A Biblicist Alternative To Calvin-Arminian

All,

I apologize, someone must have re-arranged my "heresy" book shelf because I can't find Boettner's book.

What I do have, however, is a ten page paper I've written some time ago with footnotes.

Here it is:

Calvinism in its many forms has been heralded as anything from the pinnacle of Christian theological thought to the deepest depths of heresy. Despite the raging debate that has continued for over four hundred years most Christians have yet to come to a theologically sound understanding of why they are or why they are not a Calvinist. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that each of the five points of Calvinism are flawed and must be either rejected or drastically reinterpreted in order to arrive at a biblically correct theology. Due to the fact that a reinterpretation of all five points on a thorough scale is beyond the scope of this paper, its method shall be to identify the errors within the doctrine of Total Depravity, and in doing so illustrate the fallacy of the entire Calvinist system.

As one begins to consider the Calvinist Doctrine of Total Depravity its becomes quickly evident that words within the Calvinist system often times possess multiple meanings. This practice in itself is not necessarily problematic. Calvin himself clearly stated in his Institutes that his aim in organizing the scriptures was “to prepare and qualify students of theology for the reading of the divine word, that they may have an easy introduction to it, and be enabled to proceed in it without any obstruction”. It is understandable, therefore, that certain terms might warrant a greater degree of explanation. However, it seems unreasonable that so many biblical terms would be redefined within the Calvinist system to represent concepts that are radically different from their biblical counterparts. This indeed presents a serious problem.

Specifically in regards to Total Depravity it is recognized that, to a Calvinist, the term Total Depravity is synonymous with the term Total Inability. The Westminster Confession of Faith states it this way “Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto". Likewise, Faber offers that “Man’s corruption in consequence of the fall of Adam, is such, that all are conceived in sin and are born the children of wrath, unapt to any salutary goodness, propense to evil, dead in trespasses, and the slaves of iniquity”. Both of these verses at face value may be taken to mean that depravity simply refers to the inability of man to save himself and the fact that men are sinners. However, it is only when one considers the following statement by John Calvin that the real meaning of these statements becomes clear “As the spiritual life of Adam consisted with a union to his Maker, so an alienation from him was the death of his soul” .

It is evident then, that within Calvinism the term Total Depravity refers to more than the fact that man cannot save himself or that “there is none that seeketh after God” (Ro 3:11). Rather, Calvinism teaches the very soul of man has either been lost or corrupted to the point where it has ceased to exist. John Calvin believed that as a result of the fall the “Divine image was not utterly annihilated and effaced in him, yet it was so corrupted that whatever remains is but a horrible deformity.” Other men who followed Calvin have taken this thought further and taught that “not only that man lost the image of God through sin, but also that it changed into its reverse”

It is claimed that the scriptural evidence for these assertions are based on the many texts that speak of man being spiritually dead. Logical analogies are therefore drawn between being physically dead and spiritually dead. Consider the following statement by Boettner “If a man were dead, in a natural and physical sense, it would be readily granted that there is no further possibility of that man being able to perform any physical actions…If a man is dead spiritually, therefore, it is surely equally as evident that he is unable to perform any spiritual actions.”
This statement by Mr. Boettner illustrates a very subtle characteristic of the Calvinist system; the fact that it is in its entirety it is based on logic rather than the Word of God. For example, logically it is impossible to deny the truthfulness of the above statement. However, not all truth is logical and certainly not all logic is biblical. Logic simply means that conditionally true statements will result in equally true subsequent statements. Therefore if “A” equals “B” and “B” equals “C”, “A” and “C” will also be equal. However, if “A” does not equal “B” then the argument that “C” equals “A” is invalid. The point is that Mr. Boettner’s argument may well be logically true, but it is far from biblically true. There are significant differences between an inanimate body that has been vacated by the soul and an animate soul that has been separated from God. The scriptures do not teach annihilation of the soul or non-existence. To draw a corollary between physical death and spiritual death is therefore invalid.

Furthermore, we read in the scriptures that spiritually dead men do perform “spiritual” acts. For example, “dead” men attempt to keep the law (Ro 2:14), serve society on God’s behalf (Ro 13:4), exist forever in Hell where they are both conscious and thinking (Lu 16:23), resist the Holy Ghost (Acts 7:51), pray (Luke 18:10), and even worship what they believe to be God (Jn 4:20). Granted, this is not to say that any of these acts are looked upon with favor by Almighty God or endow the practitioners with any merit, quite the opposite is true. In Matthew 7:23 we read that that Jesus calls the many “wonderful” spiritual works that were performed by unbelievers “iniquity”, a term that is hardly synonymous with meritorious. What these instances and others do illustrate, however, is that mankind does retain an innate sense of God and “spirituality” in the
broad sense and is not “Totally Depraved” in the sense of soulful nonexistence.

Of course, Calvinism cannot deny the existence of spiritually positive acts in the lives of unregenerate men. The dilemma then becomes that fact that the presence of these acts contradicts their doctrine of Total Depravity. It is necessary therefore to create another doctrine to support the inadequacies of the initial doctrine. There are two ways in which Calvinists account for the presence of this spirituality in the unredeemed. The first way is to discount these acts by redefining the terms “moral”, “good”, and “spiritual”. From this view it is asserted that these acts are really none of the three but simply the “glimmerings of natural light” that yet reside within a man’s soul. Those who propose this view will quickly point out that this light merely “keeps him (man) a sinner and inexcusable before God.” What is being proposed then is that basically all “good” deeds that are performed by the unsaved are really insidious attempts to do evil. Needless to say, this argument is based on the fact that it is logically necessary to make the Calvinist doctrines work, not because there is warrant for such a position in the scriptures.

The second way in which Calvinists account for spiritual acts in the unredeemed is to declare the doctrine of Common Grace. This view suggests that God endows “common grace” upon the unrighteous in such a way as to allow them to perform good deeds and experience temporal blessings. Boettner defines the term this way “Common Grace is the source of all the order, refinement, culture, common virtue, etc. which we find in the world, and through it the moral power of truth upon the heart and conscience is increased and the evil passions of men are restrained. It does not lead to salvation, but keeps the world from becoming a veritable Hell”.

Again, this idea is based on logic and is not grounded in scriptural truth. The bible teaches that it is the presence of God’s people and God’s word that is the restraining element within the world (Matt 5:13) but also that there are principles in nature that are created by God that, when followed, will result in temporal success. (Ro 2:14) It may well be prudent to retain the term “common grace” to refer to the longsuffering of God and the many blessings associated with His goodness, but it is incorrect to use this phrase to refer to a blanket regeneration or spiritual endowment to all humankind. A simple look at the world will support this conclusion and illustrate that the common grace of Calvinism is not so common. Rather, the degree of virtue and civilization among people groups may be directly related to how they have received and responded to God’s Word throughout their history or how they have pragmatically followed the principles in nature that He has established.

It is worthy of pause at this point to comment on another characteristic of Calvinism, the fact that it is a unified whole. As mentioned, Calvinism is a logical system in which all of its points fit perfectly together. It must be understood therefore, that by use of the term Total Depravity not only is the other meaning of Total Inability in view, but also the doctrines of Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints. It is virtually impossible therefore to discuss the Calvinist doctrine of Total Depravity without discussing the other related doctrines. This illustrates a major strength of the Calvinist system, the fact that it possesses a vast number of logical collective arguments against which no popular theological system seems to be able to compare. This also illustrates another important point, the fact that Calvinism must be accepted or rejected wholeheartedly as a composite system and not on the relative merits of any of the individual points.

This fact is specifically illustrated in regards to the relationship of the doctrine of Total Depravity to the doctrine of the Sovereignty of God. When discussing the origin of Total Depravity, a Calvinist would agree at one level that Total Depravity is a result of Adam’s disobedience in the Garden of Eden. They would also maintain that at the time of Adam sinned he possessed a free, although untested will, but was fully free to choose obedience as opposed to evil. However, what Calvinism does not always so clearly communicate is that Calvinism teaches the Fall of Man must have occurred because that it was decreed by Almighty God. In reality therefore, although Calvinism claims that man was totally free (but not able) to avoid sin and that man is totally and completely culpable for his own actions, Adam had no choice but to sin because of God’s decree. If therefore, the decision for Adam to sin was God’s and God did not allow Adam the freedom of choice to do anything other than that which he decreed, God would of course be made responsible, or “the author” of sin. In other words, in Calvinism system a man is a sinner because God made him that way by His sovereign decree. This cannot be the case however as we are told numerous times in the scriptures that God is not the author of sin.

This common sense observation is nothing new to theology. Men as early as Augustine have recognized the fallacy of making God responsible for man’s actions by asserting that man has no free choice. In defense of itself, one would expect Calvinism to offer a legitimate defense of this position. However, in four hundred years of attempts, a legitimate one has not been found. Consider Bonar’s response to this issue when he states “Must God be the author of sin, because it is said that Israel and the Gentiles “were gathered together to do what His counsel had determined”? Let our opponents attempt an explanation of such a passage, and tell us how it can be made to harmonize with their theory.”

While this answer may well cause detractors to examine their own stand, it hardly serves as validation for the Calvinist teaching. Bonar’s response is indicative of the majority of Calvinistic responses to this issue. In short, they may be summed up in indignant assertions that man should not dare question God or that God has a right to do as He pleases. Either way, these types of responses are hardly adequate and only serve to illustrate once again is the fact that the strength of Calvinism lies in its collective reasoning, not in biblical truth.

Another area in which the Calvinist doctrine of Total Depravity contradicts the scriptures is in regards to the process of regeneration. Calvinism teaches that depravity results in the total death or enslavement of man’s will. God therefore sovereignly chooses certain individuals to salvation and equally chooses others to Hell. Man has no part in the process of regeneration, does not cooperate in it, and is the subject of it, not the agent. In the Calvinist system, God accomplishes the process of regeneration in the soul of the human being without the necessity of any condition being met. Men therefore, do not “trust” Christ; rather they are born spiritually in the same manner that they were born physically, totally unaware of the event until afterwards. This doctrine is a gross misinterpretation of the biblical texts.

The bible teaches that men are indeed separated from God and cannot come to Him on their own. However, there does exist a degree of grace that enables men to respond by choice to His call. This fact is demonstrated in many biblical texts. (De 30:10, 2 Kings 17:13, Is 55:6, Is 64:6, Ez 14:6, Joel 1:12-13, Ze 1:3-4, John 1:13, 2 Co 6:2 among others) This “common grace”(not of the Calvinist definition) has been granted to all men so that when they are illuminated by the Word of God they possess the ability to choose whether or not they will respond. (Titus 2:11, Ro 10:17) Regeneration then is a process that is initiated by God in the sense that he sent His unique Son into the world to provide the gift of salvation to all men. While Calvinism teaches that God only did this for the elect, the bible teaches that He did this for everybody.

What then is the correct understanding of the doctrine of Depravity? The bible clearly does teach that “all have sinned” (Ro 3:23), that man is spiritually dead (Eph 2:1) that none of man’s good works are pleasing in the sight of God (Is 64:6), and that man cannot of himself seek God or achieve salvation.(Ro3:11, Eph 2:8) These statements are in no way contradictory to a biblical view of Depravity.

The term that is translated “depravity” in the English language literally means “not standing the test” and refers to the condition of man’s corrupted nature. A biblical view of depravity is therefore reflected in the following statement “this corruption extends to every part of the unsaved person’s human nature (body, soul, spirit). It affects his thinking (Gen. 6:5; 8:21; Ro 1:21-23; 3:11; 8:5-8; 1 Co 2:14; Eph 4:17-18), his emotions and his attitudes (Jn. 3:19-20; Ro 1:24-32; 3:18; Eph 4:18), his will (Jn 5:40; Eph 2:2-3), and his body (Ro 8:10; I Co 15:50).” Man is therefore totally depraved in the sense that he is spiritually separated from God and possesses a disposition toward evil, but he is not depraved in the sense that his soul is lost or unrecognizable or that he is unable to respond to God’s offer of salvation.

This understanding does much to explain the many verses that indicate that man has a free will (Josh 21:15), can resist the Holy Spirit (Acts 7:51), and is responsible for his own actions (Jn5:29). It also makes plain the scriptures that refer to the fact that God is not willing that any should perish, the fairness of future judgement, and the eternal state of both the redeemed and the lost. Within the Calvinist system, each of these truths must be reinterpreted in order to conform to the logical system that bears its name. The result, as has been mentioned, is that Calvinism emerges as a logically correct, though biblically bankrupt theology of man.

In summary then, we may conclude that Calvinism is mistaken in regards to the cause, the extent, and the condition of depravity. Unregenerate man is no doubt depraved in the sense that he is spiritually wholly separated from God and his nature has been corrupted, resulting in a disposition towards sin. However, this corruption does not equate to spiritual nonexistence, is not a result of the Sovereign decree of God, nor does it prevent a lost sinner from accepting God’s offer that “Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Ro 10:13). The Calvinist doctrine of Total Depravity, therefore, should be rejected on the basis that it is biblically incorrect and theologically deficient.

 

Footnotes Below:

Calvin, John
Institutes of the Christian Religion, Author’s preface.

Boettner
The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, p.61

Faber
Faber’s Primitive Doctrine of Election p. 35

Calvin, John
Institutes on the Christian Religion, p. 270

Calvin, John
Institutes of the Christian Religion, p.208

Hoeksema
Reformed Dogmatics, p.269

Boettner
The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, p.66

Hoeksema p.270

Boettner p.179

Kersten
Reformed Dogmatics, p. 212

Bonar
The Five Points of Calvinism, p. 24

Boettner
The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, p.164-171

Contrary to Hoeksema who states “so (because of common grace) at the very day of his fall man did not die”, p.270

 

Biblicists it looks like you are being attacked by the bowry boys. I guess I missed something when I read the opening of this thread. It was mentioned that it's purpose was to make clear how Ivey Leaguer feels he differentiates his beliefs from Calvin or Arminius, which he did nicely point by point.
I agree with Ivey Leaguers stand pretty much, does that make me and Ivey Leaguer.The main point being is that there is a ground that is not Calvinist or arminean.
The way this discussion is going I wonder if some here have even bothered reading the opening article in full.

 

READ??? Do I have too?

 

OK ... is a Christian a Biblicist?

 

Not always. Look at our own members who don't believe Genesis is literal!

 

Your "facts" are a little off. As Russell and ScottJ pointed out, your view of history is a little near-sighted, and you may want to read up instead of just throwing out claims and assertions that have no real basis in fact.

Oddly enough...you're the one that opened this can of worms. If you would have tried to discuss the actual text of Scripture instead of making baseless accusations on a subject you obviously know little about we would not be sidetracked right now.

My question about calling is: who does God call in regards to salvation? Pick any verse (or three) to use.

 

No, people aren't attacking you, they're debating your ideas. They've been quite civil, I might add. You can't put ideas out forcefully like you have and not expect people to debate them just as strongly. What did you expect? Everyone to just roll over and play dead because you said so?

You are beginning to cross a line with this comment, though:

Just because you can't understand something doesn't mean it's nonsense.

Except what you say I said isn't what I said. (We'd save a lot of time and space if you'd let go of the misconceptions you have about what Calvinism teaches and read what REAL LIVE Calvinists tell you it teaches. But I suppose straw men are so much easier to knock over.....) I didn't say God was behind the scenes like a puppet master purposefully choosing men's decisions, did I? We choose. God doesn't choose instead of us. He does choose when to let us make bad choices, and when to keep us from making bad choices, and when to influence us to make good choices.

Let me ask you a question: Does God have his hands off human choices? Does he just let us do whatever we please all the time? Does he ever restrain our choices? Does he ever influence them? Okay, that's more than one question, but will you answer them anyway?

Me too. If I make a choice, I look at all the options, consider them, and make a choice based on my own motives, my own desires, and my own reasoning.

Please explain how God planning for me to make a certain decision means it is not my own personal choice? When the King of Assyria went up against Israel in Isaiah chapter 10, was it his own personal choice or not? Did God plan for him to do it or not?

Where did I base my soteriology on it? Are you reading what I write? I simply used that quote to suggest to you that God planning for certain choices to be made is compatible with people making real choices. Joseph's brothers who made their own personal choices with their own personal motives, and God, who planned for them to make that choice had his own motives as well. Separate motive means separate choices. Separate motives and separate choices means no puppetry.

First of all, as I explained, it is not unrelated to the subject of people making choices, which was what I related it to. Secondly, Joseph's statement has theological content. Joseph talks about God planning to do something through the agency of certain men who made a certain sinful choice. That tells us something about the way God works through the sinful choices of men. That's theology. Unless, of course, you think Joseph was out to lunch.

Absolutely. I don't know if you're thinking a Calvinist would disagree with this or not, but let me say that one wouldn't. God gave Adam free reign to sin, knowing that he would, and also knowing that that would corrupt all the sons and daughters of Adam. God saw where creation was headed. He could have changed things, he could have prevented it all, but he chose not to, because he had good reasons for allowing sin to enter his creation. He was working out a grand plan of redemption that he ordained even before the foundation of the world. He ordained a Redeemer, so he was planning for there to be sin. The whole thing--that men would sin, and that God would redeem them--was all worked out (ordained) before God created.

No one says God makes people make bad choices. What they do say is that God ordains even bad choices. That means he choose to allow specific bad choices. If you're going to try to engage in a discussion of these things then stop making the other side say things they don't say. Otherwise, you're just blowing a lot of smoke.

I'm sorry you couldn't find the Boettner quote. I'm pretty sure he didn't way what you think he said. Just like, for the most part, I didn't say what you think I said.

 

Hey, I didn't enter the fray until Biblicist misrepresented what Calvinists believe! You can't poison the well like that and expect people to take it sitting down, can you? If he makes untrue statements about what Calvinists believe, wouldn't you expect those who are Calvinists to come to their own defense?

 

All, my comments are really not to you. I'm standing against your position in case anyone else out there is interested in a third position which you will not allow to either IveyLeaguer, myself, or anyone else.

I have seen how Calvnists overwhelm new believers and lay people with their doctrine. I think its heresy and I've given you my reasons.

You guys keep saying I'm misunderstanding you which is fine. I can't speak to all of the millions of variations of Calvinist out there.

You are also saying I'm misrepresenting Calvinism, which I am not. I've read thousands of pages on it and studied it for years. Am I misunderstanding it or do you not understand what your own system teaches? I would be willing to bet that none of you have read Boettner or Calvin, or Beza or maybe even some others.

Anyway Russell, I'll reply to your question.

Here is your quote:

"Please explain how God planning for me to make a certain decision means it is not my own personal choice? When the King of Assyria went up against Israel in Isaiah chapter 10, was it his own personal choice or not? Did God plan for him to do it or not?"

This is what I mean in my paper where I say in Calvinism words have more than one meaning. When you say "plan", maybe you mean "plan". But that's not what Calvinism teaches. When Calvinism talks about God allowing sin in His plan, it is referring to GODS SOVEREIGN DECREE.

There is a big difference between God having a plan based on foreknowledge and God sovreignly decreeing Adam's sin. There is also a big difference between God influencing human history and knowing how to manipulate certain specific events and God not allowing human choice.

The distinction is found in what you mean by plan. By "plan" I mean "plan". Calvinism teaches that God Sovereignly decrees every miniscule detail that comes to pass. Don't yell at me, go read your own theologians.

I'm not saying that God couldn't make all miniscule decisions by decree, He just chose not to according to the scriptures.

Now, here is one for you.

If:
#1-As sinners before salvation we sin willfully because of our sin nature. (which I agree with)
and
#2-God gives us a new nature before or immediately at the point of salvation that results in us cheefully and willfully choosing Him because of that new nature.

Then, why didn't Adam who had no sin nature cheerfully and willfully choose Him in the Garden?

 

Your "facts" are a little off. As Russell and ScottJ pointed out, your view of history is a little near-sighted, and you may want to read up instead of just throwing out claims and assertions that have no real basis in fact.

Oddly enough...you're the one that opened this can of worms. If you would have tried to discuss the actual text of Scripture instead of making baseless accusations on a subject you obviously know little about we would not be sidetracked right now.

My question about calling is: who does God call in regards to salvation? Pick any verse (or three) to use. </font>[/QUOTE]Guys, what's funny is that most of the time I'm at work (whistling and humming with unadulterated joy by the way) and I jot down a few notes every now and then. I'm going off memory so don't expect me to bring bibliographies with me. I should have never gone down the road of pointing out the flaws of Calvin himself. That really is irrelevant. I just don't understand New Testament christians married to the not so formerly Roman Catholic reformers but that's another topic.

I may have spoken too quickly when I said "Anabaptist". That was definitely Zwingli. Calvin had Michael Servetus killed, who was not an Anabaptist. My bad, he didn't kill any anabaptists, he had another guy killed...but I digress.

None of you have offered any scripture whatsoever so please give me a break with the patronizing comments. I've given you a 10 page paper with some scripture in there, although its not exhaustive. Also, Let me remind you that it is YOU will not allow a third position other than Calvinism/Arminianism although both Ivey and myself have attempted to demonstrate two different ones.

J, your question is loaded. You give me a verse that says God calls anyone and I'll explain how I see it. If I answer that question I'm accepting your premise that God calls people to salvation. "Call" is your term. You brought it up, you explain it.

The bible says "Come unto me all you that are weary and heavy laden and I will give you rest".

All means all. All that meet the conditions of "weary" and "heavy laden" anyway....lol.

"Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." In that verse its man doing the calling. What do you think about that?

I go back to what do you mean by call? Give me some bible brother. This will go nowhere.

[ February 23, 2005, 10:25 PM: Message edited by: Biblicist ]

 

Yikes! Now I know for sure I'm in the wrong place.......I was kind of figuring that out already but this helps confirm what I knew....haha.

Hey guys, that means the name "Biblicist" will soon be available so please don't fight over it. First come first served.

 

This stuff drives me nuts. I just don't see this in scripture anywhere.

Here is your quote:

"He (God) does choose when to let us make bad choices, and when to keep us from making bad choices, and when to influence us to make good choices."

If that is not a "puppet master" I don't know what is. I understand exactly what you are saying, namely that when we sin we are doing what is natural and God is just allowing it. I believe that God restrains men through Christians and His Word.

Let's apply logic to this formula. So, if what you are saying is true, would you agree with this:

"He does choose when to let us sin, and when to keep us from sinning, and when to influence us to not sin."

I know I'm changing your word "choices" to "sin". Do you still agree with it?

If so and all that is true, what is the point of sin? Why couldn't we have just avoided this whole sin thing? Why wouldn't God just save everyone. Is that a "mystery" to "real live" Calvinists?

 

It is heresy?
Really?

Heresy?
Come on.

 

Guys, for those interested in the Michael Servetus issue, here is a seemingly well documented website. Its unitarian, and I'm no unitarian, but again it seems to be well documented.

http://www.uua.org/uuhs/duub/articles/michaelservetus.html

Keep in mind, I'm not saying this is a reason on its own to reject Calvin's theology. I certainly don't agree with Servetus' theology.

 

My Calvinist friends always get a kick out of that too.

You tell me, is Arminianism heresy?

Just curious.

I think most of Calvinism is just wrong. I'm not too worried about that. I believe the doctrine of limited atonement, however, is pure unadulterated heresy. I know there are all kind of qualifiers, but I just think people are wise to tread lightly on this one. Make sure you mean what you think you mean.

My opinion of course. Now, is Arminianism heresy?

 

Historically, Arminianism was deemed heresy, was it not?

Arminianism is wrong, no doubt. I'd have to think about it a little bit before I'd say it is heresy. (It might help if we defined what exactly "heresy" means, you know?)

I am not sure what you believe, your position as stated (albeit, in pieces) is odd. I am not sure of the consistency of your position, maybe you could explain your position a little better.

[ February 23, 2005, 11:07 PM: Message edited by: JGrayhound ]

 

Hi J,

I'm sure I could explain it better my friend! Lord knows this subject comes with lots of preconceived ideas.

To answer your question and mine, I would say that Arminianism is heresy. It was condemned, but so were most of the views of the reformers so you can't always go by that. Personally, I think something is heresy when it attacks or undermines a root principle of the faith. Salvation by works, for example. In the case of limited atonement, I feel as though its attacking the efficacy of the work of Jesus Christ on the Cross.

John 3:16 talks about Christ's death for the whole world as well as numerous other passages. Of course, a Calvinist would say that means the world "of the elect" among other explanations but whatever, that's not what it says. Saying Jesus didn't die for the sins of mankind is pure heresy in my book.

Anyway, I'm just a fundamental independant baptist. I believe in the virgin birth, inerrancy of scriptures,etc.

When it comes to salvation, I believe that man is totally depraved and a lost soul. When God's word is preached to him, the spirit of God uses that word to convict him and illuminates his understanding of who God is and who he is. God uses His word to draw that man to himself. The man may chose to either reject or accept that tug on his heart from the spirit and receive salvation. Actually, you could say that the man now has a new found ability because of the spirit working through God's word to accept or reject God's offer of salvation that in and of himself he would have never had.

God knew that man would be saved based on God's foreknowledge as per 1 Peter, but God did not sovereignly decree for that man to get saved on that day at that second. He knew he would, but He did not MAKE him do it. God says that "Today if you hear his voice and harden not your hearts" is the day of salvation. In other words, God is always ready to receive the repentant. Nothing surprises God, He knows the end from the beginning, but He does not decree every miniscule act. (although He has the power to)

In the Calvinist view (and here I go getting yelled at again), God chose that man before the foundation of the world based on His arbitrary, albeit perfect will which is His right as Sovereign Lord. He gives that man a new nature PRIOR to the man's choice to get saved and draws that man by the spirit to make the choice to be saved.

In both scenarios, God does all of the saving. In my scenario, God draws by the spirit through His word and salvation is based on a decision of faith by the sinner to accept God's offer once its made clear to him through God's word by the spirit.

In the other scenario, all of those things happen after conversion basically. After the new nature is already given by God.

In the Arminian view the man one day just up and decides he's going to get saved and so he does. That's not biblical at all.

Does that help?

[ February 23, 2005, 11:43 PM: Message edited by: Biblicist ]

 

I've read Boettner and Calvin and Beza and The Synod of Dordt and the Westminster Confession and the London Baptist Confession and Luther and Charles Hodge and Jonathan Edwards and John Owen and Whitefield and Spurgeon and and the Murrays and Pink and Packer and Augustine and Sproul and MacArthur and Ridderbos and....need I go on? I don't misunderstand the system.

Absolutely. Perhaps you don't understand what a decree is. God's decrees are what He has said will happen. What he said would happen before creation. Something can be decreed by way of permission. Even systematic Arminianism has God decreeing the fall by way of permission in the same way that Calvinism has God decreeing the fall by way of permission. The order of the decrees is different, but they both have God decreeing the fall in the same way.

You did not answer my questions about Isaiah 10. You quoted the questions, but didn't answer it. Here it is again: When the king of Assyria went up against Israel in Isaiah 10, was it his own personal choice? Did God send him?

Yes, of course. And we have scripture to support that. God "works all things according to the counsel of his will." The counsel of his will is what he has decided will happen. The counsel of his will is his plan. The counsel of his will is what he decrees. And God works all things according to it. Last I heard, every miniscule detail is included in all things.

Please point me to the scripture that says God doesn't work all things according to the counsel of his will.

Then, why didn't Adam who had no sin nature cheerfully and willfully choose Him in the Garden?

We know 1 and 2 are true on the basis of scripture.

We don't know what the impetus was for Adam's sin because scripture doesn't tell us. We do know, however, that even Adam wasn't intrinsically righteous. Any righteousness in him was derived righteousness--righteousness derived from God.

Your question doesn't seem to be really about why Adam sinned, though, but about why he didn't look forward to the provision God would make for his sin for salvation (and I don't know that this is true, we're not told). If it's true, then it's because he did as his corrupt nature caused him to do.

Why would I offer scripture to refute something I don't believe? Why would I offer scripture to refute misrepresentations of what I believe? That's like asking why a man accused unfairly of beating his wife doesn't offer scriptural explanations of why its okay to beat his wife. He doesn't need to because he doesn't beat his wife. However, the scripture I did give (Isaiah 10, Acts 4, Genesis 50) you either chose to ignore or dismissed out of hand.

Of course. Your only other option is to deny either one of these:
</font>

• God is not powerful enough to stop each individual sin.</font>
• God is does not know the future acts of free agents, so he can't stop each individual sin.</font>
• God just is not interested in what's going on down here on earth.</font>
• God is arbitrary.</font>

Scripture tells us God restrains evil, so we know he sometimes chooses to stop people from sinning. It also tells us that he sometimes purposefully allows people to sin, like he did with those who crucified Jesus, for instance, or the King of Assyria in Isaiah 10 (Did you look at it?) because he has good purposes he wants to accomplish through their sinful acts. (See, scripture. Look at it. Deal with it.) Do you need scripture as proof that he influences people not to sin? How about, "for it is God who works in you both to will and to do his good pleasure?"

When I'm appointed to God's privy counsel I'll give you the whole answer. I suppose part of it is that he wants to show his grace by redeeming men. Suggestions of that particular purpose are found in scripture. Whatever it is, it's a good purpose and he's got one.

Because God's got a good purpose in allowing sin. That's just about as far as I can go without speaking where scripture doesn't.

Because God's got a good purpose in not saving everyone.

Why would you say God didn't just save everyone?