Featured Two major objections against Non-Calvinists answered

No, I was able to dispute you with scripture. You said a Christian is under a "law of sin" and I showed you scripture that says we have been made free from the law of sin.

Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

You can read, does this verse say that Christians have been made free from the law of sin?

Yes or no?

Therefore, Romans 7:14-25 cannot be speaking from the perspective of a saved person, as a saved person has been made free from the law of sin.

You should try taking your Calvinist blinders off when you read scripture, you might learn something.

 

First, I never said any Christian was "under the law of sin" - that is not what I said. I said that the law of INDWELLING SIN resides within all Christians. Romans 6 and 8 prove that as Paul exhorts Christians (not lost people) to YEILD (Rom. 6) to the Spirit and NOT TO YEILD to the flesh and to put to death the flesh (Rom. 8). If your flesh is without the law of indwelling sin then I expect you will never get sick and/or die because both are the direct results of and presence of "the law" of indwelling sin.

 

There is a difference between not being "under" the law of Sin in regard to condemnation or its penalty and not beiing under the POWER of indwelling sin in regard to its influence. Whenever a child of God chooses not to walk in the Spirit he is under the influence of indwelling sin or "the flesh" as no christian walks in the Spirit at all times or else there would be no need to exhort any Christian to "put off" the flesh and "put on" the new man.

 

That is not what Paul is saying. He is saying we are no longer under the dominion of sin. Even if we do sin, sin no longer owns us, sin can no longer give us the wage of death.

We now belong to Jesus, we are his servant, his slave. We do not earn life, but Jesus gives us the free gift of life.

But no Christian is under the law of sin, we have been made free of it. Paul says this repeatedly in Romans.

Rom 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.

Just as a woman who is married is bound to her husband, when we sinned we became bound to sin. The only escape is death. When we trusted Jesus we were baptized into his body and died with him to sin. We are no longer bound by sin, just as when a woman's husband dies, she is free to marry another man.

Rom 6:9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
10 For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

We are dead to sin, it has no more dominion over us.

Rom 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

We are not supposed to sin, and we have no license to sin. Nevertheless, sin no longer has dominion over us, we are free from sin and death. It cannot give us the wage of death now, now we belong to another, Christ.

So, you do not understand the concept at all.

 

I do not keep company with Calvinists who avoid using the term "author" when refuting the contention God created evil and sin. Just because someone claims to subscribe to Calvinism does not mean they are, in fact, a Calvinist. Not every Baptist Calvinist is confessional and covenantal. I am in the latter category. The differences between these groups are not just cosmetic.

I believe God uses the sinful choices of men for His purposes, but God did not create sin or evil. Perhaps you can find some Baptist Calvinists who disagree with this confessional, Particular Baptist position. If so, then I disagree with them as much as I do with you.

I think it is how you are reading it. The framers of the Confession are in effect saying, "God is not the author of, nor culpable for sin. However, God will use man's sinful actions to accomplish His purpose (second causes)."

I do take a different approach. God is not the "origin of man's desires and thus evil choices". Man is responsible for his own sin. At the risk of being redundant, God will use man's sin for His purpose, but He did not create that sin.

When I refer to man being responsible for his own sin, I am not using creative language. In other words man did not create something outside of God. The Reformers struggled with this. Truth be told theologians of all stripes have struggled with this. The Bible clearly tell us that God is not culpable for sin (Jas. 1:13). The Bible also tells us that God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all (1 JN. 1:5). Darkness is synonymous with sin/evil. So, while no theologian can adequately explain where evil came from, no one can lay the blame for evil with God. We must take what the Bible has revealed (no darkness at all) and not add to it in absence of other biblical evidence.

I see this through a different lens. God's desires become our desires. This occurs as we become more and more like Christ. The Holy Spirit writes the law of God in our hearts and minds (Heb. 10:16). The internal work of the Spirit progressively sanctifies us. The Spirit's work affects our desires and our choices. We are not robots. We freely choose. If we are free to choose God, why can we not freely choose against God? Well, we do in the micro. Christians still sin. But the true child of God will progress in his Christian walk. They are a new creature (2 Cor. 5:17) that is drawn to God through the Spirit. If you ask me how God coordinates the use of second causes to accomplish His purpose, I will truthfully answer, "I do not know". Then why do I hold to my position? Because I find no evidence in Scripture to suggest otherwise.

This is why anecdotes are just that. The only real substantive discussion on doctrinal matters is found in the scriptures.

I can pretty much guarantee the words of the framers of the 1689 LBC do not support your position. You are interpreting their words through your understanding, not the understanding they had when the wrote the Confession.

 

This is where our positions diverge. The Calvinist view of election teaches that God predestined a people for His own and brings them into covenant with Himself (i.e. "saves them") to the exclusion of all others. The individual is brought into covenant with God through (according to the Reformed ordo salutis), election/predestination, the Atonement, the general or "gospel call", the effectual or "inward call", regeneration, conversion (faith & repentance), justification, sanctification, and glorification.

A few final thoughts...

I am thankful that you were able to see the distinction I made between Calvinistic Baptists and Confessional/Covenantal Baptists (often called "Reformed Baptists). The 17th Century Baptists fit this latter description. They are the ones who produced the 1644/46 London Baptist Confession of Faith and the later 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith. Their view was more Reformed than many of the Calvinistic Baptists of today.

Why is this helpful to our discussions here on the BB? Because there are two categories of Baptists that some mistakenly merge into one. As I said before, I am Confessional and covenantal. I am not a dispensationalist. I may agree with my Calvinistic Baptist brethren on soteriology, but we disagree substantially on many other topics. I believe in elder rule, the Regulative Principle of Worship, Covenant Theology et. al. I state this just to inform you that Calvinists have internal battles. If I understand your position correctly you would have a similar disagreement with those who believe in the foreseen faith view. You hold to the corporate election view. I owe you the courtesy of recognizing your view of election differently than those who hold to foreseen faith view.

 

Skan, you also have my respect and thanks. It is good to dialogue in a way that glorifies God -- even in disagreement.

 

Read this carefully! Eight ponts to summarize why your whole position of corporate election is wrong is EXTREMELY BRIEF. Four points to summarize the contextual flow of John 6:29-65 is EXTREMELY BRIEF. I realize exactly what you are doing, but don't talk down your nose to me when you have not yet dealt at all with the most condemning point against your whole interpretation and that is the case of Judas found in the very context we are debating which proves election to office is not inseparable from election "to salvation." Any sunday school child who has been trained a few years in church knows that the call to apostleship occurred much later in the gospels than their call to follow Jesus and so they are not inseparable events. Just honestly deal with the objections rather than attempt to change the discussion to speculative philosophy. I know what you are doing and so do the others who support my position.

Of course, nobody is wrong on this forum regardless of the evidence to the contrary.

I refuse to leave the sphere of God's Word and enter into the sphere of secular speculative philosophy to define or defend what I believe . The fact that you flee to that refuge to defend your position is another form of eisgesis in my opinion. I have defended my position from the scriptures alone and the scriptural terms alone and I will not entertain any speculative philosophy in this discussion. I provided you two clear Biblcial terms that clearly express my Biblical based positon and that is sufficient to demonstrate and illustrate my position. Deal with it from a Biblical basis or let's stop the discussion.

I understand you are running as fast as you can from the subject we had been discussing - corporate election - and ignoring the objections placed before you in a BRIEF EIGHT POINTS. I understand that quite well. Now you want to change the subject and I understand why.

 

Was it not you that said you wanted to give me some "personal" advice? You brought it down on a "personal" level. Did I ask you for "personal" advice? No, I did not. Do you think I am so stupid I can't see what you are doing? It seems very apparent that you do think I am that stupid, especially with this kind of follow up.

We were talking about "corporate election" were we not? I did not change topic but you did! You changed it to "personal advice" and then changed it again another topic as I pointed out in my last post. Perhaps you might consider practicing what you are preaching?

First, I never saw this response and still don't know what post you placed it in.

Second, Jesus directly contradicts you by claiming he did choose Judas as an apostle and I quote:

Joh 6:70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?

He did not say "have not I chosen you ELEVEN"

Acts 1:17 For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry[/U][/B].

Tell me, how can Judas FALL from an office He never was chosen unto and never fille?

 

I accept your apology.

 

It is "perplexing" to YOU because you can't think outside your theological box. Your theological box demands that being elected to salvation and to apostolic office are inseparably connected. You have made this abundantly clear that is YOUR THINKING.

However, the facts of scriptural context repudiate the "box" you are trying to force them to fit. There are two indisputable clearly established Biblical facts:

1. Judas was without question chosen by Christ and the Father to the office of apostle:

Acts 1:17 For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.

Acts 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

Acts 1:25 That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.

Jn. 6:70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?
71 He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.

Lk 6:13 And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles;......17.... and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor.

There can be no question that both the Son and the Father CHOSE Judas to be an apostle.


2. Judas was NEVER a saved man :

Jn. 6:70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?

Present tense "IS" and no "devil" is saved.

Jn. 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

At minimum he is listed among those whom Christ knew from the beginning of their calling to follow him as disicples they were false professors among the "some of you that believe not."

So, he "IS" a devil at the chronological point of this discussion and according to John 6:64 Jesus knew "from the beginning" who the unbelievers were among his disciple and among which Judas is explicitly placed. This is long before John 17.

Jn. 17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

Hence, the Father gave Judas to Christ to be an Apostle, but the Father never gave Judas to Christ for eternal life (Jn. 17:2) and thus never gave Judas to Christ as part of that "ALL" of which NONE fail to come to Christ for eternal life and NONE given are ever lost (Jn. 6:37-39; 64-65).


Conclusion: You are "perplexed" because Scripture does not fit in your theological box and you can't think out of your box. Scripture demands Judas was given to the Son by the Father to be an apostle. Scripture demands the Father NEVER gave Judas to the Son for eternal life (Jn. 17:2) as ALL who come to Christ for eternal life, ALL do in fact come and NONE "of all" given are lost - Jn. 6:37-39).

Therefore, your interpretation of John 6 and 17 is simply wrong! John 17:2-3 and John 6 deals with the Father giving a specific number "as many as" and "OF ALL" to the Son for eternal life not apostleship, and ALL given do in fact come to Christ for eternal life and NONE given are lost. Hence, the call to apostleship and the call to follow Christ as Savior are not inseparable but very different in regard to purpose and time and Judas is indisputable proof of this.

 

May I add a slightly different contribution to the discussion? I agree with Biblicist that there is a distinction between Judas' calling as a disciple and the effectual call (calling to salvation). Judas was no more called to salvation than Pharaoh during the time of Moses. Judas, besides fuflling prophecy, is an example of 1 John 2:19, "They went out from us because they were never of us". Judas is an example of a false sheep in the fold.

Personally I would not use Judas to support either side of the Calvinist debate.