The exposition of John 6 and Romans 8 that you offer is what has drawn me to Reformed theology (but really, did I ever have a choice?).

This is a well written post, Randy. Although your very last sentence has a faint suggestion of Arminianism in it :-)

Matt (the formerly Arminian son of your cousin, that is).

nice post.
The question is what then? I find it easy to engage in apologetics regarding this topic from the self effacing stance of if I had a role in election, I would have messed it up as I have most everything I have tried to govern apart from God in my life.
The difference in Wages and gift is well made.
Wages is our due, it is what we are owed and what we have earned. Anything else is a blessing. Western society and the democratic party are now advocating for all should receive equal blessings, God's grace does not follow the idea of redistributed blessings. It rains upon the poor and the rich. Both get equally wet.

If I play a role regardless of how minute in salvation, than I threaten to befoul it. The absolute absence of my role in the singular act of my personal salvation is required for it be permanent. Assurance therefore, flows from the permanence of the delivery of grace. My response is one of compulsion, beyond my strained ability to resist it, I am dragged kicking and screaming to the foot of the cross, how quickly and comprehensively subdue my will by the power of the holy spirit may look as if I play a role, however, God brings everything about knowing it's effect on all things. It may feel and appear to me as free will but alas I am in the grip of the almighty who has forecast my actions to their most private workings and has constructed events to occur as they will bring me into a right relationship with him. I may think my effort brings me somewhere further down the line of sanctification, but it is erroneous for me to do anything but fault my involvement, not to praise it.

Matt, you're still the son of my cousin, right? The formerly just applies to the Arminian part, I presume. As for the end, I'm never attempting to sound Arminian; I believe that all who obey the command to repent and believe are able to do so only because of the Spirit's enabling.

Travis, I agree that we play no role in election, but I do believe we make choices that help or hinder our ongoing sanctification, with the caveat that God is in control and without the Spirit we would never desire to grow. I compare it to a dog in a backyard. He does not have free will, but he still makes choices whether to sleep, chase butterflies or dig, and they affect his life even though his master can intervene at any time.

It all comes down to how we understand 'free will' choices. A truly free will, in the purest sense, would mean that my choices would have to be completely dispassionate. Influenced by nothing. But as we all know our choices in our daily lives are always influenced in one way or another. And, as Travis points out, if left to our own devices, we always seem to mess it up. If this is what happens in our daily experience I can't imagine something as vital as my eternal salvation residing in my ability to decide. This is the one thing that has caused me to see what a glorious and awesome God we have. In my years outside of the Reformed faith God was still great but I couldn't get away from the feeling that he was simple an all powerful vending machine and all I had to do was insert my faith.

Always good to hear from you, Arnold. I don't believe in free will for anyone but God, for if we were truly free, He would not be able to intervene in our lives against that free will (to do things like save us, for example). Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Thank you for that meditation on the Father's election. Salvation is either about us or about God. It is about us if WE chose the gift of salvation on our own accord, or it is about God, if he drew us and enabled us to accept Salvation. So much of American Christianity is self-centered because the foundational decision to accept Christ is believed to come from our own good decision, a decision that is better, wiser, than those who have not chosen to follow Christ. I love the reformed (Biblical) understanding of Salvation because it is about what God did, and not about what I did. If it was I who chose him, I remain in charge, I can still be in the driver's seat and decide how much I want to give him. If he chose me, then HE did it for a reason, and has a purpose he is calling me to fulfill.

"In non-Reformed circles, it's common to hear that we essentially set ourselves free from sin. Yes, it has to be the work of Christ, but there's a stack of "Get out of jail free" gift cards sitting on the table for everyone, thanks to the sacrifice of Jesus. He has done all that He can do, and the rest is up to us."
Having grown up within the the same church background that you come from, I am astounded at this observation. I have been in these "circles" for years, both as church member and pastor and have never heard anything like this. It's amazing how differently people can interpret the same event.
In the Reformed-nonReformed or Arminian-Calvinist debates I see this happening regularly which is why I refuse to take either of these labels. Both sides attribute positions to the other side which in reality the other side would deny. Also, I see people on both sides of the issue misunderstanding their own position and consequently struggling deeply with various aspects of their faith. (I see some Calvinists who seem to be riding on false security and some Arminians who live in irrational fear of having "lost" their salvation.)
I am no theologian, and likely you would find a lot of inconsistencies in my theology, but then again, I have yet to meet someone who is totally consistent.
There may be some non-Reformed circles where this concept is held but certainly not in all, and certainly not in the circles of your upbringing.

P.S. I confess I find it amusing at how hard Calvinists are constantly working at "explaining" what is claimed to be self-evident Scriptural truth in the first place. I always come away from these "clear" explanations as puzzled as ever (not so much about Scripture but about just what the real Calvinist position is).

Thanks for the thoughts, Richard. I've heard preachers say things like "God voted for you, Satan voted against you, and now it's up to you to cast the deciding vote." I've certainly heard many evangelists plead for people to choose Jesus while they play just one more verse of "Just As I Am," usually picturing Jesus as knocking on your heart's door hoping you'll let him in. He always seemed rather helpless in those scenarios. He's already done all He can do until we invite Him in.

I'm curious what view you heard. Was it more of a prevenient gace a la Wesleyism that canceled our depravity enough for man to choose?

As for labels, I prefer synergist or monergist, since everyone is one or the other. Is salvation a work of God alone, or of God plus something? I'm a monergist because I believe salvation is God alone, raising dead sinners to spiritual life. I've had pastors tell me we're like someone who fell down a well or into a lake, and God offers us a ladder/lifesaving ring, but we have to grab the ladder/ring. That's synergism because salvation depends on our action.

I think Calvinists spend so much time explaining because so many Arminians claim they don't see man's depravity and God's election despite the very clear verses asserting just that. For example, I grew up hearing Mennonites mocking eternal security as "fire insurance" despite the words of Jesus in John 6:39, "And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day." I never remember an EMC pastor preaching on that verse, or on John 10:28, "And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish," or on man's inability in Romans 8:7-8. I could go on and on with examples that don't need any hermeneutical slight of hand--just simple, plain verses teaching the TULIP of Calvinism.

We have the privilege of serving, for what will likely be the closing years of our ministry, in a church consisting entirely of Mexican Mennonites. It is indeed quite a challenge. For most of my ministry I have been in churches that were quite intellectually challenging and stimulating. These people, many of them, have virtually no education. Ministry has to be at a very, very basic level. This is a good exercise – having to couch theology in kindergarten language. It is refreshing to see their simple, uncluttered faith and way of looking at Scripture (They do have traditionalistic baggage that is a hindrance). They know nothing of monergism or synergism, and have only a vague idea of a Calvinist-Arminian debate going on. Since they have been taught in their background that they can only “hope” to be saved, the concept of “eternal security” does appeal to some of them, but that’s about as far as it goes. I did preach on eternal security last Sunday from the book of 1 John.
But I do like the straightforward approach to Scripture that I see here. I have at times spent hours studying the whole synergism-monergism discussion from every angle and I find it hard to get very excited about it because it would be impossible for me to explain these things to these people in simple terms. To them, if the Bible uses, as it does over and over, terms such as “Come unto me”, Believe”, “Repent”, “Open”, "Choose this day" and so forth, they accept these words at face value as written in plain English. They would find it totally incomprehensible that someone would claim, as one Lutheran monergist did, that in reality one only appears to be responding to these commands – it is God who is doing it.
I know that Calvinists seem to prefer to have everything neatly packaged into either-or slots but in looking over the possibilities I have a hard time labeling myself as either a monergist or a synergist, as least as defined by the Calvinists I have read. These definitions always make it sound as if the synergist thinks he is doing a “work” to earn his salvation, even when he is just reaching out to respond to God’s offer. And that this somehow relegates God to a helpless position. The synergism I could subscribe to would be one in which God is alive, powerful, active in his work to bring us salvation and humans humbly accept his gift and submit themselves to his Lordship. It is not God 99% and man 1%, but God doing 100% of the saving work and man submitting 100% of himself to God. The monergist position again sounds to me like it turns a person into a dummy who sits passively while God makes a Christian out of him, whether he likes it or not. I know you would not agree with the terminology but that is the sense I come away with each and every time. (I have earnestly read a number of Calvinists' books with the express purpose of trying to understand TULIP but I always go away with the feeling that it must have been a Calvinist who wrote the line, "The barefoot boy with the shoes on stood sitting in the grass". This issue of election is a case in point - If God only elects some, he does not elect the many - whether you call it election or not - the poor people end up in hell with no chance whatsoever of repentance.) I certainly agree that without God's grace and his initiative we would be totally hopeless. But to me, God’s sovereignty is vastly greater if he is like a father who lovingly and humbly teaches his son about what it means to be a mature person and then sets him free to live that life than a father who “micro-manages” his son’s life. If God, by his grace, has made us in such a way that we are able to make a choice for or against his gift, then it would not seem to be that our choice does anything to merit our salvation. I remember some years ago that your dear friend, the late Dr. Archie Penner, in a seminar on this general topic, expounded on a third alternative which he called Correspondence, which with a few differences is roughly where I fit in. I still have a handout in which he evaluates the three views. In any case, it does show that not everyone is comfortable with only the two extremes.
Anyway, this is getting too long. I find that debates on this generally end up not changing anyone and so I am not trying to change your mind but just showing where I have ended up after many years – pretty much where I started I guess and more thankful for that position - I supposed I am predestined to believe this way!
P.S. I also have little use for some of the evangelism methods used back in the olden days in our churches. But I also had an issue with some of the Calvinistic child evangelism groups of that time who went around having children rallies where they somehow pressured kids into being “saved” and, of course, once they were saved they could never be unsaved again and so it was justified in their eyes I guess.
Also I have enjoyed looking at your site from time to time to see what is going on in your life. I used to know your father quite well – how is he doing?

Hi,
Great comments, Richard!

I could go on and on with examples that don't need any hermeneutical slight of hand--just simple, plain verses teaching the TULIP of Calvinism.
Like this one?
Romans 5:18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.
Whoops!! Looks like TULIP just became (at best) TUIP. Unless if perspicuity, inerrancy, verbal plenary inspiration, inherent stable meaning in words, etc., are all just theories to which we give lip service when we talk about how we should read the Bible, and have nothing to do with how we actually read it.
But I'm with Richard. This won't change anyone's mind. Scripture hardly ever actually does. We always read scripture from somewhere and that somewhere places limits on what scripture is actually allowed to say. Which scripture is allowed to interpret other scripture? These are pivotal decisions we must make as we read.

Thanks for the detailed post, Richard.

it would be impossible for me to explain these things to these people in simple terms. To them, if the Bible uses, as it does over and over, terms such as “Come unto me", Believe", “Repent", "Open", "Choose this day" and so forth, they accept these words at face value as written in plain English. They would find it totally incomprehensible that someone would claim, as one Lutheran monergist did, that in reality one only appears to be responding to these commands – it is God who is doing it.

No need to listen to confused Lutherans. It really is very simple--if we are dead in our transgressions (Eph 2), then we need a Savior to begin a good work in us (Phil 1:6) before we can come, believe, repent or choose. Dead people don't do any of those things. The simple bottom line is that we are spiritually sick people who can seek a doctor for our illness, or we are spiritually dead and need someone to remove our heart of stone and replace it with a heart of flesh (Ez 36:26). I say the Bible clearly, simply and repeatedly teaches the latter. That doesn't mean there aren't some difficult passages, but I see the weight of Scripture on that side of the scale, which is why I switched my view.

I have a hard time labeling myself as either a monergist or a synergist, as least as defined by the Calvinists I have read.
These definitions always make it sound as if the synergist thinks he is doing a "work" to earn his salvation, even when he is just reaching out to respond to God’s offer.

Can dead people reach out to respond? Monergism says no, period. Synergism says no, but we're not actually dead in our transgressions.

The synergism I could subscribe to would be one in which God is alive, powerful, active in his work to bring us salvation and humans humbly accept his gift and submit themselves to his Lordship. It is not God 99% and man 1%, but God doing 100% of the saving work and man submitting 100% of himself to God.

If God is doing 100% of the saving work, it's monergism. Welcome to the Reformed community. :-)

The monergist position again sounds to me like it turns a person into a dummy who sits passively while God makes a Christian out of him, whether he likes it or not.

Dead people don't do anything, not even sit passively. Did Lazarus sit passively until Jesus said, "Lazarus, come forth"? Once he was raised to life, I'm sure he was eager to serve his Lord. Romans 8:7-8 says "the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God," so in a sense your last statement is quite true.

I have earnestly read a number of Calvinists' books with the express purpose of trying to understand TULIP

Have you read/listend to James White or John Piper? RC Sproul? I'm just trying to get an idea who has seemed obscure.

This issue of election is a case in point - If God only elects some, he does not elect the many - whether you call it election or not - the poor people end up in hell with no chance whatsoever of repentance.)

They have every chance, but as Romans 8:7-8 show us, they are hostile to God and will never bow the knee to their Creator unless made spiritually alive.

I certainly agree that without God's grace and his initiative we would be totally hopeless.

That sounds very monergistic again. We agree.

than a father who "micro-manages" his son's life

Is it micro-management to save your child when she wants to dart into a busy street? There are times when that is very loving.

I remember some years ago that your dear friend, the late Dr. Archie Penner, in a seminar on this general topic, expounded on a third alternative which he called Correspondence

I used to work on Dr. Penner's farm equipment when I was a teen. He once said he'd be proud to call me his son, although I don't know if he still felt that way after our creation/evolution exchange. Nonetheless, we had a good phone call after that exchange and he invited me to visit him, but we didn't have a chance to get there before he went home to heaven.

I haven't heard of "correspondence" except as a theory of truth, so I'd be curious to learn more. However, I think the Bible clearly teaches election (after all, that's where we got the term).

I find that debates on this generally end up not changing anyone

I've found the opposite to be true. I was changed indirectly through reading book debates, and after vigorous debate with a former student and then my cousin's son (see Plett, Matthew), both of them adopted Reformed views. I've even seen one person switch from monergism to synergism, although they didn't give me a chance to dialogue with them.

I supposed I am predestined to believe this way!

:-) I'll say that you were predestined for salvation. Your views may well change on how that plays out.

Calvinistic child evangelism groups of that time who went around having children rallies where they somehow pressured kids into being "saved" and, of course, once they were saved they could never be unsaved again and so it was justified in their eyes I guess.

Sounds a lot more like free will/eternal security Baptist than Reformed. After all, you can't pressure someone into being elect.

I used to know your father quite well – how is he doing?

In good health at 70, and becoming more Reformed all the time!

Henry, the more time we spend in Romans, the better!

Romans 5:18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.
Whoops!! Looks like TULIP just became (at best) TUIP.

Not all, unless you're a universalist. Is every individual human justified? No. Every type of human, Jew or Greek, male or female, every tribe or language has been covered through one act, but Paul goes on in the very next verse (we must read in context!) to say that many, not every individual, will be made righteous. All of mankind is made up of the many sinners and the many righteous (even though the sanctification of the righteous is a life-long process and in our actions we are still sinners while on earth, our position before God is righteous if we are in Christ):

Romans 5:19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

Hi Randy,
Romans 5:18 does not demand universalism, though it can quite legitimately be read that way. What it does demand is justification that brings life to all through one act of righteousness, the same all that are condemned through the one act of transgression. The parallelism continues in 5:19 where the many who are made sinners through one man's disobedience are the many who are made righteous through one man's obedience. I agree with the importance of context and Romans 5:12ff is all about how, if the many are condemned in Adam, how much more are the many justified in Jesus. Remarkable parallelism throughout, and 5:18 is much more emphatic than mere parallelism. It applies the condemnation and the justification to the same all, not only the many. Even if you do not want to go as far as universalism, you must at least recognize the sufficiency of justification for all in 5:18, something which election on most Reformed formulations disavows. I have heard some declare that election refers only to service, never to salvation. That version of election would be a different kettle of fish altogether.

Henry, do you believe someone can be justified, yet still be required to face God's wrath and pay the price for their sins which were already atoned for? What good is justification in that case? It accomplishes nothing. Yet Romans 28:30 tells us, "those he justified, he also glorified." Again, we're left with all are justified and glorified (universalism), or as Revelation 5:9 says of Christ, "with your blood you purchased men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation." No group is excluded, but not every individual is included.

you must at least recognize the sufficiency of justification for all in 5:18

Christ's death was sufficient to save all of his people from their sins. He perfectly saved all that the Father gave him (John 6). I believe in penal substitutionary atonement, therefore I believe God punished Jesus in the place of those who make up the body of Christ. I do not believe God punished Jesus for the sins of those already under God's wrath, or headed in that direction.

I have heard some declare that election refers only to service, never to salvation. That version of election would be a different kettle of fish altogether.

Not a Biblical one if it rejects election to salvation as taught in 2 Thessalonians 2:13, "But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth."

I had, and still do have (sometimes), trouble when encountering verses such as Henry quoted in Romans 5:18. But the more I read the Bible I found that I also had opposite problems with verses like John 6:44. They seemed to come from different perspectives. Now I was engaged and needed to figure out exactly what Scripture was teaching. I had spent most of my life learning Scripture verses. And that was the problem. It was mostly just verses. And, these verses were interpreted in light of the teachings at my church.

Once I began to try and fit the whole of Scripture into my theological teaching (at the time) I encountered many inconsistencies. Now I needed some help. At the time I was in my late teens and didn't know anything about exegesis, eisegesis, calvinism, arminianism, monergism, synergism etc. Scripture that talked about pre-destination, or election were always glossed over by our pastor's and leaders in the church. After many more years of reading the Church Fathers, writers from the time of the Reformation, and many current day authors from a variety of theological perspectives, I began to lean towards a Reformed theology. That, to be honest, bothered me. It was so outside of my teaching and understanding to that point in my life. But, because I had become very well acquainted with Scripture before reading any of the above mentioned writers, I was able to begin to see where the consistent teaching of Scripture was leading me.

Anyway, suffice it to say, that I am now completely in the monergistic camp, subscribing the the Reformed doctrines as that is what I see reflected in Scripture. The biggest turning point for me was a simple question. "What was accomplished at the cross?" To answer that I needed the entire message of the New Testament and came to the same conclusions that Randy outlines in the above post (14). If Christ actually did die for those already in hell as well as those on their way to heaven (the 'all men' argument) the only difference would be my ability to make the right choice. Since it seems the Bible teaches that we have no such ability... Well you get the picture...

I smiled when you welcomed me to the Reformation camp. Some of my Calvinistic friends in our last church chided me for all my "Calvinistic" statements in my sermons. That's why I like my position so much. I don't have to pay homage to one particular brand. Anyway I noticed that they in turn made some very "Arminian" statements. In fact, I find that in ordinary daily living we pretty much operate in the same way. The heat starts generating when we get into debating situations. Yet we can do the same things and still have a different mindset as we do so. For e.g., in preaching the gospel to unsaved people I believe the whole audience can potentially respond whereas you would believe that only a certain percentage can do so. We still preach the same gospel. And we all believe in holy living.

As to which books I have read or not read. I have read a great many Calvinistic/Reformed authors; I haven't read James White, but I have read Piper and Sproul. I find both of them unsatisfying and uninspiring, although they have some good articles as well. But by now I no longer really try to understand the Reformed doctrine. The more I have read the happier I am with what I have - it just seems so much more in tune with the overall Scriptural teaching. By now I more or less content myself with browsing around pestering people on their websites. Just out of curiosity though, it does bother me that I would need to read a certain brand of Calvinism in order to get the real thing. Is only one brand correct?

I am attaching the handout that I got from Dr. Archie Penner in which he explains Correspondence. Unfortunately, his accompanying lectures, in which he went into greater detail and expounded Scriptures on the matter, are not available. Also unfortunately, like all his writings, it is in need of considerable editing. I would further like to recommend one of his later books which deals with the matters you are discussing with Henry above. This book is called "The Gospel Revisited" and it deals with what he calls "consistent universalism". He goes through pretty much every pertinent Scripture to support his case. It needs major editing but his ideas do come through quite clearly. I believe one place you can get it is through the EMC website.



What is Biblical Faith? (By Dr. Archie Penner)

Three Definitions of Faith.--The concept of true faith, as set forth in the Scriptures, has been defined in different ways. There are those who say that faith as monergism is the best definition or description of true and saving faith. Others opt for the idea of synergism, as at least some would label this position as such, while still others see faith as correspondence. So, then, the question is which of the following terms best describes Biblical faith: Monergism? Synergism? or Correspondence? Or, asked differently, which of these three positions finds the greatest amount of Biblical support in terms of saving faith, and living the Christian life?

MONERGISM: In this scheme of faith God does it all absolutely. This means that 100% depends on God, and 0% depends on man to be saved. God gives grace, and faith, and repentance, and the will and response. But--and now comes the vibrant difference between corresponding faith and synergistic faith, as compared with Calvinistic monergism--this means that the whole of one’s eternal destiny is irresistibly accomplished. Even the direction of the response is irresistibly completed by God.
In this scheme, therefore, since grace and faith are irresistible, faith is not, in any possible sense, a condition of salvation. Rather, it is the result of irresistible regeneration. And back of irresistible regeneration lies predestination of this Calvin writes much: “By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determines within himself whatever he wishes to happen with regard to every man.”
In fact, all that happens, He has so willed, for there is only one fixed will of God. And, so, God determines some to eternal life and some to eternal death.
Such are the concomitants of the faith which is monergistic, and thus, irresistible. The view also rejects, true to its determining assumptions, all conditions for salvation. All conditions for salvation are viewed only as merit. Thus faith as a condition of salvation is considered as works salvation. In monergism, then, faith is passive, and only becomes active as a result of regeneration. This is the position in which every possible aspect of salvation is eternally determined in the secret counsels of God. And faith, according to Berkouwer is not a matter of man’s own contribution nor a participation in his salvation.
That this view of faith has little in common with either synergism, or correspondence, has become rather clear.

SYNERGISM: Faith, in this view, is seen as God and the man co-operating in man’s conversion. It seeks to reconcile two paradoxical truths, namely, that faith is a divine gift, and yet faith is the action of man. The Reformed see and understand synergistic faith as God doing his part, and man doing his.
While the Reformed theologians charge that this concept of faith is really man doing it all, even though it could be seen in some sense as a 50/50 deal. However, when the Reformed evaluate it, they continually charge that this faith in fact it means that all depends on the decision and faith of man, and, therefore, man does it all.
A shallow explanation could be, perhaps, that the faith which saves, as a co-operative action, would actually only contribute a small, yet decisive part of the human aspect of co-operation, say, 5%.
Yet those who accept the concept of synergistic faith, would be unhappy with both explanations. They would say that the contributions in the cooperative venture of faith are in some way identical. God gives faith as a pure gift of grace, man appropriates this gift, and exercises faith.
Yet, in another sense, they are everything else than identical, for they are qualitatively different, and therefore cannot be mathematically posited.
This difference is based on the fact that from God’s side salvation is fully provided, and the response from the human side is only conditional, not in any way causative, and, therefore contributes nothing in itself.
Faith, then, is God’s gift, exercised by grace; it is fully man’s own because it is appropriated by decision. That which is appropriated is ones own, although this appropriation is made possible only by divine grace.

CORRESPONDENCE: In this idea, salvation and the Christian life depends 100% on God. He is the sole initiator. He alone completes it, since salvation is all of grace, absolutely. God, then, is the efficient cause of salvation.
However, in contrast to, and, in conjunction with the divine, efficient cause, there is the human instrumental cause. This cause is also totally by divine enabling. But it is also 100% human action. Since it is the human act of faith which is the decisive, determining factor for being saved. Salvation is 100% human responsibility, yet absolutely without any possible merit.
For even the human act of faith is possible only by grace. Among other functions, divine grace liberates man to act freely and decisively to respond to God’s claims, either negatively or positively.
God, then, does it all. He gives grace, and faith, and repentance and even the will to respond, but the response is yet forever a fully human response.
But, what kind of act is this response of faith? It is, supremely, the act of surrendering to, and appropriating the will of God and, therefore, it is an act of existential obedience. As obedience, it is love. Only he can obey truly who loves passionately?
We must note well, that to obey is to do the will of God. To do God’s will, is to conform to His character. So faith is not a function of part of a person. It is the whole being: brain, brawn, soul and spirit, responding. Thus, faith is existential, and becomes the conforming action, to the thought, emotion, attitude, ethics, character and actions of God. This means that faith is to will what God wills, to act as Jesus acted and acts. And, as will and active obedience are inseparable, faith is to do what God does. Consequently, one must also forgive, as God forgives, in order to be saved. This is correspondence.
The faith by which one is saved, is inseparable from the faith by which one lives. And the faith by which one lives, is the faith by which one is saved. God, then, does it all. He gives grace, and faith, and repentance and even the will of response, but it forever remains man’s decision on how to respond. But this is not an act of cooperation, synergism. It is an act fitting for the whole divine economy of God’s nature and His relation to His creation. It is an act which corresponds to the absolute whole of reality.

It's all well and good to have these detailed definitions fleshed out philosophically but what does the Bible say? I do understand where you are coming from but I don't get synergism or correspondence (although it attempts to uphold Biblical truths much more that synergism) from detailed reading of Scripture.

Arnold, thanks for contributing. You wrote,

The biggest turning point for me was a simple question. "What was accomplished at the cross?"

That was part of our Sunday School class this morning. Did Jesus complete anything, or just create some potential scenarios? Jesus himself made claims of completeness like "It is finished," but the most obvious is John 17:4, where He says, "I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do." That pretty much says it all.

Richard, I don't think any of us feel the need to pay homage to any camp, other than the "our authority is the Bible" camp. As you pointed out, this is an intra-family discussion; even though one side is wrong, we can agree to disagree.

I have read Piper and Sproul. I find both of them unsatisfying and uninspiring

That's mind-boggling to me. Have you heard Piper preach? If not, look up "Boasting Only In The Cross" on the web. I haven't heard too many more inspiring preachers. Sproul is more of a teacher, but Piper can definitely preach and Desiring God was an inspiring book, in my opinion.

The more I have read the happier I am with what I have - it just seems so much more in tune with the overall Scriptural teaching.

That's exactly how I feel since I switched to a Reformed view!

it does bother me that I would need to read a certain brand of Calvinism in order to get the real thing. Is only one brand correct?

If they differ, then logic would say "yes." However, I mostly care about monergism and penal substitutionary atonement. Everything else pretty much falls into place and differences are relatively minor beyond that.

Thanks for Archie's article. He described monergism well. I thought he described synergism fairly as well. At first glance, it appears that correspondence is an attempt to accept the clear Scriptures supporting monergism, yet simultaneously smuggling in man's will as the determining factor rather than accepting election. He promotes synergism even while denying it, for he says

And the faith by which one lives, is the faith by which one is saved. God, then, does it all. He gives grace, and faith, and repentance and even the will of response, but it forever remains man's decision on how to respond.

Where in Scripture do we find humans who have repentance and faith given by God, yet respond negatively to His call? That's a concept foreign to the Bible. Essentially Dr. Penner is preaching a generic prevenient grace and denying all of the Scriptures which teach God's specific call and election. Since he insists that the faith by which we live is the faith by which we are saved, and our destiny is determined by us, he is teaching synergism by another name. It's not God plus nothing, it's clearly God plus something from man, and that's synergism regardless of what he calls it. I wish he was still alive to discuss this, but we're too late for that.

I don't think any of us feel the need to pay homage to any camp, other than the "our authority is the Bible" camp.
It would be more honest to say "our authority is the Bible only if interpreted within a Reformed template." My beef is not with your having a template for interpreting scripture. I am troubled by the charade of a commitment to scripture alone when the commitment really is to a specific template for the interpretation of scripture. If Romans 5:18 cannot be allowed to mean what it most simply says, then it is clear that scripture alone is not your authority. You have a prior commitment to Reformed theology, therefore it is imperative that you develop an understanding of contradictory passages of scripture that forces certain passages to mean other than what they most simply say. Making a choice as to which passages will be given more weight in interpreting other passages is unavoidable, but I do not think the Reformed perspective gives scripture most room to speak in its own voice before making these choices. Reformed theology is based on a theology of sovereignty as control which in my view owes more to the reductionism of modern philosophy than it does to the testimony of scripture, and this problematizes these choices.
I studied Piper's elucidation of TULIP theology. I would add unconvincing to unsatisfying and uninspiring. To his credit he lists some references that he says seem to undermine parts of TULIP, but I can't help but wonder why the references that most explicitly contravene TULIP are simply ignored. If he is the biblical authority he is portrayed to be then this cannot be simply an oversight. I found his mis-representation of Arminian theology as limiting the atonement even more than Reformed theology to be laughable as well as revealing. He reminds me of my boys when I send them to wash their hands, and they whiningly insist that they should not need to wash their hands because their brother's hands are dirtier. If limiting the atonement is not profoundly problematic, then why would there be any need to misrepresent an alternative theory as more onerous because it supposedly limits atonement more??

I don't think any of us feel the need to pay homage to any camp, other than the "our authority is the Bible" camp.

It would be more honest to say "our authority is the Bible only if interpreted within a Reformed template....I am troubled by the charade of a commitment to scripture alone when the commitment really is to a specific template

That's simply false, Henry. I only became Reformed because of my high view of Scripture. To reference C.S. Lewis' comment about his conversion, I was dragged kicking and screaming into the Reformed camp because I couldn't refute John 6, Eph 2, Romans, etc. Emotionally, I did not want to become a Calvinist, but I was persuaded that I had no choice if I wanted to stay true to the Bible. Feel free to disagree with my views, but don't claim this is a charade and that I had Reformed glasses on when I looked at Scripture, because I was teaching semi-Pelagian theology as recently as 1999. I then made the switch right around that time. How could I have had a Reformed template in place when I was actively seeking to find ways around becoming Reformed? I would have been thrilled to stay in the comfort zone with all of my Arminian friends. I didn't have a single Reformed friend that I knew of when I made the decision to accept the doctrines of grace as taught by Reformed theology. I felt like a theological freak. Thankfully, many of my friends and relatives have come to the same understanding in the past eight years, so I'm no longer alone.

If Romans 5:18 cannot be allowed to mean what it most simply says, then it is clear that scripture alone is not your authority

Henry, let's look at it again:

Romans 5:18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.

Are all men condemned? No. That would have been the case after Adam's fall, but God had a plan, spelled out in this same book of Romans. Are all men justified? No. Clearly neither universal status applies to every individual. Nothing tricky in seeing that. However, if you want what the passage "simply" says, are you willing to affirm that everyone is condemned (it simply says that, right?) and that everyone is also saved (it simply says that as well) at the same time? I doubt it.

I would rather say that everyone who is ultimately condemned is following a path established by Adam's trespass, and everyone who is ultimately justified can thank Christ's act of obedience.

Everyone has to deal with difficult passages, not in isolation, but as part of the whole. Of course our "glasses" will affect our interpretation, but if we seek to make the Bible the ultimate authority, we will use other passages to aid our understanding. So naturally, we shouldn't ignore the very next verse:

Romans 5:19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

Many and many; not universal individual condemnation or salvation, but rather many are sinners in the mold of Adam, and many others are righteous brothers of Christ the Savior. Looking at those two verses together, my theology holds together without difficulty. There are other problem verses that require more thought, but I don't think this passage is a challenge to Reformed theology at all, but rather it's consistent with it.

Reformed theology is based on a theology of sovereignty as control which in my view owes more to the reductionism of modern philosophy than it does to the testimony of scripture, and this problematizes these choices.

Except that when it comes to sovereignty, I don't quote philosophers, I quote Scripture. The doctrine of election didn't come from philosophers--they're far more fond of free will for man than for God.

I found his mis-representation of Arminian theology as limiting the atonement even more than Reformed theology to be laughable

So then you are a universalist? I hadn't thought that you really were. If you are not, then you believe the atonement accomplished nothing definitely salvific, but merely created a potentiality that's sometimes turned into actuality by man. That's certainly more limited than a view that believes that in the atonement, Jesus saves His people from their sins, securing their justification and eternal salvation. There was a reason He said, "It is finished" on the cross. He fulfilled the will of the Father, as he explains in John 17.

If limiting the atonement is not profoundly problematic, then why would there be any need to misrepresent an alternative theory as more onerous because it supposedly limits atonement more??

How did Piper misrepresent your view?

Richard,

Randy is right that biblical debate can alter one's view. I am a case in point. I was raised Arminian, and, like Randy, resisted Reformed theology based on my tradition and comfort. For me, it was ultimately the words of Jesus Himself in John 6 that convinced me that I can do nothing but say "Thank you". Put another way, the only thing that I contribute to my salvation is the sin that I need forgiveness from.

Henry,

This won't change anyone's mind. Scripture hardly ever actually does. We always read scripture from somewhere and that somewhere places limits on what scripture is actually allowed to say. Which scripture is allowed to interpret other scripture? These are pivotal decisions we must make as we read.

If what you assert is true, it couldn't possibly actually mean anything. But, we've gone down that trail many times before! We've had the discussion on Romans 5 over at my blog, so you know that I'll agree with Randy here that context is key. We always give priority to clearer and more forceful passages when determining the meaning of passages that could go in more than one direction. You seem to take a passage with two possible meanings, select one, and then use that dubious interpretation to eisegete the clear, forceful passages that teach that a) not all are condemned; and b) not all are saved.

As far as my own personal journey towards sola gratia, I have to honestly say that the blinders came off once I could accept the Reformed view. Suddenly Jesus (specifically in John), Romans, Epehesians, and Hebrews made sense to me. I didn't have to explain (away) the difficult stuff of Romans 10, Ephesians 2, John 6, Acts 2, etc. It fit into one harmonious unity.

Soli Deo Gloria!
Matt

We always give priority to clearer and more forceful passages when determining the meaning of passages that could go in more than one direction.
No you don't. Romans 5:18, by itself and in its context, is crystal clear and you will not allow it to mean what it says. It may always be your intention to let clearest passages speak most forcefully, but that is not what you do.
You seem to take a passage with two possible meanings, select one, and then use that dubious interpretation to eisegete the clear, forceful passages that teach that a) not all are condemned; and b) not all are saved.
Given the refusal to let Romans 5:18 mean what it says, that sounds like the pot calling the kettle black.
I re-iterate: Scripture does not change people's mind. People change their minds about how to read scripture. Big difference.

Romans 5:18, by itself and in its context, is crystal clear

Okay, what does it mean? Are you a universalist?

Hi,
I take it to mean what it says, that all are justified in Christ, just as all died in Adam. I do not subscribe to the Reformed version of eternal security, so I do not endorse the universalism that says all are ultimately saved. All are created in God's image, all die in Adam, all are justified in Christ. All Israel was chosen, but not all Israel followed. They were not chosen because they followed, but the call to follow and the choosing (election) was the same call. However, as Paul laments in Romans 9, not all the chosen followed (6It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel). Following is how we participate in God's salvation activity, not as a means of saving ourselves, because that has been done. Following is simply how we "make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things, you will never fall, 11and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." (1 Peter 1:10-11). We are chosen and we are saved, but it remains for us to walk in the ways of God so we experience that salvation. Working out our salvation (Phillipians 2:12Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation) is not earning our salvation but making space for our salvation to bear fruit in our lives, bearing fruit for healing and sustenance in our lives and in our communities, but the fruit is the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22) at work in our lives, not the result of our own efforts.

Sorry, Randy, I had missed your response on my earlier posts.
I only became Reformed because of my high view of Scripture.
Well, not quite, in my view. Your "high view of Scripture" is premised on a modernist notion of truth, and that very quickly and comfortably leads to a theology that privileges that kind of truth, such as your particular understanding of Reformed theology. Given your understanding of truth and the isolated prominence given to propositional truth it is quite natural that you would move towards a theology that also views the truth of scripture as being primarily propositional rather than narrative and personal. So you see, your "high view of scripture" is already canted. It is a lens through which you read scripture, and it colors the truth you see in scripture. Hence, even if scripture says all die in Adam and all are justified in Christ, it cannot mean that.
Henry, let's look at it again:
Romans 5:18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.
Are all men condemned? No. That would have been the case after Adam's fall, but God had a plan, spelled out in this same book of Romans. Are all men justified? No. Clearly neither universal status applies to every individual. Nothing tricky in seeing that. However, if you want what the passage "simply" says, are you willing to affirm that everyone is condemned (it simply says that, right?) and that everyone is also saved (it simply says that as well) at the same time?
The simplest meaning is clearly not the case. I am still missing the Nothing tricky in seeing that. Sure seems tricky to me.
Actually, I am good with the simplest meaning as you outline it above. Howeevr, since I do not subscribe to Reformed theology regarding perserverance your elucidating statements likely mean something different to me than you intend.
Many and many
Except it is not just many and many, it is 'the many' and 'the many'. It still seems to be referring to the same large group in both cases, not just two different groups of many people. That would seem to be the most natural reading in the context.
How did Piper misrepresent your view?
I believe salvation was secured (take off your Reformed glasses to read that word) for all of creation in the cross. Our salvation is secured for us in the cross. We are all saved in Jesus Christ. Whether we stay saved has a lot to do with the way we work with God to work out our own salvation. That seems to me to be the reading that best stays with the simple meaning of scripture as a whole.

Response to comment 24 by Henry.

I take it to mean what it says, that all are justified in Christ, just as all died in Adam...all are justified in Christ.

So you believe people God glorified are in hell despite Jesus interceding for them before the Father? Romans 8:30 says, "And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified...34 Christ Jesus is the one who died--more than that, who was raised--who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us."

We are chosen and we are saved, but it remains for us to walk in the ways of God so we experience that salvation.

I'm blown away by your concept that people God chose and saved can end up eternally damned. That's just mind-boggling to me in light of verses like
John 10:28, "I give them eternal life, and they will never perish."

What do you see as the simple meaning of that verse? Or what about Romans 8:38-39? "For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord."

You certainly have to add an "except" clause to that passage for it to make sense within your template.

As for your thoughts on working out our salvation in Phil 2:12, I agree with you.

Henry said:

Our salvation is secured for us in the cross. We are all saved in Jesus Christ. Whether we stay saved has a lot to do with the way we work with God to work out our own salvation. That seems to me to be the reading that best stays with the simple meaning of scripture as a whole.

If that's true, then the polytheistic witch doctor who has never heard of Jesus, accepted Him, or repented of his sin is saved. That is His default position. How is he able to work with God to maintain his salvation? How does the Muslim work with Jesus to maintain his salvation?

Several points come to my mind in reading the above.
1. Piper & Sproul & Co. do have fine material in some instances, but the problem I have is more with some of their theological treatises where their Reformed “lens” is so very evident. I suppose what irks me is the superiority attitude that shines through - we have the truth and no one else.
2. There are two problems that bother me when it comes to Reformed interpretation of Scripture. One is that they seem to forget that Paul’s letters, for the most part, were addressed to churches and not individuals. This was confirmed to me when one of my favorite authors, Marva Dawn (whom I presume to be monergistic), made this point in one of her books. It makes a difference, for example in Ephesians 1, that we distinguish the two approaches. The other issue I have is that very often the context of the book and chapter seems to be forgotten as well. For example, in Romans 8:38-39 Paul is not addressing questions pertaining to TULIP in the way we think of it. The question is not whether or not we are able to reject our salvation once we have it. Similarly some of the other passages mentioned in the exchanges need to be interpreted initially in light of how Paul’s readers would have understood them.
3. Regarding Archie Penner’s article: I realized it was really not quite fair to even pass it on torn as it was from the context of his lectures. But the book I mentioned, “The Gospel Revisited”, while not addressing specifically the question of monergism, does speak very powerfully to some of the accompanying issues - in particular the issues you and Henry are discussing regarding the universality of Christ’s atonement. As I read his book I felt a real affirmation - this is why I am not a Calvinist. Incidentally, one issue that I find seldom addressed by theologians in all of this is that about the situation of babies. Very few will condemn “un-elect” babies to hell in the event they die in infancy. Yet, on what basis do they enter heaven? And, if for whatever reason, God does count them as saved during infancy years does he have to then “un-save” them later on if they are not one of the elect? Also, curiously it generally seems to turn out that those who are elect are the children of the elect - how convenient. Dr. Penner’s book does provide a good explanation of how these babies fit into the whole scheme of things.
4. Regarding monergism. When I look at Acts 2 I take note of what is going on with the people involved. These people had to leave whatever they were doing at home, make their way to where the action was, and sit or stand listening to the message being preached by Peter. They had to contend with the turmoil going on in their hearts (2:37). They asked the question of what they could do about it. They “accepted” the message and received baptism. Now, I am quite sure that there were not people who stayed at home on their couches who were being saved by God without hearing, being convicted, and accepting. Were one to ask any of these people they would surely have been under the impression that they were in the midst of making a decision. They did not just have to thank God for saving them. In explaining this situation I find the explanation of monergism to be inadequate. Somehow, whatever explanation we use we have to accommodate the actions of these people. I find the explanation of God - 100% - period - to not be satisfactory; because these people were doing certain things which if they did not do they would not be saved. But also I do not believe that the actions of these people in any way earned their salvation. While Dr. Penner’s explanation is seemingly contradictory in some ways (paradox is not uncommon in the Christian faith), it does at least seek to account for the actions of these people.

Sorry, Randy, I had missed your response on my earlier posts.

I think I can find it in my heart to forgive you. :)

I only became Reformed because of my high view of Scripture.

Well, not quite, in my view. Your "high view of Scripture" is premised on a modernist notion of truth, and that very quickly and comfortably leads to a theology that privileges that kind of truth, such as your particular understanding of Reformed theology.

Okay, you agree with me. My "high view of Scripture" led to Reformed theology, although it was neither quick nor comfortable for me.

Given your understanding of truth and the isolated prominence given to propositional truth it is quite natural that you would move towards a theology that also views the truth of scripture as being primarily propositional rather than narrative and personal.

Henry, Henry, why must you be so propositional? Surely you could have given a greater place to narrative in your interpretation of Romans 5:18. We've hashed much of this out on Matt's blog--the bottom line is that propositions are impossible to avoid in Romans, and certainly anyone who neglects narrative and the personal in Scripture is being too narrow. Reformed theology does not demand the purely propositional, unless propositions are at stake. You will consistently use propositional arguments to denigrate propositions, so I think that speaks for itself.


Many and many
Except it is not just many and many, it is 'the many' and 'the many'. It still seems to be referring to the same large group in both cases, not just two different groups of many people. That would seem to be the most natural reading in the context.

I think it naturally, clearly and simply refers to two different groups in time. Yes, everyone is fallen in Adam in one sense, but the redeemed move out of that group into another group that is not universal.

We are all saved in Jesus Christ.

Are you a fan of Barth and his "everyone elect in Christ" view?

Whether we stay saved has a lot to do with the way we work with God to work out our own salvation. That seems to me to be the reading that best stays with the simple meaning of scripture as a whole.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I believe Jesus is the Author and Finisher of my faith, the good shepherd who will give eternal life to his sheep who will never perish, who glorifies everyone he justifies, and who perfectly does the will of the Father and loses none that the Father gives him because he always lives to intercede for them.

Richard says, 'As I read his book I felt a real affirmation - this is why I am not a Calvinist.'

If this is the reason, I am not surprised. I have felt real affirmations a lot during my life and my struggle with the monegistic/synergistic debate. But too often my felt affirmations turned out to be wrong. The Mormon's use the felt affirmation of the 'burning in the bosom' to lend ultimate truth to the Book of Mormon. Don't get me wrong, I am not at all comparing Richard to a Mormon just noting that felt affirmations, confirmations or whatever you wish to call them are too often misleading. I can relate to what Richard is saying as I too have had many of the same concerns but I cannot get away from what the text of Scripture is telling me.

I would agree to a certain extent when Richard states, 'Were one to ask any of these people they would surely have been under the impression that they were in the midst of making a decision. They did not just have to thank God for saving them.' They are making a decision but it is not the decision that has saved them. God has replaced their heart of stone with a heart of flesh, given them a new nature and now they are free to make that decision and God will bring them to that point and ultimately ensure their salvation. John 6:44. I think that is what Scripture supports.

Arnold:

I fail to see the difference between my affirmation in my position and affirmation you fellows are claiming in your position. Dr. Penner in his book expounded on Scripture after Scripture showing the truth of my position and therefore I was affirmed in my position. It is in no way just a "feeling" in my chest or something flighty like that.

But I think you are starting to see that monergism does not adequately account for the actions of the people in Acts 2. I agree that their decision did not save them and I said as much in my last post. I also believe that God was mightily at work in these people throughout this time - softening, convicting, drawing, etc. - and probably before this incident. But there is no evidence that they were saved in any shape or form before the moment of their decision. But what you fellows have been saying is that in monergism all a person has to do is thank God for his salvation. And it is obvious from this incident that that is not true. God was not the one walking to the place where Pentecost was taking place, he was not listening to the sermon for them, he was not the one going through inner turmoil, he was not the one who asked the question as to what they should do, nor did he "accept" it for them. These were human actions which needed to occur in order for them to be saved. I cannot see how that can be explained away. These actions, I repeat, did not save them, these actions did not contribute to their salvation in the sense of getting brownie points. But my point is that monergism as a system does not adequately account for what happened, at least not as far as I understand what you are saying to this point. That is why I do not buy into this system.

You see, I am free to say that I don't understand this, and that my theology on this matter is seemingly contradictory. But in subscribing so fully to the Reformed camp it seems to me that you are not free to say the same thing, but you are strait-jacketed into toeing the party line in that your theology has to have an answer that fits into TULIP one way or another.

Hi,
I have had earlier responses go MIA, so here is an abbreviated response.
Hi,
Randy 26
In Romans 8:30ff Paul indicates what God has done for His children whom He loves. In the following context (Romans 9) Paul laments that, after all God has done, God chosen children do not always heed his call and walk in obedience.
John 10:28 is addressing the sheep who recognize and heed the shepherd's voice, right? Romans 8:38,39 means exactly what it says, no except clause. Nothing will ever separate us from the love of God. God always loves all people. This says nothing about salvation.
Randy 29
You will consistently use propositional arguments to denigrate propositions, so I think that speaks for itself.
It means I use tools appropriate to the task. It does not mean I privilege propositional truth in the same way others interlocutors do.
I rather doubt you developed a Reformed theology purely on the basis of reading scripture. You read Reformed writers and were convinced by there interpretation of scripture because your shared underlying presuppositions that made their interpretations appealing. Reformed theology is itself a somewhat diverse body of thought, with strident dissent among various Reformed thinkers. You subscribe to a certain version of Reformed theology.

Matt 27
Romans 1 & 10 in the OT context of the quotes answer your questions, I think. God has revealed enough that we are without excuse. I maintain that no religion provides salvation. Polytheistic witch doctors, Muslims, and Christians are equally lost unless saved by God. Strictly speaking salvation comes to us outside of any religion, so if people can be saved within the Christian religion, it seems reasonable they could also be saved in the context of other religions. Salvation is God’s work, not our work, right? If the Christian religion is not an insurmountable obstacle to God, there is no reason why any other religion should either. Unless salvation requires right belief, which cannot be the case if it is all God’s work (monergism).

Randy 26/29
Surely you could have given a greater place to narrative in your interpretation of Romans 5:18. We've hashed much of this out on Matt's blog--the bottom line is that propositions are impossible to avoid in Romans, and certainly anyone who neglects narrative and the personal in Scripture is being too narrow. Reformed theology does not demand the purely propositional, unless propositions are at stake.
And yet
Romans 5:18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.
Are all men condemned? No.... Are all men justified? No. Clearly neither universal status applies to every individual. Nothing tricky in seeing that. However, if you want what the passage "simply" says, are you willing to affirm that everyone is condemned (it simply says that, right?) and that everyone is also saved (it simply says that as well) at the same time?
Hmmm. Fascinating how propositional statements are so critical to truth, and yet the clearest and simplest meaning of propositions cannot possibly be what the propositions say. I still see the simplest meaning of this proposition as the most consistent with the narrative sense of the whole of scripture.

Richard 31,

But I think you are starting to see that monergism does not adequately account for the actions of the people in Acts 2...But there is no evidence that they were saved in any shape or form before the moment of their decision.

Monergism does not make that claim. Rather, it teaches that we believe at the moment we are raised to spiritual life after being dead in our transgressions and sins.

But what you fellows have been saying is that in monergism all a person has to do is thank God for his salvation.

Can you document somewhere any of us said that? Yes, we should be thankful after the fact, but first we believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and repent of our sins. Then we thank Him for enabling us to do so. As Acts goes on to tell us,

Acts 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.

That is monergism. God appoints, and then we believe.

I cannot see how that can be explained away.

I have no desire, or need, to explain any of Acts away. How do you "explain away" Ephesians 2:5?

"(God,) even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ--by grace you have been saved."

That's monergism in a nutshell.

You see, I am free to say that I don't understand this

We are free to say that as well, but I don't feel any need to say it because I believe Scripture is so plain in its teaching on this topic. Salvation is of the Lord. I have no party line to toe, because I grew up Arminian and freely chose to identify myself as Reformed because I concur with CH Spurgeon--"Calvinism is a nickname for Biblical theology." I can disagree with RC Sproul because he believes in infant baptism while I do not, but on TULIP we are in agreement. No straitjackets involved.

Randy: I offer the following as documentation of one of you saying that all we need to do is say thank you:

21. Matt Email Web 2008-05-20 6:33am

Richard,

Randy is right that biblical debate can alter one's view. I am a case in point. I was raised Arminian, and, like Randy, resisted Reformed theology based on my tradition and comfort. For me, it was ultimately the words of Jesus Himself in John 6 that convinced me that I can do nothing but say "Thank you". Put another way, the only thing that I contribute to my salvation is the sin that I need forgiveness from.

You say that "first we believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and repent of our sins." That to me is a human action necessary for salvation to take effect. If we believe and repent we are saved; if we don't we are not.This does not earn our salvation but God has placed some responsibility on our shoulders.
It reminds me of an old story I heard of a man who reclaimed a piece of land overgrown with weeds and turned it into a lovely garden. A friend remarked to him something about God's wonderful creation and this man replied that he should have seen the land when it was only in God's hands. Certainly God is capable of growing a garden but he has ordained that gardens require human action.That does not detract one iota from his sovereignty; indeed, it enhances it.
What I hear you say now is that monergism is God - 100%; humans - believe and repent.

Henry:

I can agree with you, but only to a very limited point. Salvation is the work of God. Yet, we have no indication that God just arbitrarily saves people without giving them any assurance of their salvation. The question isn't "Can God call those who are presently outside the Christian church?" (of course He can), but rather the question we should be thinking about is "Will God leave those whom He calls outside of the Church, never grafting them in to His body and His kingdom here on earth?". We have no indication that God saves people without them coming to saving faith, repenting of their sin, and having the assurance that God has been/is working in their lives. If what you say is true, then someone can be saved without knowing it. A saved person could spend their entire life in fear of damnation. A God who would do that would indeed be a cruel and unjust God. Certainly not the God of the Bible.

Richard:

I affirm the fact that called people will come to saving faith and repentance 100% of the time (see above). However, even the ability to come to that faith and repentance is a gift from God. That is why, even though it is I who am renewed and am able to repent and turn to Jesus, the glory for that event belongs to God only, not to me. That is why, even after I repent and I accept Jesus, I can still only thank God for enabling me to do so. I hope that provides a clarification of what I said in comment #21.

Hi,
Yet, we have no indication that God just arbitrarily saves people without giving them any assurance of their salvation.
I agree that we have no indication that God just arbitrarily saves people, but why then does Reformed theology insist that God does arbitrarily save people? And is assurance of salvation now part and parcel of salvation? If I doubt my salvation then I am not saved??
"Will God leave those whom He calls outside of the Church, never grafting them in to His body and His kingdom here on earth?".
If they choose to walk away, then yes. If they respond positively, then no. Paul talks about branches being cut off, and grafted back in. We seem to have decisive a role to play, though not meritorious.
Those who are saved are part of His body. Identifying with the religion known as Christianity is a separate issue.
We have no indication that God saves people without them coming to saving faith, repenting of their sin, and having the assurance that God has been/is working in their lives. If what you say is true, then someone can be saved without knowing it.
That is precisely the point of the discussion, but it is not what I say, but what scripture says that is normative. I think scripture says exactly that. That is indication enough for me. Those who respond positively will come to some form of saving faith and repentance, but it may not fit our western Christian understanding of the same.
A God who would do that would indeed be a cruel and unjust God. Certainly not the God of the Bible.
Agreed entirely. I might say the same about a God who arbitrarily chooses some people to go to heaven and just leaves the rest to go to hell (and that is the mild version of predestination that I take you to hold. Your double predestination cousins go even further).

re: Richard #28
I suppose what irks me is the superiority attitude that shines through - we have the truth and no one else.

You'd trust someone who believes they're wrong? Archie Penner was just as dogmatic about his views, if not more so.

they seem to forget that Paul's letters, for the most part, were addressed to churches and not individuals.

You then mention Ephesians, but it's addressed to the saints, individuals who make up churches. Chapter 1 is completely personal and individual. How exactly do you separate churches from individuals in those churches?

For example, in Romans 8:38-39 Paul is not addressing questions pertaining to TULIP in the way we think of it. The question is not whether or not we are able to reject our salvation once we have it. Similarly some of the other passages mentioned in the exchanges need to be interpreted initially in light of how Paul's readers would have understood them.

So what are you claiming Paul is addressing? Back up to verse 28 and the topic of individual salvation seems indisputable.

Very few will condemn "un-elect" babies to hell in the event they die in infancy.

Count me among the few. By definition, everyone in heaven is elect, and all of the unelect are condemned.

Yet, on what basis do they enter heaven?

The shed blood of Christ and the choice of the Father, just like everyone else.

And, if for whatever reason, God does count them as saved during infancy years does he have to then "un-save" them later on if they are not one of the elect?

Not an issue. The elect are elect before the foundation of the earth. It's not a moving target.

Also, curiously it generally seems to turn out that those who are elect are the children of the elect - how convenient.

How would we know that? I tend to think that all babies and mentally-handicapped people incapable of making reasoned choices are elect, but whatever the case, I know God is just and not capricious.

Were one to ask any of these people they would surely have been under the impression that they were in the midst of making a decision.

Of course. I agree completely. It's just that without God raising them to spiritual life first, they would have remained in their rejection of God. We rejoice that "All that the Father gives me will come to me." They come, because the Father first gave them. We love him, because he first loved us. Reformed theology accounts for these actions just fine.

Henry,

In Romans 8:30ff Paul indicates what God has done for His children whom He loves. In the following context (Romans 9) Paul laments that, after all God has done, God chosen children do not always heed his call and walk in obedience.
John 10:28 is addressing the sheep who recognize and heed the shepherd's voice, right? Romans 8:38,39 means exactly what it says, no except clause. Nothing will ever separate us from the love of God. God always loves all people. This says nothing about salvation.

That blows me away. After Paul uses words like redemption and saved, he specifically speaks of the elect:

Romans 8:33 33 Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies.

This is a chapter that begins by differentiating between those in Christ and those outside:

Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

It can't be talking about everyone in 38 & 39. Look at 7 & 8:

7 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. 8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

That's a clear delineation. Read the whole chapter and it couldn't be plainer that it is talking about salvation and about two groups of people. That's just plain communication--the simple meaning.

Randy: You will consistently use propositional arguments to denigrate propositions, so I think that speaks for itself.
Henry: It means I use tools appropriate to the task. It does not mean I privilege propositional truth in the same way others interlocutors do.

Ironically, it's the tool you can't avoid using if you want to be coherent.

I rather doubt you developed a Reformed theology purely on the basis of reading scripture. You read Reformed writers and were convinced by there interpretation of scripture because your shared underlying presuppositions that made their interpretations appealing.

Okay. I still had to search the Scriptures to see if those things were true, as the Bereans were lauded for doing with Paul's preaching.

Fascinating how propositional statements are so critical to truth, and yet the clearest and simplest meaning of propositions cannot possibly be what the propositions say. I still see the simplest meaning of this proposition as the most consistent with the narrative sense of the whole of scripture.

This discussion sent me back to Romans 5. As Greg Koukl says, "Never read a Bible verse," meaning that we have to look at context. Let's start at the beginning of the chapter:

Romans 5:1 Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.

So justification results in peace with God. If we have peace with God, we can not be under condemnation, despite Henry's assertion to the contrary. Verse 9 emphasizes that:

Romans 5:9 Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.

The justified are saved from the wrath of God, so how can we say that it's possible to be at peace with God, safe from His wrath, and still face eternal judgment? That just doesn't make sense. We look at the chapter 5 as a whole, and the meaning is plain.

These comments are getting hard to follow!

What I hear you say now is that monergism is God - 100%; humans - believe and repent.

Yes, Richard, because we can't do anything until God raises us to life. If we are dead in our trespasses, it has to be all God before we can respond.

Henry,

why then does Reformed theology insist that God does arbitrarily save people?

It's according to His good pleasure. We have no grounds of claiming it's arbitrary, only that it's His choice.

If I doubt my salvation then I am not saved??

Of course not. However, you can have assurance through reading Scripture.

Paul talks about branches being cut off, and grafted back in.

That's Israel, not sheep wandering in and out of salvation.

Those who are saved are part of His body. Identifying with the religion known as Christianity is a separate issue.

Agreed. <-- NOTE!

Those who respond positively will come to some form of saving faith and repentance, but it may not fit our western Christian understanding of the same.


Agreed. <-- NOTE!

I might say the same about a God who arbitrarily chooses some people to go to heaven and just leaves the rest to go to hell (and that is the mild version of predestination that I take you to hold. Your double predestination cousins go even further).

Not arbitrary, but certainly Biblical. Reformed people didn't invent terms like "elect."

Hi Randy,
I see no reason to make Romans 8:38,39 refer to salvation, except on a Reformed agenda. The verse quite specifically refers to separation from God’s love, not God’s salvation. That God’s love extends to all people at all times is supported by other references (eg., John 3:16), which is why that seems to me to be the best reading of this verse. If you wish to limit the specific reference of this statement to saved individuals you could make the case, but to extend the perseverance indicated to salvation, or to limit God’s love to saved people on the strength of this verse I would vehemently challenge. No propositional warrant. The only reason to do so is to use this statement to prop up the Reformed notion of perseverance, but that is proof-texting and eisegesis, not exegesis.
In the ensuing context (Romans 9) Paul laments that those whom God calls to follow and serve do not always do so. His heart breaks for his people, the Israelites, who were adopted as the sons of God, they were glorified with a divine glory, they were the beneficiaries of God’s covenants, law, presence, and promises, they were the people from whom the human ancestry of the Incarnate God was traced, and yet Israel did not follow. Israel repeatedly turned their backs on the God who called them, and saved them time and again, and yet they returned to their own religious obsessions and rejected God. Throughout all of this God never ceased to love His children, and to repeatedly call them to return to Him. The elect did not all respond favorably to God’s call. Some of the elect rejected the God who called them.

Question for you, Randy, as I am not clear on your understanding of the fall. Does everyone share in the condemnation of the fall? Are all fallen in Adam? Or do some escape the fall?

Henry: I might say the same about a God who arbitrarily chooses some people to go to heaven and just leaves the rest to go to hell.
Randy: Not arbitrary, but certainly Biblical. Reformed people didn't invent terms like "elect."
I still dissent. I do see that depiction of God as entirely antithetical to the biblical God. I will grant you that Reformed people did not invent terms like “elect”, but they most certainly gave such terms a particular slant which is eminently debatable. Again, I posit that the particular slant on the Reformed understanding of the “elect” owes more to a certain theological approach to scripture than it owes to scripture itself.

1 Peter 1:10,11 Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things, you will never fall, and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Sounds like we have a very important role to play in making our “calling and election sure.” I thought on the Reformed understanding this was God’s work, not our work. Why then does Peter so explicitly instruct his readers that “IF you do these things you will never fall, and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom”? That sounds like a very specific conditional proposition indicating that the security of one’s calling and election depends on what one does. Is this another one of those statements that cannot mean what it says?

I see no reason to make Romans 8:38,39 refer to salvation, except on a Reformed agenda.

Henry, it seems like you must be joking for the sake of argument. That whole chapter was just as obviously about salvation to me when I was a Mennonite Arminian as it is now. I just skipped past a few verses back then, like 8 & 9. I don't see how you can read Romans 8 and make that statement with a straight face.

The verse quite specifically refers to separation from God's love, not God's salvation.

Apart from the whole chapter talking about the contrasts between believers and unbelievers, can you actually affirm that you believe Jesus is interceding for souls in hell, those elected and justified by God and given to the Son, yet somehow cast into eternal separation in your view?

After all, Romans 8:33-34 is clear:

33 Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. 34 Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died--more than that, who was raised--who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us.

If the elect in v33, interceded for in v34, can be eternally loved by God while they are forever separated from Him, how could Jesus make the claims he made in John 6 and 17 that I've referred to before? It's simply impossible to reconcile with a view that salvation is not in mind here: election, justification, death & resurrection of Christ, intercession--it's all in this passage.

That God's love extends to all people at all times is supported by other references (eg., John 3:16)

You need to keep reading in John 3. By verse 18 we see

18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

There are two sides of the coin--God's love, and His justice, too.

to extend the perseverance indicated to salvation, or to limit God's love to saved people on the strength of this verse I would vehemently challenge. No propositional warrant. The only reason to do so is to use this statement to prop up the Reformed notion of perseverance, but that is proof-texting and eisegesis, not exegesis.

I'm left shaking my head in disbelief. You're certainly free to disagree, but I can't imagine anyone reading all of Romans 8 and still making that statement.

I'm well-acquainted with Romans 9 and corporate Israel. That's a very different topic from New Testament believers. I'd recommend John Piper's doctoral thesis, "The Justification of God," for study on that topic. However, I think God's sovereign authority is summed up by verse 11:

though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad--in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls

The elect did not all respond favorably to God's call. Some of the elect rejected the God who called them.

I think you missed Paul's point. All of Israel did not respond, precisely because not all of Israel was elect:

Romans 9:6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel

Does everyone share in the condemnation of the fall? Are all fallen in Adam? Or do some escape the fall?

No. No. Yes. The One born of a virgin was fully human, yet did not share in the fall. He was the sole exception, but those elect in Him do not remain in Adam, but become children of God.

I posit that the particular slant on the Reformed understanding of the "elect" owes more to a certain theological approach to scripture than it owes to scripture itself.

You're free to posit that. I disagree, but let's move on.

1 Peter 1:10,11 Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things, you will never fall, and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Sounds like we have a very important role to play in making our "calling and election sure." I thought on the Reformed understanding this was God's work, not our work.

That's 2 Peter. God's work is to call and elect. Ours is to make it sure for our sake, not God's, which we will surely do because we are His sheep. When we start at the beginning of 2 Peter 1, we find that Peter begins with all that God has done:

2 Peter 1:1 To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:

2 Peter 1:3 His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness,

2 Peter 1:4 he has granted to us his precious and very great promises,

Only then does he get around to what we do as a result of what God has already accomplished.

Why then does Peter so explicitly instruct his readers that “IF you do these things you will never fall, and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom”? That sounds like a very specific conditional proposition indicating that the security of one's calling and election depends on what one does. Is this another one of those statements that cannot mean what it says?

I think it means exactly what it says. Those who do not do those things will fall. Is that from salvation? Perhaps. Christ's sheep will hear his voice and follow him. Wolves in sheep's clothing will ultimately fall. Those who do not make their election sure are those who were not elect.

Hi,
I think we may be miles apart on God's love. Here is a quote from the Google home page attributed to Wayne Dyer:
"Love is the ability and willingness to allow those that you care for to be what they choose for themselves without any insistence that they satisfy you."
Not entirely satisfactory, but certainly some food for thought. I am curious as to why you say God's love and justice are two sides of a coin. Does God not continue to love even those who reject Him?

Henry, I wonder if Dyer has raised any kids. If so, I wouldn't want to be around them. As a father yourself, I assume that sometimes you find the need to discipline your boys rather than allowing them to do whatever they want. Talk about a recipe for chaos!

In contrast, Hebrews 12:6 says, "...the Lord disciplines those he loves, and he punishes everyone he accepts as a son." Or how about Proverbs 13:24? "Whoever spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him."

I am curious as to why you say God's love and justice are two sides of a coin.

Because too often humans pick one side and forget the other. There needs to be a balance.

Does God not continue to love even those who reject Him?

My question for you dealt with those in eternity, so I would say that no, God does not have the same love for those He casts into eternal judgment that He has for his sheep. Otherwise He would be forever miserable in eternity. Could you be happy with eternal separation from those you love? Of course not.

I'd still like your response regarding Romans 8:33-34.

This is getting to be quite a long thread, with many unraveled ends along the way left unresolved. But here are a few of my latest thoughts:

Romans 8: 38, 39

Just briefly, this seems to be part of a section going back to v. 18. He talks about sufferings which Christian will experience. Of course, suffering in itself would be a pick topic to understand adequately. But he then assures the Romans that God is with them in the hard times. He tries to help them see it in the context of what all creation is going through. He assures them that the Holy Spirit is ready to assist. He then seeks to draw their attention to God who is at work, behind the scenes so to say, working his purposes. This involves the major point, which is sending his Son to die for us all. If God did, and is doing, all this surely we can trust him to see us through the suffering, whatever form he may have in mind. I believe this includes being secure in our salvation. Nobody, nothing, no amount of suffering no matter how severe, is able to wrest that from us because the Almighty God is stronger than all those things. But this , as I said in an earlier post, in no way addresses the question as to whether we as individuals are able to reject that salvation ourselves once we have it.

2 Peter 1:10, 11

In answering Henry you state that, “Those who do not make their election sure are those who were not elect.” This makes this Scripture sound rather odd, does it not? The first verses make it clear that this is addressed to those who “have received” this faith. If Peter is convinced of this why would he then instruct them to “make sure”? This has to be more than just being personally convinced of their salvation because the very obvious implication of not “making sure” is that they could fall, and consequently not receive a welcome into the kingdom.
It seems that in the Reformed system one must always have in the back of one’s mind that the passage is probably saying something different than what it appears offhand. For e.g. John 3: 16 reads then: For God so loved the world (well not really, only ¼ of the world) that whosoever (well, really only those who God decides) believes (well, you can’t really believe but you can do this if God does it for you)… etc. I am not trying to be facetious - this is how it appears to me.

God’s love

I had been thinking for a while that surely there was a deeper issue that was at stake in all this discussion. Henry’s statement, “I think we may be miles apart on God's love”, clarified it for me. Throughout it has been bothering me that our concepts of God must be miles apart. And that is probably the crux of the matter.
I am convinced that Reformed people consider themselves to have a high view of God and I believe they do have a deep and sincere love for God - and I do not question that. But I cannot help being bothered by the images of God that their theology evokes for me.
When it comes to God’s love to me the Bible is saying that God is love. That is, he is consistently love. He is not a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde sort of God. Therefore, every thought, action, and word of God is permeated with love. He is always love. A few years ago I wrote an essay on the wrath of God and I was intrigued to find so much scholarly support for the idea that God’s wrath is part and parcel of God’s love. In Romans 1:18 Paul states that God’s wrath is being revealed and then makes the statement several times that he “gave them over”. This shows God as not being propelled by what we as humans know as anger when meting out justice, but rather being like the father who finally sends his son to go and live on his own if he just cannot stand living at home, but still never ceasing to love him deeply. (You say, “Could you be happy with eternal separation from those you love? Of course not.” Is that not what we will have to do?)

Then I also get the picture of a God who is so insecure that he has to rig everything to make it work out a certain way. I believe in God’ sovereignty and that he can do and does do what he wants. But I have always believed that God receives greater glory when his morally free created beings make a free and voluntary choice to follow him (sure, not by their own strength, etc. but an actual personal choice). If the only way God can assure himself of a following is to do it all himself it does not seem to be a very big deal. Besides, even with that method there are still millions, or billions, who do not do what God wants them to do - they are thwarting the purpose for which he created them. In that sense his victory is not total regardless - there will always be in existence those who stand in rebellion to him.

Another issue that boggles my mind even more is a God who in his sovereignty elects only a select group of people. You referred to Piper’s book, Desiring God, in which he apparently urges us to serve God out of desire and not duty. But honestly, I cannot see how I can desire this severe, harsh God. Granted, we are not privy to God’s eternal counsels, but the end result is still billions of people who end up in hell, without any chance whatsoever. It is little consolation that it is their own fault that they sinned. They are totally, according to you, unable to even make a move toward God without God deciding that they are one of the elect. This includes the possibility that babies are part of this number if they are not elect (I was not sure by your response in #37 what your answer really is - you make what appear to be conflicting statements, on the one hand saying that you are part of the few who will condemn such babies to hell, but then saying that you tend to think that all babies and handicapped people are elect). In our society if we are able to offer assistance to someone in distress and then walk away from them we can be held liable. If we cannot stomach such behavior in fellow humans, how will we ever have a desire for God who patterns such behavior? I find that I have generally had a great desire for God who is pictured consistently throughout Scripture as one who woos and pleads and weeps and acts to draw people to him, offering freely his salvation to all who will come (whosoever will may come). The fact that God has created us with “a God-shaped vacuum” ensures that at least quite a few will indeed accept him.

Now, I am only (as your Uncle Fred used to say) “one beggar telling another beggar where to find food” and certainly am far from having it all neatly figured out. I desire God and am seeking to get to know him better - and I have a long way to go, a long, long way. But these, for what it is worth, are my thoughts on this matter at this point in my journey.

Sorry: "Pick topic" in the last post should be "big topic".

Hi,
Richard, Beautifully done!! I should always wait to post until you have done so. That saves me a lot of work. I totally agree with the security of our salvation as you outline it. However, Randy specifically asked for my response to Romans 8:33-34, so here it is.
33Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. 34Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us.
A review of the notion of those chosen or elect by God in scripture very quickly shows that this choosing is not simply a wielding of sovereign power as control. The Israelites were a chosen people, some responded as chosen people, some did not. Pharaoh was chosen to display God’s power, but he chose to work against God rather than with God. God’s power was still displayed in his life, but in a far more negative fashion than it could have been had he chosen to work with God in the release of His children. Saul was chosen to lead Israel but his leading crated huge problems for the people. Judas was chosen as a disciple but he betrayed his Master.
Hence, it is clear that being chosen or elect is not the sole criteria for who actually chooses to honor the call. Many chosen people refuse to heed the call and thereby forfeit the blessings of being chosen. Those who do respond in obedient gratitude do not thereby earn salvific merit, but they do experience the salvific benefits of that election which those who reject the call forfeit.
I am far more amenable to that strain of Reformed theology which sees election as being always for service, never to salvation. Even in the election to service the chosen must chose their response to the call.
Romans 8:33, 34 exults in the security of those who put their trust in God. Those who respond to God’s call and walk in His ways can trust His care. “If God is for us, who can be against us?” It seems clear from the scriptural record that simply being chosen does not guarantee protection. The Israelites experienced severe punishment for their stubborn refusal to heed God’s call. However, in all of this God’s love for His chosen people was not abated, even when the experience of that love was thwarted for both God and Israel by Israel’s unwillingness (Matthew 23:37f). God continued His efforts to work out His salvation in His chosen people. Then, as now, the chosen people were/are all too often their own worst enemies. There is plenty of scriptural evidence that our choices are significant factors in how God’s plans for us actually work out in our experience (1 Peter 1:10,11; John 3:16; 6:35, 40; 10:9; 12:47, 48; Romans 2:7, 13; 10:12, 13, James, etc.)

I think you missed Paul's point. All of Israel did not respond, precisely because not all of Israel was elect
You need that distinction to defend your Reformed position. I do not see any warrant for that claim in the words of scripture. The Greek word that is translated as elect is also translated as chosen. If those words can be used interchangeably in scripture then any theology which requires a radical distinction in those terms is an very shaky ground indeed. I prefer to go with the simpler meaning.

Henry: Does everyone share in the condemnation of the fall? Are all fallen in Adam? Or do some escape the fall?
Randy: No. No. Yes. The One born of a virgin was fully human, yet did not share in the fall. He was the sole exception, but those elect in Him do not remain in Adam, but become children of God.
So then Romans 5:18 is right that all are condemned in Adam? But it is not right in saying that all are justified in Jesus? Seems if you would just dump that notion of election (and I think your formulation of it is fundamentally anti-scriptural anyway) you could allow the verse to mean what it says. 1 Peter 1:10f could mean what it says. Romans 3:23,24....
But who am I kidding? If scripture won’t change your mind, and you have such a high view of scripture and the ability of propositions to convey truth, what can I hope to accomplish?
God bless you all. For Truth that exceeds our grasp.

This is getting to be quite a long thread, with many unraveled ends along the way left unresolved.

No doubt! But thanks for the enthusiastic involvement.

But this , as I said in an earlier post, in no way addresses the question as to whether we as individuals are able to reject that salvation ourselves once we have it.

Sure it does. It says that "not anything else in all creation" (which includes us) will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

As I've mentioned before, how can "and they will never perish" become "and they will only perish if they choose to walk away of their own volition"? It just doesn't fit, especially with the glorification and intercession I've addressed earlier. I still haven't heard either one of you explicitly admit that those God glorifies and Jesus intercedes for can be condemned even while there is no condemnation in Christ, and yet that is the view you take if someone can lose their no-longer "eternal" life.

In answering Henry you state that, “Those who do not make their election sure are those who were not elect.” This makes this Scripture sound rather odd, does it not?

Yes, that was awkwardly saying that if you're elect, you will make your election sure (not to God--He already knows) but to yourself.

If Peter is convinced of this why would he then instruct them to "make sure"?

Because fallen humans can easily doubt.

the very obvious implication of not "making sure" is that they could fall, and consequently not receive a welcome into the kingdom.

How do you know? Do we not fall every time we sin, despite our confidence of a future welcome in the kingdom? I see no basis for equating "fall" with "loss of salvation" in this passage, especially based on the numerous passages that promise security.

It seems that in the Reformed system one must always have in the back of one’s mind that the passage is probably saying something different than what it appears offhand.

Quite the opposite. It is the Arminian who must more frequently struggle with the most obvious reading, like making Romans 8 have nothing to do with salvation, or making John 10:28 mean the opposite of what it says.

John 3: 16 reads then: For God so loved the world (well not really, only ¼ of the world)

"World" often does not mean "every individual" in Scripture, so there's nothing unusual here. Revelation 5:9 clarifies it for us: "you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation."

Not every individual, but the whole world is represented.

that whosoever (well, really only those who God decides)

The Greek actually says "that the believing ones," which fits perfectly with Reformed theology. There is no "whosoever," not that it would be a problem, as whosoever would believe is whosoever God raises from spiritual death to life. No problem here.

believes (well, you can’t really believe but you can do this if God does it for you)… etc. I am not trying to be facetious - this is how it appears to me.

I think I explained already that every Reformed person I know of believes that we believe. Dead people don't believe, but if, while we were dead in our trespasses, God raises us to life, then we most assuredly believe. Could you explain how dead people believe despite the claims of Ephesians 2:5, Colossians 2:13 or especially Romans 8:7 "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"?

I was intrigued to find so much scholarly support for the idea that God’s wrath is part and parcel of God’s love.

Yes, we agree on that.

You say, "Could you be happy with eternal separation from those you love? Of course not." Is that not what we will have to do?

I suspect the memory of those in hell will be removed from us. How else could we be happy in heaven, as we all have people we love who are not saved?

Then I also get the picture of a God who is so insecure that he has to rig everything to make it work out a certain way. I believe in God’ sovereignty and that he can do and does do what he wants. But I have always believed that God receives greater glory when his morally free created beings make a free and voluntary choice to follow him (sure, not by their own strength, etc. but an actual personal choice).

Do you believe man can be truly free (libertarian free will) and God can still be sovereign? If the wills conflict, who wins? There can be only one. Either man is truly free, or God is truly free, but it would be logically impossible for both cases to be true. I vote for man making real choices, but ultimately God is the one who is free.

Another issue that boggles my mind even more is a God who in his sovereignty elects only a select group of people.


That comes straight out of the Bible, in passage after passage. That doctrine was around long before the Reformation. God has selected a few throughout history.

You referred to Piper’s book, Desiring God, in which he apparently urges us to serve God out of desire and not duty. But honestly, I cannot see how I can desire this severe, harsh God.

It's very easy for me to desire to serve a merciful and loving God who raised me from spiritual death to life through no merit of my own. As the clay, I'm not free to tell the potter who He must raise to life, but I'm grateful He raised me.

the end result is still billions of people who end up in hell, without any chance whatsoever.

No, they have every opportunity to bend the knee to God but refuse to do so. That they are unable to do so is due to the depths of their sin, not active opposition on God's part. They are exercising their wills in rebellion.

you make what appear to be conflicting statements, on the one hand saying that you are part of the few who will condemn such babies to hell, but then saying that you tend to think that all babies and handicapped people are elect).

No conflict. Of course un-elect babies would go to hell, as only the elect are the "sheep"; however, I suspect that all babies are elect, in which case no un-elect babies exist.

offering freely his salvation to all who will come (whosoever will may come).

Can dead people come? That is the fundamental divide in our views. You believe dead people move towards God; I believe they respond no more than people six feet under in a cemetary can respond to offers of free cash. Once God replaces a heart of stone with a heart of flesh, people come, people believe, people have faith.

Now, I am only (as your Uncle Fred used to say) "one beggar telling another beggar where to find food"

Excellent concept, but it doesn't work in a cemetary, no matter how much telling you do. Someone has to be spiritually alive to hunger and thirst after righteousness.

But these, for what it is worth, are my thoughts on this matter at this point in my journey.

I appreciate them and hope we can dialogue in person sometime when I'm visiting Canada, or you come through Colorado!

No, they have every opportunity to bend the knee to God but refuse to do so. That they are unable to do so is due to the depths of their sin, not active opposition on God's part. They are exercising their wills in rebellion.
Really?
Dead people don't believe, but if, while we were dead in our trespasses, God raises us to life, then we most assuredly believe.
Which is it? Do they rebel out of their own rebellion? Or do they rebel because that is the only thing they can do until God regenerates them? I need to introduce to you to a friend I have in Colorado who is absolutely adamant that you cannot have two mutually exclusive statements both be true at the same time and in the same way.
And
Do you believe man can be truly free (libertarian free will) and God can still be sovereign? If the wills conflict, who wins? There can be only one. Either man is truly free, or God is truly free, but it would be logically impossible for both cases to be true. I vote for man making real choices, but ultimately God is the one who is free.
Your system fatally compromises the possibility of human choices to be real choices. Your concept of God's sovereignty turns human freedom into a hopeless chimera.

No conflict. Of course un-elect babies would go to hell, as only the elect are the "sheep"; however, I suspect that all babies are elect, in which case no un-elect babies exist.
From #37
Richard: And, if for whatever reason, God does count them as saved during infancy years does he have to then "un-save" them later on if they are not one of the elect?
Randy: Not an issue. The elect are elect before the foundation of the earth. It's not a moving target.
Richard: Also, curiously it generally seems to turn out that those who are elect are the children of the elect - how convenient.
Randy: How would we know that? I tend to think that all babies and mentally-handicapped people incapable of making reasoned choices are elect, but whatever the case, I know God is just and not capricious.
I am confused. Are all babies elect or no? If all babies are elect then you should not have a problem with the plain reading of Romans 5:18.
I thought I was done here, but I am weak. I could not resist. Truth is a wonderful thing and so alluring. Trouble is, so are the subtle counterfeits. It is most certainly worth vigorous debate to pursue Truth. It is worth even more to have our lives molded by the Truth, Who is Love. I love you guys. Thanks for your contribution to my journey. This is not Good-bye. This is only "Until we meet again". Soon, I am sure.
God bless.

Your system fatally compromises the possibility of human choices to be real choices. Your concept of God's sovereignty turns human freedom into a hopeless chimera.
I should have said
The Reformed system fatally compromises the possibility of human choices to be real choices. The reformed concept of God's sovereignty turns human freedom into a hopeless chimera.
This is a conversation about theology, not about people. My sincere apologies for any offense.

Randy:
One last kick at this can. A couple of lingering thoughts still want to escape my brain.

I reread some of the posts, including some early ones. I personally don’t think that in some ways our views are that far apart in actual fact, although granted, there are significant differences. I see in your views a tendency to want things more polarized – either this or that. Take the matter of free will. You say:

Do you believe man can be truly free (libertarian free will) and God can still be sovereign? If the wills conflict, who wins? There can be only one. Either man is truly free, or God is truly free, but it would be logically impossible for both cases to be true. I vote for man making real choices, but ultimately God is the one who is free.

As J.C. Wenger, a prominent Anabaptist theologian of a few years ago, says, “One of the most knotty problems in theology is the question of human free will”. I don’t know very much at all about this, but I do think that some of the problem lies in how we define free will. From my Anabaptist background I had never thought of God’s sovereignty and man’s free will to be in opposition to each other. Rather I always understood them to mesh perfectly together. I read your posts and it seems that basically we are on the same page but maybe it is a matter of semantics, I don’t know. We never understood free will to be unlimited. Obviously our free will is very limited. You use the illustration of a dog in the back yard doing what it wants and still the owner calls the shots. I use the illustration of a father who allows his son to choose whether he will eat Cheerios or Corn Flakes for breakfast and which shirt he will wear that day. But the father is in charge of where they live, that the son will get up at 7:30, and that he will go to school, etc. The father loses no authority by delegating these choices to his son. Likewise our range of choices is very limited in the whole scheme of things. But the choices that he has delegated to us are in fact real choices. Probably free will is not the right term for this. J.C. Wenger puts the matter this way:

[Having just quoted at length from another source] Wenger goes on to say: “This means that a truly Biblical theology will acknowledge: (1) that fallen man is depraved, a slave to sin; (2) that the sinner can usually reject any particular evil or choose any particular good, but he cannot help himself renounce sin as such and choose Christ apart from the enablement of the Holy Spirit; hence salvation is wholly of grace; (3) that men are not mere creatures of heredity or environment, but are also responsible for themselves; their destinies are in their hands, for they are able to accept or reject the grace of God when convicted by the Holy Spirit.” (Introduction to Theology, p.105)

I realize you will not agree with some of that but the point is that as Anabaptists we do understand our fallen state and our utter dependence on God. We believe, however, that according to the Bible this is one of the choices he has delegated to us and therefore not jeopardizing his sovereignty.

One more matter:

No conflict. Of course un-elect babies would go to hell, as only the elect are the "sheep"; however, I suspect that all babies are elect, in which case no un-elect babies exist.

I want to repeat my earlier concern with this view. If all babies are elect, which I agree with, it seems to me that Reformed people would then have a hard time explaining how some of them then become “un-elect” later in life in view of the P in TULIP. Surely they cannot lose their salvation.

Well, it’s been a good discussion. I feel I have somewhat of a better grasp of the Reformed faith and I have also clarified some of my own thinking. We can sling Bible verses back and forth without a clear winner emerging. I (we) resolve the tough verses to fit our views and it appears you do so as well. I don’t lose sleep over this; indeed normally these things hardly even enter my mind. From some recent Christianity Today articles it appears that there is an increase in people holding the Reformed view. Hopefully, one of these days they will stumble upon (nay, maybe God will direct them to) this blog, will read Henry’s and my comments, will be moved to tears, fall on their knees and repent of their ways. Ah well, at least we tried.
I agree, it would be good to meet once again. The last time, as I recall, was in 1989 when you taught a Sunday School class in Kola for your Dad on the topic of reaching Muslims or Mormons or something. Who knows, our paths may cross some day. God bless you in the ministry God gives you.

I don't think the baby question is really that hard to explain. I would tend to think that that way God has handled it is that all babies who are allowed to die are elect. Not ALL babies period. It's not really a problem for the Reformed view.

As far as the points that Wenger makes above I would agree with 1 and 2 but I cannot reconcile number 3 with Scripture that emphatically states in John 6 that...

37"All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. 38"For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39"This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. 40"For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day."

I do think that you are right Richard in that our views are not really that far apart it's just that I have found that in the Arminian perspective they are always trying to reconcile the clear words of Scripture that pertain to the Sovereignty of God and the deadness of man while still allowing in some way for man to have free will (by this I mean Libertarian free will) and thus the final say in their salvation. If Jesus said that the elect were the ones the Father has given to Him and of those he will lose none to the point that He will raise them up on the last day, I cannot see how that allows for man's free will to accept or reject if the elect are those whom God has chosen in eternity past as Scripture also indicates.

I do agree that this has been a helpful conversation and I pray all have benefited in one way or another.

Which is it? Do they rebel out of their own rebellion? Or do they rebel because that is the only thing they can do until God regenerates them?

They happily rebel out of their own rebellion, and yes, it is the only thing they can do until regeneration. If your concern is the apparent dichotomy of causation, I would say they are the active cause, and in a sense, God is the passive cause, since He created them knowing they would rebel, even though He didn't actively cause them to rebel.

Having only one possible course of action doesn't mean that you don't desire to pursue that action. If you love chocolate ice cream, and that's all that's available in your house, the fact that you have no other option in no way diminishes the fact that you are eating it because you love to do so even though you are incapable of eating another flavor.

I need to introduce to you to a friend I have in Colorado who is absolutely adamant that you cannot have two mutually exclusive statements both be true at the same time and in the same way.

Sounds like a great guy. ;-) The key is "in the same way." I don't see a problem, as the ice cream illustrates.

Your system fatally compromises the possibility of human choices to be real choices. Your concept of God's sovereignty turns human freedom into a hopeless chimera.

That's no problem for me because I don't believe that ultimate human freedom (in a libertarian sense that trumps God's will) actually exists. Do your children have ultimate freedom? I hope not. I trust that your will trumps theirs, so that in your family sphere, the parents have libertarian free will in regards to their children, while the children therefore do not. No hopeless chimera--just compatibilism. Your children's choices are real even though you hover over them and retain veto authority. Our choices are real even though God is sovereign and not held captive by our choices. I can happily choose chocolate ice cream even if no other flavors are available to me.

I am confused. Are all babies elect or no?

I think I clearly stated that I don't know, but I suspect that they are.

If all babies are elect then you should not have a problem with the plain reading of Romans 5:18.

Ah, we were discussing babies who die, not those who grow up. I most certainly don't believe that every single baby is elect. I suspect that babies who die in infancy may be. Sorry for the confusing assumption.

I thought I was done here, but I am weak. I could not resist. Truth is a wonderful thing and so alluring. Trouble is, so are the subtle counterfeits. It is most certainly worth vigorous debate to pursue Truth. It is worth even more to have our lives molded by the Truth, Who is Love. I love you guys. Thanks for your contribution to my journey. This is not Good-bye. This is only "Until we meet again". Soon, I am sure.
God bless.

I'm thankful for your weakness, Henry. It makes my life richer and more interesting. I am equally weak, which is why it's dangerous to get both of us fired up on any given topic! Love covers a multitude of sins, or even theological differences.

Richard, thanks for your final kick.

I see in your views a tendency to want things more polarized – either this or that.

True, but it's not because I can't allow for some tension, but because I believe the Bible is quite clear on many of these subjects that some would like to challenge.

From my Anabaptist background I had never thought of God's sovereignty and man's free will to be in opposition to each other. Rather I always understood them to mesh perfectly together.

If you mean compatibilism, we agree. If you mean fallen man can please God, I have to turn to Romans 8.

We never understood free will to be unlimited. Obviously our free will is very limited.

Then you don't believe in libertarian free will and we're in agreement. Man makes real choices, but God actively determines any choices that He wishes to control, and can veto man's will on any given choice if He so desires.

Likewise our range of choices is very limited in the whole scheme of things. But the choices that he has delegated to us are in fact real choices. Probably free will is not the right term for this.

That's why I use "libertarian free will" at times, as that is what most Arminians mean--given any choice, we could have always chosen other than how we actually chose. That ultimately denies God's sovereignty. Your example of the son choosing Cheerios or Corn Flakes works perfectly for me, provided that the father retains the right to say, "Today it's Cheerios only."


J.C. Wenger puts the matter this way

I agree with (1) and (2), but it sounds like Wenger believes everyone is enabled by the Holy Spirit to choose in (3), and I have to disagree with that one based on my recent quotes from especially John 6, Romans 5-8, and Ephesians 1-2.

We believe, however, that according to the Bible this is one of the choices he has delegated to us and therefore not jeopardizing his sovereignty.

Jesus seems to state quite the opposite in John 6. No one can come to me unless...all that the Father gives me WILL come to me... Jesus claims sovereignty coming and going.

If all babies are elect, which I agree with, it seems to me that Reformed people would then have a hard time explaining how some of them then become "un-elect" later in life in view of the P in TULIP. Surely they cannot lose their salvation.

As I explained in my response to Henry, I was discussing babies who die in infancy only. Of course I see no Biblical basis for all humans being elect at some point in life, and some being unelect later. You're right--that would be terribly inconsistent. Arnold addressed it well.

I (we) resolve the tough verses to fit our views and it appears you do so as well.

Yes, indeed. I just find that I have to do much less reconciling than when I was more Arminian in my views.

Hopefully, one of these days they will stumble upon (nay, maybe God will direct them to) this blog, will read Henry’s and my comments, will be moved to tears, fall on their knees and repent of their ways.

How will they do so if I haven't despite our common Low German heritage? And if you don't see it my way, I can find comfort in knowing Matt Plett embraced the Reformation doctrines of grace! I draw additional comfort in learning you are not a libertarian free willer. You're well on your path down the Reformation Road. :-)

I agree, it would be good to meet once again. The last time, as I recall, was in 1989 when you taught a Sunday School class in Kola for your Dad on the topic of reaching Muslims or Mormons or something.

Good memory. That would have been Mormons. I barely knew Muslims existed in North America back then!

God bless you in the ministry God gives you.

Thank you, and may the Lord richly bless you as well.

Hi Randy,
On the freedom of choice I think the ultimate freedom question is a bit of a red herring, but just to clarify, as long as you have only one choice you do not have meaningful choice? So no one has any freedom of choice with regard to salvation. No one can choose for God unless God regenerates them, and everyone whom God regenerates chooses for God. In which case election is really indistinguishable from double predestination.
By the way, I was raised Anabaptist, I have been exposed to 8 years of Calvinist/Reformed theology in post-secondary education, and I still think they have more intellectual gymnastics to perform to force scripture to fit their theology than an Anabaptist Arminian theology does.
God bless.

Sorry I've been out of the loop. We've had house company for two fun filled weeks! Just catching up now.

Henry (54), the fact that the unregenerate rebel against God is really a matter of will, not ability. Their sin nature gives them a continual desire to rebel against God. They are doing exactly what they want when they spurn Him. The only way out is for Him to intervene and give them , by grace, a new heart with new desires. Reformed people actually affirm the fact that we choose according to our desires more than Arminians do. In fact, Reformed theology affirms that we always act according to our desires. And that moves the discussion from choice to the root of our desires.

Are our desires "free", arbitrary, unbiased, dispassionate, etc (and by extension, meaningless)? Or do they actually relate to our basic nature?

The amazing part of Romans 9:13 isn't "Esau I hated". That's the natural, default position for all people. What's amazing and worth our gratitude and praise to a merciful God is "Jacob I loved". That's the unfair part of this passage.

As an aside, Henry, which "Reformed" school did you attend? (Briercrest doesn't count, because there's little Reformed about it, other than its forgotten roots) From what I've read in your references to your Reformed education, it sounds like you might equally be able to ascribe the term "Mennonite" to Bob Jones University or Fred Phelps, or worse, CMU :-)

Engaging thread guys!

God bless you all!
Matt

Postscript:

“I draw additional comfort in learning you are not a libertarian free willer. You're well on your path down the Reformation Road.”

In thinking about our discussions I return to what I’ve said before: I am happily somewhere in between all the different theological camps – not beholden to any one of them. I admit I have a greater affinity to the Arminian camp than the others – but the Arminian camp is quite wide and not too easily defined. In thinking about these things it seems to me that none of the camps has arrived or can claim to have a corner on the truth. We have all said that we feel the weight of Scripture is on one side or the other. That shows what I am mean – the “weight” is one way or another, but there are still lots of problematic Scriptures for whatever view you take. So no view is able to successfully include all Scripture within its folds. This underlines the fact that all the views are in themselves human inventions. When I read theological textbooks and I see all the terms: Calvinism or Arminianism; monergism, synergism, or correspondence; supralapsarianism or infralapsarianism; and on and on to ad naseum, I wonder how helpful a lot of it is other than for the purposes of theological debate. Maybe some day a view will come along that can incorporate the whole realm of Scriptural truth and then I may become whatever that will be called.

If someone sees some aspects of my views as “Calvinistic”, hey, I say Praise the Lord! In spite of all that has been said in this thread, I have no qualms about seeing parts of me being Calvinistic. But I am also quite Arminian, albeit the Anabaptist version of it. I don’t think, however, that I am “on your path down the Reformation Road.” The obstacles along that path just seem too huge. The view on free will I have is one that has remained basically unchanged since childhood days. It is what was generally taught in our EMC churches as far as I picked up on it. God is infinite; man is finite. We could rebel against God but it was like a mouse challenging an elephant. Whatever choices God gave us was up to God; we could choose to respond by his grace and with his strength. We didn’t know what name such a position might carry – we just saw what was in the Bible and sought to live by those words.

Richard,

you are free to accept whatever theological positions you choose, but from what you wrote, it sounds like accepting a position is basically an arbitrary thing. What about measuring doctrine against the standard of God's Word? Just because we can't nail it 100% in this life doesn't mean that we shouldn't pour all of our effort into spiritual discernment and obedience to Jesus Christ.

Blessings,
Matt

Henry,

as long as you have only one choice you do not have meaningful choice?

I disagree with your intent, as my primary concern is not choices, but as Matt points out in #55, acting according to our desires.

So no one has any freedom of choice with regard to salvation. No one can choose for God unless God regenerates them, and everyone whom God regenerates chooses for God.

Yes, pretty much like Jesus teaches in John 6.

In which case election is really indistinguishable from double predestination.

The difference is that election is pro-active on God's part, whereas reprobation is man left to his own devices and going his own way in rebellion. However, I can accept double P if you demand it. What I can't do is reject the clear teaching of John 6.

By the way, I was raised Anabaptist, I have been exposed to 8 years of Calvinist/Reformed theology in post-secondary education, and I still think they have more intellectual gymnastics to perform to force scripture to fit their theology than an Anabaptist Arminian theology does.

Please direct me to scholarly and coherent Arminian exegesis of John 6, Romans 8, Ephesians 2. I've seen some amazing attempts to get around what those passages teach, but nothing convincing. Just today I "learned" that Ephesians 2 has nothing to do with salvation, but that those "dead in trespasses and sin" are actually Christians living in rebellion. Spiritually dead Christians--quite a concept.

Richard,

So no view is able to successfully include all Scripture within its folds.

Perhaps, but I believe my view is very successful, and passages like Romans 5:18 are not the problem some might claim. I may not have defended it ably, but when taken as a whole, Romans 5 is very coherent and very Reformed.

Whatever choices God gave us was up to God; we could choose to respond by his grace and with his strength. We didn’t know what name such a position might carry – we just saw what was in the Bible and sought to live by those words.

My parents have noted that they heard very little about Romans 8, John 6 and so on in the EMC.

Matt #57 and Arnold earlier commenting on the relative merits of philosophical positions versus scripture.
What about measuring doctrine against the standard of God's Word?
That is exactly what Richard and I do, and that is why we cannot follow Reformed theology. Our most sincere reading of Scripture will not allow it. This is not to say that those who do follow Reformed theology do not wish to measure doctrine against God's Word. It means they read the Word with different presuppositions operative in their interpretive framework. This does not mean that scripture must mean nothing if it means different things to different readers. It means the truth of scripture is bigger than any individual or group of readers.

the fact that the unregenerate rebel against God is really a matter of will, not ability. Their sin nature gives them a continual desire to rebel against God. They are doing exactly what they want when they spurn Him.
Randy #58
I disagree with your intent, as my primary concern is not choices, but as Matt points out in #55, acting according to our desires.
That is too facile. Switching choices for desires is a shell game. Rebellion cannot be a matter of the will unless there are other options. Acting according to desires is meaningless unless there are other options. That is the fallacy of your ice cream analogy. If you are in a house with only chocolate ice cream (horrors!!) and you enjoy chocolate ice cream, therefore you willingly eat chocolate ice cream, you have still made a choice to eat chocolate ice cream rather than to not eat it. That is not an option for the unregenerate who cannot say yes to God. You cannot be neutral with regard to God. You must choose for God or against God. If you do not have the option to choose for God, then desires are meaningless. Paul struggles with desires in Romans 7 precisely because he has options.

Randy #58
However, I can accept double P if you demand it.
I don't demand it. I abhor it, but your theology demands it if it is to be consistent. If God decides who goes to heaven and who goes to hell, and sovereignly determines the course of all events in the interim, then the Devil better hope there is a good employment insurance solution for him, because his major work is done for him already. I totally understand why Roger Olson finds it hard to distinguish the God of Calvinism from the devil. That is supported by statements made by Calvinists who were trying to argue against Olson. "Satan is an instrument of God. He cannot act independently of God's purposes and must answer to God for all he does." Doesn't sound like like a sworn enemy who is engaged in a bitter war to the death with God.

What I can't do is reject the clear teaching of John 6.
Why not? You do it for Romans 5:18.

Please direct me to scholarly and coherent Arminian exegesis of John 6, Romans 8, Ephesians 2.
Not worth the bother. If your high view of scripture and your confidence in propositional truth cannot compete with your commitment to Reformed theology and allow simple and clear statements of scripture like Romans 5:18 (or 1 John 2:2, or 1 Peter 1:10-11, 2 Peter 3:9, etc., etc.) to mean what they say, then no exegesis of John 6, Romans 8, or Ephesians 2 will ever be scholarly and coherent in your view unless it endorses Reformed theology. The statement strikes me as an admission of very little research into Arminian theology. I think Piper's elucidation of TULIP is weak and unconvincing (God intended to make atonement for all in Christ's death, but then (oops) he did more and guaranteed salvation for the elect. Then, even though the atonement is only for the elect it is fine for us to tell all people that the atonement is for them. Something seems off with an evangelistic program that is premised on dishonest pretensions), that does not mean it is not scholarly or coherent, though I have read better on both counts. Mind you, Piper likely has better expositions than indicated on the web.

passages like Romans 5:18 are not the problem some might claim
I should say not. Scripture is never the problem. The problem lies with theology that cannot allow scripture to mean what it says.

And after all that
The amazing part of Romans 9:13 isn't "Esau I hated"
Do you think that verse means what it says? Do you think God hated Esau? If so, is God schizophrenic? Can God BE Love and hate his dearest creation created in His own image at the same time?

Time to go. Detroit won the Cup!! And I want to spend a few minutes with the family before we all head to bed.
God bless you all.

That is too facile. Switching choices for desires is a shell game

Not at all. Our choices are based on our desires, so desire is an important point when discussing choices. If our desires did not dictate our choices, then our choices will ultimately be divorced from us as people and would therefore be meaningless and empty. Ironically, in many ways it may actually be Arminianism that does more damage to meaningful choices than Calvinism. Our choices could merely be abstract, arbitrary, free-floating entities rooted in something than the essence of self.

Rebellion cannot be a matter of the will unless there are other options. Acting according to desires is meaningless unless there are other options.

There is another option. They can repent of their sinfulness and turn to Jesus. Of course, though, they never will if left to themselves. They will need the help of the Spirit to make the choice even though the option is there from the beginning.

If you are in a house with only chocolate ice cream (horrors!!)

Describes my exact situation right now. I'll be gone for a second...

That is not an option for the unregenerate who cannot say yes to God.

It is an option. Just one that will never be exercised without the help of the Spirit.

You cannot be neutral with regard to God. You must choose for God or against God

Hey, we agree on something!

If you do not have the option to choose for God, then desires are meaningless.

Or, more accurately, if you do not have the desire to choose for God, then options are meaningless.

Paul struggles with desires in Romans 7 precisely because he has options.

Of course he has options. He's regenerated and now must work through his ongoing sanctification, which is co-operative with God. Just like the unregenerate has the option to choose various actions. Just because he's as bad off as he can be doesn't mean he's as bad as he can be.

I totally understand why Roger Olson...

Hey dude, we were having a serious conversation...

allow simple and clear statements of scripture like Romans 5:18 (or 1 John 2:2, or 1 Peter 1:10-11, 2 Peter 3:9, etc., etc.) to mean what they say

Context, dude, context. I like Koukl's phrase about not memorizing scripture verses...

Scripture is never the problem

Excellent!

The problem lies with theology that cannot allow scripture to mean what it says.

Exactly. That's why context of the passage is so key.

Do you think that verse means what it says? Do you think God hated Esau?

No reason to believe otherwise. The meaning is seemingly plain, and that reading would fit perfectly with the context.

If so, is God schizophrenic?

No.

Can God BE Love and hate his dearest creation created in His own image at the same time?

God also is justice. The unsaved are met with His wrath, and the saved with His mercy. God cannot suspend part of Himself to display another part of Himself. He is what He is. He's a unitary being, and so each of His acts (including atonement) are done with His entire being. Long story short, by necessity, atonement includes both justice and love.

Detroit won the Cup!!

Argh. At least it was an exciting game!

And I want to spend a few minutes with the family before we all head to bed.

Never sacrifice that!

Peace in Jesus,
Matt

This does not mean that scripture must mean nothing if it means different things to different readers. It means the truth of scripture is bigger than any individual or group of readers.

I agree with sentence one, but either monergism or synergism is true, and not the other. I could be wrong, but we can't both be right. Scripture is bigger than both of us, but only one of us can be right on that specific topic.

If God decides who goes to heaven and who goes to hell, and sovereignly determines the course of all events in the interim, then the Devil better hope there is a good employment insurance solution for him, because his major work is done for him already.

Reprobation is not on the same pro-active level as election, although the result is parallel. As C.S. Lewis purportedly said, "There are those who say to God, 'Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, 'Thy will be done.'"

I totally understand why Roger Olson finds it hard to distinguish the God of Calvinism from the devil.

So then instead of seeing us as brothers, you believe Matt and I may be worshiping the devil along with John Piper, John MacArthur, Charles Spurgeon, Jonathan Edwards, William Carey, Adoniram Judson, John Newton, Hudson Taylor and other notable Satan worshippers throughout history?

That is supported by statements made by Calvinists who were trying to argue against Olson. "Satan is an instrument of God. He cannot act independently of God's purposes and must answer to God for all he does." Doesn't sound like like a sworn enemy who is engaged in a bitter war to the death with God.

See the book of Job. Of course he's God's enemy, but he's also the created subject of a sovereign God.

Randy: What I can't do is reject the clear teaching of John 6.
Henry: Why not? You do it for Romans 5:18.

Touche! :-) Of course, I beg to differ since I read all of Romans 5, not just one verse in isolation, and I conclude that this chapter is consistent with a Reformed view.

Randy: Please direct me to scholarly and coherent Arminian exegesis of John 6, Romans 8, Ephesians 2.
Henry: Not worth the bother.

That smacks of a cop-out or a put down.

If your high view of scripture and your confidence in propositional truth cannot compete with your commitment to Reformed theology and allow simple and clear statements of scripture like Romans 5:18 (or 1 John 2:2, or 1 Peter 1:10-11, 2 Peter 3:9, etc., etc.) to mean what they say, then no exegesis of John 6, Romans 8, or Ephesians 2 will ever be scholarly and coherent in your view unless it endorses Reformed theology.

Unfair. I've seen scholarly and coherent writings that I totally disagreed with, yet still respected. The verses you listed are actually not all that difficult for the Reformed view; no where near the problems posed for Arminian theology by John 6, Ephesians 2 and so on.

The statement strikes me as an admission of very little research into Arminian theology.

I lived it until 39 years of age, and I've listened to numerous debates in which Arminians fell apart when confronted with those passages. I'm not saying such defenses don't exist--I'd just like help finding them. No luck thus far, and apparently you're unwilling or unable to offer up anything else for me.

I think Piper's elucidation of TULIP is weak and unconvincing (God intended to make atonement for all in Christ's death, but then (oops) he did more and guaranteed salvation for the elect. Then, even though the atonement is only for the elect it is fine for us to tell all people that the atonement is for them.

Do you have a reference? I've listened to maybe 250 Piper messages and read several books without ever running into that view. If that's really Piper's view (doubtful), then I disagree with him.

Matt addressed much of this very well, so I'll cut it off here and get some sleep. Long day tomorrow (leave home by 7:30 AM, get back around midnight).

Matt #60
Our choices are based on our desires, so desire is an important point when discussing choices. If our desires did not dictate our choices, then our choices will ultimately be divorced from us as people and would therefore be meaningless and empty.
So we have all kinds of choices, but the choice related to God is either for God or against God, right? Only two options. Many options in how this is worked out, but those options/choices are subsequent to the choice for or against God. According to Reformed theology as you postulate it the unregenerate cannot respond positively to God, so they do not have an other option, therefore no choice. Those who are regenerated cannot do other than choose for God, so they have no choice either. Hence desires are meaningless. One cannot be culpable for doing what one wants if one has no other option. One could still be held accountable for how one exercises desires, but not in relation to the choice for or against God, because that is never a choice on your paradigm.

Randy #61
So then instead of seeing us as brothers, you believe Matt and I may be worshiping the devil along with John Piper, John MacArthur, Charles Spurgeon, Jonathan Edwards, William Carey, Adoniram Judson, John Newton, Hudson Taylor and other notable Satan worshippers throughout history?
Absolutely not. It is one thing to say that a particular theological position is unable to effectively distinguish between God's work and the Devil's work. It is another thing entirely to say that those who subscibe to such theology are engaged in Devil worship. No theology is adequate in its appreciation of God, and that raises the specter of idolatry in every act of worship, but it does not translate into Devil worship. It simply means that even in our theology we are dependent on the grace of God, not only for enlightenment, but also to cover for our inability to adequately understand Who it is that we worship. I consider all of you brothers, though certainly brothers with whom I have substantial disagreements.

I am with you on context. I just don't think it is adequate to excise a verse from a passage, develop a dubious interpretation of the rest of the passage according to a pre-existing theological framework, then insist the offending verse cannot mean what it says. That is not considering context. Romans 5:18 is not in tension with the rest of the chapter, but it is an anchor verse that cannot be muzzled when considering the rest of the passage.

And here is Piper, in his own words:
(elucidating Arminianism) God designs and intends the atonement for all people in the same way...
Now, as far as it goes, this seems to me to be acceptable teaching.…
…there is no dispute that Christ died so that we might say to all persons everywhere without exception: “God gave his only begotten Son to die for sin so that if you believe on him you may have eternal life.” …
Arminians historically are just as eager as Calvinists to avoid saying that these texts teach “universal salvation.” So they do not teach that the death of Christ “for all” saves all. Rather, they say, in the words of Millard Erickson, “God intended the atonement to make salvation possible for all persons. Christ died for all persons, but this atoning death becomes effective only when accepted by the individual.” Erickson then says, “This is the view of all Arminians” (Christian Theology, p. 829, emphasis added). What has come clearer to me as I have pondered these things is that Arminians do not say that in the death of Christ God intends to effectively save all for whom Christ died. They only say that God intends to make possible the salvation of all for whom Christ died. But this interpretation of these “universal” texts does not contradict the Calvinist assertion that God does intend to obtain the grace of faith and repentance for a definite group by the death of Christ. …
Here’s the rub: if he did this “more,” he didn’t do it for everyone. So at this level the atonement becomes “limited.” And this is what Arminians stumble over: is there anything that God would do to get some unbelievers saved that he would not do for all? This “limitation” implies a choice on God’s part to save some and not all.
https://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Seminars/1727_TULIP_Part_1/

So the atonement is universal and limited?? It is intended for all, but actually only specifically for the elect? But even though I believe it is only for the elect I can tell everyone it is for them?? Where is my Colorado friend with his trusty either/or framework?? There is also significant misrepresentation of Arminian thought as being far more uniform than it actually is.

It is one thing to say that a particular theological position is unable to effectively distinguish between God's work and the Devil's work.

You didn't use "work" in the original quote, which made it harsher. Still, we can't see a God who mercifully saves some of the unworthy as demonic. "Your" God tries to save all but fails. I don't see that as an improvement (although I believe we simply have different views of the same God and would never accuse "your" God of being hard to distinguish from Satan. What an absurd statement, as Satan never shows sacrificial loving mercy to sinners).

I am with you on context. I just don't think it is adequate to excise a verse from a passage, develop a dubious interpretation of the rest of the passage according to a pre-existing theological framework, then insist the offending verse cannot mean what it says. That is not considering context. Romans 5:18 is not in tension with the rest of the chapter, but it is an anchor verse that cannot be muzzled when considering the rest of the passage.

I agree with that statement, but not your interpretation of Rom 5:18.

As for Piper, I think you misinterpreted what he said. Essentially, an Arminian says "Trust in Jesus. He died for your sins, and if you trust Him, He will intercede for you before the Father and save you." A Calvinist says, "If you trust in Jesus, He died for your sins, and He will intercede for you before the Father and save you."

Calvinists put the condition before "He died" and Arminians put it before "He saves." Either way, Jesus saves many, but not all. Perhaps you overlooked the "if you believe" that Piper included in his statement.

So the atonement is universal and limited?? It is intended for all, but actually only specifically for the elect?

That's not what his quote says. Now I concede that it could be universal in the sense that common grace extends to all, but we're speaking salvifically here. In that sense, the atonement is savingly limited to the elect.

But even though I believe it is only for the elect I can tell everyone it is for them??

You can tell everyone it's for them if they believe. That's what Piper said, and I believe that's what the Bible teaches again and again. If you believe, Jesus Christ atones for your sins, justifies you, intercedes for you before the Father and you will never perish (lots of clear verses about that eternal security, in or out of context!).

Where is my Colorado friend with his trusty either/or framework??

It works perfectly here. You set up a false dichotomy by misunderstanding Piper. Remember, the law of non-contradiction includes "in the same way." The atonement can't be universal and limited in the same way.

There is also significant misrepresentation of Arminian thought as being far more uniform than it actually is.

We can agree that all Arminians are synergists on some level, and apart from univeralists (whom Arminius would have rejected), all Arminians limit the effectiveness of the atonement. How is that a misrepresentation?

According to Reformed theology as you postulate it the unregenerate cannot respond positively to God, so they do not have an other option, therefore no choice. Those who are regenerated cannot do other than choose for God, so they have no choice either

Replace each of your "cannot"s with "will not"s, and I can agree. They have options and choices, even with respect to accepting God. It's just that they will never choose God as long as they are enslaved to their old sinful desires.

Hence desires are meaningless

Desires make sense of the whole thing. We choose according to our desires. An unregenerated sinner desires to rebel against God and therefore chooses to do so continually. A regenerated person desires to serve God and therefore chooses according to that desire. Pretty straight forward.

One cannot be culpable for doing what one wants if one has no other option

One more time: they have options. They just don't ever exercise them. Just because my hatred of tomatoes dictates that I continually choose to not eat them doesn't mean that I couldn't if I wanted to. For me to switch, though, I'd need a new desire to eat tomatoes, which is clearly something that I would need outside help with.

Grace and peace,
Matt

Randy: They happily rebel out of their own rebellion, and yes, it is the only thing they can do until regeneration.
Matt: Replace each of your "cannot"s with "will not"s, and I can agree. They have options and choices, even with respect to accepting God. It's just that they will never choose God as long as they are enslaved to their old sinful desires.
This helps. I am evidently interacting with two significantly different versions of Reformed theology. "Cannot" vs "will not" makes a world of difference here, and the difference raises significant questions regarding election. If election is individual, immutable, and from before the foundations of the world, then it must be "cannot". If it is "will not" then election is not prior to choice and does not limit one's choice, unless this argument degenerates into logically fallacious vicious circularity.
One more question on your version of security. Some Calvinist/Reformed thinkers allow for apostasy. Do you? Can one be genuinely saved and fall away, but only once?
Blessings and peace to all.

"Cannot" vs "will not" makes a world of difference here

I represent "cannot," but I also believe they "will not." Again, they're acting according to their desires. It's not like they wish they could turn to God and He rejects them.

If election is individual, immutable, and from before the foundations of the world, then it must be "cannot".

Yes.

Some Calvinist/Reformed thinkers allow for apostasy. Do you?

Yes, but only in the sense that someone can appear to be a Christian and apostatize.

Can one be genuinely saved and fall away, but only once?

No, Jesus promised that His sheep would never perish, and Romans 8 makes it clear that NOTHING can separate us from God when we are his.

I think apostates are described in 1 John 2:19: They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.

I represent "cannot," but I also believe they "will not." Again, they're acting according to their desires. It's not like they wish they could turn to God and He rejects them.

What he said. The reason I prefer to say "will not" is because it more accurately describes the desires of the heart. Of course, I also believe that because God's knowledge of the future is certain, perfect, and infallible (to your collective surprise, I am not an Open Theist!), He knows with certainty who is and who is not elect, and therefore, He can accurately say that the non-elect "cannot" break free because He knows He will never regenerate them and give them new desires.

From our human standpoint, however, we don't know who is and isn't elect, so I prefer to say "will not". How's that for epistemic humility? Not bad for an historic, old-school evangelical, eh?

Should maybe clarify a little more. I prefer "will not" because we have no future knowledge. For example, if I'm witnessing to a 25 year old, and he actively rejects the gospel, I can truthfully and accurately say that he does not will to accept Jesus. I shy away from saying he "cannot" because I don't know if he's elect or not. He may be elect but won't accept the gospel until age 35. In that case, saying he "can't" accept the gospel when he was 25 wouldn't be accurate because in the future, he very well may.

Note: that does nothing to harm the use of the word "cannot" in the sense of God's infallible knowledge, or in the realm of the theoretical when we talk about the non-elect. Fine to use in the abstract, but I'm reticent to use it in the concrete.

Hope that clarifies any potential misunderstanding.

This election thing seems to require a lot of explaining, and explanations of explanations, then clarifications of explanations of explanations, and then retractions of clarifications of explanations of explanations, that are not really retractions, but further elucidations on the clarifications of the explanations of explanations to indicate that what was meant was the opposite of what was said, except that a text can only mean what the author meant so in fact it did mean what it meant which is what it said even if it said the opposite which it could actually not have done because that was not what the author meant . . . .
Richard had a beautiful line much earlier in this discussion that resonated with me (#9): I have earnestly read a number of Calvinists' books with the express purpose of trying to understand TULIP but I always go away with the feeling that it must have been a Calvinist who wrote the line, "The barefoot boy with the shoes on stood sitting in the grass". This issue of election is a case in point -. . .
In the end it seems the doctrine of election requires a lot of explaining but the doctrine of election does not explain anything. If one is elect then one will believe, so if one believes then one may be elect. If one does not believe then one may or may not be elect, because one may or may not "choose" to believe at a later date, though whether or not one can in fact choose to believe is up for debate even among those committed to Reformed theology. However, even if one thinks one believes now, it is not certain that that individual is elect, because it may be that the individual only thinks he is a believer, but will at some later date reject the faith, and turn out not to be elect after all. So much for any assurance of salvation. It seems even the Reformed security is a chimera.
I am reminded of Ockham's razor. The simplest explanation is the best explanation. Given that the scriptural foundation for the doctrine of individual election is highly debatable, even among those committed to the inerrancy of scripture, this discussion has served to solidify my satisfaction with the scriptural authenticity of an Anabaptist Arminian theology with a critical appreciation for some aspects of Reformed theology, with TULIP understood as exposited by Brian McLaren.
I know you won't even consider my elucidation of scripture so here are some links to a site that seems to closely reflect your view of scripture but arrives at very different perspectives on some key points of theology. I have not spent a lot of time on the site yet, but I am curious about your response to some of the material. Enjoy!!

Home page http://www.bibleviews.com/index.html
Subscribe to inerrancy of scripture http://www.bibleviews.com/doctrinal.html
List of articles http://www.bibleviews.com/Articles.html
http://www.bibleviews.com/romans9-11.html

This election thing seems to require a lot of explaining...

Only because people keep opposing the simple description:

God elects to save people through Jesus.

Nothing confusing in that, unless we demand that man play a role in his own salvation despite the loads of verses to the contrary.

If one is elect then one will believe

Yes.

so if one believes then one may be elect.

If one truly believes then one IS elect. Some claim to believe but do not, such as the wolves in sheep's clothing that seek to do harm to the flock.

If one does not believe then one may or may not be elect, because one may or may not "choose" to believe at a later date, though whether or not one can in fact choose to believe is up for debate even among those committed to Reformed theology.

Name one Reformed person who thinks dead sinners can believe without regeneration and I'll show you someone who is merely posturing as Reformed.

You seem obsessed with the human side of election, which shouldn't really concern us. Election explains what God does, and we are not privy to that information regarding other people, although fruits can give us a pretty good idea if someone is a believer. We certainly can't predict who will become one in the future.

However, even if one thinks one believes now, it is not certain that that individual is elect, because it may be that the individual only thinks he is a believer, but will at some later date reject the faith, and turn out not to be elect after all.

I suppose someone could think they were believers if they were deceived by a cult, but anyone actually trusting in Jesus Christ for salvation by grace through faith can have assurance of election and salvation.

So much for any assurance of salvation.

There is great assurance in Reformed theology properly understood, as we have promise after promise from Jesus that He saves His sheep, He won't lose any, and He will succeed perfectly.

It seems even the Reformed security is a chimera.

Only if distorted or misunderstood.

I am reminded of Ockham's razor. The simplest explanation is the best explanation.

That's not exactly what it says. It's more accurate to say that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily. The simplest explanation is likely the best, provided that all competing explanations possess equal explanatory power. Apply Ockham's Razor to passages like John 6, Romans 8, Ephesians 2 and so on, and you'll end up with Reformed theology.

this discussion has served to solidify my satisfaction with the scriptural authenticity of an Anabaptist Arminian theology with a critical appreciation for some aspects of Reformed theology, with TULIP understood as exposited by Brian McLaren.

I'm sorry to hear that, especially since anything exposited by Brian McLaren is highly suspect and I find his TULIP to be absurd, as seen in my book review.

I know you won't even consider my elucidation of scripture

I think undecided readers would determine that I've considered your Scriptures more frequently than you have mine.

In any case, I checked the links. Yes, I agree with many aspects of their statement of faith, but I think they've missed the boat on Romans. It appears that they want to turn God hardening Pharaoh's heart into Pharaoh alone hardening his own heart.

Henry, I sincerely believe that your "confusion" is feigned and insincere. Although we disagree on many things, I also believe you're no dummy. You're bright enough to grasp Reformed theology (even as you disagree with it) so you probably shouldn't pull out the "it's so confusing" card. You're free to disagree, but please don't play dodge.

When we talk about election, we're talking about something in the Godhead, information we are not privy to. Therefore, we may know the things He reveals to us, but nothing more. He reveals to us that He elects some and not others, but He doesn't reveal to us the list of elect individuals. Therefore, we do evangelism, offer the call of Christ, etc. Just because someone isn't currently saved doesn't mean they haven't been elected in eternity past and will yet accept Christ. We don't have that omniscient, infallible knowledge. Shouldn't that appeal to you Henry? Randy and I are expounding on human fallibility and now you raise that as an objection to Reformed theology?! Are you disagreeing or being disagreeable?

As far as the Romans exposition and Pharaoh, the best explanation I've yet heard is that God hardened Pharaohs heart by actually giving him more freedom and autonomy. Since the default position of the human heart is sinfulness, for God to withdraw a measure of common grace would have the effect of hardening a heart even further. I first found that explanation in Sproul's "Chosen by God" (thanks Randy!) and have yet to find a more satisfactory answer than that one.

Grace and peace,
Matt

with TULIP understood as exposited by Brian McLaren.

Henry, when you create a novel invention, you are not understanding and/or expositing something. Understanding and expositing suggests some pre-existent thought to understand and exposit. Bri's TULIP has nothing to do with Reformed theology. Now I'm not saying that he can't invent his own TULIP, or that he's not free to formulate his own positions, just that he can't invent his own TULIP and then claim to share common ground with Calvinists just because his acronym is the same as theirs.

Hi, my name is Matt. I'm from Arborg. Well, actually I hate the town of Arborg and everything it stands for. In fact, I dislike it so much I can't even sound like a grown-up in my criticism for Arborg. But the name Arborg sounds really awesome. So awesome that I think my own hometown (called Landmark by Pharisaical literalists) should be called Arborg. That's why I identify myself as someone who is from Arborg and embraces all things Arborg.

Next time I visit "Arborg," I'll expect to see Henry there as well as Matt... However, this summer, we're just going to Pambrun, SK, or as I prefer to call it "Whistler, BC."

By "summer", do you mean January? The word summer is an ambiguous one, Randy, It's so loaded with emotional baggage that you shouldn't use it without using about a hundred qualifiers to explain it. Otherwise, you might hurt someone's feelings by singling out a season like that and setting it up against all the others as though summer has the market cornered on seasons. That doesn't do justice to the collective perspectives that spring, fall, and winter may or may not have.

Hey, fellows lighten up a bit. Henry's first paragraph in # 69 is brilliant no matter what side you are on. Even opposing athletes will sometimes applaud the opponent upon a good play. Exaggeration to make a point is used even in the Bible. And by the way, it describes how I am left feeling as well on a number of points.

Hey, fellows lighten up a bit. Henry's first paragraph in # 69 is brilliant no matter what side you are on.

It was well-written and humorous, but I'm with Matt in not believing Henry was sincere. It was a fun jab, but the undercurrent is a little biting. Election isn't rocket science, and it comes straight out of the Bible; I think Henry was deliberately obfuscating the issue. No one can find it that confusing without a serious determination to do so.

The next few comments regard McLaren's TULIP and not Henry's comments, just to clarify our jabs...

I am feigning confusion??

Randy #11 They have every chance, but as Romans 8:7-8 show us, they are hostile to God and will never bow the knee to their Creator unless made spiritually alive.
Randy #47 No, they have every opportunity to bend the knee to God but refuse to do so. That they are unable to do so is due to the depths of their sin, not active opposition on God's part. They are exercising their wills in rebellion.
Can dead people come? That is the fundamental divide in our views. You believe dead people move towards God; I believe they respond no more than people six feet under in a cemetery can respond to offers of free cash. Once God replaces a heart of stone with a heart of flesh, people come, people believe, people have faith.
Randy #52 They happily rebel out of their own rebellion, and yes, it is the only thing they can do until regeneration.
Randy #53 Man makes real choices, but God actively determines any choices that He wishes to control, and can veto man's will on any given choice if He so desires.
Randy #58 (quoting Henry) So no one has any freedom of choice with regard to salvation. No one can choose for God unless God regenerates them, and everyone whom God regenerates chooses for God.
Randy Yes, pretty much like Jesus teaches in John 6.
Randy # 66 I represent "cannot," but I also believe they "will not." Again, they're acting according to their desires. It's not like they wish they could turn to God and He rejects them.
(Quoting Henry) If election is individual, immutable, and from before the foundations of the world, then it must be "cannot".
Randy Yes.



Randy #8 I could go on and on with examples that don't need any hermeneutical slight of hand--just simple, plain verses teaching the TULIP of Calvinism.
Randy #20 Romans 5:18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.
Are all men condemned? No. That would have been the case after Adam's fall, but God had a plan, spelled out in this same book of Romans. Are all men justified? No. Clearly neither universal status applies to every individual. Nothing tricky in seeing that. However, if you want what the passage "simply" says, are you willing to affirm that everyone is condemned (it simply says that, right?) and that everyone is also saved (it simply says that as well) at the same time? I doubt it.
I interject - “All” seems to be as ambiguous as “summer”.
Randy #29 Henry, Henry, why must you be so propositional? ... the bottom line is that propositions are impossible to avoid in Romans ... Reformed theology does not demand the purely propositional, unless propositions are at stake.
Randy #53 I believe the Bible is quite clear on many of these subjects that some would like to challenge.


Randy #47 No conflict. Of course un-elect babies would go to hell, as only the elect are the "sheep"; however, I suspect that all babies are elect, in which case no un-elect babies exist.
Randy #52 ... I most certainly don't believe that every single baby is elect. I suspect that babies who die in infancy may be.



Matt #60 There is another option. They can repent of their sinfulness and turn to Jesus. Of course, though, they never will if left to themselves. They will need the help of the Spirit to make the choice even though the option is there from the beginning.
It is an option. Just one that will never be exercised without the help of the Spirit.
Of course he has options. He's regenerated and now must work through his ongoing sanctification, which is co-operative with God. Just like the unregenerate has the option to choose various actions.
Matt # 64 They have options and choices, even with respect to accepting God. It's just that they will never choose God as long as they are enslaved to their old sinful desires.
We choose according to our desires. An unregenerated sinner desires to rebel against God and therefore chooses to do so continually. A regenerated person desires to serve God and therefore chooses according to that desire. Pretty straight forward.
One more time: they have options. They just don't ever exercise them.
Matt #67 (Quoting Randy)I represent "cannot," but I also believe they "will not." Again, they're acting according to their desires. It's not like they wish they could turn to God and He rejects them.
Matt What he said. The reason I prefer to say "will not" ...

Shucks, by now I am even confused about who is confused!!
Love you guys. Together in the search for the (ever elusive??) Truth.

I will give you credit for the work it took to cut and paste all those comments! Now if only context could be cut and pasted...

I don't see final contradiction in any of those statements. Sometimes the two sides of the same coin are being articulated, and sometimes we are providing answers to two completely different questions.

For example, "Do un-elect babies go to hell?" is a completely different question from "Does God allow the un-elect to die in infancy?" Randy's answer was clear. 1) Anyone who is not elect will be in hell. 2) He suggested that the only babies God allows to die in infancy are elect. No confusion there. No contradiction. Just two answers to two different questions.

Also, the "cannot"/"will-not" discussion involves no confusion or contradiction. The un-elect act according to their sinful desires, and reject God as a result. They do not will to serve God, and they also cannot serve God unless He regenerates them and gives them a new heart and mind with new desires. Pretty plain and simple.

Especially considering that both Richard and Henry seem amply bright and able to comprehend when they want to.

For example, "Do un-elect babies go to hell?" is a completely different question from "Does God allow the un-elect to die in infancy?"
Why is that significant? It seems to be important for both of you that God not be seen to send un-elect babies to hell. Why not? According to reformed theology as you present it (Matt evinces more reservations on this but you did concur with Randy) an un-elect baby has the same opportunity to choose repentance as an un-elect adult - none. So what difference does it make if God allows an un-elect baby to die or an un-elect adult? What difference does it make whether or not one has heard the gospel if one is not elect and could never choose for God anyway? If God's election is fine for adults, why not for babies? Does 'Freudian slip' mean anything to you?

an un-elect baby has the same opportunity to choose repentance as an un-elect adult - none

Not so fast there, compadre. In the case of an infant, there is no ability (intellectual, spiritual, etc.) to come to grips with sinfulness or to understand the gospel message. There's no opportunity to accept salvation. It's strictly a matter of ability. That would be like asking a crippled person to run a marathon. They can't, even if they'd want to.

Not so with adults. Even those who continually reject the gospel (given their sinful nature and desires), they have the opportunity to come to terms with the gospel even though they reject it. It's a matter of the will and ability here. In this case, the crippled person has no desire to run the marathon whatsoever.

I personally believe that babies are saved not on the basis of their innocence or their ignorance, but on the basis of their lack of ability. It would be unjust, in my view, for God to condemn someone who has no ability to act and choose according to their desires. For that reason, I tend to go with Randy in believing that God doesn't allow the un-elect to die in infancy but rather in adulthood so their corruption can be evidenced.

Of course, now we're really delving into conversations that happen within the Trinity, to which we're not privy. Additionally, Scripture is fairly silent on the matter of infant salvation, so I'm not willing to make this a hill to die on. I comfort myself in the fact that a loving and just God will do the right thing. I don't need to get worked up about it - it's in His hands and He'll do this perfectly just like He does everything else.

Context is the key, Henry. For example, your attempt to make my thoughts on elect infants incoherent by ignoring the fact that I stated my understanding that we were discussing infants who died--not infants who lived to adulthood--is either sloppy or disingenuous.

I'm not a Molinist, and therefore not a proponent of middle knowledge, but that could factor in. God certainly knows what an infant would do if they had the opportunity. However, I'm comfortable with Matt's thoughts on the topic and trust God to do what's right from His perspective, regardless of ours.

I don't have time today to go through every out-of-context quote, but one more issue is timing. You seemed to make something of Romans speaking of "condemnation for all men" while I responded, "Are all men condemned? No."

Paul is writing of man's initial position--depraved and condemned. However, as I wrote, not all men are ultimately condemned because we've been raised from death to life. We were, but now we are not. No inconsistency, just a different point in time. All men who are ultimately condemned are condemned since Adam's trespass; all men who are saved are saved because of Christ. Those are two separate sets, as the Bible very clearly teaches.

As for "will not/cannot," perhaps it would help if I explained that the "cannot" is because they are in slavery to their wicked desires, as Matt and I have pointed out. It's not that God says, "You may not come to Me," but they are so far in the pit that they can't get out, and they are happy to be there because they are dead in sin, unless they are regenerated. It almost sounds like you got the idea that there are people who want to move toward God, but He won't allow it--that's not Reformed teaching. People act according to their desires, which is always against God unless He does a work in them. That's what we mean by "cannot," like Romans teaches.

Randy: Context is the key, Henry. For example, your attempt to make my thoughts on elect infants incoherent by ignoring the fact that I stated my understanding that we were discussing infants who died--not infants who lived to adulthood--is either sloppy or disingenuous.
You said no unelect babies exist. You did not say no unelect babies die, though I realize that is what you meant. Now I am the one who is sloppy or disingenuous because I point that out??

You agree the un-elect cannot choose for God, right? I understood you to be quite clear on that. If the un-elect cannot respond positively to God until they are regenerated, then there is no difference between the opportunity of a baby vs an adult. Neither can ever choose for God unless they are regenerated, and then they invariably will choose for God. Am I misrepresenting you?
Cannot is because they are stuck in their sins, which is another way of saying they have not been regenerated. You appear to attribute no culpability to God for this. It seems to me that if you are to be entirely consistent then you should have no more trouble with God sending babies to hell than you do with God sending adults to hell. It is that reticence that I find curious. It seems you find it necessary to save God from the implications of your theology.

Matt, your exposition on ability rings hollow in the face of your theology that you have described as the un-elect cannot respond positively to God. If they cannot respond then they are unable to respond.
You also place significant emphasis on adults who reject the gospel vs babies who have no opportunity/ability to understand and reject or accept the gospel. Would that not suggest that heathen who never hear should be considered to be in the same category as babies?
I personally believe that babies are saved not on the basis of their innocence or their ignorance, but on the basis of their lack of ability. It would be unjust, in my view, for God to condemn someone who has no ability to act and choose according to their desires.
Babies don’t act and choose according to their desires?? Don’t you have babies in your family? That is all they do, with no checks and balances. I think this indicates a basic flaw in the notion that we always act according to our desires. Babies do so, but adults are expected to learn to control their actions so that they do not unreflexively act on immediate desires.
Clear logic requires careful definitions and careful evaluation of terms. Changing terminology does not get you off the hook. It makes no sense to say that one has an ability to choose when one absolutely cannot so choose. It is note-worthy that you consider it unjust for God to condemn someone for not choosing what they were unable to choose. In the end that is exactly what your version of Reformed theology proposes. The un-elect cannot choose God, and are condemned.
This is an example of the confusion I mentioned earlier. In my view many formulations of Reformed theology continually resorts to this kind of fuzzy logic in an attempt to appear to be saying something other than what they really must say if they are to be fully consistent. It is not that I do not understand Reformed theology. I find the logic and scriptural exposition of most versions of Reformed theology to be fundamentally flawed.

You said no unelect babies exist. You did not say no unelect babies die, though I realize that is what you meant. Now I am the one who is sloppy or disingenuous because I point that out??

Absolutely, because I explained that in post #52 and you used ellipses to eliminate my explanation and misrepresent my statement! Here's what you put up:

Randy #47 No conflict. Of course un-elect babies would go to hell, as only the elect are the "sheep"; however, I suspect that all babies are elect, in which case no un-elect babies exist.
Randy #52 ... I most certainly don't believe that every single baby is elect. I suspect that babies who die in infancy may be.

Here's what I actually wrote:

Ah, we were discussing babies who die, not those who grow up. I most certainly don't believe that every single baby is elect. I suspect that babies who die in infancy may be. Sorry for the confusing assumption.

You agree the un-elect cannot choose for God, right?

Yes, just as Romans 8:7-8 states. They despise God to such an extent that their desires are always against Him and they willingly choose against Him.

Neither can ever choose for God unless they are regenerated, and then they invariably will choose for God. Am I misrepresenting you?

The babies do not actively rebel against God, while adults do. Other than that, you're being accurate.

you should have no more trouble with God sending babies to hell than you do with God sending adults to hell

I don't. That's His responsibility, not mine. I wrote, "I suspect that all babies are elect." In either case, I trust God's judgment.

It is that reticence that I find curious. It seems you find it necessary to save God from the implications of your theology.

Not at all. You misread me.

Babies do so, but adults are expected to learn to control their actions so that they do not unreflexively act on immediate desires.

That was Matt's, but I'll respond. Adults learn to control their actions so they desire to make better choices than their initial desires. They are still acting according to their desires. We always do. It's impossible to do otherwise.

Would that not suggest that heathen who never hear should be considered to be in the same category as babies?

Of course not. The issue here is ability and rebellion, not ignorance or innocence. A baby has a will, yes, however, that will is not informed or able to comprehend/understand. Hence, a baby has no ability to comprehend general or special revelation.

Not so with heathens who never hear the gospel. Romans 1 & 2 is pretty clear that general revelation and natural moral law are enough to hold people to account. The heathen who never hears the gospel could see the fact of God in creation and call out to that God (as Cornelius did) for help, in which case God will show Himself (as He did for Cornelius). Additionally, even the little bit of moral law which is written on the heathen's heart is disobeyed by him. He instinctively knows that lying is bad, and yet He does so. He has no basis whatever to be declared "righteous" by a holy God. Man, left to his natural state, rebels against God no matter how much or how little revelation he receives. A baby has no knowledge of this. Only physical survival instincts that drive its will.

All that said, I say again, that God will do the absolutely perfect thing with every single baby who dies in infancy or before birth.

Babies don’t act and choose according to their desires?? Don’t you have babies in your family? That is all they do, with no checks and balances. I think this indicates a basic flaw in the notion that we always act according to our desires.

l've got a huge smirk on my face. Okay Henry, let me get this straight. The fact that babies always according to their desires is an argument against the notion that we act according to our desires?!

Babies do so, but adults are expected to learn to control their actions so that they do not unreflexively act on immediate desires.

So adults have desires which are merely stronger than other desires, and they act according to the strongest one. We agree. People always act according to their strongest desire. A mature adult's desire to be respectable is stronger than his desire to cheat people out of money. That's exactly my point.

Again, babies desires are not understood to them and they have no ability to understand their desires and actions. That's what makes them different from unelect adults, including ignorant heathens.

Randy:I don't. That's His responsibility, not mine. I wrote, "I suspect that all babies are elect." In either case, I trust God's judgment.
But you do seem to trust His judgement a little more in the case of adults than infants, otherwise why would you suspect that all babies who die are elect, when you seem to have no such suspicions regarding adults who die?

MattThe heathen who never hears the gospel could see the fact of God in creation and call out to that God (as Cornelius did) for help, in which case God will show Himself (as He did for Cornelius).
But in order to even desire to call out to God he would have to be elect, right? Both of you keep wanting it both ways.

So adults have desires which are merely stronger than other desires, and they act according to the strongest one. We agree.
Not really. I think this is another word game to bolster a pre-existing theology that plays with the definition of desires and it is an attempt to sanitize an election theology, which I think your comments continue to show contains inherent tensions which cannot be resolved.
God bless.

Whoops. Sorry. Somehow the entire previous post was published italicized. The flow is fairly straightforward and I am sure you can distinguish the quotes from my comments.

Aha, its a website problem.

Henry, the italicizing problem was that you put the slash after the "i" instead of before it when closing italics. I fixed it.

why would you suspect that all babies who die are elect, when you seem to have no such suspicions regarding adults who die?

Because the adults have knowledge of their sin and are therefore responsible for their rebellion against God, as Romans tells us. Since babies do not understand this, I suspect God's mercy automatically extends to them. I could be wrong, of course. That's why I use words like "suspect."

I do make that mistake on the italics code from time to time, I did not know it would follow through to other postings. Thanks for your help.
Adults, like babies, cannot choose, but unlike babies, are responsible? How can adults be responsible if they cannot choose otherwise? You have made it quite clear that the un-elect cannot choose for God, and cannot even desire to choose for God, until they are regenerated, in which case they invariably do choose for God. If they are so completely unable to choose or desire for God until He makes them do so, then they cannot he held responsible for not doing what you say they absolutely cannot do in the first place.
Henry: you should have no more trouble with God sending babies to hell than you do with God sending adults to hell
Randy: I don't.
You do not have a problem with a God who sends innocent babies to hell? And yet you are incensed when some some say the Calvinist God is often hard to distinguish from the Devil? The God of the Bible dies to take on himself the consequences of our sinfulness rather than visit that sinfulness on us. You have no problem with a God who elects rapists, murderers, and abusers to be saved, but sends babies to hell? It seems to me that allowing Romans 5:18 to mean what it says would be a much better way to deal with this problem.

Adults, like babies, cannot choose, but unlike babies, are responsible? How can adults be responsible if they cannot choose otherwise?

Because they willfully and deliberately rebel against God, acting according to their desires until such a time as God gives them new desires.

If they are so completely unable to choose or desire for God until He makes them do so, then they cannot he held responsible for not doing what you say they absolutely cannot do in the first place.

The Bible says they can be, and are.

Henry: you should have no more trouble with God sending babies to hell than you do with God sending adults to hell
Randy: I don't.
You do not have a problem with a God who sends innocent babies to hell?

First, your original statement was comparitive, not absolute. Second, no one is innocent. I believe in original sin. Third, you conveniently isolated my quote. The spin is rather different when you read it all:

I don't. That's His responsibility, not mine. I wrote, "I suspect that all babies are elect." In either case, I trust God's judgment.

By your method of discourse, I should now say, "You don't trust God's judgment?!!" Of course, I won't do that.

You have no problem with a God who elects rapists, murderers, and abusers to be saved

As you know, it's called grace. Amazing grace. Even the apostle Paul was undeserving, yet rejoiced that he was elected and got to share the doctrines of grace in his writings.

but sends babies to hell?

If He deems it just, which I've already stated that I doubt, who am I to question the potter? You seem to be straining really hard to drum up something. I'm not sure why.

It seems to me that allowing Romans 5:18 to mean what it says would be a much better way to deal with this problem.

I'm very happy with Romans. I'd love to hear you answer my questions about Christ's intercession for those in hell.

Apart from the whole chapter talking about the contrasts between believers and unbelievers, can you actually affirm that you believe Jesus is interceding for souls in hell, those elected and justified by God and given to the Son, yet somehow cast into eternal separation in your view?
Is this the question you refer to? If you could point out to me where I might have suggested any such thing I would appreciate it. I ignored the question because I saw no connection to anything I had said. Can I "actually affirm"? It seems obvious I cannot affirm what I never said, and I see no reason to deny what I did not say. elected and justified by God and given to the Son is precisely the point of disagreement in this discussion. I do not believe that God elects in the sense you propose, so the question is moot.
Do you believe that Jesus intercedes only for the elect? Is it not precisely for sinners that Jesus intercedes? Or is it only for "elect" sinners? Was it the elect who crucified Jesus (Luke 23:34)?

Here's a link to a discussion on evangelicals and universalism.
http://jasonclark.ws/2008/02/25/evangelical-universalism-oxymoron/

Here's a comment at the above conversation guaranteed to produce a severe allergic reaction:
My Calvinist/Reformed background plus Trinitarian theology primed me for universalism. Reading the Evangelical Universalist was the catalyst.
The whole conversation kind of gives the lie to the notion that all Arminians deny universalism. Remember I said Piper and his quotes (Millard Erickson) were misrepresenting Arminianism? Even good Calvinist/Reformed/Evangelicals endorse the notion of a biblical universalism. We are going to have to redefine orthodoxy as Calvinist/Reformed/TULIP/Evangelical/Inerrantist/God-is-Logic-but-we-are-not-modernist/...

Randy> Apart from the whole chapter talking about the contrasts between believers and unbelievers, can you actually affirm that you believe Jesus is interceding for souls in hell, those elected and justified by God and given to the Son, yet somehow cast into eternal separation in your view?

If you could point out to me where I might have suggested any such thing I would appreciate it. I ignored the question because I saw no connection to anything I had said.

In #24 you indicated that "all are justified in Christ" means every single individual is justified, not just all believers. I believe you've denied being a universalist. Therefore, I pointed out that in the "golden chain of redemption" in Romans 8, Christ is interceding for those he justifies. The conclusion is that Christ intercedes for justified people who are not ultimately saved. His high priestly intercessory work is somehow rejected by the Father in that view, and he justified and interceded for people who were already in hell.

I do not believe that God elects in the sense you propose, so the question is moot.

No, I'm bypassing election for now. You still have to deal with a situation in which justified people are condemned.

Do you believe that Jesus intercedes only for the elect?

Of course. I believe the Father gives 100% heed to the Son's intercession--after all, those are the sheep the Father gave the Son to shepherd in the first place.

Romans 8:34 "Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died--more than that, who was raised--who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us." Not for everyone, but for us, the believers.

This relates back to Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

For all? No, for those in Christ.

Is it not precisely for sinners that Jesus intercedes? Or is it only for "elect" sinners?

Yes. Yes.

Was it the elect who crucified Jesus (Luke 23:34)?

We're not told how many at the cross were elect, other than the thief on the cross. However, I believe Luke 23:34 refers to Christ forgiving that action against him, not necessarily every sin they had ever committed. If I'm wrong, then that's fine, and we'll see them in heaven as elect saints. In your view, they'd have to "accept the gift" and ask for forgiveness anyway, so nothing Christ said affected their salvation, correct?

The whole conversation kind of gives the lie to the notion that all Arminians deny universalism.

Did you mean Calvinists?

Even good Calvinist/Reformed/Evangelicals endorse the notion of a biblical universalism.

Define "good."

We are going to have to redefine orthodoxy as Calvinist/Reformed/TULIP/Evangelical/Inerrantist/God-is-Logic-but-we-are-not-modernist/...


Okay, I can live with that. :-) Of course, it could be said much shorter: Calvinist Evangelical Inerrantist/ God-is-Logical-and-He-is-not-postmodernist"

Did you mean Calvinists?
No, I meant Arminians. Piper quotes Erickson saying all Arminians deny universalism when he's doing his "But their hands are dirtier than our hands" whining.
I take Romans 5 (and 1 John 2, John 3, etc.,) to indicate that the atonement applies to all, meaning all are justified in Christ. This is close to what you call the regeneration that allows everyone to desire and choose for God, except that we are left with a real choice in whether or not we choose for God, which Reformed theology can claim to allow but the logic does not actually have room for that. "You cannot choose for God, you cannot even desire to choose for God, until you are regenerated and then you will unfailingly choose for God, but you are responsible for your choice" just won't cut it for me or for the God I see in the Bible. The atonement is universal but that does not mean all are ultimately saved if they choose to reject the grace so freely given. Hence it seems perfectly logical to say that Christ intercedes for all, and it is not the Father who rejects Christ's intercession, but it is we who can choose to reject the benefits of that intercession. If Luke 23:34 is not intercession than I need to hear your definition of intercession.
I suspect that will mess with your notion of God's sovereignty, but that is another of those fundamental Reformed tenets the formulation of which I frequently find appalling in its unbalanced treatment of scripture and logic.
God bless.

Piper quotes Erickson saying all Arminians deny universalism when he's doing his "But their hands are dirtier than our hands" whining.

That's a little harsh. I don't recall Piper ever sounding whiny in any message I've heard. Arminius and Calvin would have both denied universalism. Of course, anyone can claim the name.

I take Romans 5 (and 1 John 2, John 3, etc.,) to indicate that the atonement applies to all, meaning all are justified in Christ.

We have a very different view of justification and glorification. Romans 8:30 says that those who are justified are glorified as well, so you're saying that everyone in glorified. I don't think anyone in hell would see themselves as justified and glorified. That's your only option apart from universalism.



The atonement is universal but that does not mean all are ultimately saved if they choose to reject the grace so freely given.

So you have atoned, justified, glorified people in hell. That strikes me as very strange in light of verses like this one:

Hebrews 9:12 he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.

Not "making possible," but securing. He accomplished his work for all time, as the next chapter emphasizes:

Hebrews 10:14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

Now we have atoned, justified, glorified, perfected, sanctified people in hell based on your system.

If Luke 23:34 is not intercession than I need to hear your definition of intercession.

I define it as the high priestly work described in Hebrews 7:

Hebrews 7:25 Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.

Total success. He saves to the uttermost, for all time, securing eternal redemption for many:

Hebrews 9:28 Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many

I suspect that will mess with your notion of God's sovereignty

No, I'm not sure why you think that.

that is another of those fundamental Reformed tenets the formulation of which I frequently find appalling in its unbalanced treatment of scripture and logic.

Sorry, but I say much more Scriptural and logical consistency in the Reformed view that in asserting that atoned, justified, glorified, perfected, sanctified people populate hell.

We have a very different view of justification and glorification. Romans 8:30 says that those who are justified are glorified as well, so you're saying that everyone in glorified. I don't think anyone in hell would see themselves as justified and glorified. That's your only option apart from universalism.
It may be the only option through your lens, but it is precisely your lens that I take issue with. You seem to be either unable or unwilling to to genuinely consider and understand another perspective. You keep imposing your Reformed framework on an alternative interpretation and that will always lead to incoherence. That is your choice. Real choice. On that I think we agree on the terminology, if not the content of that terminology.
Blessings.

Henry, I don't think this has anything to do with a Reformed lens, because the two options seem clear regardless of one's theological view.

You assert that persons B and U are atoned for and justified. Therefore, per Romans 8, they are glorified.

Option 1: B (believer) goes to heaven and U (unbeliever) goes to hell.
Option 2: Both go to heaven (universal salvation).
Option 3: Both go to hell (universal condemnation).

We agree that 3 is out. What other option is there? No Reformed lens is needed to see that there are no other choices, but if we agree that 1 must be true, you've still got atoned for, justified and glorified unbelievers, unless you dispute Romans 8.

I felt the need for a break from all this - one can obsess on any topic for only so long. A few things have again been on my mind lately. Too bad, I thought I would be #100.

I go back to a paragraph in #71 in which Matt writes a paragraph which is I believe fairly representative of your views and of Reformed theology generally.
“When we talk about election, we're talking about something in the Godhead, information we are not privy to. Therefore, we may know the things He reveals to us, but nothing more. He reveals to us that He elects some and not others, but He doesn't reveal to us the list of elect individuals. Therefore, we do evangelism, offer the call of Christ, etc.”

Some of the discussions have struggled with this concept in particular how it could possibly play itself out when it comes to infants. In spite of your attempts to ameliorate the import of this doctrine I think this is an area that poses huge obstacles for Reformed doctrine. To suggest that all babies who die are elect is mere speculation at best. Would we then have to conclude that all the infants killed in the recent tsunamis and earthquakes and hurricanes just happened to be elect? To plead ignorance of God’s thoughts is convenient, but it may also be a cop out. One’s theological system I think certainly needs to take this issue into account.
Now, in Matt’s paragraph above he again suggests that we are not privy to information known only to the Godhead, especially as pertains to election. This bears further investigation. It is true that, if the Reformed have this right, that God’s list is not public knowledge. It is public knowledge, however, that a majority of people are not on that list; God decided to not extend his hand to them. Of course, God is totally capable of saving absolutely everyone, but for some unknown reason he chose not to. The results of this choice are known to us, if not the exact names of persons.
I think then of Ephesians 5:1 where we are exhorted to be “imitators of God”, obviously within the parameters of our humanity. An imitation will by definition be less than the object or person being imitated. However, I believe what we see God to be in the Bible points us in the direction in which we are to be imitators of him. We cannot create a universe but we can be creative. We are frequently unjust, but we are able to strive for justice. We are not omnipotent but we can do everything through him who gives us strength. Etc. In this passage he particularly zeroes in on love. Somehow, then, we need to fit Matt’s statement into this context of imitating God in his love. Can I in any shape or form be like God in this matter of “non-electing” people for salvation? If, for example, I happen to be in the area where a man is drowning in the river and I see a lifesaver hanging on a post nearby what shall I do? Shall I plead that no one knows the inner workings of my brain and so I shall not choose to throw the lifesaver to him? Will the courts absolve me of my guilt if I point out that it was this man’s decision to be in the water in the first place, rejecting counsel that it was not safe?
Whether we are privy or not to the information regarding God’s election, we cannot help but recoil in horror at the implications it lays quite openly before us. There is nothing there that bears imitating, even very imperfectly. I said previously that I believe that in many ways our concept of God is the crux of this matter. We had better be pretty sure that the overall picture of God presented by our theological system accords with the Biblical records.
I want to also return to my original concern in my first post. I was mainly wanting to defend our (who is our? I suppose at a minimum the EMC.) stance that salvation is by grace and that we do not say that we can somehow earn or work to achieve that salvation. To be sure you do not specify in your original article who the people are in your statement “In non-Reformed circles, it's common to hear that we essentially set ourselves free from sin.”, except that they are non-Reformed.
That statement probably caused me the most grief. We have strayed quite far from that particular matter but I do think that all that Henry and I (and I know the EMC can be included as well) have written does indicate that we at least have paid careful and prayerful consideration to what Scripture teaches regarding salvation. And to expand that, so has the bulk of the “non-Reformed” section of Christianity (referring here to Protestants). I know I have heard or read similar claims by other Reformed people, but my concern throughout has been that this is at best a caricature of our faith. The bulk of non-Reformed Christians do not believe that we “essentially set ourselves free from sin”. We can debate whether God’s grace is irresistible or if sinners have been given freedom to accept or reject God’s gift, but that is a far cry from setting ourselves free from sin. In the illustration above if that man in the water reaches out for the lifesaver I throw to him and hangs on to it while I drag him to safety he in no way secures his own rescue. Without me he is 100% doomed. He can reach out and reach out but that action will not save him. Or to use another illustration - if someone decides to give me a gift it becomes mine as I reach out and take it. My action has no bearing whatsoever in his offer to me. He already decided to offer it, he has bought it at totally his own expense, and now he has even brought it to me personally. Whether or not I am able to refuse this gift I suppose is where you would differ with me. But it most certainly is not a matter of earning or not earning this gift. I see it as a Biblical concept that God has created me and endowed with the ability to refuse or accept. And I think for the most part this represents view of the Christians I am defending.
As I follow the above arguments on Rom 5:18 and how far Christ’s atonement extends and so forth I am reminded over and over of Archie Penner’s book that I have mentioned a couple of times, The Gospel Revisited. In my opinion he does a masterful job of covering exactly the issues being talked about, providing an answer that is more consistent with all the Scriptures than I have seen elsewhere. I hesitate even to summarize his points for fear I misrepresent him, but he does make a very good case for the atonement being universal in an objective sense but that it must still be subjectively accepted to become personally effective. His view, incidentally, also very admirably deals with the status of infants. In the process he also does a thorough job of expounding some of the Scriptures that you keep asking why we don’t deal with (e.g. Romans 8).
Anyways, that’s my two cents worth for today.

I thought I would be #100.

I could delete one to give you the prime spot! :-)

To suggest that all babies who die are elect is mere speculation at best

Yes, but since we were asked to speculate, we did.

Would we then have to conclude that all the infants killed in the recent tsunamis and earthquakes and hurricanes just happened to be elect?

Nothing "just happens" if God is sovereign. This point does nothing to help your view. If you believe the infants were taken to heaven, did God "just happen" to take their lives before they grew old enough to become Muslims or whatever their tribe taught? Or do you believe they were sent to hell? This question isn't easy, but other systems offer no high ground over Calvinism for resolving the matter.

I think then of Ephesians 5:1 where we are exhorted to be "imitators of God"

Indeed. I'm happy to see you using Ephesians, perhaps the most "Reformed" of all the epistles. The first dozen verses alone should set Arminians to sobbing:

Ephesians 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God
Ephesians 1:4 he chose us in him before the foundation of the world,
Ephesians 1:5 he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,
Ephesians 1:7 In him we have redemption through his blood...according to the riches of his grace, 8 which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight 9 making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose,
Ephesians 1:11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will

Chapter 2 gets even stronger. Anyway, my point is that we can't neglect these preceding chapters when we get to Eph 5.

Can I in any shape or form be like God in this matter of "non-electing" people for salvation?

That's a bit of an odd question, especially in light of your beliefs. You believe in hell, and I think you believe infants go to heaven and God knows the future. Why does God, in your system, allow people to pass from life unto death by keeping them alive past the "age of accountability" or whatever criterion you believe determines human responsibility? "My God" (I quote because I believe we serve the same God, but I'm referencing your system) raises dead sinners to eternal life, but yours seems to allow those with the chance at eternal life to move to eternal death instead. This is an improvement, all because of the glorious free will of man?

If, for example, I happen to be in the area where a man is drowning in the river and I see a lifesaver hanging on a post nearby what shall I do?

Rescue him, of course. However, if you want a Reformed parallel, there would be many drowned swimmers dead in the river, and you would choose to resurrect some to life, even while being reviled for not raising all of them. The alternative would be suggested that it would be far better to have a first aid station on the banks and allow the swimmers to decide for themselves if they want to be resurrected, even though you know none of them will desire, or be able, to come to your first aid station. Somehow seeing them walk into the river and drown is far more noble than actively saving some.

Whether we are privy or not to the information regarding God’s election, we cannot help but recoil in horror at the implications it lays quite openly before us.

Recoil in horror at Ephesians 2:4-5? Not at all! "But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ--by grace you have been saved."

Surely that does not engender horror when you read it! There we see nothing about man's choice, nothing about God giving man options, but everything about a sovereign God choosing to save some in His mercy.

We had better be pretty sure that the overall picture of God presented by our theological system accords with the Biblical records.

Amen! Election comes from the Bible, not the mind of John Calvin. Reformed folk stand in awe of a God rich in mercy saving undeserving sinners from eternal condemnation, apart from their best efforts, just as Ephesians makes so clear again and again.

I know I have heard or read similar claims by other Reformed people, but my concern throughout has been that this is at best a caricature of our faith. The bulk of non-Reformed Christians do not believe that we "essentially set ourselves free from sin"

The reason I say that is quite simple--in the non-Reformed view, God treats everyone exactly the same. The difference between the lost and the saved is solely determined by the person; God has nothing to do with the final difference. That is synergism: God does His part, but that saves no one, it only makes mankind saveable; then, man must be the active factor in setting himself free from sin. True, he could not do it without the work of Christ, but that has already been accomplished in the same way for everyone, so the individual's destiny, spiritual freedom or slavery, rests upon him and him alone.

We can debate whether God’s grace is irresistible or if sinners have been given freedom to accept or reject God’s gift, but that is a far cry from setting ourselves free from sin

That's why I added "essentially"; as philosophers would say, Christ's work was necessary, but not sufficient, to achieve individual salvation in synergistic soteriology. In the Reformed view, Christ's work is both necessary and sufficient.

If you and another prisoner are in adjoining cells, and I give my life to toss keys into both cells, I'm ultimately responsible, yet if you leave your cell and the other man does not, loved ones would yell to him, "Set yourself free! Use the gift purchased at such a high price!" No one would mean that my sacrifice meant nothing, or wasn't necessary, but his continued imprisonment would be his choice, just as your freedom was up to you. In comparision to him, you essentially set yourself free, as the opportunities were identical for both prisoners and yet the results were different, in no way determined by my sacrifice.

In the illustration above if that man in the water reaches out for the lifesaver I throw to him and hangs on to it while I drag him to safety he in no way secures his own rescue. Without me he is 100% doomed. He can reach out and reach out but that action will not save him

I beg to differ. (Again, a Biblical parallel would have him dead, but we'll overlook that.) If two swimmers are drowning and you toss two lifesavers next to them, those on shore will likely yell, "Save yourselves! Grab the lifesavers!" No one means they would be saved without your efforts, but it's still up to them. They individually choose to save themselves by their actions, or die by their inaction. You act the same to both, yet one dies, while another lives solely because of what he does. You made both saveable, yet were unable to save either one without their cooperation and effort in grabbing the lifesaver. One essentially saved himself, while the other foolishly neglected the opportunity offered and therefore died. Apparently the one who lived was a little smarter, or a little stronger when he grabbed the lifesaver, because he made the better choice. On shore, he could surely boast that he made a better decision than the one who shunned the lifesaver.

A dead swimmer who is dragged to shore and resuscitated, however, would have no grounds for boasting.

if someone decides to give me a gift it becomes mine as I reach out and take it. My action has no bearing whatsoever in his offer to me. He already decided to offer it, he has bought it at totally his own expense, and now he has even brought it to me personally. Whether or not I am able to refuse this gift I suppose is where you would differ with me.

Or more importantly, whether someone described in Romans 8:7-11 would ever accept a gift no matter how it is offered.

Is Archie's book, The Gospel Revisited, still available somewhere? I'd love to read it.

Yes, his book is still available.
On the back cover it says to order it from:
Archie Penner
Suite 325, 4525 Victoria Avenue
Brandon, Manitoba
R7B 4A6

I presume his wife or family would fill the order.

Alternately:
The EMC website, under publications lists this book for $10.
Incidentally, the EMC Home webpage happens to carry pictures of both Henry and me at the moment.

Welcome back, Richard! Well said again. I was beginning to think I was the only sucker for punishment who didn't know how to leave well enough alone! I think I am learning.
Randy, my interpretation of your logic in #100 will be different from your (Reformed) slant. It does make it all the more tragic that those for whom God has done everything that could be done will still choose to reject grace and mercy in favor of destruction, but that is the scenario we see played out time and again in scripture (Israel, Isaiah 65, Romans 9-10), in our own experience, and in the world around us. I do not dispute Romans 8, but I do dispute your interpretation of it.

The reason I say that is quite simple--in the non-Reformed view, God treats everyone exactly the same.
That would seem to reflect the justice of God which is not tempered with mercy, but includes mercy as an integral part of His justice (Romans 9 quoting Hosea"I will call them 'my people' who are not my people; and I will call her 'my loved one' who is not my loved one,"[i] 26and, "It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them, 'You are not my people,' they will be called 'sons of the living God.').

The difference between the lost and the saved is solely determined by the person; God has nothing to do with the final difference.
Do you not listen or are you deliberately caricaturing here? Richard and I have both indicated emphatically that God saves. Giving humans real choice (which Reformed theology keeps claiming to do as well while simultaneously saying we have no choice. Go figure) does not mean God has nothing to do with the final difference.
That is synergism: God does His part, but that saves no one, it only makes mankind saveable; then, man must be the active factor in setting himself free from sin. True, he could not do it without the work of Christ, but that has already been accomplished in the same way for everyone, so the individual's destiny, spiritual freedom or slavery, rests upon him and him alone.
Sure thing, Randy. Whatever you say.

Richard: Whether we are privy or not to the information regarding God’s election, we cannot help but recoil in horror at the implications it lays quite openly before us.
Randy: Recoil in horror at Ephesians 2:4-5? Not at all! "But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ--by grace you have been saved."
Surely that does not engender horror when you read it! There we see nothing about man's choice, nothing about God giving man options, but everything about a sovereign God choosing to save some in His mercy.
So because this passage does not mention choice, therefore choice is not a factor? What about all the passages that clearly indicate conditionality, which your Reformed glasses cannot allow to mean what they say? You seem quite selective in which side of your God you wish to consider. Richard was quite rightly pointing out the other side of the Reformed God who does nothing to save those whom He could easily help. That is not the God I see in the Bible. That God consistently gives all more than they deserve and helps all who will allow Him space to operate in their lives. That is not the God you have been promoting here. By the way, I missed the “some” in the passage above. You will have to loan me your Reformed spectacles.

We had better be pretty sure that the overall picture of God presented by our theological system accords with the Biblical records.
Randy: Amen! Election comes from the Bible, not the mind of John Calvin. Reformed folk stand in awe of a God rich in mercy saving undeserving sinners from eternal condemnation, apart from their best efforts, just as Ephesians makes so clear again and again.
Election is a concept found in scripture, but the specific spin of Reformed theology is eminently debatable and is debated even among Reformed thinkers. To say that election comes from the Bible, not the mind of John Calvin is a gross oversimplification.

For the Truth.

Sure thing, Randy. Whatever you say.

He's got a good point, Randy. I'm flipping back to the Arminian camp. Just can't refute careful exegesis like that!

C'mon Henry, surely a Ph.D. in philosophical theology can do better than that! That statement isn't even in keeping with respect, never mind an intelligent discussion on an issue. The fact that the above statement is further indication as to who is able to "rightly divide the Word", at least in the context of this conversation.

Until now, even though we've disagreed, we've at least been sticking to (semi)intelligent interaction :-)

Richard, I think I see your concern. Randy able handled the question of infants, so I won't cover that again. The real issue here Richard (at least for me) is chronology and causality.

My point about not being privy to the Godhead's list of the elect was this: it doesn't make any difference to us. If you or your church people truly accept the gospel, you know you are among the elect. In practice, nobody agonizes over whether or not they're on a secret list, and then make their decision accordingly. Nobody. Our choices confirm for us whether or not we're on that list, and whether or not we have been chosen by God. So in that realm at least, this conversation of election is more theoretical than practical.

We both believe in salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone (I hope and trust), we will both share the gospel with people, and we both know we can't coerce. The difference between us isn't omniscient knowledge of a secret list, or willingness to share the gospel, but rather - who gets the credit for my acceptance of the gospel? Do I get it (Arminianism), or does God get it (Calvinism).

Yes, we choose according to our desires, but from where do we get our desires? I give God 100% of the credit for my salvation. If He didn't draw me to Himself, then I could always live with the pride that I'm more pious, more holy, more intelligent, etc. than everyone who doesn't accept the gospel. And that's precisely the point at which this debate moves from the abstract to the concrete.

Randy, my interpretation of your logic in #100 will be different from your (Reformed) slant.

Henry, I'll still trying to figure out how a "Reformed slant" factors in. I've thought of one more option, even though you surely don't claim it:

Option 1: B (believer) goes to heaven and U (unbeliever) goes to hell.
Option 2: B and U go to heaven (universal salvation).
Option 3: B and U go to hell (universal condemnation).
Option 4: B goes to hell and U goes to heaven.

Both 3 and 4 can be rejected at once, so it really comes down to 1 or 2. Since Richard and I both reject 2, that leaves Option 1, correct?

If Option 1 is true, and both B and U are atoned for, justified and glorified, you end up with atoned for, justified and glorified people in hell. No Reformed lens need to factor in at all--just an acceptance of the golden chain of redemption documented in Romans 8.

I do not dispute Romans 8, but I do dispute your interpretation of it.

Romans 8:30b these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

You espouse a universal call and justification, so are you saying that it takes a Reformed lens to see that glorification automatically follows in the above phrase?

Randy: The difference between the lost and the saved is solely determined by the person; God has nothing to do with the final difference.
Henry: Do you not listen or are you deliberately caricaturing here? Richard and I have both indicated emphatically that God saves.

I understand that--my point, however, is that since God saves everyone in the exact same way, yet not all are saved, something/someone else finally determines who is saved. It is not God, or we would have universal salvation, which Richard clearly rejects, and I believe you do as well, although I've been a bit unclear on that at times. Assume Hitler is in hell--Jesus saved Adolf by atoning for him exactly the same way he saved and atoned for you. However, you will go to heaven because of something you did in addition to Christ's work, and Adolf went to hell because of what he did not do. God did not make the difference--the two of you determined your ultimate destinies.

How is that not listening or a caricature? After careful listening and serious analysis, how can I come to any other conclusion? That's synergism, plain and simple. As I said before, God is a necessary, yet not sufficient, cause for salvation in your view.

Sure thing, Randy. Whatever you say.

Thanks for wrestling diligently with the implications of my statement.

So because this passage does not mention choice, therefore choice is not a factor? What about all the passages that clearly indicate conditionality, which your Reformed glasses cannot allow to mean what they say?

Read Ephesians 1 and 2 and make a list of all the verses that speak of God's action, and another list emphasizing man's action. Which one is longer? Most conditional verses I can think of fit beautifully with Reformed theology, as man acts in certain ways as he is enabled by God.

Richard was quite rightly pointing out the other side of the Reformed God who does nothing to save those whom He could easily help. That is not the God I see in the Bible.

And I don't see a God who accomplishes nothing definite, only provides opportunities for sinful man. I see a God who time and again acts decisively, whether it's his calling of Paul or his saving of his people from their sins, as opposed to merely making man saveable and hoping against hope that someone will be smart enough to take him up on his offer.

That God consistently gives all more than they deserve and helps all who will allow Him space to operate in their lives. That is not the God you have been promoting here.

You're quite right. The God I promote is not a tame lion, begging for a little space to operate. Rather, he roars in, raising dead sinners to spiritual life, creating apostles like Paul out of murderers like Saul.

By the way, I missed the "some" in the passage above. You will have to loan me your Reformed spectacles.

I think you do well on your own, Henry! Just read Eph 1 and you'll see God's choices, starting with the book being written by Paul, an apostle by the will of God (not the will of Paul), to the saints who were chosen. It's all right there.

To say that election comes from the Bible, not the mind of John Calvin is a gross oversimplification.

Sure, but that's why I've given you so many Scripture verses already. How many times have I quoted Calvin in this discussion? Zero, I believe.

Matt, thanks for the comments, especially the final paragraph.

Richard, how about documenting where you and Henry are in the photos? That's the banner at the top of the site at
http://www.emconf.ca/ , correct?

Richard - first from the left ('m explaining how a basketball is held as you prepare to throw it)
Henry - fifth from left (with the beautiful head of hair!)

Randy: “The reason I say that is quite simple--in the non-Reformed view, God treats everyone exactly the same. The difference between the lost and the saved is solely determined by the person; God has nothing to do with the final difference. That is synergism: God does His part, but that saves no one, it only makes mankind saveable; then, man must be the active factor in setting himself free from sin. True, he could not do it without the work of Christ, but that has already been accomplished in the same way for everyone, so the individual's destiny, spiritual freedom or slavery, rests upon him and him alone.”

I am sorry you choose to misrepresent what the bulk of non-Reformed Christian people believe. I can understand Henry’s frustration. A lot depends on what words we use. One can very easily make almost any idea sound wacky by what words we use (I think there is a word to describe this tactic, but it doesn’t come to me at the moment). If I were to start describing Calvinism in terms of people being robots (which it sounds like to us on the other side) you would object quite strongly. In your thought system apparently it does not seem robotic and I respect that. I therefore try not to use those terms, even in describing it to my friends in personal conversations. It was the choice of words as much as anything that I objected to. In our view, and you ought to know this after being in it so long, we do not ever teach or believe that we set ourselves free from sin, essentially or otherwise. Christ’s salvation for us is every bit as necessary and as sufficient.
Further, I would like to point out that the above sentence is really a contradiction. You say that we believe it can’t be done without the work of Christ but then the individual’s destiny rests on him alone. I have never in my life heard anyone make a statement that could be remotely twisted to say such a thing. Accepting his gift of salvation and being “the active factor in setting himself free from sin” are not the same thing at all.

Matt: “Yes, we choose according to our desires, but from where do we get our desires? I give God 100% of the credit for my salvation. If He didn't draw me to Himself, then I could always live with the pride that I'm more pious, more holy, more intelligent, etc. than everyone who doesn't accept the gospel. And that's precisely the point at which this debate moves from the abstract to the concrete.”

I am at a loss here as to what the point is that is being made. This paragraph is precisely what we say in our circles. Of course we give God 100% of the credit – always have, always will. Again, with the choice of words you fellows use to describe it you make it sound sort of like we believe salvation is sort of a relay race, where Jesus carries the baton, and then hands it off to us, if we will take it – here now it’s your job.
Of course we do believe the Bible makes it amply clear that we choose for or against God. But it is not like God leaves us out in the cold to make that choice. In the first place he has created us with that “God-shaped vacuum” in us, or however that phrase goes. He has made us in his image after all. Furthermore, the Holy Spirit is convicting, drawing, etc. God works mightily – sending the right people our way, drawing our attention to the right book or reading material, haring a certain sermon on the radio. He often provides some comforting person to be sort of the midwife for our new birth. As we reach out our hands God saves us, totally by his grace, creating a new person, and so forth. I have to confess, I cannot see how this is “essentially setting ourselves free from sin”.

Side note: There is danger in every direction we take. Of course we could take pride in saying “I’m more pious…”etc. The Calvinist could take pride in saying “Ha ha, God picked me and not you”, and so forth. The point is, I for one cannot remember ever hearing anyone say such things, although probably someone will have done so. If they do say it then they need to repent the same as anyone who has wrongful pride.

Randy: “And I don't see a God who accomplishes nothing definite, only provides opportunities for sinful man. I see a God who time and again acts decisively, whether it's his calling of Paul or his saving of his people from their sins, as opposed to merely making man saveable and hoping against hope that someone will be smart enough to take him up on his offer.”

I just want to point out that this example needs to be balanced with passages like Matthew 23:37, or Jesus weeping over Jerusalem, or some of the Old Testament passages (I’m sorry I couldn’t locate a reference at the moment) where God laments how he wanted to work in them but they would not let him.

Thanks again, Richard. I am deeply impressed by your gentle pastoral words that are nevertheless direct and uncompromising with what we see as the truth of scripture. You are a blessing to me.

Matt and Randy, I apologize for any offense caused by my "Sure thing Randy. Whatever you say." I meant no disrespect for the person, and no respect for the position articulated. If you want to have a discussion with someone who thinks that individual destiny lies with "him and him alone" you are of course welcome to do so. I have no interest in that discussion as that position strikes me as ludicrous. If you want someone to "wrestle diligently with the implications of that statement" you will need to find someone else, or convince me that the statement has sufficient merit to warrant discussion. If neither of us perceive such merit in the statement I see little point in expending energy discussing it.
Not every decision is attributable to a single individual, and even when the responsibility for a decision rests with an identifiable individual it is not the case that that individual merits sole credit for the decision. Accepting my responsibility for the decisions I make does not mean that the decision was made solely on the merits of my own strengths and insights. We are responsible to work out our own salvation, as God works in us to will and to act according to His good purpose. It is not either all God, or all me. You seem to have missed the synergism part of it.
Fancy that! I do believe you guys have talked me right out of monergism and into synergism. Actually I am not entirely comfortable with either tag. Titles are handy boxes, but the truth usually escapes tidy boxes.

Randy: “The reason I say that is quite simple--in the non-Reformed view, God treats everyone exactly the same. The difference between the lost and the saved is solely determined by the person; God has nothing to do with the final difference. That is synergism: God does His part, but that saves no one, it only makes mankind saveable; then, man must be the active factor in setting himself free from sin. True, he could not do it without the work of Christ, but that has already been accomplished in the same way for everyone, so the individual's destiny, spiritual freedom or slavery, rests upon him and him alone.”

I am sorry you choose to misrepresent what the bulk of non-Reformed Christian people believe.

I was non-Reformed for most of my life, so I'm confident that I understand the belief and I'm not misrepresenting it. My concern is trying to help others see the inconsistency in what has been put forth in this discussion. I'll get to that in a moment.

A lot depends on what words we use

Very true. Perhaps my choice of words has not been helpful, so I'll try once more.

If I were to start describing Calvinism in terms of people being robots (which it sounds like to us on the other side) you would object quite strongly.

Yes, and I would argue that we make decisions. Just as a dog penned in the back yard does not truly have free will, it can still make many choices and is not a robot.

we do not ever teach or believe that we set ourselves free from sin, essentially or otherwise. Christ's salvation for us is every bit as necessary and as sufficient.

Richard, you are not a universalist, correct? That means some people are set free from sin, and some are not. So far we agree. However, I have understood you (and definitely Henry) to assert that Christ's work is exactly the same for everyone--therefore it can not be the determining factor in whether someone is set free or not. Yes, it is the ultimate reason why someone can be set free, but for a given individual, Christ's work is not sufficient or salvation would be universal. In the Reformed view, Christ's work is sufficient, and salvation is not universal because it is not applied to everyone in the same way.

This is simple logic. I'll try a good Mennonite example--I have two hens, Bertha and Uma, in separate coops. I give them the exact same feed--the same amount, from the same pail. Bertha lays an egg every morning while Uma only lays one a week. I then announce that the difference in their performance is solely due to their diets. That's impossible, because the diets are identical, yet the results are very different. Something else must play a role. I'm sure you see the parallels. You can't say Christ's work is necessary, sufficient and applied equally, and yet get vastly different results; something else is involved, and that is the will of man, which renders Christ's work insufficient by itself (yes, Christ has the potential to save, but is not sufficient without man's input in your system).

You say that we believe it can't be done without the work of Christ but then the individual's destiny rests on him alone. I have never in my life heard anyone make a statement that could be remotely twisted to say such a thing.

I have heard that from the pulpit many times. "As we sing one more verse of 'Just As I Am,' I beg you to decide for Jesus. He stands waiting to receive you." Who does that put the destiny on? The person. Jesus has done all He can do, and now it's up to you. In no way am I saying someone could be saved without the work of Jesus, but if that is already in place in the same way for every single human, something else makes the final difference, and that something is man's decision for or against Christ. You decide where you spend eternity. Have you really never heard such a thing from the pulpit? If that is so, you've attended more good churches than I have.

Accepting his gift of salvation and being "the active factor in setting himself free from sin" are not the same thing at all.

Okay, perhaps "active" was the wrong word, since Christ's work is the ultimate active factor, even though your action is what allows Christ to save you. Let's change that to "determining" factor and then it fits non-Reformed teaching. Follow me: everyone is bound by sin; Jesus died for everyone in the same way; you decide (despite Romans 8) to be set free (through Christ, of course), while your friend does not. The determining factor in your freedom is you. If it was Christ, your friend would be free as well.


Matt: “Yes, we choose according to our desires, but from where do we get our desires? I give God 100% of the credit for my salvation. If He didn't draw me to Himself, then I could always live with the pride that I'm more pious, more holy, more intelligent, etc. than everyone who doesn't accept the gospel. And that's precisely the point at which this debate moves from the abstract to the concrete.”

Richard: I am at a loss here as to what the point is that is being made. This paragraph is precisely what we say in our circles.

No, because Matt is assuming that God is 100% successful. All who are called are justified and glorified (in heaven, not hell).

Of course we give God 100% of the credit – always have, always will.

Then we have no debate. If God gets 100% of the credit, there's nothing left for man, yet this whole debate has been about man being the deciding factor. Does God call His own with 100% success, or does He leave it to man? Reformed says the former, non-Reformed insists on the latter, therefore God can not get 100% of the credit, even if he gets 99.9%. You simply can't say God gets all the credit, yet the final decision is up to man--that doesn't compute.

Again, with the choice of words you fellows use to describe it you make it sound sort of like we believe salvation is sort of a relay race, where Jesus carries the baton, and then hands it off to us, if we will take it – here now it’s your job.

No, Richard, I fully believe you trust in Jesus throughout all of life for your salvation. Our disagreement stems from the idea that Jesus offers the baton to everyone, and each individual decides whether they will run the race or not. It's totally up to the runners whether they will race. In our view, Jesus raises dead sinners up from their trespasses and sins and hands them the baton and then they invariably run with joy and gratitude.

Of course we do believe the Bible makes it amply clear that we choose for or against God.

Yes, but we would say that passages like Romans 8 make it clear that we always choose against God when left to choose for ourselves; it's only when the Father gives us to the Son that we choose for God, because we are raised to life and finally able to do so.

As we reach out our hands God saves us, totally by his grace, creating a new person, and so forth. I have to confess, I cannot see how this is “essentially setting ourselves free from sin”.

It's right there in the "as we reach out our hands" phrase. God does everything the same for everyone, and only those wise enough, and somehow free enough of their bondage to sin, "reach out their hands" and receive the blessing of salvation. Your unsaved friend is too stubborn and refuses to reach out his hand--he could set himself free, but he did not avail himself of Christ's work while you did. Christ was the same, but you made the difference in your life for the good, while your friend does not. Jesus provides, but man decides (I just made that up--does it have synergist bumper sticker potential?).

There is danger in every direction we take. Of course we could take pride in saying “I’m more pious…”etc. The Calvinist could take pride in saying “Ha ha, God picked me and not you”

A good Calvinist couldn't say "not you" because we don't know which present unbelievers are elect, but the pride could come from "God picked me" even though in our view, we have no grounds to boast because it was no merit, wisdom or spirituality in us that influenced God.

I just want to point out that this example needs to be balanced with passages like Matthew 23:37

This one gets abused by anti-Calvinist Baptists all the time. I've heard nationally famous preachers misquote the verse like this: "How often would I have gathered you together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!"

They then say this shows that grace is resistible. Of course, the verse says "How often would I have gathered your children." It is the condemnation of Jesus on the religious leaders that opposed His ministry to the people, rather than a lament about His inability. We see in John 6 and John 17 how He claimed 100% success in His mission.

or some of the Old Testament passages (I’m sorry I couldn’t locate a reference at the moment) where God laments how he wanted to work in them but they would not let him.

Do you really believe He was unable, or He choose not to? In any case, my soteriology is built on the New Testament teaching, with an OT foundation that helps me understand books like Hebrews. I think you'd agree that your soteriology has departed far from animal sacrifice and focuses on the work of Christ.

God bless you, Richard! Thanks for being patient with us rowdy youngsters (okay, Matt is a youngster--I'm more middle).

Matt and Randy, I apologize for any offense caused by my \"Sure thing Randy. Whatever you say.\"

No problem. I figure you just got tired of typing! Nice photo, BTW. Your collar makes it look like you have shoulder-length hair, but I'm guessing that's an illusion.

If you want to have a discussion with someone who thinks that individual destiny lies with "him and him alone" you are of course welcome to do so.

I think I explained myself in the prior post. I don't assert that you diminish the work of Christ as being anything but necessary, but you can't claim it is sufficient and avoid universalism. As I said of your view before: Jesus provides, man decides. Call my assertion ludicrous if you will, but then recant the statements denying that election is God specifically choosing men for salvation. Otherwise destiny rides on the will of man.


We are responsible to work out our own salvation

Yes, once we've been given it; that doesn't mean we earn it.

as God works in us to will and to act according to His good purpose. It is not either all God, or all me. You seem to have missed the synergism part of it.

That's a nice description of sanctification. I think we agree!

Titles are handy boxes, but the truth usually escapes tidy boxes.

Yes, but it never resides in diametrically-opposed boxes simultaneously.

Howdy all. This youngster's got a question for Richard. Assuming you've presented the gospel many times in your pastoral career, and assuming that some accept it and some reject it, I'd like to know -

What is the reason that some people accept the gospel and others do not? Who gets the credit when a person accepts Jesus into their ife?

Randy - I don’t think that your effort to force our view into either/or boxes really works. Your question seems to be about who is the final determinant in our salvation - God or us. My answer is both. I mean God is always the final determiner. If he has determined that salvation will be freely chosen by his created beings he remains in the driver’s seat so to say. If a policeman in the line of duty (this isn’t a Mennonite illustration) shoots a suspect, he has pulled the trigger but the state is the final authority in the matter. The state gave him that authority to commit such an action. But at the actual moment the policeman makes a decision based on the state’s authority.
I fail to see the advantage in the Reformed view in this. You say you have a God who is 100% successful in what he sets out to do, while we have a God who sits by helplessly while we make the real decisions. But still, it appears to me that you end up with a lesser God in spite of all the Reformed talk about God’s sovereignty. Let’s say I have twin sons who like playing with battery operated toy cars. On their birthday 8 of their friends are invited over for a party and we decide to have a car race. Now I have a car for each child and enough batteries for everyone. But I choose to put batteries only in the cars of my sons. Of course my boys win the race hands down. I celebrate this great victory with my sons while the other boys are staring vacantly at their cars. It seems to be a pretty hollow victory. I don’t want to in any way show disrespect to God, but I would be tempted to ask, “Is that all he is capable of?” Sure it is great to be one of the elect, but how much greater would God not be, if, given his desire and capabilities, he would put batteries into the whole works. If my child is given a free choice on an ethical decision it gives me tremendous pleasure when she chooses the right path. Or to extend that somewhat, we had friends who had a foster child and at a certain age that child had the free choice of whether to be adopted into that family. What joy it gave those parents when that child wanted to be their child. Their love had won the day.
As to altar calls, I have previously voiced my distaste for some of the tactics used in the past, but thankfully for the most part that kind of stuff has long since been discarded, in our churches at least. But I see nothing wrong with talking to people to share our faith with them and inviting them to accept Christ. I think we follow good Biblical precedence in doing so. As I pointed out some time ago, in Acts 2 all the people who were saved that day did something to bring it to that point. They got off their butts, left home, stood and listened, were convicted, asked what they could do and believed when Peter told them that that was the right thing to do. We don’t read of anybody coming later from their homes saying that somehow they were miraculously saved while they were taking an afternoon nap and now they would like to join the group. Other illustrations could be given (e.g. the Ethiopian).
Let’s say there were two fellows who were both totally “un-churched”. They both meet Christians. One meets a Reformed Christian, the other a non-Reformed. In both cases the Christian shares his faith and in the course of time both of these fellows have a conversion experience. Shortly thereafter there is a public meeting where both of these men are asked to share their testimony. In the audience sits a knowledgeable Bible College theology professor. I would guess that in approximately 99% of the cases he would be unable to ascertain which one is Reformed and which is not. At least any of the testimonies I read in magazines and so forth all sound very similar. Yet in the above discussions it would seem that somehow the one man’s conversion experience is self-effort while the other has nothing to do with his conversion.

Another matter that I have wanted to comment on is that of being dead. You have referred several times to the fact that a dead person is unable to, well, unable to do anything. Again, context becomes so very important. My understanding is that death, as well as something like the new birth, are metaphors used to describe certain circumstances or situations, or perhaps events. Generally in hermeneutics we learned that metaphors and parables and the like are used to convey one major principle. One must take care not to force that figure of speech to do more than it is designed to do. Paul uses death (and life) in several passages to bring out the contrast between our past and our present life as Christians with an illustration from life that we can relate to. Can we use that metaphor to illustrate other things? I suppose we can, but then it is no longer the Bible we are presenting. For example, if there is death we know that there has been life preceding it. We don’t normally say a stone is dead. But in the Biblical passages referred to this fact is probably irrelevant; it is outside the intention of that metaphor. Now, is it legitimate to extend that metaphor to make statements about the process of the new birth? Again, it seems to me that it is possible but then we no longer have the weight of Scripture backing us up, unless that passage itself uses it in that way.

Matt: “What is the reason that some people accept the gospel and others do not?”
Some have never heard the gospel. Some people have been misinformed about the gospel. Some feel there is too much to give up. The devil is doing his utmost. All are born in sin and naturally rebel against God. Etc. As I stated in the response to Randy God is the one who has determined that these things would be part of the whole story of earth.
Matt: “Who gets the credit when a person accepts Jesus into their ife?” (I am presuming that you mean life, because a fife would not accept Christ, you can hardly do it for your wife and rife is not a noun.)
So far in my career I would say it is God. Why, who else would get it?

Hi Richard!

Your analogy of your boys and their race cars is a compelling one. However, I see at least two major problems with it. 1) Justification isn't a contest between us and others, its about God. Comparing and boasting are (should be) out of the picture. 2) All the kids had batteries in their cars. They just hate being involved in car races. They were born hating them, and continually choose to hate them. Yet, you, the father, want some of them to enjoy the pleasure and the beauty of this kind of fun, so you renew their hearts so that they can enjoy your gift. Seeing as all the kids didn't want to be involved in the race, the amazing thing is not that you passed some over, but that you were gracious enough to raise up a few!

Yet in the above discussions it would seem that somehow the one man’s conversion experience is self-effort while the other has nothing to do with his conversion.

Nobody (as I've understood) is saying that we never play a part. Of course we have to choose. The question remains, "Now that we have chosen, who gets the credit? Was my choice the result of my unbiased, dispassionate, arbitrary free will (if so, did my choice mean anything?)? Was it due to the fact that I'm more intelligent than those who reject the gospel? Was it due to the fact that I'm inherently more holy than those who reject the gospel? Or does God get the credit for drawing me and placing the desire to come in my heart? Like I said earlier, this is where the discussion moves from theory to real life.

Not that the following necessarily proves or disproves anything, but have you noticed a common theme among non-Reformed folks? For years I've wondered why Mennonites have historically had such a tough time sticking to the gospel of grace. We always seem to stray to the right (legalism) or to the left (liberalism). These two tendencies are real, legitimate, widespread problems among us. Notice the cord that connects legalism and liberalism? It's ME! MY effort! MY ability to produce, to work, to try harder. MY ethics and political activism (liberalism), or MY pious and meticulous rule-keeping (legalism). No different among non-Reformed baptists, etc. where we find the very liberal as well as fundamentalists.

Now I know that Reformed people and churches aren't perfect, and that's why I say that my point here doesn't necessarily prove anything. However, it is worth noting that Reformed emphases automatically rule out man-centred errors. It rules out health-and-wealth, it rules out charismaticism gone astray, it rules out fundamentalism, it rules out liberalism, it rules out moralism, it rules out politicism, etc. These things are worthy of consideration in this topic.

We don’t normally say a stone is dead.

Interesting point. We may not speak of stones to illustrate death, but God sure does! Ezekiel 11:19 - And I will give them one heart, and a new spirit I will put within them. I will remove the heart of stone from their flesh and give them a heart of flesh,

They got off their butts, left home, stood and listened, were convicted, asked what they could do and believed when Peter told them that that was the right thing to do. We don’t read of anybody coming later from their homes saying that somehow they were miraculously saved while they were taking an afternoon nap and now they would like to join the group.

Randy and I would both agree with this Richard. We'd just like to probe one level deeper and ask "who raised these people up in order that they desired to do these things?" Speaking of evangelistic meetings and Acts, what do you make of Acts 13:48? "And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed. . Notice that this fits fine with your citation of Acts 2. Both speak of the human perspective - we choose. But Acts 13 goes deeper and says where the desire to choose comes from. Also fits well with Jesus - "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day." (John 6:44).

All are born in sin and naturally rebel against God. Etc. As I stated in the response to Randy God is the one who has determined that these things would be part of the whole story of earth.

You're so close! Did he also determine that some were appointed for salvation?

I am presuming that you mean life, because a fife would not accept Christ, you can hardly do it for your wife and rife is not a noun

Dr. Seuss, is that you? Hehe!

So far in my career I would say it is God. Why, who else would get it?

So close again! Why God? Didn't I decide on my own, given an equal playing field with all those who reject him?

Nobody (as I've understood) is saying that we never play a part. Of course we have to choose.

Randy #58 Henry: So no one has any freedom of choice with regard to salvation. No one can choose for God unless God regenerates them, and everyone whom God regenerates chooses for God.
Randy: Yes, pretty much like Jesus teaches in John 6.
Comments 64-69 regarding choice, and 77 which cites various quotes on the topic (all twisted and out of context, of course. My apologies.)

I am confused again. I thought we had cleared this up earlier, and the decision was quite clearly that on the Reformed view we have no choice, and contribute nothing to our salvation. Now I find out that we do choose, and we do have a part to play. Wonderful synergy. I totally agree with you here, Matt. But I am just a little perplexed about whether I am feigning confusion again. Or is it genuine this time? Maybe I should just convert to being a Reformed Christian. They say their theology is so clear. No man-centered errors. How the heck do you eliminate man-centered errors without eliminating man? Is there a sin-free zone after all? Or is that done by endorsing women in leadership so that all the errors are woman-centered? OK, now I have clearly gone overboard. Help!! Can someone please throw me a life-preserver so I can choose whether or not to reach for it? O wait, I can’t choose anyway.

Matt, do you think that maybe you are a reluctant Reformed thinker? That is certainly a position I could appreciate.

God bless you all.

Randy - I don't think that your effort to force our view into either/or boxes really works. Your question seems to be about who is the final determinant in our salvation - God or us. My answer is both.

I hadn't taken you for a pomo. Who has final say? Both? How does that work? Monergism and synergism? True and false at the same time? Good and evil at the same time? Militaristic and pacifist? Married and single? You can't escape either/or logic in God's creation.

I mean God is always the final determiner.

So you're Reformed. God finally determines that B will believe as U remains an unbeliever. Or do you really believe that B and U are the final determiners? You can't have it both ways.

If a policeman in the line of duty (this isn’t a Mennonite illustration) shoots a suspect, he has pulled the trigger but the state is the final authority in the matter. The state gave him that authority to commit such an action. But at the actual moment the policeman makes a decision based on the state’s authority.

You've shifted from action to responsibility. Who actually determined that the suspect would be shot? The policeman, of course. The state made it possible and legal, but he made the final determination to pull the trigger. There's no way around that. You can't say that it wasn't up to the policeman, and that it was up to the state. They might bear ultimate responsibility, but the policeman pulled the trigger and was the active cause.

Let’s say I have twin sons who like playing with battery operated toy cars. On their birthday 8 of their friends are invited over for a party and we decide to have a car race. Now I have a car for each child and enough batteries for everyone. But I choose to put batteries only in the cars of my sons. Of course my boys win the race hands down. I celebrate this great victory with my sons while the other boys are staring vacantly at their cars. It seems to be a pretty hollow victory. I don’t want to in any way show disrespect to God, but I would be tempted to ask, "Is that all he is capable of?"

Let's back up a little. Linking to my earlier argument, we have your friend observing the birthday party. He watches you put batteries in every car. The race commences, and your boys tie for first. No one else finishes.
After the race, he asks your twins, "How did you manage to win the race so handily?"
They respond, "Our dad put batteries in our cars!"
"Well, yes," he replies, "but the others got batteries. Did he give them dead batteries?"
"Oh no! All of the batteries held exactly the same charge."
"So your driving skills made the difference?"
"No. We give 100% of the credit to dad for giving us batteries. He's the reason we won."
"But everyone started off with identical cars and batteries, yet none of the others finished the race. There must be additional factors."
"None. We won because our dad put batteries in our cars."
Friend scratches head and wanders off to ponder this strange pseudo-humility and wonders what happened to logic.

I think you can see that the illustration parallels non-Reformed theology much better than Reformed theology, for in Reformed theology, there are several other factors. Let's make it a closer analogy:

None of the boys at the party want to race. They all hate toy cars and think racing is stupid. You announce to everyone that racing is fun and you will teach them. They mock and revile you. You reach out to your sons, and as they attempt to pull away, you hug them close and explain that racing will be good for them, and enjoyable as well. Your wisdom breaks through and they respond. "If you want us to race, dad, we will!" So you give them batteries and watch them race with joy, even as the other boys throw rocks at their cars. Nearing the end, they tell the other boys to race: "It's wonderful!" they say, but the others just mock them, saying that only stupid kids like to race. Throwing rocks at cars is more fun, and that's what they want to do until the race is over. You rejoice that your sons ran a good race, and tell them so.

But I see nothing wrong with talking to people to share our faith with them and inviting them to accept Christ.

Of course not. But do we save them, or do they save themselves? No, only a work of Christ can pull them from their sins, and only a work of the Spirit can turn them from despising God as Romans 8 insists they do.

Matt addressed this further, so I won't add any more.

My understanding is that death, as well as something like the new birth, are metaphors used to describe certain circumstances or situations, or perhaps events.

Yes, but why do we constantly see "death" rather than mere "illness" in the Bible? Shouldn't we just be "sick in our sins"? That way we could seek help, grab lifesavers, etc.

Can we use that metaphor to illustrate other things? I suppose we can, but then it is no longer the Bible we are presenting.

Ah, but I am quoting Romans and Ephesians when I reference death. I am quoting Jesus in John 6 when I speak of inability. I think I'm on safe ground.

Matt:"Who gets the credit when a person accepts Jesus into their ife?"
So far in my career I would say it is God. Why, who else would get it?

If He has done the same for everyone, then all should be saved, or there is another factor. That can't be ignored or simply dismissed.

Henry: I am confused again. I thought we had cleared this up earlier, and the decision was quite clearly that on the Reformed view we have no choice, and contribute nothing to our salvation.

Correct. We contribute nothing. Our choice, as I stated, comes after regeneration, so it's no choice prior (Rom 8:7-8), but a choice to believe following regeneration. We choose to follow because we have been regenerated, given hearts of flesh to replace our hearts of stone. We are the believing ones of John 3:16, because the Father called us and the Son invariably saves His own; remember "never perish" and "everlasting life"? To an Arminian, they could perish, and their everlasting life isn't secure. Not even John 3:16 is safe outside of Reformed theology.

Now I find out that we do choose, and we do have a part to play. Wonderful synergy.

In our works and sanctification, yes. Not in our justification and resulting salvation.

No man-centered errors. How the heck do you eliminate man-centered errors without eliminating man? Is there a sin-free zone after all?

That's not what Matt meant, as you full well know. He was speaking of man-centered theology.

Goodnight, and God bless.

Hi Henry,

Randy's quotes fit in fine with what I just said. We make a choice. But that choice is determined by our desires, and our desires are determined by God. Not sure if your confusion is genuine here or not. It certainly seems a little more real than at other times :-)

Look, I grew up EMC just like yourself and Richard. I grew up with the same caricature that Calvinists are robots, etc. But that's simply not the case.

I'll make it as simple as I know how:

1 - People make choices and are accountable for them
2 - These choices are always made according to our desires
3 - The default position of the heart is sinful and always has sinful desires
4 - Therefore, if left alone, we will always reject the gospel
5 - God elects and calls some, raises them from spiritual death to spiritual life, thereby giving them a new heart
6 - With the new heart comes new desires
7 - With renewed desires comes an acceptance of the gospel

Arminians make man the determining factor as to whether or not salvation is applied to him. Calvinists go one further and say that God is the determining factor in man's desires, and by extension, choices. So, Reformed thinking leaves room for self-determined choices and preserves God as the sovereign ruler who is, at bottom, the determining factor in the mode and application of salvation. Hope that makes it clear?

Or is that done by endorsing women in leadership so that all the errors are woman-centered?

That would be a man-centred error! :-)

Matt, do you think that maybe you are a reluctant Reformed thinker?

Good question. I'm not sure. I certainly was reluctant as I was moving toward Reformed theology. I struggled with giving up my tradition to embrace what I was increasingly convinced was the biblical teaching. I'm a huge Geisler fan, and read his "Chosen But Free" to see if I could get on board with what he calls "moderate Calvinism". He tries for a third way, and like so many "third way" types, didn't satisfy me. I'm still a huge fan of his (currently working through his impressive 4-volume Systematic Theology that my good wife bought me for Christmas), but he is essentially a classic Arminian. Hey, at least I tried, right?

I am reluctant about the way some Reformed folk are interpreted. We often talk so much in the theoretical (from God's vantage point) that the focus becomes the omniscient certainty with which God elects and doesn't elect. There isn't always enough emphasis on our vantage point, in which we can't find out whether or not we're elect until we make our choices. From our vantage point, our choices are meaningful. I just think that non-Reformed types don't give enough consideration to how are choices are determined.

As far as actual Reformed theology, I'm not reluctant, no. Especially not after having a nervous breakdown that was due, in part, to my man-centred, Arminian, I have to earn God's favour upbringing. That experience only verified to me that it's all about Christ, His grace, and His supremacy! I've never had so much peace in my spiritual life. That peace is leading me to just as much responsibility and church work as ever, but now I have a free attitude about it. It's not about duty and obligation anymore, it's about Christ!

Soli Deo Gloria!

As I read the last couple of posts I am beginning to wonder if we are indeed, like Henry recently observed, talking about the same EMC Church. I thought I knew Randy’s background at least but now I am not too sure how the perceptions have formed. Matt talks about his “man-centred, Arminian, I have to earn God's favour upbringing.” Having been, as I have noted, an EMC member and minister for many years and being involved in the main governing body of EMC for many years and having graduated from SBC I can confidently say that that phrase is not the EMC I know. If that was your experience I apologize on behalf of the EMC for misleading you. I am rejoicing that you have found freedom from such a misshapen form of Christianity. I also had a “nervous breakdown” or whatever the correct term may be many years ago but I did not have to change my theology to gain spiritual freedom. I experience exactly what Matt is describing for his life, within the EMC. Obviously there were other factors at work in your lives which impacted your spiritual health and yes, sometimes some will find their comfort zone elsewhere. But please don’t run down the EMC because of your individual experience. By the way, I pass on my way to our church a Reformed church that broke away from the main Reformed church in order to pursue a more fundamentalist route. I am friends with the pastor of the main Reformed church and find that their experiences are not that different from ours in general church life.
Matt goes on to say:
“That experience only verified to me that it's all about Christ, His grace, and His supremacy! I've never had so much peace in my spiritual life. That peace is leading me to just as much responsibility and church work as ever, but now I have a free attitude about it. It's not about duty and obligation anymore, it's about Christ!” That in a nutshell is what my sermon for Sunday is going to be about, although my text is 1 John 4:18 where it talks about God’s love driving out our fear. I had no Reformed influence in the preparation of it. Indeed, my thoughts were to bring to the people the good news of the gospel as I felt that the EMC had always sought to teach (in contrast to the traditional-legalistic background that many here have grown up in.)
To call our theology man-centered is your prerogative, but it is based on false assumptions. It seems to me that your mistake is in focusing on one tiny bit of the Christian life - the moment of accepting God’s salvation - and then, since we say that man has the freedom to make that choice, you go on to say that this means that our theology is man-centered. All your talk about who gets the credit is foreign to me. It had never occurred to me in all my life that I might in some way boast or take pride in the fact that I had made the correct choice, nor have I heard anyone else do so. It baffles me why you would put so much emphasis on that matter, when that plays no role in our theology. The EMC is certainly not perfect but I have always been pleased to be part of it, especially because it has been and continues to be centered firmly in Christ.

Hi again, Richard,

forgive me if it sounded like I was EMC bashing. I wasn't. My home church (Prairie Rose) has offered me nothing but a solid diet of gospel and biblical authority. I am greatly indebted to the men who occupy our pulpit and preach God's Word, whatever the cost. Harvey Plett, for example, has been a huge mentor for me, and was very helpful in a counselling setting for me.

My comments weren't so much "EMC" focused as "North American Christian pop-culture" focused. Look at the top-selling garbage - Purpose Driven, Your Best Life Now, Becoming a Better You, Prayer of Jabez, New Kind of Christian, The Shack, etc. Way too much that passes for Christian literature nowadays has its focus firmly on ME. MY experiences, MY ideas, MY success, etc. And because I'm finite and exhuastible, that kind of fad theology has to burn out at a certain point.

I also in no way want to suggest that my nervous breakdown was exclusively (or even primarily) spiritual. Of course, spiritual matters played a part, but the main issues were family related, and farm related.

I also don't want to give the impression that I changed to Reformed theology because of my experience. My perception of my fallible experiences isn't an adequate basis on which to form theological positions. That's why I intentionally used the word "verify". My experience only undergirded what I was already convinced the Bible taught. That's a hugely important distinction.

You still haven't answered the question, though. What is that other factor that makes some gospel hearers accept, and others reject? It's not a little, insignificant detail. It forms the basis for the rest of our Christian walk.

Matt: “You still haven't answered the question, though. What is that other factor that makes some gospel hearers accept, and others reject? It's not a little, insignificant detail. It forms the basis for the rest of our Christian walk.”

I thought the answer was so self-evident that I was groping around for something that I must be missing. If you are trying to get me to say that it is because the people choose not to accept I have no qualms about saying that. It’s not a little insignificant detail, I’ll grant that, but neither is it the basis for the rest of our Christian walk. It may upset the rest of your theology, but that is about it. Let me illustrate. Most EMCers, for example, would believe the way I do on this. You have noted Harvey Plett and your other church leaders whom you hold up as fine Christian teachers and pastors, as do I. Unless they have changed their theology in the last while they have basically the same theology I do. Well, here’s my point. What is so different in their Christian walk from the Reformed folk you may know? For that matter, there are millions of good Christians who have this belief. Pretty Christ-centered people, I would have to say, on the whole.

I hear both of you "consistently" waffling on choice. You state emphatically we have no choice, then you proceed to insist we have choices. We cannot choose for God, we cannot even desire to choose for God, until we are regenerated, then we cannot reject God. What do words mean? I checked the dictionary and choose means to choose from several available options. In the matter of choosing for or against God you have both been quite clear that we cannot choose for God until we are regenerated, then we cannot choose against God. You have also agreed that neutrality is not an option, you must be either for God or against God, so in my view you are constantly contravening those revered tenets of logic that you say you hold in such high esteem.
I think what you mean when you say we have choices is that we have some choices in the ways in which we indicate our rebellion but to point to that as meaningful choice when the most meaningful choice is precluded seems utterly disingenuous. You insist we are not robots because we have meaningful choice, but in the most important choice we are robots on the Reformed view because we can do only what we have been programmed to do, whether that is before or after regeneration. That we can choose how to rebel seems insignificant in comparison to the fact that we cannot choose whether or not to rebel in the first place.

The man-centered error comment is not so easily dismissed. Theology is a human activity and as such it will always be replete with man-centered errors because we know not where-of we speak (Job 42:3). Visit Reformed communities and you will find a lot of wonderful people and true believers and the same problems and challenges of legalism and liberalism that plague any religious body.

If you are trying to get me to say that it is because the people choose not to accept I have no qualms about saying that.

Fair enough Richard, but I'm trying to go one level deeper. Why do they choose to not accept?

You're correct about Dr. Harvey Plett and the rest of our ministerial not labeling themselves as Reformed. That I know of, none of them do. However, I'm not sure that they're 100% consistent. They (and you) would affirm God's sovereignty over everything, and that God's purposes are never frustrated. I just don't know how we can remove justification out of the category of sovereignty.

My observation is that my ministerial (and likely yourself, too) are much more Reformed than you realize.

As far as myself, my Christian walk changed very little on a day-to-day basis after I finally embraced Calvinism. The reason isn't because the doctrines of grace aren't amazing and life-changing, it's because I was a non-confessing Calvinist all along. Consistency forced me to come to grips with that and "come out of the closet" as it were.

If I'd cut my ministers, I think their blood would be pretty Calvinistic as a whole.

Matt: "My comments weren't so much "EMC" focused as "North American Christian pop-culture" focused. Look at the top-selling garbage - Purpose Driven, Your Best Life Now, Becoming a Better You, Prayer of Jabez, New Kind of Christian, The Shack, etc. Way too much that passes for Christian literature nowadays has its focus firmly on ME. MY experiences, MY ideas, MY success, etc. And because I'm finite and exhuastible, that kind of fad theology has to burn out at a certain point."

I forgot to make a comment before. Here we are in complete agreement. I thought to myself, someone who says this can't be all bad! We certainly would have a lot in common. We probably both need to bring our antacid tablets with us upon entering Christian bookstores these days.

Richard, I think you're more Reformed than you think you are :-)

We probably both need to bring our antacid tablets with us upon entering Christian bookstores these days.

Next time I go to the bookstore, I'll load up on Pepto-Bismol and Gaviscon, and then I'll give you a call. Maybe we can be stronger together. Perhaps we could weave our way through the jungle of best-sellers and find a some Bibles and commentaries collecting dust towards the back of the store :-)

I thought the answer was so self-evident that I was groping around for something that I must be missing. If you are trying to get me to say that it is because the people choose not to accept

Richard, that's exactly the honest answer we were looking for--in such a system, man--not God--determines his own destiny. That is what we cannot square with John 6, Romans 8, Ephesians 1 & 2, among many other passages.

I do believe Richard was right when he said your either/or logic was creating trouble for you. The God of the Bible is not either a God who does it all for us, including determining our decisions for salvation, or a God who does not finally save us because He can do nothing until we agree to accept His offer of salvation. I refer you to my comments on decisions in #110. Your story in 117 is beautiful story of how God operates in our world, with the exception that not all those with whom He works respond positively. There are plenty of references that indicate so rather clearly, but as has been noted before, those references do not fit your theology and therefore you cannot allow them to mean what they say.
Romans 5:18 has been extensively debated and it is still as clear as it has always been: Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.
1 John 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
Romans 11:32 For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.
2 Peter 3:9 He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
John 12:32 “But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.”
Romans 3:22b-24 There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

Romans 8 speaks about the difference between the Spirit-filled life and life according to the sinful nature, but it is clear that our decisions are of pivotal significance. We must choose which nature we will live by. On our own we could not, but Romans 8 in the context of other scriptures which indicate universal scope of the atonement it is clear that we all have an obligation (v12) to choose to live according to the Spirit. Romans 6:11 “In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires.” Being dead to sin and alive to Christ is not something that just happens to us. Paul tells us we must count ourselves so. If you read Romans 8 with a Reformed lens it all can seem pre-determined, but that is not the only legitimate reading of the text, and in my view is not the most natural reading of the text on its own, and certainly not when considered in the larger context of Paul's writings.
In John 6 I take you to refer especially to vv 37, 39-40, 44. This chapter is written by the same author who recorded Jesus' words (14:6) “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” Reformed theology seems not to understand the way in which the Father and the Son are united in their desires and efforts toward the salvation of people. Yahweh has been active throughout history in reaching out to His people, and the Incarnation was the ultimate effort to reach out and make His invitation as plain as it could be made. In John 6 Jesus is reiterating that the entire harvest of those who are children of the Father are His children as well. When you come to the Father you come to Jesus, and when you come to Jesus you come to the Father. The Father and the Son are united in their desire that none be lost. “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him” is entirely consistent with the verses listed above indicating that the atonement applies to all.
The comments regarding predestination in Ephesians are made to the saints in Ephesus, but with inclusive pronouns “us, we”. It seems clear to me that this reference to predestination indicates the called out ones as a group. It has always been God’s intention to have a close relationship with those created in His own image. God’s plan from the start was to create the human race as his children, created in His own image, but even with everything including God on our side we nevertheless wished to be gods unto ourselves and went our own way. The rest of history is the story of our God relentlessly pursuing us to woo us back. Ever since the Fall it was God’s intention to work through a group of people who are His representatives on earth to invite all to enter His kingdom. In the OT it was Israel (not as a nation but as a family, but that family preferred to be known as a nation among earthly nations rather than as a family of God’s people), but in the NT it is anyone who will follow Christ, the Incarnate God.
To say that non-Reformed theology has man determining his own destiny indicates either a stunning lack of understanding, or a simple refusal to hear what is being said.

Matt, I am perplexed at how a few years ago you joined the Evangelical Anabaptist Committee because of your concern for the way our Conference was slipping on its Anabaptist commitments. At that time you expressed deep admiration for Dr Harvey Plett and his Anabaptist values. I found it interesting at the time that very few Mennonite groups were actually worthy to be called Mennonites as their commitments to Mennonite theology did not suit your tastes. Six months ago you declared yourself to be Reformed and now almost everyone seems to be Reformed, including those mentors who you formerly admired so deeply as Anabaptist mentors, who would likely be astounded, if not aghast, to hear themselves described as Reformed. Does that facile translation of descriptors not cheapen the very notion of the categories for which you express such appreciation?

God bless.

Henry, before I go milk cows, I'll just say that I don't see Reformed theology and Mennonite theology as antithetical. At least not when it comes to soteriology. Menno Simons himself shared many common concerns as Calvin. To be honest, in as much as I have read Simons, I can't say that I know whether he'd be Reformed or Arminian, but when it comes to things like propitiation, substitutionary atonement, biblical infallibility, etc., he's right there with the Reformed.

Where he and Calvin differed, I'm actually with Simons in each case - church and state, paedo vs. credo baptism, etc. So I see nothing inconsistent with my concerns. The move away from biblical authority is concerning to both Reformed and Mennonite Christians. At least Mennonites in the tradition of Simons himself.

That indicates a fundamental lack of understanding of either or both positions. For example, Anabaptist thought holds unconditional regeneration, which is the position I have been presenting here. All fall and all are regenerated through the saving work of Christ on the cross. Clearly this sets up an additional antithesis between Reformed and Anabaptist thought as the Reformed position on preservation holds that those regenerated cannot fall away. In Anabaptist thought the regeneration restores all to the place where they can choose to accept or reject the doubly generous invitation of God. Dr Penner was an eminent Anabaptist theologian. You do not see an antithesis between his presentation of soteriology and the reformed position you and Randy have been promoting while arguing against Dr Penner? You argue against Dr Penner's formulation even though you do not see an antithesis? If you do not see an antithesis between Reformed and Anabaptist thought then why are we arguing?? I continue to be confused, this time regarding your stated commitment to sound logic, and your willingness to ignore it in discussion.

Two more references to add to 127:
1 Corinthians 15:22 "As in Adam all die, in Christ ALL will be made alive."
Colossians 1:20. "For in him [Christ] all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself ALL things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross."

For example, Anabaptist thought holds unconditional regeneration

Does it? That's a genuine question. I know that Reformed theology and Mennonite theology may seem like strange fishing buddies on the surface. In my limited time span in a Mennonite body (9 years) I haven't come across a pile of confessing Calvinists - granted.

Consistency is important to me - you know that - it's why I became Reformed in the first place. Categories are important too, and I certainly don't want to be guilty of identifying myself as something if I have to fundamentally redefine what that "something is". Okay, that's the backdrop.

Henry, this is a genuine challenge. Can you please point me to where in Menno Simons we would find Reformed soteriology precluded? I know Dr. Penner's theology would preclude it, and I'm not trying to mesh Reformed theology with Dr. Penner's "consistent universalism". I can see that those are clearly antithetical. My concern is over what Simons and his companions thought on this issue. I've spent a lot of time in his "Complete Writings" and am overwhelmingly impressed by it. I haven't found a topic yet where I would have disagreement with him.

My spade-work on soteriology, though, hasn't brought up any data that would say "Calvinist" or "Arminian". If you can show me that Simons would preclude Reformed soteriology, then please point that out to me. For the sake of integrity and consistency, it would force me to further thought.

All I've found so far on soteriology is a strong emphasis on substitutionary atonement, making me curious if the "non-violent atonement" crowd can use the handle "Mennonite" with integrity...

How about these quotes from Menno himself, as well as several of his noted contemporaries:
Hans Denk: The Suffering of Christ is sufficient for the sins of all men even if no man were ever saved.28
Melchior Hoffman: All are created for salvation, and the Son of God suffered for all. As the whole seed of Adam without their own fault was condemned in Adam so also they are again made blessed, redeemed, and purchased from death through Jesus Christ freely and without any merit of their own. . . . . . . [H]e is an atoner not only for the sins of the believers, but for the sins of the whole world, that is, for the whole seed of Adam.29
Dirk Philips: He has justified us out of grace without merit through the redemption that has taken place in him, Rom. 3:21-25. He has set before us the selfsame one as a mercy seat through faith in his blood, Eph. 1:5-8, and has included all those under sin in order that he alone may be justified and in turn justify all who have faith in Jesus Christ, Rom. 3:19-26.30
Menno Simons: Through the merits of Thy blood we receive the remission of our sins according to the riches of Thy grace. Yea through this blood on the Cross He reconciled all upon earth and in heaven above. Therefore, dear Lord, I confess that I have or know no remedy for my sins, no works nor merits, neither baptism nor the Lord’s supper (although all sincere Christians use these as a sign of Thy Word and hold them in respect), but the precious blood of Thy beloved Son alone which is bestowed upon me by Thee and has graciously redeemed me, a poor sinner, through mere grace and love, from my former walk.31
Michael Sattler: Paul says to the Romans in the third chapter that they are all together sinners and come short of the glory which God should have from them, yet apart from merit, they shall be justified by his grace through the redemption which Christ accomplished.32 {127}

http://www.directionjournal.org/article/?1170

Denk: So it's sufficient. No argument from anyone. Is it applied to all until they reject it? He doesn't say, although he clearly says that not all are saved.

Hoffman: hehe. You mean the dude who seized a city by force, was a "visionary", a mystic, and a political leader? The Jack Van Impe of the Anabaptists (Just thought of an Anabaptist joke - "what do you get when you cross Jack Van Impe with Pat Robertson...")? Not sure either of us would consider Hoffman to be of the biblical Anabaptists. Granted, unlimited atonement is pretty clear here, but I confess to be a Mennonite, not a Melchiorite. (Melchiorite does sound pretty cool, though :-)) << - That smiley face is embedded in brackets, it's not supposed to be Joe Clark. Simons and Hoffman had more than their share of divergent views.

Philips: Only those who have faith in Jesus are justified. That's all I see here. He doesn't say whether the unjustified are so by default, or because they were justified and rejected it.

Simons: Is he talking about universal atonement in the sense that every person is justified? Or is he affirming that the atonement provides benefits to all? He's pretty clear elsewhere that only some are justified. That's what I'm trying to figure out. In Simons' mind, what the default position of people - saved or unsaved? I'm honestly trying to work that through. I talked with Dr. Harvey in church about it yesterday too. I really want to dig into my Complete Writings again as soon as there's a day with clouds or rain or something to abdicate my guilt for reading when I should be working :-)

Sattler: Whose justified here? Only a group from those who are sinners and fall short of God's glory or all of them? He doesn't say.

Thanks for the quotes, Henry. I really want to zero in on Simons, though.

All that said, even Simons was just a dude. Granted, I admire him greatly, but the bigger question is "what does the Bible teach", not "what does Menno say"?

Thanks again,
Matt

I did not really expect that you would find clear statements sufficient. If simple statements of scripture are not clear, then why would clear statements from the reformers be convincing?
Granted, I admire him greatly, but the bigger question is "what does the Bible teach", not "what does Menno say"?
Oh good!! Why did you not say so in the first place? I thought you were now sold on Reformed theology and liked to use that framework for interpreting all of scripture. If it is what scripture teaches that you want (and I am whole-heartedly in support of that idea) than I offer the following:
Romans 5:18 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.
1 John 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
Romans 11:32 For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.
2 Peter 3:9 He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
John 12:32 “But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.”
Romans 3:22b-24 There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
1 Corinthians 15:22 As in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.
Colossians 1:20. For in him [Christ] all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.
Simple and clear. I am good with these statements of scripture as they stand, and am satisfied that the writings of the early Anabaptist fathers reflects the clear meaning of these scriptures.

I did not really expect that you would find clear statements sufficient. If simple statements of scripture are not clear, then why would clear statements from the reformers be convincing?

Gettin' a little edgy? Those statements are all clear as far as they go, but most of them don't begin to answer the question "are all justified".

If we stick with Simons, then I'm trying to keep the quote you gave (which I also had up on my blog post) in harmony with two other facts. 1) Simons definitely believed in a literal hell, a place of torment, for all those who were not born again; and 2) he is very clear that conversion and regeneration are necessary for justification.

Behold, worthy reader, hear God's irrevocable sentence and judgment as pronounced on all who live after the flesh, no matter who it is, whether emperor or king, duke or earl, baron, knight or squire, noble or commoner, priest or monk, learned or unlearned, rich or poor, man or woman, bond or free. All who live after the flesh must forever remain under the just sentence and eternal wrath of God; otherwise the Scriptures are untrue

(Complete Writings, 90)

I have said it once, and I say it again, and that from the mouth of the Lord, who can neither lie nor deceive, except ye be converted and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. And, except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

My dearly beloved reader, take heed to the Word of the Lord and know the true God. I warn you faithfully to take it, if you please. He will not save you nor forgive your sins nor show you His mercy and grace except according to His Word; namely, if you repent and if you believe, if you are born of Him, if you do what He has commanded and walk as He walks. For if He could save an unrighteous carnal man without regeneration, faith, and repentance, then He did not teach us the truth. But He is the truth, and there is no falsehood in Him.

(CW, 92) It doesn't sound to me like Menno believes that all are justified until they actively reject Christ. Language like "convert", "born again", "repent", "believe", "faith", and "regeneration" by necessity imply that man's natural, default state is unsaved. Something has to happen for us to move from being unjustified to being justified, not vice-versa.

For it is naught but true repentance that Scriptures teach and enjoin upon us with admonitions, threatenings, reprovings, miracles, examples, ceremonies, and sacraments. If you do not repent there is nothing in heaven or earth that can help you, for without true repentance we are comforted in vain....We must be born from above, must be changed and renewed in our hearts, and must be transplanted from the unrighteous and evil nature of Adam into the true good nature of Christ, or we can never in all eternity be saved by any means, be they human or divine. Wherever true repentance and the new creature are not (I speak of those who are of the age of understanding) there man must be eternally lost; this is incontrovertibly clear.

Do I need to keep going?

Do you want to hear Menno himself describe the faith to even believe as a gift? Here he is:

You see, dear sirs, friends, and brethren, they who believe this are those of whom the Scriptures say, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name, which were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. These are they who are justified by faith and have peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God; and all this, as Paul says, of grace and love. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God has set forth to be a propitiation through faith. There is none that can glory in himself touching this faith, for it is the gift of God. All who receive it from God receive a tree loaded with all manner of good and delicious fruit. Happy is he to whom God gives this gift, for it is more precious than gold, silver, or precious stones. Nothing can be compared with it. He that receives it receives Christ Jesus, forgiveness of sins, a new mind, and eternal life.

Pretty clear hear that faith itself is a gift of God, which is necessary for justification. Also pretty clear that some receive this gift and some don't. Honestly, Henry, I can hear John Piper reading these words with passion!

I thought you were now sold on Reformed theology and liked to use that framework for interpreting all of scripture.

It's getting tired, dude. Let's stick to interacting over points, not ad-homing. Honestly, when I read that I decided that I wouldn't even respond. After a few days of chewing on it, though, I thought I'd give it one more kick. Hey, by the way, why is it cool and edgy when pomos talk this way to conservatives, but when it goes the other way it's arrogant, mean-spirited, hurtful, unfair, unhelpful, un-Christlike, misrepresenting, etc?

How do you reconcile all those verses with the fact that Scripture is abundantly clear that nobody is saved apart from faith, repentance, and calling upon the righteousness of Jesus?

Oh, and my last set of quotes is from p.116 in Simons' Complete Writings.

Due to circumstances I have to leave this for some time, but a few comments.
Matt: You said “Richard, I think you're more Reformed than you think you are”. I think I said earlier that I was perfectly alright with people seeing a Reformed stripe in me. There should be similarities seeing we serve the same God and read the same Bible. My Reformed friends in Alberta kidded me about all the Calvinistic statements I kept making. But I noticed that they were very Arminian when it came to how they lived their Christian lives. Ultimately I don’t think it amounts to a hill of beans what I call myself in this regard. I am not looking for a name to call myself. I don’t see that there would be an advantage for me to say I am Calvinistic or Arminian and then to always give the exception clauses. It seems that if I did declare myself then I would need to go on the defensive and then end up becoming more polarized. My basic position has not changed since my youth and so I don’t see myself on the road to any particular position. Of course, I have come to fuller understandings of the various related issues. The Anabaptist way has seemingly always been to be a third way - neither Protestant nor Catholic, etc. I therefore suspect your search to find either Calvinism or Arminianism in Menno will be fruitless. In that sense it will be similar to how we view the Bible - we each have our lenses and we see our own view throughout the Bible accordingly. While it is interesting, and to some extent healthy, to engage in debate on these things, I personally am at peace with the fact that these two main views exist and will continue to exist. Debate has gone on for centuries and good, scholarly, smart, godly people have represented both sides. I am sure this thread will not settle the issue.

Randy says in #126 “that's exactly the honest answer we were looking for--in such a system, man--not God--determines his own destiny. That is what we cannot square with John 6, Romans 8, Ephesians 1 & 2, among many other passages.” I think Henry has answered that in the last few posts much better than I can (especially in #127). I did not think that I had been trying to hide my position on this. As Henry’s response points out, this does not automatically lead to your conclusion. What do you mean by “determine”? As I reflect on this though I get the sense that for some reason the Reformed people seem to want to make Arminianism appear to be “man-centered”, hence the strong emphasis on monergism vs. synergism. Were these terms invented by Reformed to force the issue? My point earlier in bringing in Dr. Archie Penner was to show that scholarly men do suggest other ways. His article on “correspondence” (#16), a view that in a sense is somewhere between these two sides, is in need of further work but I offered it as an example of the direction one could look at, not as the final word. We are not necessarily shoe-horned into one or the other. In our view Christ is not helplessly standing outside our door while we do (or don’t) the work of setting ourselves free from sin. By creating us in his image, by equipping us with a God-shaped vacuum, by dying for us (with all that implies and means, including what Henry said), by inviting us to respond (this was his idea and initiative), by sending his Spirit who convicts and so forth, by placing godly people in our path, and such like, he has assured that the process will be God-centered. That to me sounds quite different than man “determining” his destiny.

Adios, at least for a while. God bless you all. Have a great summer.

Matt,
As I read your last comments you seem to have taken offense at some of my comments. I have not yet been able to ascertain the precise nature of the offense, but I do apologize for any offense caused, no offense was intended. If you choose to use a Reformed framework to read scripture I am OK with that. Everyone uses some sort of framework, and each framework has certain strengths and weaknesses. I do not think the Reformed framework is most even-handed in its handling of scripture, but I am fully aware that that is my opinion, regardless of how well-founded I take that opinion to be.
What does bother is significant duplicity in what one says about how scripture should be read, and the way one reads scripture. However, the challenge of walking our talk is much more complex than simply being a hermeneutical issue. It is a matter that requires our engagement in many ways in all of life.
Blessings to all.

Hi,
Matt, There is a significant nuance in Simon's thought that your last response misrepresents. I am also intrigued that you say your main interest is not what Simons says, but what scripture says, which is fair enough. However, when I cite a list of references that rather clearly endorse a theology of "as all fall in Adam so are all raised in Christ", you ignore the references and quote Simons at length, though in my opinion you do not accurately reflect his thought.
It doesn't sound to me like Menno believes that all are justified until they actively reject Christ. Language like "convert", "born again", "repent", "believe", "faith", and "regeneration" by necessity imply that man's natural, default state is unsaved. Something has to happen for us to move from being unjustified to being justified, not vice-versa.
I think you missed this piece, though you quoted it:
Wherever true repentance and the new creature are not (I speak of those who are of the age of understanding) there man must be eternally lost; this is incontrovertibly clear. CW 92
Menno Simons was an Anabaptist and the whole obsession at the time was the matter of accountability. When Simons writes about the exigence of repentance he has in mind those who are of an age of understanding and have become responsible for choosing for or against God. Prior to this age they are under the blood, consistent with the references above (#134). In his Christian Baptism Simons is crystal clear, saying of children “Yet they have the promise of eternal life out of pure grace.” CW 240 “If they die before coming to the years of discretion, that is, in childhood, before they have come to years of understanding and before they have faith, then they die under the promise of God, and that by no means other than the generous promise of grace given through Jesus Christ. Luke 18:16. And if they come to the years of discretion and have faith, then they should be baptized. But if they do not accept or believe the Word when they shall have arrived at the years of discretion, no matter whether they are baptized or not, they will be damned, as Christ Himself teaches. Mark 16:16." CW 241

Wow, what a great exchange, exhausting but great, thanks to all. I don't think there is anything I can really add. After many years in the Baptist church, and just recently the Nazarene church, I have been doing a lot of reading and studying regarding the whole Calvinist/Arminian debate. I have to say that at this point, I still believe the way I have for years, which can be pretty much summed up in Richard's posts.

I would like to ask one question however.

If in John 3:16, The Greek actually says "that the believing ones," which fits perfectly with Reformed theology. Why does not the KJV, NIV, ESV, or NASB translate it this way??

Thanks for dropping by, Chuck. Exhausting is right--140 comments! As for John 3:16, I imagine the translations are partly influenced by tradition since this is probably the best-known verse in the Bible. The problem isn't the translation per se, it's that people separate "whosoever" from "believeth" like when Richard wrote:

that whosoever (well, really only those who God decides)

He's missing the point by dropping "believes" and focusing on the "whosoever." I'll quote a small section of James White's open letter to Dave Hunt:

The English term “whoever” is meant to communicate “all without distinction in a particular group,” specifically, “those who believe.” Pas means “all” and ho pisteuwn is “the one(s) believing,” hence, “every one believing,” leading to “whoever believes.” It should be remembered that there is no specific word for “whoever” in the Greek text: this comes from the joining of “all” with “the one believing,” i.e., “every one believing.” The point is that all the ones believing have eternal life. There is no such thing as a believing person who will not receive the promised benefit, hence, “whosoever.”

Hmmm, it's a pity they did not have people who actually knew Greek working on the KJV, NIV, ESV or NASB. Such a shame that the translations usually considered most reliable all got this verse wrong. Good thing, too, that White was not influenced by any tradition, say a Reformed tradition, in his interpretation of the verse.

Henry, there's no problem with the translation--it's the people who lock in on "whosoever" and ignore "believeth." The Greek just makes it harder to separate the two by making it clear that the people in question are "those who believe," and those are the elect that the Father gives to the Son as Jesus tells us a few chapters later in John 6. There's no need for a Reformed tradition to impact the verses--John 3 through 6 do a great job of creating the Reformed tradition.

What about those who lock onto "believe" and ignore "whosoever"? Still seems to me the natural sense of the translation in the versions cited is not quite as Reformed theology turns it. I also find it curious that you seem to object to Richard's comment, and then you replicate the very same sense of his comment in your last remark (141):

The problem isn't the translation per se, it's that people separate "whosoever" from "believeth" like when Richard wrote:
that whosoever (well, really only those who God decides)
....
"Whosoever believes" are those given new life by God....

Seems Richard understood you correctly in the first place.

Still seems to me the natural sense of the translation in the versions cited is not quite as Reformed theology turns it.

I see no conflict. My point was that Richard dropped the "believes," substituting "well really only those who God decides," apparently contrasting "whosoever" with those God chooses, when Jesus himself made it clear that only those God chooses will believe, therefore the "whosoever believes" are the elect.

Comment on Election, Reprobation and Romans 6:23