Steve Gregg Says You Must Be Trained To Believe Calvinism Is True
April 5, 2008 55 Comments
James Whites and Steve Gregg are doing a 5 day (about 1 hour per day) debate on the subject of Calvinism. Each days discussions are being simulcast on Gregg’s radio program called The Narrow Path and White’s webcast known as The Dividing Line. At this point they have completed the first and second day. You can check their respective archives to listen to the first two days.
During his first segment on the first day Steve Gregg made a comment that really caught my attention. If you are listening for it, it happens about 7 or 8 minutes into the program. I have tried to transcribe it here accurately. If I don’t have it exact I a sure I have it very close. Gregg said:
Until somebody trains you to believe that Calvinism is true, I believe that if you simply read the bible you get the impression that God operates in a certain way in His creation and redemption and that man operates a certain way in creation and redemption.
Does anything about that statement jump out at you? Or, was it just me? When he said this my first thought was “that was me, that was my experience“. I did not become a Calvinist until I began to study theology. I have not had any formal training. My education has come from reading various books, both pro and con, on the topic.
Gregg was obviously trying to make a point against reformed theology. He was implying that if you simply read the bible you come to one conclusion and then you can be led astray by various teachers who have an agenda of converting people to Calvinism. But I have a different take on his comment. I think what Gregg said is true for the vast majority of Christians. It was in my case.
The vast majority of Christians do not have any desire to study theology. Unfortunately, many also do not have a desire to read their Bible but that is another topic that we may discuss at a later time. As a result, when they do read their Bible, they are not reading it in the proper context. Many do not understand that they need to know how to read the Bible. They may be under the illusion that they can just pick it up and read it and God will magically give then discernment into the meaning of what they have read. Don’t get me wrong, I believe that God can do that if He chooses to and He may choose to but we can’t presume on His grace like that.
To read the Bible correctly, you have to know several things. First you have to know who the author is and who he is writing to. For example, the Book of Matthew makes a lot more sense when you realize that Matthew is writing to the Jewish people. Second, you have to know what kind of writing you are reading. Are you reading a historical narrative, a parable, poetry, prophecy, or an epistle? Knowing this helps you to understand how to read what you are reading. Third, once you know the type of writing, you can look into the text to find the purpose for what the author has written. Lastly, you may want to try to have some understanding of the culture in which the intended readers lived. That way you can know how they would interpret what they were reading. As you can see, reading the Bible can be a lot of work…..but it is worth it.
To get all of this information you will need to study or be “trained” as Gregg says. As you begin to study, you will grow in your understanding of the Bible and its doctrines. You may see that it actually says things different than what you had thought it did or were taught that it said. That is what happened to me. As I began to read the texts and study what they actually mean it changed my whole theology. It also gave me a desire to study more. I hope that is what it will do for you.
So, is what Gregg said true? Do you have to be trained to believe that Calvinism is true? The answer is yes and no. People can study the same information and still interpret it differently. That happens all the time. In my opinion, when I began to be “trained” I could not come to any other conclusion than Calvinism was true. I would never have come to that conclusion if I had not started my “training”. Ultimately though, if you are studying with sincerity, God will bless your efforts and you will grow in your knowledge and obedience of Him.
If you have not started your “training” I urge you to do so. If you need help getting started, let me know and I will do my best to point you in the right direction or at least the direction I took.
That is just amazing. The Doctrines of Grace gave me the labels to use for what I already had come to know and believe.
I received no training for that.
LikeLike
My experience is like Scott’s. I come from a background that is not Calvinistic. However, as I studied the Scriptures I came to believe in what I now know as the Doctrines of Grace. The first time I ever heard of the term Calvinism or the TULIP I realized that it was what I already believed. I had no training to believe it.
LikeLike
Nice post man. Of course, I’m going to agree with Gregg, but you knew that already 🙂
I once worked at a Christian book store in Maryland. I could tell you some stories. Anyway, a man once told my co-worker that the KJV was the only bible one should read. To which, she responded, “I like the NIV.”
Well, you can imagine his response, right? Only the KJV was God’s inspired Word! She said, “But the King James is hard to understand in places, it being now 397 years old, and some of the words are out of use and hard to find the meaning.” And this was his response: “Well, that’s what the Holy Ghost is for.”
I about flipped! I’m thinking: Oh! Is THAT what the Holy Spirit is for. And all this time I had Him all wrong. Gee, I’m sure glad that man came into our store. I just may have gone on believing that the Holy Spirit had other things to do in the believer’s life than translate the King James VERSION of the bible.
Ignorance is NOT bliss.
Enjoyed your post.
Billy
P.S. As one who is involved in politics, let me ask you a question. To what degree, in your opinion, do you believe that God’s laws should be enforced in America? Which laws? All His laws? Be specific.
LikeLike
I was a non-“Calvinist” by birth, tradition and choice. It was when the Lord drove me to His written Word that my “training” was ditched and I embraced the fact that salvation is completely by grace alone.
LikeLike
Tom,
I can identify with your posting. I was never saved by answering an alter call from Billy Graham or reciting a prayer. I never accepted the idea of a salvation that I could lose. Sure to be certain was the fact that I would lose it. My church experiences were limited to Methodist and Catholic.
As things go with God and His providence, I did not hear the gospel of the saving grace of God until I studied the bible for myself. However, I never understood the differences in Arminianism and Calvinism when I admitted the truth of salvation and the Bible to Christ Jesus.
I had the good fortune (no one suggested them) of listening to Moody Bible on the radio and buying a Charles Ryrie NIV Study Bible.
Regards in Grace,
Dave
LikeLike
I became a believer out of a nonbelieving (or nominally Christian) home. A friend in college showed me Ephesians one and mentioned election. As she and the other girl in the room argued the point, I pondered. I decided to write a paper on the subject and found in the divinity school library interpretations of Ephesians 1 that absolutely made no sense to me. The I read Packer’s Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God. It made sense. I don’t think I was trained. I think I “sensed’ the truth. Some of these books (the ones in the div school library: it was an Arminian denom) violated my “sense.” Some did not. I had a smiliar experience reading Hebrews on my own where I unwittingly started to adhere to Covenant theology. It was some 12 years later that I even head the term Covenant theology and realized that’s what I had believed all along.
LikeLike
The Door To Reality Is No-Mind
The kingdom of God has been preached as if it is always somewhere
else: in time, in space, but always somewhere else — not here and now.
Why has this happened? Why is the kingdom of God not here and now? Why
in the future, or why somewhere else?
It is because of…
Continue reading this entry
Gatelessgate Magazine
LikeLike
Billy,
Yes, I figured you might agree with Gregg….but I like you anyway. LOL
The KJV only people always seem to forget that Jesus did not speak 1600’s english. I am not sure how they seem to miss that but it seems to be a constant theme with them. I do not discount the effectiveness of the KJV….it has an awesome track record of being used by God but that does not mean that God can’t or won’t use the modern translations. I also wonder what KJV-onlyers say to the fact that only 5 manuscripts were used in its preparation as opposed to the nearly 5500 (I think that is in the ballpark) manuscripts (and manuscript fragments) that we have today. And one more thing, the KJV was translated by one man while all modern translations have teams of dozens who do the translations.
It just makes you want to say….HMMMMMM.
Your question about which of God’s Law I think the government should enforce in the U.S. is an interesting one. I have tried to think about it a bit before answering and I am not sure I have a well thought-out answer yet but here goes anyway.
I think that God’s Law should be enforce to the greatest extent possible. I might go all the way and suggest that the U.S become a theocracy but I am not sure. No matter how far, I do believe that God’s law has a place in our government. We already try to legislate morality in many instances the problem is that the morality we are trying to encourage is not always God’s.
In an ideal situation all the laws that were created or reiterated in the New Testament would be enforced. I know that is not going to happen though so I would start with the Ten Commandments and work from there.
How about you? What is your position? Why are you asking the question?
LikeLike
[[The KJV only people always seem to forget that Jesus did not speak 1600′s english. I am not sure how they seem to miss that but it seems to be a constant theme with them]]]
I was once speaking to a KJV onlyist on youtube in comments and told him something similar to what you said, and do you know what his response to me was? He told me that nothing is impossible for Jesus and if Jesus wanted to speak 1600s Elizabethan English than he can if he wants to. (palm slap)
LikeLike
I come from a group of baptist (the garbc) that is anti-systematic as you get…and yet I from just reading at the Bible arrived at the doctrines of grace….
LikeLike
I’m answering Billy here because this is a subject that interests me very much.
The best response I can give is something that I wrote a few months back in response to a similar question. The question was, “How do we defeat the lies of Satan in our country?” and this was my answer.
“The false christ who approved of slavery because “slaves should obey their masters”; the false christ who burned supposed witches at the stake; the false christ who was self-righteous, proud, and hypocritical. Unfortunately, these false christs have become synonomous with the true Christ. If you ask me, the way to defeat the lies of Satan is to show people the true Christ and destroy the illusion that the Christ who died for our sins and these false christs are one in the same. This will destroy lies and false ideologies at their very core and replace the foundation with truth.
How do we do that? By showing people Christ and by seeking Him wholeheartedly ourselves. We cannot seek Christ with all of our heart, mind, and strength if we make politics an idol.
My argument is that in order for true, lasting change to happen, it needs to happen at the very core of the issue. We shouldn’t wonder if all we ever do is try to treat the symptoms and we die from the actual disease. We want the gay man to stop his homosexual lifestyle, but we have no desire to win his heart for Christ! We spend all of our time telling everyone to clean up their act, but in so doing we neglect to give them the solution to those problems. What good will it do for us to have a nation of outwardly good people who are white-washed tombs, but inwardly are full of dead bones? All of our work and efforts will perish with them in hell.
Want to make a lasting change on society? Then be Christ. It’s that simple. Focus all of your energy and life into becoming more like Him, and you will be able to do even greater things then He did. Our focus should be on winning the lost, not winning elections. Our time, money, and effort should be given to doing the things of God, not pushing the agendas of men. God’s heart is for the lost, and if our hearts are truly dwelling in His, that’s where they’ll be too.”
So, no. I do not think that enforcing Christian morality is a good idea in the least bit. All it does is encourage behavior modification, not heart transformation. I do not believe that Christ called us to establish an earthly kingdom of His laws. He called us to establish a heavenly kingdom in the hearts of men.
Of course this by no means should imply that we have no laws and allow anything and everything to happen. But I do not believe that our laws should be because of our religion. I do not believe that church and state should intersect. Abortion should be illegal because it harms other human beings. But some of the things that Christians in America fight so hard for, aren’t really worth it. We are being distracted from the issues of the heart because we focus on the issues of the flesh; what a person is doing as opposed to the condition of their heart.
The Pharisees were perfect in all of their outward actions, and yet it was those very people that Jesus spoke out against. Jesus not once preached against the Romans and their idolatry, but he devoted a good deal of time preaching against the hypocrites and the self-righteous.
LikeLike
In thier extremes Calvanism and Armenianism are in error . This side of heaven we wont be able to reconcile the free will of man and the soviergnty of God yet they both are true.God knows how they both work and in His mind thier is no confusion.We would be much better off if we would quit dividing the body of Christ over endless arguements which can never be resolved.
LikeLike
Steve,
Two years ago I held the exact same position you mention. But no longer. I began my study of Calvinism with the purpose of refuting it but I found that I could not. In fact, I ended up embracing it. Now, I believe completely that God’s sovereignty and free will can be reconciled…but the free will of which I speak is not Libertarian Free Will (as many describe it). Libertarian Free Will is not compatible with God’s sovereignty in any way and as such must be rejected not resolved.
LikeLike
Hi All,
I am always amazed Mr. Gregg can still stir up this useless debate time and time again.
If you know Steve then you know he probably doesn’t even mean to debate these points but find these debates useful for the furtherance of Bible Knowledge.
Do not think I’m a Gregg hater. I believe he is probably the most thorough, thoughtful, Bible Teacher of our generation.
What is useless however is trying to put people into camps. To say your one or the other is to minimize what the Holy Spirit can do through you.
This thinking, of camp mentality, is what I have learned to get rid of by applying Mr. Greggs teachings on Hebrews Chapter 6.
If we could all get out of the 15th-18th Century Theology books we may find true Spiritual growth and finally get on with becoming mature Believers.
I say study a bit deeper and go to Jewish Wisdom writings, coupled with first Century Believers. If of course you want to be confused then stay with these archaic, victorian arguments of yesteryear.
LikeLike
Tim,
Please explain what you mean by “true spiritual growth” and “mature believers”. I think you may be appealing to the Gnostics and they certainly are not better teachers than the Reformers. I think you need to re-evaluate what teachings you follow.
LikeLike
As I’ve heard it said, “Pray like a Calvinist, preach like an Arminian.”
LikeLike
Hmmm,
Listening to Arminian preachers is very frustrating when they keep insisting on the free will of the sinner.
LikeLike
If Calvinism is true, then what about Christians before Calvin? Did they just not know the truth?
Also, the title Calvinists seems to claim that you follow Calvin and the church that Calvin started, not Christ and the Church that He started.
Inevitably, there needs be authority outside the Bible because questions about the Bible cannot be answered by the Bible itself. For example, how many books are inspired by the Holy Spirit and should be included in the Bible? Well, the Bible does not come with a table of contents. Christ and His Church must answer that question which means that there must be infallible authority outside the Bible. The Bible, however, is also infallible and authoritative.
Thoughts?
LikeLike
Steve,
I am assuming that you are a Roman Catholic from your comment. If I am wrong please correct me.
Why does there need to be an authority outside the Bible? What is that authority? For something to have authority over something else means that it is greater or more powerful than that which it has authority over. The Bible is God’s word…it carries His authority. How can the church have authority over God’s word? It can’t. The church would also need to be infallible if it did have authority over God’s word. Is the church infallible? No, it is not. Outside of God can you tell me of anything that is infallible? Just one? You can’t because there is nothing in creation that is infallible. Only God and by extension, His word, can bear that label.
As to your Calvinism questions, I will treat them seriously even though I am not sure you meant them that way. These are questions often asked by someone who has no interest in anything except making absurd assertions.
Calvinism did not start with Calvin. It started with Christ and the Scriptures. I will agree that the name “Calvinism” is somewhat troublesome. I prefer to be called a Reformed Baptist but I don’t mind the Calvinism label either. I also assume that when you refer to the “church that Calvin started” you are referring to the protestant churches that arose when Christians broke away from the Roman Catholic church and returned to the biblical doctrine of the church. Do you believe that no one can be saved outside the Roman Catholic church? Do you believe that protestant churches are not real churches? On what basis?
LikeLike
Tom,
I would have to say that by using your line of discussion, the Church also speaks God’s words and carries His Authority. The Bible and the Church do not contradict each other. It’s not like God stopped speaking to us. The Church and Scripture speak God’s words to us throughout time… even today. I can use Scripture to confirm my thoughts – 1Tim 3:15 says the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. Furthermore, when Saul is struck down and hears, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” The Church is the Body of Christ. Christ does not say, “Why do you persecute the Church?” He says, “Me.” Of course, this leads to the great apostle of Christ, St. Paul spreading the Good News all over the place. The Church carries the authority of God because that authority comes from Him. In fact, it is the Body of Christ. You still have to answer the question of who put the Bible together the way it looks today? When did it happen? By who?
We are all Christians so I definitely mean no offense. I just think it is somewhat disturbing to see people call themselves Lutherans or Calvinists as if they are following those persons. Reformed Baptist leaves something to be desired also, in my opinion. What is being reformed or who is doing the reforming if you can trace back to “Christ and the Scriptures.” There should be no need to break and be called reformed if it is the original. That in itself means it is not the original founded by Christ.
I think all churches are real churches so I am not sure what you mean by this. However, it is quite obvious that with so many denominations and so many variant interpretations of Scripture, that at least some people have to be flat out wrong. There is more to doctrine than just what one believes to be true in their own heart or their own interpretation of Scripture. Aren’t these people just making themselves infallible and claiming to be filled with the Holy Spirit? Ha. How do you know your interpretation is the way Christ wants us to hear His voice? Are you the authority? Take for example, John chapter 6, with so many variant interpretations, there can only be one way inspired by the Holy Spirit. How do we know what Christ means? Only one way to know for sure and it has nothing to do with the individual’s interpretation. God has to guide His people so we know for sure. He does not leave us hanging to argue amongst ourselves.
True dat?
LikeLike
Steve,
You said:
The church does not carry God’s authority. The church was created by God and it is lesser than Him. The Bible (The Word, see John 1) is God’s word and therefore it carries His authority. The Roman church is often in conflict with the Bible. Any tradition it teaches which is not rooted in the Scriptures is proof.
You are correct in saying that God still speaks to us but our difference is in how He does it. I believe He does it through His word, not new revelation given through the church. He no longer needs to give us new revelation. The revelation that we have is sufficient for what we need. His word even warns those who would add to it (through supposed new revelation).
You said:
The label “reformed” comes from the Reformation that started when Luther nailed the 95 Thesis to the door of the church at Wittenberg. If I remember correctly, one of the main elements of the Reformation was justification by grace alone. This was not (and still isn’t) being taught by the Roman catholic church. Therefore, the label “reformed” refers to returning to the Scriptures.
For what it is worth, the Roman church of today in no way resembles the Church as formed by the apostles as detailed to us in the accounts given in the book of Acts. The traditions taught by the Roman Church have no basis in Scripture. The Roman church has usurped the position of authority held by the Scriptures. I am not suggesting that Catholics can’t be or are not truly Christians but if they are it is in spite of the Roman church not on account of it.
You said:
Back in 2007, the Pope released some document which said that “other communities” are not real churches. Since he speaks for the church this is the churches teachings.
You said:
All believers are commanded to study God’s word so as to be able to make a defense of it. The Holy Spirit will be our guide in this. Because we are fallible creations, this can result in people coming to different interpretations. Some will be flat out wrong but if we truly allow the Holy Spirit to guide our studies we will be very similar in our conclusions.
Please tell me where I can find the infallible interpretations provided to us by the Roman church. If we are to believe that the church holds the authority to infallibly interpret Scripture and have had 2000 years to do so, I would like to read them.
——————-
For the record, I am enjoying the discussion. Thanks for raising the issues.
LikeLike
Tom,
As far as our discussion, I will keep it short. Please explain your view on 1 Tim 3:15 and Colassians 1:24.
On a side note, it is obvious that you are unfamiliar with the Catholic Church. Please see http://www.catholic.com for accurate information if you would like to. I think you would greatly benefit from reading early Christian writings around 100AD and so on in addition to materials written after the Reformation. It is very interesting to go back to the original teachings held by early Christians. Just so you know, the Bible as it looks today was put together by a Council of Catholic Bishops in the late 4th century. Luther added and subtracted a few things during the Reformation so the Bible that you use today has been changed by Luther. The Bible is Catholic and therefore does not contradict with any Church teaching at all. Also, you might find it intresting that we have no such thing as heresies in today’s world whereas there were many heresies in the early Church.
Justin the Martyr in the 2nd century (circa 150AD) wrote this, “There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to genoito [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion. And this food is called among us eukaristia [the eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” (First Apology, 65-66)
I also am enjoying our discussion. God bless.
Thanks,
Steve
LikeLike
Steve,
The church is to hold up the truth. It is to support and promote the truth. Christ is the truth. There in no authority given to the foundation (the church) that supports the truth.
A body is often used in scripture as a metaphor for the church. In no way does this imply that authority is given to the body (the church) or that the body is equal to the truth.
Thanks for encouraging me to read and study Church history. I need to do this but have to chosen to do so yet because there are so many other areas I still want to learn about. At some point I do plan to expand my studies in to that area. You are correct in noting that I am not an expert on the Roman Catholic church but I do know that they have elevated the church traditions above God’s word. This is wrong. When we go beyond what is provided to us in the Bible we are going too far.
The Bible is not Catholic. Scripture was recognized as such long before the 4th Century. Jesus and the Apostles all recognized this fact and often referred to certain texts as Scripture. Therefore, Scripture preceded the Roman Catholic church. It was not created by the Roman Catholic church. The Roman Catholic church may have held a council to “put it together” in book form but it did not have anything to do with determining what was to be included as Scripture and what wasn’t. Roman Catholic doctrine often contradicts Biblical doctrine. Some examples are Purgatory, Indulgences, praying to saints, the veneration of Mary, and the sinlessness of Mary….just to name a few off top of my head.
Lastly, please explain what you mean when you said “we have no such thing as heresies in today’s world”. Before I respond to that comment I want to make sure that I understand what your point is.
LikeLike
Tom,
Thanks for your response. Sorry it took me a bit to get back to you. Things have been kind of busy on my end.
Colossians 1:24 “Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church…”
Please explain what St. Paul means when he says “filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions…” Christ’s sacrifice is eternal, ultimate, and final as we know.
There aren’t any Catholic doctrines that contradict the Bible. In fact, they are all rooted in Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. Refer to books like “Where is that in the Bible” by Patrick Madrid as starters. Furthermore, if you were baptized as an infant, like I was, that is also not contained in the Bible. The word “Trinity” is also not explicitly mentioned in the Bible. In addition, please show me where praying to saints is prohibited in the Bible. Yes, the Council determined what books were to be authentically inspired by the Holy Spirit and which books were not. There are plenty of books that were excluded such as the “Gospel of St. Thomas.” If you studied early Church history through the present, you would be Catholic. No doubt about it. No doubt also that you are a very good man.
Apologies on the heresies comment. I will clarify. We have plenty of heresies in today’s world. The Catholic Church should just start calling them as we did back in early Christianity. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura is a heretical. It has never been held by the Christian communities until 1500 AD.
God bless.
Steve
LikeLike
Theological Schizophrenia.
I have just read John Piper’s, “Don’t Waste Your Life.” Calvinism is theological determinism (ie fatalism: no choice, no change and no chance). Piper simply doesn’t write consistently with his views. This is the probelm.
My Calvinist friends are still practicing birth control and then justifying it by saying, God knew ahead of time that I would decide for managing the size of my family in this way.
I was raised the other way around, my father was a Presbo-Landmark Baptist and his shelves were clear of anything other than Reform theology (this is an indication of cultish tendencies) so I got it breakfast, lunch and supper. Finally, as I studied reform theology I decided God was not a Hindu dualistic entity, both evil and good at the same time. God has not hard wired people for goodness or badness, salvation or condemnation (and yes, I have read every inch of the scriptures on this issue). If God has already decided then you should not have children. It is simply too much of a risk to take. They are hopeless before they enter the world.
As for evangelism and debate… save your breath. No minds can be changed nor eternal outcomes altered in the slightest as preaching has nothing to do with anything as it is not the means. God’s sovereign determination in eternity past has made the decision with or without the aid of men.
According to Calvinism, “Faith does not come by hearing” but hearing cometh by faith.
LikeLike
Tony,
You have made a good case against hyper-Calvinism. It is heresy and should be avoided. But, the examples you have cited are not consistent with what those of who hold to Reformed Theology truly believe.
LikeLike
This is what the Calvinist always says, “You just don’t understand what we believe.”
Nonsense.
My twelve year old grandson can figure out where your conclusions lead. Any Muslim understands it. Buddhist clearly understand a fixed universe.
Calvinists make the same mistake as JW’s. They begin with their conclusions and redress every verse, parable and redifine the words if necessary. This is no more than intellectual legalism. I have defined Calvinism perfectly and one has to live in self deceit not to recognize it. You live on an island of theological provincialism and this is bondage of another kind.
By the way, compared to the general nastiness of proponents of Calvinism, this is a kind response. We should not give you any more of a free pass than we do Open Theology, Word Faith, United Pentecostalism, Seventh Day Adventicism or The Church of Christ. Calvinist doctrine is abberant. It is not the overall expression of the Reformation either. Why don’t you all come clean.
By the way, to suggest that I do not understand what Calvinists believe is ludicrous. Mormons know that I know what they believe. Roman Catholics know that I know. Jehovah’s Witnesses know that I know.
It always amazies me that I can be considered expert at nearly ten cults, topics of cultural apologetics and various religious systems byut when it comes to your blindness you make the claim that no one dares, that I don’t understand what you believe.
LikeLike
Nonsense!
What you have defined bears no resemblance in any manner to what I believe. As a point of clarification I did not claim that you don’t understand what Calvinists believe, I said that the examples you cited are not consistent with what those who believe Reformed theology actually believe. You have made the same mistake many do. You have responded emotionally based on what you think Calvinists teach and believe without examining what they are saying. Until about 3 – 4 years ago I did the same thing. As I began to actually read and study Reformed Theology (in an attempt to refute it) I learned what they were actually saying and that it is actually consistent with what the Bible teaches.
You say:
You have demonstrated that you don’t have a clue as to what I believe. For example, you have implied that Calvinists believe that God is both good and evil at the same time. I know of no Calvinist who believes this. Please give me some names of “Calvinists” who believe this so I can avoid them. You have said that God did not “hard wire” people for salvation and condemnation. In doing so you have rejected the explicit teaching of predestination taught throughout Scripture. It is very dangerous to reject something taught explicitly in the Scripture. You also said that Calvinists believe that preaching is not the means God uses to bring people to salvation. Again, no Calvinist I know believes this although Hyper-Calvinists do. Calvinists believe that God does Predestine those who will be saved and that God uses the foolishness of preaching to bring about that salvation. In conclusion, your own words have proved that you have confused Calvinism with Hyper-Calvinism. Please take some time to check out the differences and refocus your anger at the correct group of heretics.
LikeLike
I suggest you do a careful study of each usuage of individual words in their specific contexts. You will find that grammatically very few of the words and their forms like election, predestined, ordained, called, chosen have anyhting to do with election as Calvinists define understand it.
Don’t threaten me with silly extortionist phrases like, “You have said that God did not “hard wire” people for salvation and condemnation. In doing so you have rejected the explicit teaching of predestination taught throughout Scripture. It is very dangerous to reject something taught explicitly in the Scripture.”
Why do Calvinists assume they are the arbiters of truth and ground of biblical interpretation. We started this conversation by a reference to Steve Gregg. He makes most Bible scholars look like intellectual midgets. Don’t dismiss either he or me. You are not my superior or equal.
LikeLike
Arose, by any other name is still a rose.
LikeLike
Tony,
You said
Please provide an exegetical explanation of Ephesians 1:3-14 in context explaining how it means something other than what it says. Or how about 1 Peter 1:1-2 if you prefer. If neither of those, then choose another.
“Silly extortionist phrases”??? I simply quoted you, used your own logic and carried it to its conclusion….just like you have attempted to do in your earlier comments.
LikeLike
I can play this game with you which would entire chapters on apostasy. I could got to Hebrews, Corinthians, Galatians, Timothy and pull out verse after to verse for you to exegete. Would you like to examine every verse that deals with the obvious open call of God to ALL men and in so doing not manipulate the language to suit your philosophical conclusions? Do you really want to start a war of duelling verses? You would have to be insane.
If this is what you want to do? If so, I will send some Jehovah’s Witnesses to your door and they will proof text you (verse by verse) into oblivion. Calvinists resort to the same rediculous technique.This is not a chemistry class. This is a romance. I fear that my Calvinists friends God is only as big as their cranial capacity. Have you ever cast out a demon? We are not called to distill or dismantle God. Calvinists worship their intellectual properties.
LikeLike
Tony,
You make many assertions but are you not willing to back them up. I don’t want a “war of dueling verses” but you said my interpretation of the verses teaching election, predestination, etc was wrong. I am simply asking for you to give me the correct interpretation. Someone with your self-professed ability should be able to do that with no problem. I am not using some scheme or technique. Any discussion of interpretation should revolve around the text so I am simply bringing us back to the text. In my experience Arminians prefer to deal with philosophy rather than the text. The text is the best way we have to get to know God and to know about God. It is His revelation to us. He is glorified when we spend time digging His truths out of it.
LikeLike
Now suppose I were to do what I am tempted to do? What, if instead of typing for eight hours – typing something you would not even read, I simply Googled (as anyone could do), Exegete Ephesians 1:3-14 and moved passed the Calvinist loaded first three pages (You will find the same phenomena if you search the cults. They are so active at protecting their position of power that you must move past the first thirty or so entries to find the countrary positions) and then simply give you the links.
Or I could go to my library and pull out anyone of four commentarial resources and scan this or that scholars pages.
Then there is the option of going upstairs to these enormous storage boxes and pulling out theological papers that I have written from years past and typing these out for you.
Do you really expect me or anyone else to do an eleven verse exegete on this blog? Could this exegete be done? Has it been done? Yes. It will not be done by me here and now. You know that and I know that. For my part, I suggest you buy a copy of “Sovereignty and Free-Will,” by Barringer and Barringer and go crazy reading scholarly exegetes and position papers.
But here let me do it this way instead. Is there evidence of something called “Election” and “Predestination.”? Yes. Is there overwhelming and exhaustive evidence for the idea? No. There is not. In fact there is what seems to be and abundance of material which appears to argue for just the opposite. Here is one of the few places where we agree. God does not contradict or oppose Himself. “Oh, Job, this is too big for you.”
I do not believe in evolution for the same reason I do not believe in “particular election.” The evidence for either position is not everywhere evident and there are clear contradictions to the so called evidence. There is room for well-meaning misinterpretation. This is why we have had almost seven hundred years without a clear consensus of theological opinion. Nice and smart people disagree with one another and there are good reasons why.
If you really wanted an exegete you would not have to ask me to write it. You can do what I would do. Find a library. You just want to waste my time providing something you do not care about. If you don’t ask me to do this then I will not ask you do a similar thing for me.
As for me, this is the end of the matter.
LikeLike
I suppose then you are saying that there be such a thing as a three or a four point Calvinist?
It is not possible. It is not possible to make the claim to Calvinism and be only a partial Calvinist. For instance, I have Southern Baptist acquaintances that say rather bluntly, “I am a Calvinist,” but fail to understand the implications of the system of logic to which they must subscribe.
As for Calvinists advancing the notion that God is dualistic in nature they do not do such a thing except tacitly because there is no other choice. This is where the logic must lead. If God is completely, totally, miutely sovereign (there is utterly no free-will in the universe) then He is the Father of evil (the fall, the halocaust, abortion, murder, war, pedofilia, abuse, rape and every homicide) and there is no way around it. He caused Adam and Eve to do what he instructed them not to do. By default Calvin’s God becomes the prime cause of everything. One would have to do philosohical gymnastics to arrive at anything else. They do not argue for this. They hide it but this is the where the logic ultimately leads and every thinker knows it so don’t try to bully or belittle me. Calvinism attempts to theologically bully anyone who disgrees with them. I care not a straw what you or they think. They are Gnostics of the worst kind. They corrupt the good reputation of a loving God and divide the Church in so doing. I intend to be no nicer to you than Calvinists are to those who disagree with them (95% of the universal church).
Further, stop making the boast by using the label “Reform Theology.” There were three Reformational movements and Calvinism spawned only one of them.
LikeLike
For the record I am a Southern Baptist and I think that all 5 points go together. I can tell you that I fully understand the implications of the logic. I spent 1.5 years trying to refute Calvinism but couldn’t. Then I realized that not only could I not refute it but I had to affirm it.
You have said that Calvinists believe that God is good and God is evil at the same time. This is completely different to the belief that God allows evil or actually causes evil (Calvinist believe both ways). Please give me a list of names of Calvinists that believe that God is both good and evil at the same time. If there are any then they should be avoided by everybody. I don’t think that the problem of evil is something to be overly concerned about. If God is sovereign then He is sovereign over everything even if we don’t understand all the details. Just because God allows evil and may use it to accomplish His will does not automatically follow that He is the “father of evil”.
You said
God is sovereign so by definition He is the prime cause of everything. Anyone who denies this needs to reread the Bible. This however does not mean that He causes everything. He either causes or allows all things to happen. Do you deny this? If so then you reject the clear teachings of the Bible. If you affirm it then welcome to Reformed Theology.
Furthermore, I prefer the label of Reformed Theology. I don’t really care if you don’t like it. I choose how to label myself. It does not consist of a boast or of bullying….get over it.
LikeLike
Tony,
Again, I go back to the fact that you said that I had a wrong interpretation on the passages the teach predestination and election. All I have asked you to do is give me a correct interpretation. If you don’t want to do that, no problem but don’t tell me that I am wrong without being willing to give the correct interpretation. Otherwise, you are simply asserting your opinion.
I have not read the Barringer book. I tried to find it on Amazon and don’t see it. I did a google search also and nothing came up. Can you provide me a link so I can get it?
You said
I would contend that the evidence is overwhelming. It is throughout the Old and New Testaments. This doctrine can’t be ignored by any bible believing Christian. So, the question becomes how does it fit into their theology. Is their theology consistent with the teachings of the Bible? If not, then they must change their theology. If you don’t want to exegete a particular passage then answer me this: How do you fit election / predestination into your theology?
If you don’t want to continue the discussion, so be it. Thanks for visiting my blog and contributing you thoughts. Stop by again sometime and feel free to comment again. I find these discussions very stimulating and I hope those who read them do also.
LikeLike
Sorry… did you ever go from memory and have it wrong? http://www.amazon.com/Predestination-Free-Will-David-Basinger/dp/0877845670 It was “Predestination and Free-Will” by Basinger and Basinger. Okay, I was close.
By the way, I am not an Armenian. I am only Wesleyan-Armenian by default in that I am a non-Calvinist.
LikeLike
Tony,
It will take me a bit to read and digest what you have copied and pasted here. Even before I read it I can guess it will probably be one of two basic Arminian explanations. Either it will say that election is corporate (election of the whole group) thing or God died for all people but people have a responsibility to “accept” the gift so it can be applied to them and they are the ones God has chosen to elect. I wonder which one it will be or if I will be surprised and it actually be something different.
LikeLike
This is why I didn’t bother writing for you. Whatever is written is always dismissed as being eisegesis or opinion. Of course, the only truly capable scholars are “Reform”. Calvinists instruct everyone and yet for me, on the subject of the nature of Divine Sovereignty and predestination they are as conjectural and eisegetic as anyone else. They begin with their assumptions.
I simply give you this one (above). I don’t ask that you give it any time at all. This just happens to be one scholarly exposition of many. There is no shortage of opinion on the meaning of sovereignty. I don’t mind Calvinists holding the opinion they do. I just dislike their know-it-all arrogance as though they have the handle on scholarship and revelation. Everyone else is their theological inferiors.
LikeLike
It is absolutely apparant and easily understood if reading the bible “as a child” as Jesus tells us we should receive the gospel to see that our salvation is a gift from God through Jesus Christ. It is also apparant that Jesus died once for all and that His sacrifice is our atonement. The atonement is for those that truly believe that He is The Son of God and our savior. Nothing, or Noboday can take away the gift and there is nothing that can cause us to lose our salvation. NOW, with that said if you read the scriptures without a calvanistic slant, you will see that WE can choose to not “Abide” in Christ. We are then “choosing” to give the gift back. This is a conscious choice and it is one that many make by not keeping His commandments. Jesus said, if you love me, you will keep my commandments. Jesus commands us to live a life that is holy and just. We are commanded to let our lights shine that others will see our good works and glorify the father through us. When we choose to sin we are choosing to go against what we as “followers of Christ” are called to do. We should not sin so that “grace may abound”.
It is said that some had “become” luke-warm. The Lord was going to “spit them out!” Those were once following Him, and had believed and ‘accepted” Jesus had become luke-warm meaning they had became less convicted, showed lack of faith, strayed from living a holy or “seperate” life. The bible describes the lambs book of life. In the lambs book of life are the names of those that are saved. The Lord talks about “blotting” out those that had fallen away. You cannot blot out something that was never there.
There is ABSOLUTE eternal security to those that “strive” to follow Christ and keep His commandments. All have (and will) sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God. It is ONLY Christ that can be our salvation and atone for our sins. It is only Jesus who is the sacrifice for our sins that allows those that believe and “abide” in Him to have eternal life. Eternal security is for those that remain “in Christ” and allow the Holy Spirit to lead them, and CHOOSE to “continue” to desire Christ and keep His commandments to the best of their ability. Our Lord desires that ALL come to salvation. God longed for Israel, and wanted to gather them up “like a hen gathers it’s chicks under it’s wings”, but the “resisted” God. God’s foreknew the “elect”. He foreknew that the elect would be those that “chose” to believe in Jesus Christ and it was those that through His foreknowledge would be saved. He also foreknew that others would not choose to believe. A branch cannot be cut off the vine if it had never been on the vine. The Lord said, I am the vine and you are the branches. In John 15:1 it is VERY clear that we can lose our salvation. Look at John 15:1-11. Jesus tells us that He is the vine and we are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, (see Galations 5:22-fruits of the spirit), for apart from me you can do nothing. If anyone does not abide in me he is THROWN AWAY like a branch and withers; (previously had life in Christ (branch) because we “were abiding in Him”)and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire,”
Revelations 20:15 (regarding the lambs book of life) And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. (see above reference of what happens to the branches that are THROWN AWAY gathered up and thrown into the fire).
Acts 3:19 Repent therefore, and turn again (Turn Again indicates they had turned to Christ or Repented previously and strayed) that you sins may be blotted out. verse 20: that times of refreshing (indicates that they were previously “fresh” but needed “refreshed”).
2 peter 2:20 For if, after they have escaped (escaped=freedom/salvation) the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (escaped due to belief in Christ “Savior), they are again entangled in them and overcome (so they were “again” meaning had been previously and then for a period believed and escaped through their knowledge of the “Savior” Jesus Christ),
the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would have been better for them never to have know the way of righteousness than after knowing it to “turn back” (please re-read if needed and you will see they knew Christ, they had overcame the world, and now had “turned back”) from the holy commandment delivered to them.
It goes on to remind us of the proverb “The dog returns to it’s own vomit, and the sow, oafter washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire.” AFTER WASHING herself is a direct reference to baptism and the cleaning we experience through regeneration when we give our lives to Jesus.
I can go on for hours sharing scripture that stresses and exhorts us to not fall away, stray from, return, and on, and on.
Please understand that the we MUST remain steadfast and do our best to follow Christ. We WILL SIN and we WILL face struggles. We WILL NOT lose our salvation as long as we “abide” in Him and allow Him to be our saviour. We need to cast all of our cares on Him and He will lift us up.
There is an “elect” group of people. The elect group are those that “choose” to believe in Christ and abide in Him.
God by His foreknowledge did predestine the elect to salvation. (see above definition of elect)
We have eternal security IN CHRIST as long as we keep His commandments and Abide IN HIM.
I want to close by saying, Christ left the world by commanding us to go out and share the gospel with others. He prayed to His father in John 17 on our behalf because He knows we are but “dust”. He says “if you love me, you will keep my commandments”. If we we are commanded to spread the gospel and bring others to the salvation through Christ, why would we need to do this if God had already chose a specific group and He would draw them to Him and the others could not be saved.
Please think about this and study the bible on your own without pre-conceived notions.
We do have the “blessed assurance that Jesus is mine”! Just make sure you are “choosing” to draw your strength from your faith in Christ with a passion to “strive” to follow Him. You will fall short, You will struggle, YOU WILL NOT LOSE YOUR SALVATION unless You make a conscious effort to TURN AWAY.
Let the Holy Spirit lead and I look forward to spending eternity in heaven with you!!!
God Bless!
Dan
LikeLike
Wow talking about taking all those verses out of context. 2 Peter 2 is about false teachers and false prophets. These men were never saved to begin with. A dog returning to his own vomit. Is someone returning where they belong. 1 John 2:19. The Luke warm Christian verse in Revelation is about a useless person not about a person losing their salvation. I can go on with your eisegeses of scripture.
LikeLike
To repent God must grant repentance. correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, (2 Timothy 2:25 ESV) Arminianism leads to open theism. Answer this question to me, if your god knows that someone will end up in hell does that person have a chance to be saved? If you say yes, then your god really does not know everything if you say no, then according to your theology man does not have free-will. The True God of scripture gave his life for the church his sheep and not for the goats. The true God knows his sheep because he chose them before the foundation of the World. The true God has a purpose for mans fall he degrees all things. He is sovereign, Just and has mercy on whom he will have mercy. Can you really say that of your god? Your god does not describe the God of the Bible.
LikeLike
Calvinists have reduced the Christian Faith to ONE doctrine only: Predestination…NOTHING else matters for them. And, in so doing, they have pushed thousands if not millions away from the true (non Calvinist) God and made the Name of Jesus Christ one that inspires hate and fear, not love. Frankly, I hate Calvin, Calvinists, and the Reformed religion. Calvinism is the stink of Satan on the earth and all Calvinists will burn with their fake god in hell.
LikeLike
Wrong in reform theology we hold to Christ being the center of our theology. We hold on to the five solas. Scripture does not describe Jesus as a huge failure your theology does. Jesus has accomplished we he set out to accomplish and is to save his people. In Your theology Jesus fails over and over again as many more go to hell than more will enter heaven. In your theology it’s mans choice that really saves them, since in your theology Jesus only made salvation possible but not effectual. And made it possible for men who would never choose something they hate so what’s the point. In your theology men are building the kingdom of God when scripture is clear that the Kingdom of God is here. Until you understand the error of your theology you will have a hard time understanding Grace and how a big deal the cross is. How much gratitude you should have towards God for giving you the heart to choose what’s right and believe. God did not choose anyone because they where more intelligent or had a more righteous heart than others. How arrogant a person must be to think their righteous choice made them better than others who reject Christ. You should be on your hands and knees in adoration of Triune God for granting you repentance and changing your heart. Men are not born or are not neutral. Without faith you cannot please God. And in Romans its clear of all men condition are in. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. (Romans 8:7, 8 ESV)
God must give men saving faith to please God. Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, (Ephesians 2:8 ESV) I will always say this since I came out of Arminianism. Arminianism is not the gospel it’s just a pharisaical form of legalism set to bondage Gods children under the law. Of foolish Galatians who has bewitched you. Galatians 3:1
LikeLike
David,
You are wrong. Calvinists do not reduce the Christian faith to the doctrine of predestination. It is absurd to say that nothing else matters to us. The problem is that too many Arminians want to pretend that predestination is not a true biblical doctrine. If you believe the Bible it true and without error then you must accept predestination because it is explicitly taught in God’s word. Doctrine divides. The doctrines of the Bible should bring us to a point of AWE for God. Predestination is just one aspect of that.
LikeLike
Hey Tom- What are your thoughts or response to Dan’s comments from March 21,2011. I was just curious
LikeLike
David,
I will read them this afternoon or tonight and post my thoughts.
LikeLike
Hey Tom- Did you get a chance to read Dan’s comments from March 21, 2011.
God Bless, David
LikeLike
Yup Steve Gregg is right, we have to be trained to become a Calvinist. But he forgot to add that God and his holy scripture is the Instructor.
LikeLike
Joseph,
That is a great perspective on this issue.
LikeLike
Before I was saved, the preaching of the gospel that I heard was in a style of communication that implied to me that I had the inherent ability to accept or reject God’s call to believe in Christ as my savior in order to be saved. Therefore, I concluded that the preacher believed the same about mans ability. Also, when I actually looked up the scriptures that were used in the sermons, the text implied to me that I, of my own will, needed to make a decision to accept Christ as my savior in order to be saved. I had no idea that the preacher might not actually believe man had the inherent ability to accept or reject God’s call. For several months God was convicting me of my sin, that hell was my destiny, and that I needed my sins forgiven by faith in Christ. I was saved believing that I had the inherent ability to accept or reject God’s call to accept Christ as my savior.
As a new believer, I began to study the word of God from that perspective. As I came across the few verses (approximately much less than 0.5%) that syllogistically could be used to build an implied theology of “no inherent ability of man to accept or reject God’s call (which is through the Scripture and drawing of the Holy Spirit) to trust His word, to follow His commands and to believe in Christ as our savior”, I only temporarily mentally noted that those few verses by themselves could be used to build the implied theology of “no inherent ability of man to accept or reject God’s call” if a person ignored the implication of the majority of the Scripture and the implication of the style of communication used by God in the Scripture. I proceeded to interpret those few verses from an “inherent ability of man to accept or reject God’s call”, which is the precedence set by the majority of scriptures in the Bible and the communication style of the word of God; and I did not have any problems understanding and interpreting them from a that perspective or precedence. During those early years of my Christian life I had not even heard of Calvinism. The style of communication used by God in the Bible is the same style people use every day of their lives — which is a style that obviously is built on an understood foundation that assumes the hearer has the free will ability to accept or reject what is being communicated to them. Also, according to my reasoning capacity the mere existence of communications from God to man through His inspired word (the Bible), in which He tries to convince mankind to accept His call, instructions and commands, implies to me that mankind has the inherent free will ability to accept or reject His call, instructions and commands. To me, even the mere existence of TULIP proof texts, such as Romans 9, implies that mankind has the inherent free will ability to accept or reject His call, instructions and commands even though some Christians interpret those TULIP proof texts in such a way as to try to prove that mankind does not have the free will ability to accept or reject God’s call, instructions and commands.
Years later I begin to come across Calvinists and heard their teaching and read of their theology of “no inherent ability of man to accept or reject God’s call”. Their teaching and teaching method of using less than 0.5% of the Bible had a scholarly aura about it because they did a very good job of doing an academic syllogistic development using those few verses. It seemed strange to me that Calvinists would let the implication of approximately less than 0.5% of the Scripture set the precedence when the implication of approximately 99.5% of the Scripture contradicted their conclusion. My experience indicates to me that a lot of people that get saved, intuitively/logically see this implied understood “inherent ability of man to accept/believe or reject God’s call” in the majority of the Bible without even being fully cognizant of it; and therefore, like I was at first, are unable to rationally explain it at first. Also, like myself, they intuitively/logically let that set the precedence and will automatically interpret Calvinism’s 0.5%, or less, supporting Scripture verses from “the inherent ability of man to accept/believe or reject God’s call” precedence perspective. I have found Calvinism’s 0.5%, or less, Scripture verses are easily understood from the “inherent ability of man to accept/believe or reject God’s call” perspective.
When a strict Calvinist would give their interpretation to me of those few scriptures in their syllogistic logic loop chain, the thought that repeatedly came to my mind was “What about the rest of the Scripture, the majority of Scripture!” Each time I asked them about a verse or section of the Scripture that implied the “inherent ability of man to accept or reject God’s call (which is through the Scripture and drawing of the Holy Spirit)”, they would jump back to repeating their academic and scholarly syllogistic logic loop chain, based on less than 0.5% of the Scripture. After I had asked them about many more verses in the Bible that implied this “inherent ability of man to accept or reject God’s call”, they would start accusing me of having a proof-texting mentality. At first, I was baffled, because I had never heard of the idea of proof-texting before. Later, I realized that they were doing the same proof-texting. I could windup quoting almost 99.5% of the Scripture if they did not stop me.
I soon realized that there was something wrong with my method of discussing my conclusions with them. Finally, I realized that they were experts at getting folk like me to get started on a verse hurdling contest, and then they would start accusing folk like me of being guilty of proof-texting. From that point on, I very early in discussions with Calvinists point out to them the majority implication of the Bible, instead of getting caught up in a verse hurdling contest.
Now days, when I ask Calvinists to interpret the 99.5%, or greater, of the Scripture, that reeks with the implication “that man has the inherent ability to accept/believe or reject what is being communicated to them from God (which is through the Scripture and drawing of the Holy Spirit)” from their “no inherent ability of man to accept/believe or reject” perspective, the usual answer I get is along this line: “Yes, God communicates with man in a style that implies that man has the inherent ability to accept/believe or reject what is being communicated to them from Him, but God knows that man does not have that inherent ability.” To me, that response seems to imply that God has been deceiving mankind on this theological issue for millennia, implying that God is a deceiver. When I tell them that implies that God is a deceiver, they usually respond by saying that “— My (God’s) ways (are) higher than your ways — from Isa. 55:9”. This type of response is what I get from the majority of strict TULIP type Calvinists (5 point Cal.) and strict TUIP Calvinists (4 point Cal.).
Also, when I ask strict Calvinists why 99%, or the majority, of the time they preach in a communication style that also implies “that man has the inherent ability to believe or reject what is being communicated to them”, they usually reply by “saying that is the way God does it in the Bible”. To me, that answer seems to be saying “If God is deceiving man on this issue in the Bible, then so can I.”
There is a significant number of TULIP, TUIP and TUP type Calvinists (at least they claim to be 5-point, 4-point and 3-point Calvinists), that I mentally like to think of as baffled-Calvinists. These baffled-Calvinists are mentally confounded between the highly intellectual, scholarly, and academic syllogistic chain reasoning argument presented by strict TULIP and TUIP Calvinists and their own common sense logical reasoning ability that sees that the “majority (great than 99.5%) of the Bible and the communication style of God in the Bible” reeks with an obvious implication of the inherent ability of man to accept/believe or reject what is being communicated to them from God; they see the obvious contradiction. In an effort to resolve this contradiction, these Baffled-Calvinists will say that (TUI, TU and free will) are true and that we can not understand it because “— My (God’s) ways (are) higher than your ways — from Isa. 55:9”. To me, their answer seems to imply that God is justifying their internally contradictory theology. Worse yet, their answer seems to imply that God is just in being a God that contradicts Himself. I do not believe it is logically proper to use Isa. 55:9 to justify internally contradictory theology. Isa. 55:9 can be used to explain some hard to understand theology (such as the Trinity), but not internally contradictory theology. In the case of man’s free will and God electing people for salvation before He created the world, it is wise to apply the mystery of “— My (God’s) ways (are) higher than your ways — from Isa. 55:9” to the question of “How can God foreknow those whom He can convince to make a free will decision to accept God’s call, that is, to repent and accept Christ as their savior?” than to justify God being a God that is just in contradicting Himself.
I refer to myself as an “inherent free-willer” which means I believe in the inherent ability of mankind to accept/believe or reject God’s call (which is through the Scripture and drawing of the Holy Spirit); I believe humans are born corrupted with a sin nature because of Adam’s and Eve’s sin — that is, fallen and corrupted mankind is now bipolar having two natures (good and evil) in accordance with Adam’s and Eve’s sin of eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; I believe that no one can come to Christ unless the Father who sent Christ draws him (John 6:44) [the convicting, drawing work of the Holy Spirit and the word of God]; I believe in the eternal security of the believer; I do not believe in the Calvinistic concepts of total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement and irresistible grace; I believe that God has elected before the beginning of the world those in the new testament era whom he foreknew He could convince to believe/trust in Christ as their sacrifice for the forgiveness of their sins; and I believe that God has elected before the beginning of the world those before the new testament era whom he foreknew He could convince to believe/trust in Him and His plan.
The churches that I have regularly attended, so far, in my Christian life are churches that were/are inhabited by a mixture of “inherent free-willers”, “TULIP type baffled-Calvinists”, “TUIP type baffled-Calvinists”, “TUP type baffled-Calvinists”, “modified Arminians that believe in eternal security” and some “Molinists”. I have found that these types of Christians worship, minister and fellowship together without fighting over their differences in the area of free will of man. I believe the peaceful fellowship occurs because all these types have one thing in common in the area of free will of man: in the practical everyday world, they all witness, teach and preach in a communication style that assumes/implies the free will of man.
14
LikeLike
Just where did u end up getting the points to publish ““Steve Gregg Says
You Must Be Trained To Believe Calvinism Is True The Everyday Christian”?
Regards ,Denice
LikeLike
Denice,
If you read the beginning of the post you will see where I got the quote from Gregg. I give links and even went so far as to tell you about how far into the audio that Gregg makes the comment.
LikeLike