The hopelessness of Calvinism

Chris, look at the passage from Isaiah you just posted!!! LOOK at it!

Isaiah 65:1-5 (ESV)
I was ready to be sought by those who did not ask for me;
I was ready to be found by those who did not seek me.
I said, "Here am I, here am I,"
to a nation that was not called by my name.
[2] I spread out my hands all the day
to a rebellious people,
who walk in a way that is not good,
following their own devices;
[3] a people who provoke me
to my face continually,
sacrificing in gardens
and making offerings on bricks;
[4] who sit in tombs,
and spend the night in secret places;
who eat pig's flesh,
and broth of tainted meat is in their vessels;
[5] who say, "Keep to yourself,
do not come near me, for I am too holy for you."
These are a smoke in my nostrils,
a fire that burns all the day.

What does it mean that He was ready to be sought and ready to be found? Only that he wants people to seek! But they refused. Their own choice! God obviously WANTED them, but He respected the free will He Himself had given them.

1 John 4:19 (ESV)
We love because he first loved us.

From you: To be predestined because we have acted toward God in love is violence upon the meaning of predestined.

Only the kind of predestination you are talking about. It does not do violence to what the Bible is talking about.

However, I am wondering if calling me a liar is part of your Christian character? I would not have stated that we cannot love if God had not first enabled us if I did not believe that. If you do not understand how I am fitting it together, ask me instead of accusing me of lying because I don't agree with you.

Regarding my work with Ligonier Ministries, I started interpreting for them at the Western Conference on the Majesty of God (I think that was the title) in 1991. I had not heard of them before but was really pleased with the series of presentations I coordinated interpreters for that year. The next year, therefore, I was more than happy to be involved again. During that time I started typing down the Tabletalk articles from our regular English to ASL-compatible English for the deaf in this area and those to whom they would send the 'translations.' I began to see a few things which bothered me a little, but figured it was me.

The third year's conference was when I was thrown for a loop by the presentation of Reformed theology. Then I started realizing what it was that had been bothering me about some of the Tabletalk material. That is when I took two years off and started studying the Bible extraordinarily thoroughly to find out what was really true. I read a number of books as well as going through The Gospel According to Jesus line by line with a deaf friend and typing that down into simple English, with the knowledge and help of Dr. MacArthur himself.

Plain and simply, I reject Calvinism as being in opposition to the clear message of the Bible, which you have consistently ignored in the texts I have shown you. That is your business, but I refuse to ignore Bible passages I am uncomfortable with. Like C.S. Lewis, I have found that the ones that make me uncomfortable are the ones I have the most to learn from in the long run.

=============

Going down the list of responses now, to Chet.

Thank you for your support here. It is a little hard when I am consistently categorized as what I plainly try to say I am not, told I believe what I do not, and then called a liar on top of it.

If THAT is the fruit of Calvinism, I am really glad God guided me into a study of it early on so I would not get trapped by those tactics now.

==============

To Larry - NNE is arguing that God did not initiate the relationship and do everything necessary! The argument is that God has also given, as clearly indicated in the Bible, the freedom to accept or reject His offer!

A love relationship is a mutual thing. If we WANT to be the 'other side' of it, He enables us, for we truly cannot love on our own. But we have to want it; we have to respond to Him with a "yes." It's that simple.

And just as I wrote earlier, of course all that the Father gives to Christ will come. The Father gives those to Christ who have been seeking and who responded with that 'yes' when God showed them the truth about Himself.

================

PreachtheWord - I do believe God's Word. All of it.

You asked, if the stars contain the Gospel, and all men can see the stars, why do we send missionaries?

I thought I answered that in the article. The stars contain the Promise. The basic story. The fact that it 'came true,' that it was worked out in a specific time and place by God and that God Himself has words of love and wisdom and invitation to us through Jesus Christ is the Gospel message. The basic message, then, is NOT "guess what God did?", but "God did it!" If you read the missionary stories from the last hundreds of years, you will find consistent astonishment that the people approached were already prepared by God - there was always something left in the culture, in the legends, in the ancient histories, which pointed to the promise. Before Christ, the stars were well known. That is precisely the reason the Magoi traveled to Jerusalem seeking "Him who is born King of the Jews." They knew because of the stars and because of the timing.

It was not actually until after Christ that the message in the stars began to be twisted into an occult nightmare. So the missionaries had to be sent out from the beginning to spread the truth of the Promise as well as its fulfillment.

It's like Romans 1 says: creation gives enough testimony about God that no man has an excuse, but it does not give the full testimony. That came through Jesus, and that is the job of missionaries still today - to share the full testimony.

And yes, it is very true that I searched everything out and examined the passages, but never by themselves - always I allowed Bible to interpret Bible and kept material in context. Otherwise any doctrine can be claimed to be true, and that would make a lie out of the Bible as a whole.

You quoted the following:
Jude 1:4
For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ.

Did you notice the verse that comes after this?

…I want to remind you that the Lord delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe…In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion…

I also have a different translation of the text you quoted. In the NIV it reads
For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign Lord.

Then you told me not to get 'hung up' on the word "all", as that is used "in a representative sense" in the Bible. Yes, sometimes. Always? Do you believe the Flood only inundated a representative "all" the earth, or is Genesis clearly written? Do you believe that when the Lord summoned "Come to me, all ye that labor and are heavy-laden…" that He was not referring to all, but only a representative few? And again, when sin entered the world because of Adam, do you believe all men were then born sinners, or just a representative few?

I understood what Paul was saying when He said he was all things to all men. When I read that in context, he explains himself very clearly, contrary to the idea that somehow this would have to mean becoming a drunkard, etc., if 'all' were really 'all'. Here is what he said, and this is why I stress over and over again to TAKE THINGS IN CONTEXT:

Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law,) so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. I do this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

It means a little differently that what you implied it would have to mean if Paul really meant 'all', doesn't it? Paul explains himself and also qualifies 'all' with 'by all possible means.'

The angels, when they said the good news was for all men, did not qualify the 'all.'

The Bible really is very clear…

It's just that it has to be read in context, and to pull a verse out as you have done here and then exegete it apart from context is, in a very large understatement, not right.

You then asked me to respond to the following as being part of an understanding of John 3:16:
a) God loves every individual the exact same (see Psalm 5:5 and others that deny this).

Here is the full context, which is even stronger than just verse 5:
"You are not a God who takes pleasure in evil;
with you the wicked cannot dwell.
The arrogant cannot stand in your presence;
You hate all who do wrong.
You destroy those who tell lies;
Bloodthirsty and deceitful men the Lord abhors."

Tell me, first, do you see anything there which indicates that the Lord hated them before they did these things? I don't. And if - just by some quirk - these men actually had a choice regarding their behavior, wouldn't these verses fit just as well regarding this hate being God's response to those choices?

And if we let Bible interpret Bible, specifically the New Testament interpret the Old, we can definitely pair the above with Romans 1:18-19 - "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them."

That suppression of truth is a conscious denial of it. It is a choice men make.

b) God loves only some people and enjoys being malicious toward others (see Ezekiel 33 and others that deny this).

You know I deny this anyway! I know He loves everyone as a creation of His own. I know that!

Here is verse 11 from this chapter of Ezekiel, which I have put in context with verses before and after it. Verse 11 will be italicized -

"Son of man, say to the house of Israel, 'This is what you are saying: "Our offenses and sins weigh us down and we are wasting away because of them. How then can we live?"' Say to them, 'As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, O house of Israel?'

"Therefore, son of man, say to your countrymen, 'The righteousness of the righteous man will not save him when he disobeys, and the wickedness of the wicked man will not cause him to fall when he turns from it. The righteous man, if he sins, will not be allowed to live because of his former righteousness. …And if I say to the wicked man, 'You will surely die,' but he then turns away from his sin and does what is just and right - if he gives back what he took in pledge for a loan, returns what he has stolen, follows the decrees that give life, and does no evil, he will surely live; he will not die."

Please understand that I know that a man is not saved by his own deeds. That is not the issue here. But I think Ezekiel 33 clearly says that God does love each man and respect the decision of each man and allows each man to turn from his wicked ways if he so chooses. Why else would God literally beg, through Ezekiel, for Israel to TURN, and asks them 'Why will you die?' He is clearly asking them to make a choice for Him, to follow and obey.

Please understand also that I KNOW that neither Israel nor any man or group of people can do more than want to turn and make a token effort. But that is enough. God gives the power to those who desire the power to turn from their wicked ways. What Calvinism is saying, though, is that God also gives them the desire to turn. If so, that would be in contradiction of the above, would it not? He is there begging them to turn and asking them "Why will you die?"

c) God love all of His creation and does not take pleasure in the destruction of the wicked but also has a special love for His own (see the Bible that supports this).

What on earth makes you think I am arguing against this???? He loves the world, does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked, but also has a special love for those who respond to HIS love (and yes, He always knew who these would be).

You then added another post saying:
One more thing, love is the seeking of the good in another. That is why you spank your children. That is why each spouse forfeits their life for the other. That is why God sought us out and not vice versa. Don't get caught up in Dobson's and Smalley's psychobabble.

Taking it backwards, I have long since given up on Dobson and Smalley drives me nuts, OK?

But, more importantly, love is NOT 'seeking the good in another.' In fact, that is directly against Calvinism as that theology claims there is no good in man in his unredeemed state. Or maybe you are then saying that no one could ever love an unredeemed person? I have a real problem with that.

I would instead amend your definition of love to "Love is seeking the good for another."

God was not seeking the good in us when He went to the cross. He was accomplishing the good FOR us. When I spanked, or otherwise disciplined, my children, it was not a matter of seeking good in them, but of controlling the rebelliousness! In controlling it, and teaching them self-control, I was working for their good, because I was committed to them and cared for them. That commitment and care was a decision I had made. Love always is.

As far as the marriage relationship goes, Barry and I know that God gave us to each other. Our lives together make one that is dedicated to the Lord God in his work and in mine. So while we submit to each other, and he truly has 51% human voting stock in this 'company,' our lives are NOT forfeit to each other, but with each other, to Christ.

 

One more round on the next three that came in:

Yes, Kiffin, although the good news was for all men, only those responding to it, and thus in favor with God, would get His peace. Jesus reiterated that in John 14: "Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me wil be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him…If anyone love me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.
All this I have spoken while still with you. But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid.."

God's favor, and thus His peace, rest on men who say 'yes' to Him. At that point He gives them everything needed for that 'yes' to be put into operation, including the ability to love Him and to obey Him. But the good news of the Gospel, that God had indeed made a way back to Himself through Jesus Christ, was for ALL men.

==========

OK, Seigfried. I have answered John 6 if you read my posts, but it is sort of scattered, I suppose. However, since you have already judged what I will be saying as an oxymoron, I guess I am saying it for anyone else reading. In the meantime, will you or someone respond to the passages I and several others have posted which pose real problems for Calvinism?

But you wanted John 6. I am supposing (and please correct me if I am wrong) that you are not referring to the feeding of the five thousand or Jesus walking on the water, so let's start with verse 25 and go on from there:

When they found him on the other side of the lake, they asked him, "Rabbi, when did you get here?"
Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, you are looking for me, not because you saw miraculous signs but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. On him God the Father has placed his seal of approval."

Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires."

Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."

The first comment I would like to make here is that unbelievers are told to believe, that this is the 'work' God requires. Please also notice that Jesus has told them they should work for 'food' that endures to eternal life. He will explain this more shortly. But in both statements here Jesus is indicating there truly is something man is responsible for: believing. Man's response is up to him.

So they asked him, "What miraculous sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do? Our forefathers ate the manna n the desert; as it is written, 'He gave them bread from heaven to eat.'"

They are asking for a reason to believe. They want something to respond to.

Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world."

There is that reference, "to the world" again….

"Sir," they said, "from now on give us this bread."

Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty.

Stop there for a moment. "He who comes to me…he who believes in me…" Please keep in mind the universal call earlier, "Come to me all ye who labor and are heavy-laden…" The 'all' was not qualified there. And, in the verse directly before this in John 6, Jesus has just identified Himself as the bread who gives life to the world. These are not qualified terms in the Bible and we have to be careful about imposing qualifications on them. But let's continue with what Jesus said:

But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.

And I know you want to stop here and say, "See? I told you so! The Father has to give them to Christ; they cannot do it themselves." And that's true, but it's not the whole story, and also it is neither the beginning or the end to the story! The question has to be asked, "Are we given a reason the Father will bring some to Christ?" If we are not given a reason, then Calvinism certainly has a point here, but if we are given a reason, then we had better pay attention to it, right?

For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.

And here, just like in the Garden of Gethsemane, we are shown that Christ, as a man, had a will different from the Father's. This was a will that had to be consciously suppressed. The fact that even the perfect man has a will separate from the Father's should not be ignored.

And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

There is the reason. Christ has given it immediately. Those who are led by the Father to Christ are those who have looked to the Son and believed in Him. Looking and believing are not works, they are reactions. You look at what has attracted your attention. If you were seeking for something in the first place ("Seek, and you will find"), then no matter where you were seeking, as soon as you turned (remember the command in Ezekiel to TURN!?), you would see Christ. Would you then avert your spiritual eyes or look at Him and believe? There is the whole heart of the matter - what will a person's reaction to Christ be? On that hangs everything.

But let's continue to the verse you want to get to mostly, I think…

At this the Jews began to grumble about him because he said, "I am the bread that came down from heaven"

At least they understood His meaning that far!

They said, "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, 'I came down from heaven'?"

Do you see that they are reacting now? And everything they understand in the rest of the discussion will hang on this fact - how they are choosing to react to Jesus and His words.

"Stop grumbling among yourselves," Jesus answered. "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day."

This is where the Calvinists stop, delighted. This is not, however, where Jesus began, nor where He stops:

It is written in the Prophets: 'They will all be taught by God.' Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me."

Everyone. EVERYONE who listens to the Father and learns from Him. EVERYONE. Their choice to listen. Their choice to learn. Those who respond to God will be drawn by the Father to Christ. That is the process. How much more clearly can Jesus state it?

No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. I tellyou the truth, he who believes has everlasting life. I am the bread of life. Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. But here is the bread that comes down from heaven which a man may eat and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever…

I'll stop here, although I went much further when dealing with the issue of transubstantiation with the Catholics.

Jesus has issued a call here. He elucidates on the process that follows after the call.

Many are called.

Few are chosen. Those who are chosen are those who responded to the call. Many didn't. Many still don't. God's grace is not irresistible. As Hebrews 6 points out, rain falls on all the land. What the land produces, how it 'reacts' is what makes all the difference. In the parable of the sower, we find the good seed is scattered everywhere. And just like it is the land which has been plowed under which does the best job with the seed, it is also the lives which have been torn up by suffering, disappointments, and shattered dreams which are usually the most willing to give up to Christ, and respond with a 'yes.' But even that is not a guarantee.

I keep trying to say, "It's a mutual thing." Even though God knew all along, there is still a mutuality about it that the Bible indicates over and over again. To avoid it is to avoid one of the clear messages that starts with Genesis and continues through to Revelation: "Choose this day whom you will serve."

 

I've got to get on with my day! Short responses:

Siegfried - declaring anything I say "true" or "false" means nothing on its own except that you have an opinion. I have done John 6 - at least the part of it I think you were referring to - for you. I know you will consider it oxymoronic, since it is from me, but what they hey…. I learn from the Lord everytime I am in His Word and that was a good time for me.

PreachtheWord - I am NOT a non-sovereignist and I really resent you referring to me that way, OK?

And changing the definition of 'foreknowledge' to suit your purposes does not alter the actual meaning of the word.

"Depart from me, you workers of iniquity…" is in direct reference to false teachers. The "I never knew you" has to do not with intellectual knowledge. Of course He knew them - He created them! But the 'knew' here is the same meaning as "Adam knew Eve and she conceived…". It is the intimate knowing of Christ in you and the new live He Himself conceives in you to replace the one He took to the cross with Him. What Christ is saying there is that the false teachers never were indwelt by the Holy Spirit - they were never born again.

And you don't have to tell me to be careful with my answer. I have not been careless anywhere on this board I am aware of. Thank you for your concern, though.

As far as the Gospel in the stars, I can only presume you are reading what you want to read out of it. That's your free will….grin. But you are not reading what has actually been said.

And, skipping the various implied insults in the rest of your post, thank you for at least crediting me with some intelligence. Yes, I do grasp Calvinism. And totally reject it as not being what the Bible is talking about.

To Larry - I don't see a contradiction in what I have said. Perhaps what I wrote on John 6 will help explain.

Folks, I have a day to run here. It is past 10:30 my time on the Pacific coast and I have an article to get out, some yard work to do, and half a house to clean at the least!

I'll check in tonight or tomorrow. Feel free to email me otherwise.

[email protected]