; to struggle, literally (to compete for a prize), figuratively (to contend with an adversary), or genitive case (to endeavor to accomplish something):--fight, labor fervently, strive.
1864. epagonizomai ep-ag-o-nid'-zom-ahee from 1909 and 75; to struggle for:--earnestly contend foreign

Jude 1:
1: Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:
2: Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied.
3: Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

I mean the Bible is full of people with faith before Salvation. What is your point? Do we need to start posting all the Scriptures again of people with faith that led them to Salvation which said "within themselves, if I could only touch the hem of His Garment".

Matt: 15

22: And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.
23: But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.
24: But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
25: Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
26: But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.
27: And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.
28: Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

This is what the Bible is all about!

Bob, I would argue that "the faith" is not exactly equal to "faith" or "thy faith" in this context, the former referring to revelation as in "...contend for the faith which was once for all time delivered...", and the latter one's to a matter of personal faith (i.e. believe), as in "...by grace you have been saved through faith..." (My rendering on both cited verses, which I believe to be consistent with the action and tenses).

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

*sigh*
It helps to post Scripture in context...not to support a theological point.

Heh! Heh! Heh!

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Webdog:

You're kidding, right? It isn't reasonable to presume that EVERYBODY is reasonable and has understanding. That's an irrational statement.

Romans 1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful
Romans 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
Acts 28:26 Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive: 2 Thess 3:2 And that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men: for all [men] have not faith.

2και ινα ρυσθωμεν απο των ατοπων και πονηρων ανθρωπων ου γαρ παντων η πιστις (II Thess. 3:2 - Scrivener)




2και ινα ρυσθωμεν απο των ατοπων και πονηρων ανθρωπων ου γαρ παντων η πιστις (Stephanus)


2και ινα ρυσθωμεν απο των ατοπων και πονηρων ανθρωπων ου γαρ παντων η πιστις (Westcott/Hort)


2and that we may be delivered from the unreasonable and evil men, for the faith [is] not of all; (YLT)


(My emphases- Ed)

Uh, anybody get the definite article, here? "the faith",not 'personal faith' or 'faith from God' here, folks!


Ed

 

[EdSutton]

I don't believe anyone. I believe everyone at some point will have the opportunity to accept Christ. You cannot be condemned with not accepting Him if the option of accepting Him is not given. God is just.

25 “Far be it from You to do such a thing as this, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous should be as the wicked; far be it from You! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” (Gen. 18:25 - NKJV)

He certanly shall!! And He certainly is just, as well.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

That's not what the Bible says. It says ALL men. I know you calvinists hate the word all men, but it is what it is.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Preach on, Bro.!

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

I love the word "all" because if it wasn't there, then I would have to be a Jew to be saved.

Chapter and verse on this, please??? Abraham was not a Jew; Noah was not a Jew, Abel was not a Jew, and that Biblical paragon of righteousness, and the only man the Bible specifically identifies as 'Godly', "Hizzoner", the Mayor of Sodom, Lot, was not a Jew. Until after Abraham, there was no such thing as a Jew. Further, Scripture says that "Salvation is of the Jews", I believe, not ever that salvation is 'being' a Jew, as far as I am aware.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Must I repeatedly have to take scripture out of context to answer your questions?

Not accusing anyone specifically of this, but the BB seems just loaded with experts in this field, perhaps even starting with yours truly. But it is reassuring to know that I have "...safety in the multitude of counsellors." (Exhibit "A") :type: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

I was going to make several more comments, but it is getting late and I've seen so many "strawmen" erected from all points of view that I began to fear a possible arc from the keyboard might result in an inferno! :type: And I only have a small extinguisher handy, at the moment. :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

[Andy T.]

I believe the drunk on the corner could be saved the same way, you are not so sure about that.

Wrong. More misrepresentation. If the drunk or anyone else believes on the Lord Jesus Christ, he will be saved. Period.

 

[Brother Bob]

If He is elect, think he left that part out but not sure. If he not elect or pre-chosen then he is lost and can't do nothing about it.