Is Calvinism of the Bible?

[handy]

BTW, Pelagius may have been given a bad rap anyway. It's hard to say because about the only thing we know of him is what was written by his opponents, but apparantly he was teaching against the equally heretical POV of fatalism. Whether or not he went into heresy by teaching that man can achieve his own salvation via his own works is hard to say at this point. The Popes certainly condemned Pelagius, but he was correct on a number of issues, especially about infant damnation, which was dogma of the Church at that time.

But, I know what you are saying Mondar. Pelagianism has come down to us as the belief that man can achieve his own salvation via his own free will, which is indeed an heretical POV.

 

[Drew]

Drew and unred see mankind as having the moral and spiritual ability to save themselves with some assistance from Christ.

This statement, at least in respect to me anyway, is patently false and a careful reading of my posts will show this. Please do not misrepresent what other people write. I have never said anything like what you attribute to me in the above statement.

I hope someone agrees that it is heresy to deny that salvation (or justification) is by grace alone, through faith alone, by Christs shed blood alone. Do you follow the gospel of human works, or the gospel of Christs substutionary shed blood

This is a highly misleading way to frame the issue. I trust that I need not repeat myself - the reader will know my response to this. To frame the issue this way is akin to posing the famous question "Have you stopped beating your wife".

 

[unred typo]

quote by Mondar on Wed Nov 21, 2007:
GraceBwithU,
I hope you read the 2 posts by Drew and unred above. I made the accusation that Pelagians (or worse) exist in this forum. Do their posts leave any doubt in your mind that the word "heresy" applies? What do you think? Yes, I used the word "heresy," but that word is not my own, but that of the early Church in the council of Chalcedon, and Orange. I think after Drews post I can rest my case in defining the issues as not Calvinism vs Arminianism. The issues here involve Pelagianism or worse. GraceBwithU, maybe you will not side with Calvinism. Thats OK, I do not expect anyone here to take the Calvinist tag as I have. That is not the issue. The issue of Calvinism (without the tag) is that I hope we can agree that Salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, by Christs substutionary death alone. That is the issue! I see human works as contributing only filthy rags to our salvation. Drew and unred see mankind as having the moral and spiritual ability to save themselves with some assistance from Christ.

Again, I ask no one to take the Calvinist tag. I hope someone agrees that it is heresy to deny that salvation (or justification) is by grace alone, through faith alone, by Christs shed blood alone. Do you follow the gospel of human works, or the gospel of Christs substutionary shed blood?

While Mondar believes in grace alone/ by faith alone/by Christ’s blood alone and sees my view as simply a works alone salvation, I disagree. I believe that without the grace of God and the shed blood of Christ and the faith in this gift of atoning blood, we could not ever attain salvation. There is no other way that our sins could have been paid for without the precious blood of God’s only begotten Son.

Where I disagree with Mondar is in that I believe that in order for the blood to do the sanctifying work it was meant to do, we must repent of our sins and resolve to follow the Christ who died for us. This is not a ‘once for all’ confession but a daily picking up of our cross and following in his steps, repenting as we realize how we have failed, resolving to continue on the way of eternal life that he taught us, and praying in faith, and expecting that his strength is sufficient for us and that we can do all things through Christ who will strengthen us when we choose to do his will.


As for “human works" being "filthy rags,†I continue to insist that this verse is used out of context and while no one can show how it applies to the entire world of mankind throughout history, a cursory reading of the chapters where that single abused statement is found will convince anyone that it only refers to the idolatrous, evil people to whom the prophet was writing. Those who use this verse, in the manner that Mondar does here, either are ignorant of it’s misuse or they have been warned, but don’t seem to have any inclination to scriptural integrity, and continue to use it to bolster up their single minded doctrine in spite of the cost to correct Biblical exegesis. So be it.

 

[mondar]

mondar wrote:
Drew and unred see mankind as having the moral and spiritual ability to save themselves with some assistance from Christ.

Drew wrote:
This statement, at least in respect to me anyway, is patently false and a careful reading of my posts will show this. Please do not misrepresent what other people write. I have never said anything like what you attribute to me in the above statement.

Drew, yet before this you wrote.

Will our works justify us? Yes, they will and it is no heresy to teach this. Consider:

Yet in looking at your post, you also say...

To repeat: when we place our faith in Jesus in the present, we are given the Spirit that then produces the works by which we will be justified.

So we do not really justify ourselves and it is simply false to suggest that "justification by works" means that we can "take the credit for it".

Again, even though you place some fog in the way of your works justification. It is still works justication. Your basis for understanding why God banged the gavel and pronounced us "justified" is not the blood of Christ. Your basis for justification is Spirit guided works.
Romans 5:9 tells us the basis for justification.
"9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, shall we be saved from the wrath of God through him."

It might make a big impression upon you when you say "but these are not works but they are spirit guided works." It means little to me. You can claim any works you wish for justification.

Justification is through faith alone, on the basis of Christs shed blood alone.

Calvinists teach that justification has works as its fruits. Calvinists teach that justification can be "shown" by works. Calvinist do not teach that works are the cause of justification in any way.

Justification is that moment when the divine judge bangs his gavel and pronounces the sinner innocent on the basis of Christs blood. The only requirement is the persons faith. From the moment of this forensic action by God, we are justified. Justification is then complete. This forensic action takes place when a person has faith. After justification works then begin as the HS begins to work in the lives of the justified person.

So please speak plainly. Do works cause justification or assist in causing justification in any way? Are there any works before justification?

While there might be differences in the terms you are using and the ones Pelagius used, it is the same recycled theology, salvation by human ability and merit.

Sola fide,
Mondar

 

[Drew]

Again, even though you place some fog in the way of your works justification. It is still works justication. Your basis for understanding why God banged the gavel and pronounced us "justified" is not the blood of Christ. Your basis for justification is Spirit guided works.

While I may never have explicitly addressed the matter of atonement, Christ's atoning death is central to the position I am advocating. It is only because God condemns sin in the flesh of Jesus (Romans 8:3) that its power is broken and the Spirit given to us. And it is this Spirit that produces the works that justify us on the last day. Without Christ's death, none of this could happen - the power of sin would not broken and Spirit could not assure that we will indeed be vindicated by our works on the last day.

Again, I do concede that this view (which is really my take on what NT Wright says) is complex and requires us to think in a more sophisticated manner about the nature and function of the Law and the nature of justification. With respect to the latter, the view I am advocating does indeed appeal to an admittedly "complex" theology in which a "future works-based justification is guaranteed in the present based solely on our placing faith in Jesus Christ". It would be so much simpler if we could say that placing faith in Jesus is a one-time event that fully secures our justification.

Romans 2 simply will not let us do that, however - there is clear teaching that we are given eternal life at the time of judgment based on the content of our life's activity.

To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life

For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.

You seem to have no response to these teachings except to suggest that they refer to a hypothetical non-existent class of persons. Its funny how Paul never introduces the Romans 2 teaching with such a qualification.

So please speak plainly. Do works cause justification or assist in causing justification in any way? Are there any works before justification?

I thought I have spoken plainly - we are indeed justified by our works. And I am only repeating what Paul says in Romans 2.

While there might be differences in the terms you are using and the ones Pelagius used, it is the same recycled theology, salvation by human ability and merit.

Mondar you are framing the problem in an unfair manner here. I have in no way proposed salvation by human ability. It would be more profitable for your position to stop misrepresenting me and critique what I actually say. The works that we do - the works that justify us - have as their origin the activity of the Spirit - we cannot lay claim to any credit for this. I have said this repeatedly - why do you misrepresent what I say?

 

[GraceBwithU]

I am still waiting to see any exegetical flaws in the Calvinist understanding of John 6:44.

Mondar,

Jn 6:44
44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
KJV

The error in the Calvinistic interpretation of this verse is in the fact that it is only one verse. The word draw is used here to indicate God’s call. Christ uses other words to indicate the call of the Holy Spirit. It doesn’t even say here that the “draw†will be successful, just that it must happen first. Holy Spirit does always initiate the call in some way. There are dozens of verses in the New Testament that speak the call to salvation.

Rv 3:20 – Here the call is much more subtle, it’s a knock.
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.

Jn 5:24 - He that HEARETH my word, and believeth.
24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that HEARETH my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Ac 2:21 –The MAN CALLS on the name of the Lord and is saved. (I'm certain that the man was compelled by the Holy Spirit to make the call.)
21 And it shall come to pass, that WHOSOEVER SHALL CALL on the name of the Lord shall be SAVED .

Jn 12:32 – Here it talks of drawing ALL men.
32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will DRAW ALL MEN unto me.
KJV

If we apply the same interpretation of the word “draw†in verse John 6:44 to John 12:32 one would conclude that all men will be saved. Of course we know this isn’t to be true. In fact, Calvin himself changes and twists the interpretation so that it fits his preconceived ideas. I have a full copy of Calvin’s commentaries and he does this on a regular basis throughout his commentaries.

God Bless


GraceBwithU

 

[mondar]

I am still waiting to see any exegetical flaws in the Calvinist understanding of John 6:44.

Jn 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

The error in the Calvinistic interpretation of this verse is in the fact that it is only one verse.

Oh, so its just one verse and... you dont believe this verse?

The word draw is used here to indicate God’s call. Christ uses other words to indicate the call of the Holy Spirit. It doesn’t even say here that the “draw†will be successful, just that it must happen first.

Actually the word "draw" can be translated "dragging." The word for draw implys that God drug us kicking and screaming into salvation. Drawing is not directly related to call.

Also, your concept of Gods "call" is completely missing the concept of predestination. In Rom 8:30 it says, "Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called..." Calling is only on the basis that a person is predestinated by God to come to Christ.

Nevertheless, lets turn to John 6.
The only possible way to come up with your interpretation is to completely ignore the text. The text is clear. It begin with the statement that...

"No man can come to me"
* The word "can" is the greek word "dunatai." "Dunatai" is a strong word. It reflects that "no man is able to come to me." It speaks of human inability (with the negative "oudeis").

To make this perfectly clear, this part of the verse is saying that it is impossible for a man to come to Christ. Of course it does not end here, there are exceptions.

"except the Father which hath sent me draw him"
"ean mh" is the execeptive clause which says some do come to Christ. The idea of this second clause is that some do come to Christ because they are drawn by the Father. The are three contextual reasons that John 6:44 must refer to a group that irresistibly comes to Christ.
1---The exceptive clause is giving us the reason that some come to Christ. These are drawn by the father.
2---The last part of verse 44 speaks of how Christ will raise him up on the last day. The ones drawn are saved and raised up on the last day.
3---The general context from verses 37 onward demand this view. Notice in verse 37...
"John 6:37 All that which the Father giveth me shall come unto me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out." In the options below, pick the one which best fits verse 37.
A--- "a few that the Father has given me shall come to me"
B--- "some that the Father has given shall come to me"
C--- "most that the Father has given me shall come to me"
D--- "All that the Father has given me shall come to me"
Does your bible have the word "All" at the beginning of verse 37?

How about verse 39. Again, pick the correct answer.
A--- ". . . that of all which he hath given me I should loose most."
A--- ". . . that of all which he hath given me I should loose some."
A--- ". . . that of all which he hath given me I should loose a few."
A--- ". . . that of all which he hath given me I should loose nothing."
Again, could "D" be the word found in your bible?

Lets jump to John 6:65.
Joh 6:65 And he said, For this cause have I said unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it be given unto him of the Father.

Now the one given by the Father in this verse must not be the one given by the Father in verse 37? How do you read verse 65 in light of verse 37?

So then we have two choices, we can read the text and accept that our salvation is totally by grace alone, totally through faith alone, and totally on the basis of Christs shed blood alone.

When the non-Calvinist comes before God in heaven, he will puff up his chest and proudly brag "Well, I deserved to be saved because at least I made a better decision then this sinner next to me." Calvinism is a humbling doctrine. The Calvinist recognizes "that no man can come to me." The Calvinist recognizes that he could not come, except the Father "gave" him to the Son, and "drew" him to the Son.

It amazes me that people can verbally agree with the sovereignty of God in any matter except for salvation. When it comes to salvation, suddenly they must make man the almighty all powerful sovereign of salvation with this libertarian free will. God become the feeble and impotent non-sovereign sweating it out that his feeble drawing the man will somehow work.

Maybe your God cannot save. Maybe he can only provide this remote hypothetical possibility of salvation that sovereign man will take advantage of. My God saves! He saves with no limit, and he saves completely. I even wonder how you can choose a nick "GraceBwithU." Should not your nick be "HopefullyMaybeGraceBwithU?"

PS--Drew, I will comment on Romans 2 and your gospel of works soon.

 

[GraceBwithU]

Oh, so its just one verse and... you dont believe this verse?
Actually the word "draw" can be translated "dragging." The word for draw implys that God drug us kicking and screaming into salvation. Drawing is not directly related to call.

Hi Mondar,
Just a quick response then I need to head to mom's. I'll respond again later.

Don't be silly, of course I believe this verse. But I interpret it using the same basic rules for interpreting all scripture. I also know what the word "draw" means here. I have Greek and Hebrew.

The mistake Calvinist make when interpreting these scriptures is they ignore at least two of the basic rules for interpreting scripture.

1. Who is the scripture being spoken to?
2. When is it being spoken?

Jesus is speaking to many Jews that knew mainly of Judaism. He was very knew on the scene. He knew how hard they would have to struggle to follow him. Their very lives were in danger for doing so.

First of all I believe in the election. I've studied it in great depth.

• The word “Saved†appears only 104 times. In the KJV
  The phrase “Eternal life†appears 26 times in the KJV
  The phrase “Everlasting life†appears 11 times in the KJV
  The word “Elect†appears only 17 times. In the KJV
  The word “Chosen†appears 123 times in the KJV
  The word “Chose†appears 29 in the KJV
  The word “Choose†appears 59 times in the KJV
  The word “election†appears 6 times in the KJV of the Bible.
  The phrase “world began†6 times in the KJV of the Bible and only 2 times referring to the election.
  The phrase “foundation of the worldââ¬Â appears 10 times in the KJV.

I'll further explain tonight.

Have a happy Turkey Day!

 

[Drew]

When the non-Calvinist comes before God in heaven, he will puff up his chest and proudly brag "Well, I deserved to be saved because at least I made a better decision then this sinner next to me." Calvinism is a humbling doctrine. The Calvinist recognizes "that no man can come to me." The Calvinist recognizes that he could not come, except the Father "gave" him to the Son, and "drew" him to the Son.

I must point out that this is really an unfair characterization. The non-Calvinist will no more have grounds to puff up his chest than would a bedridden man have to puff his chest when he cries out for help in a burning building. The neighbour who enters the burning building and saves the man is the one to whom a reasonable person would attribute credit.

There may be any number of Scriptural arguments for Calvinism. But the argument that the Arminian "takes credit for his salvation" is simply not a fair characterization and this needs to be pointed out.

I will claim that some proponents of Calvinism illicitly (and perhaps intentionally) mix up the following types of things:

1. A condition that is necessary but insufficient for salvation - such as the free will acceptance of the gift of grace in the Arminian view.

2. A condition that is sufficient for salvation - some condition which, if met, by itself ensures salvation - such as "irresistable grace" in the Calvinist scheme.

You will occasionally hear Calvinists accuse Arminians of claiming that man's free will suffices for salvation, when in fact the Arminian has only claimed that man's free will is necessary for salvation.

 

[mondar]

When the non-Calvinist comes before God in heaven, he will puff up his chest and proudly brag "Well, I deserved to be saved because at least I made a better decision then this sinner next to me." Calvinism is a humbling doctrine. The Calvinist recognizes "that no man can come to me." The Calvinist recognizes that he could not come, except the Father "gave" him to the Son, and "drew" him to the Son.

I must point out that this is really an unfair characterization. The non-Calvinist will no more have grounds to puff up his chest than would a bedridden man have to puff his chest when he cries out for help in a burning building. The neighbour who enters the burning building and saves the man is the one to whom a reasonable person would attribute credit.

There may be any number of Scriptural arguments for Calvinism. But the argument that the Arminian "takes credit for his salvation" is simply not a fair characterization and this needs to be pointed out.

I will claim that some proponents of Calvinism illicitly (and perhaps intentionally) mix up the following types of things:

1. A condition that is necessary but insufficient for salvation - such as the free will acceptance of the gift of grace in the Arminian view.

2. A condition that is sufficient for salvation - some condition which, if met, by itself ensures salvation - such as "irresistable grace" in the Calvinist scheme.

You will occasionally hear Calvinists accuse Arminians of claiming that man's free will suffices for salvation, when in fact the Arminian has only claimed that man's free will is necessary for salvation.

Many claim to be arminian and do not know what Arminianism actually is. Many actually have Pelagian views.

Nevertheless, my characterization of non-Calvinism is totally fair. When the non-Calvinist comes before God in heaven, he can brag to have made a better decision then the unbeliever. Then the non-Calvinist can expect the reward that he earned by his own wise decision.

 

[Drew]

Nevertheless, my characterization of non-Calvinism is totally fair. When the non-Calvinist comes before God in heaven, he can brag to have made a better decision then the unbeliever. Then the non-Calvinist can expect the reward that he earned by his own wise decision.

This is the same misrepresentation you have made before but here you cast it in only slightly more generous words. It is still not a fair representation of the non-Calvinist position. I am surprised that you would seem to think that any reasonable person would equate a tiny but admittedly necessary act of free will acceptance with any kind of claim of credit of having "earned" the benefit that results.

I suggest that you are still illicitly leveraging off the unsophisticated reader's inability to carefully distinguish a necessary from a sufficient condition. The careful reader should not be confused - simply accepting a gift, while a necessary condition for "getting the reward" is not sufficient for getting the reward. In fact, the act of acceptance can be 0.00001 percent of the "earning" of the reward.

The issues here can get quite subtle and I can see why people fall for this kind of reasoning. They think to themselves "Gee, if I have free will to accept the gift, I can be the determining factor in the outcome - therefore I really do earn my salvation by accepting the gift".

This is simply muddled thinking. Let there be no doubt. I am indeed claiming that each person can effectively determine what their fate will be - if they accept the gift they get life, if they reject it, they get death.

But it is simply incorrect to get the concepts mixed and think that this implies that God and His work has been relegated to an inconsequential footnote. The vast, vast majority of the work is God's.

We want simple "its all A or its all B" explanations of the world. When God created human beings in His image He committed to a Universe where everything is not as simple as this. To not be willing to see that it is still substantially true to give the credit to God for our salvation just because we weakly reach out and freely accept the gift is to really expect us to be simple puppets on a string. We are made for relationship and relationship requires a kind of distinction between the parties involved - a degree to which each is not merely an extension of the other and where we are not also simply items of furniture which God moves around at His will.

 

[GraceBwithU]

Mondar,

Let's relax and all take a deep breath. I promised you more explaination and I will begin with this post. There will be more to follow.

God predestined His plan for salvation. For god so loved the world that he predestined to give his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. All the covenants between God and man were also predestined, (Edenic, Adamic, Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, etc.)
God also predestined before the foundation of the world and before the world began three groups of people to receive his grace, salvation, and eternal life. These groups of people therefore were predestined to receive these gifts from God. These three groups make up His complete church. The three groups are:

• Those chosen by God for some special purpose. Among the Elect mentioned in scripture are Moses, Abraham, David, Jacob, angels, writers of the Books of the Bible, Christ's disciples, etc. (Members of this group were named and also written in the book of life before the world began.)
  The remnant of Israel. Rev 7:4-8 And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel. 5 Of the tribe of Juda were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Reuben were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Gad were sealed twelve thousand. 6 Of the tribe of Aser were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Nepthali were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Manasses were sealed twelve thousand. 7 Of the tribe of Simeon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Levi were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Issachar were sealed twelve thousand. 8 Of the tribe of Zabulon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Joseph were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Benjamin were sealed twelve thousand. This seal confirms their election.
  Whosoever chooses to believe. The great multitude, mentioned in Rev. 7:9-10. The election to this group is on going. People are added to it every minute by their free choice to believe. They are added when they choose to believe in Jesus. (Rev. 7:9-10); “After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands; 10 And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.†These are those elected from the resurrection of Jesus until today by their choosing to believe the truth of Jesus over the lies of Satan. Of course the Holy Spirit initiates the calling.

 

[unred typo]

quote by Mondar on Thu Nov 22, 2007:
GraceBwithU wrote:
mondar wrote: I am still waiting to see any exegetical flaws in the Calvinist understanding of John 6:44.


Jn 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

The error in the Calvinistic interpretation of this verse is in the fact that it is only one verse.

Oh, so its just one verse and... you dont believe this verse?

GraceBwithU wrote:The word draw is used here to indicate God’s call. Christ uses other words to indicate the call of the Holy Spirit. It doesn’t even say here that the “draw†will be successful, just that it must happen first.


Actually the word "draw" can be translated "dragging." The word for draw implys that God drug us kicking and screaming into salvation. Drawing is not directly related to call.

Also, your concept of Gods "call" is completely missing the concept of predestination. In Rom 8:30 it says, "Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called..." Calling is only on the basis that a person is predestinated by God to come to Christ.

Nevertheless, lets turn to John 6.
The only possible way to come up with your interpretation is to completely ignore the text. The text is clear. It begin with the statement that...

"No man can come to me"
* The word "can" is the greek word "dunatai." "Dunatai" is a strong word. It reflects that "no man is able to come to me." It speaks of human inability (with the negative "oudeis").

To make this perfectly clear, this part of the verse is saying that it is impossible for a man to come to Christ. Of course it does not end here, there are exceptions.

"except the Father which hath sent me draw him"
"ean mh" is the execeptive clause which says some do come to Christ. The idea of this second clause is that some do come to Christ because they are drawn by the Father. The are three contextual reasons that John 6:44 must refer to a group that irresistibly comes to Christ.
1---The exceptive clause is giving us the reason that some come to Christ. These are drawn by the father.
2---The last part of verse 44 speaks of how Christ will raise him up on the last day. The ones drawn are saved and raised up on the last day.
3---The general context from verses 37 onward demand this view. Notice in verse 37...
"John 6:37 All that which the Father giveth me shall come unto me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out." In the options below, pick the one which best fits verse 37.
A--- "a few that the Father has given me shall come to me"
B--- "some that the Father has given shall come to me"
C--- "most that the Father has given me shall come to me"
D--- "All that the Father has given me shall come to me"
Does your bible have the word "All" at the beginning of verse 37?

How about verse 39. Again, pick the correct answer.
A--- ". . . that of all which he hath given me I should loose most."
A--- ". . . that of all which he hath given me I should loose some."
A--- ". . . that of all which he hath given me I should loose a few."
A--- ". . . that of all which he hath given me I should loose nothing."
Again, could "D" be the word found in your bible?

Lets jump to John 6:65.
Joh 6:65 And he said, For this cause have I said unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it be given unto him of the Father.

Now the one given by the Father in this verse must not be the one given by the Father in verse 37? How do you read verse 65 in light of verse 37?

So then we have two choices, we can read the text and accept that our salvation is totally by grace alone, totally through faith alone, and totally on the basis of Christs shed blood alone.

OR we can read the verses in context and understand that Jesus is saying this to these people standing right there in front of him some two thousand years ago. He is telling THEM, not us, not everyone, but just THEM, that of THEM, only those who God has given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, while he was walking among them, would be allowed to come to Christ at that time. Later, after he rose again, the news of who he is and why he came, will be released to the world.

Now where do I come up with this simply weird concept? Scripture. Read John 17:12 where Jesus repeats this same idea:
While I was with them in the world, I kept them in your name: those that you gave me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

Obviously, he means the disciples and those in the crowds who knew he was the Messiah, because the Spirit had revealed it to them. Why is God keeping the true identity of his Son secret? Again, read the story. Paul mentions the secret in 1 Corinthians 2:8 ;

8Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

With a little common sense, we can understand why only a few were let in on the secret, and why, when Jesus healed people, he often is recorded saying they should not tell anyone. He came to die, not to be made king. John 6:15 confirms this:
When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone.

quote by Mondar:
When the non-Calvinist comes before God in heaven, he will puff up his chest and proudly brag "Well, I deserved to be saved because at least I made a better decision then this sinner next to me." Calvinism is a humbling doctrine. The Calvinist recognizes "that no man can come to me." The Calvinist recognizes that he could not come, except the Father "gave" him to the Son, and "drew" him to the Son.

LOL. I’m sure it is very humbling to have the God of the universe choose YOU over your hell-bound neighbor. Good one, Mondar. I needed a laugh tonight.

quote by Mondar:
It amazes me that people can verbally agree with the sovereignty of God in any matter except for salvation. When it comes to salvation, suddenly they must make man the almighty all powerful sovereign of salvation with this libertarian free will. God become the feeble and impotent non-sovereign sweating it out that his feeble drawing the man will somehow work.

Silly. God gives the call out to draw all men unto himself. If you don’t answer the call, respond to the gospel, repent and follow his Son, he will return and have his angels cast your worthless butt into hell. I don’t see how this makes him the feeble and impotent non-sovereign you portray him as. He wants to save you, but if you “refuse to have this man reign over you,’ like the ones in the parable, too bad, you had your chance, he will appoint you your place with the evil doers.

quote by Mondar:
Maybe your God cannot save. Maybe he can only provide this remote hypothetical possibility of salvation that sovereign man will take advantage of. My God saves! He saves with no limit, and he saves completely. I even wonder how you can choose a nick "GraceBwithU." Should not your nick be "HopefullyMaybeGraceBwithU?"

No limit? Really? What does the ‘L’ in tulip stand for?

quote by Mondar:
PS--Drew, I will comment on Romans 2 and your gospel of works soon.

Can’t wait.
:-D

 

[GraceBwithU]

Mondar,
I'm curious. When you study scriptures do you have any rules of interpretation that you follow or do you just accept the first thing that pops into your mind?

 

[mondar]

Mondar,
I'm curious. When you study scriptures do you have any rules of interpretation that you follow or do you just accept the first thing that pops into your mind?

Its called hermeneutics, if you need some recommendations, let me know.

 

[unred typo]

quote by mondar:
Its called hermeneutics, if you need some recommendations, let me know.

That’s how a good biblical engineer can wring the works out of any verse that presents a human effort necessary toward a man’s salvation.

 

[Drew]

Justification is that moment when the divine judge bangs his gavel and pronounces the sinner innocent on the basis of Christs blood. The only requirement is the persons faith. From the moment of this forensic action by God, we are justified. Justification is then complete. This forensic action takes place when a person has faith. After justification works then begin as the HS begins to work in the lives of the justified person.

While this concept is appealing in its simplicity, and while it has lots of inertia in the present due to several hundred years of reformation-informed Christian culture, I think it is simply not accurate scripturally. One needs to construct a theology that does not require us to make what I think is a patently dubious move - that is to dismiss Romans 2. And Romans 2 clearly suggests that our justification is, in some sense anyway, a future act.

But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart (I)you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who WILL RENDER TO EACH PERSON ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS: to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life

For those of us who are not willing to say "oh, Paul is talking about a non-existent set of persons here" (is this what you believe mondar?), the definition of "justification" is more complex than that which mondar, following in the reformation tradition (I believe), has provided. Are those of us who take Romans 2 seriously forced, as mondar seems to think we are, into a position where our justification is our own work? Despite how well it would serve the purposes of some Calvinists, we who take Romans 2 (and other similar texts) seriously are not at all forced into such a position.

I think that the "law-court" metaphor, that gives rise to the "forensic" definition of justification that mondar has provided is actually indeed a metaphor that is subservient to the more fundamental issue - covenant. If one takes the lawcourt metaphor as fundamental, you get things inside out.

The Old Testament scriptures are chock full of the covenant theme - God will justify Israel at the end of her long history and give her the covenant promises. Paul's great insight in the book of Romans is that what God promises He will do for Israel at the end of her long history, He has done for Jesus in the middle of history. God's justification of Israel - her vindication - has been brought forward into the present and enacted in the person of Jesus Christ. Because Jesus has been raised from the dead, the startling conclusion that Paul draws is this: while Israel expects the manifestation of justification to be "political" in nature, God has shown us what justification consists in - it consists in being raised from the dead.

Anyway, the point is this: justification for us is both a future and a present event. Romans 2 makes it clear that there is future justification for us. But, and this is key, in the same way God's eschatological future justification of Israel has been brought from the future into the present as manifested in Jesus' vindication from the "exile" of physical death, so it is that His people (us) are also justified in the present in the following sense: we know in the present with certainty who it is who will be declared covenant members on that last day.

Who are these people? Are they national Israel? Are they people who do good works through moral self-effort? No. The true covenant people have one factor and one factor alone that marks them out. It is not race, parentage, class, or moral achievement. It is faith.

This model of justification is a little more complex that the standard reformation model. But please do not be misled. Despite what some will tell you, it is not a model where our justification in any reasonable sense at all can be credited to us. It is the work of the Spirit.

 

[GraceBwithU]

Mondar,
I'm curious. When you study scriptures do you have any rules of interpretation that you follow or do you just accept the first thing that pops into your mind?

Its called hermeneutics, if you need some recommendations, let me know.

Wasn't sure you would know the word.

I truly believe you are sincere. I'm sure you do not intend to limit God's sovereignty. But to promote Calvin’s theology is to hold to one of the biggest misunderstandings of God’s sovereignty that exist today. The irony of it all is that God's sovereignty is exactly what Calvinist use to defend their narrow interpretation of God's word. John Calvin was an attorney before he was a reformist. His theology followed a humanistic interpretation. “humanistic methods of exegesis†(Wikipedia under John Calvin is in bold)

 

[GraceBwithU]

Mondar,
I've been reading over some of your post again and I am confused. I'm not sure what you believe. Would you be so kind to give a brief description of the what you believe the five points of the T.U.L.I.P. to mean. It would probably benefit every one to know. Some of your statements appear to not be in line with any of the outlines of the T.U.L.I.P. that I have read.
Thanks
:D

 

[unred typo]

OH NOOooooo… don’t tell me we’ve lost our token Calvinist! :smt090 Mondar, please come back. I promise to be good… :smt083 ..hopefully, he’s just off on a turkey holiday. Maybe I don’t have to be good after all… :smt112 Oh wait, I don't have to be good anyways, I'm totally depraved...
:smt106