What is a Calvinist?

[quote-Jay] To say that it is ‘the good pleasure of His will’ and ‘to the praise of the glory of His grace’ for someone to murder and torture other people almost points the finger back at God as responsible albeit indirectly.

You misunderstood what I wrote.

It was not the murder and torture that I was referring to as God’s good pleasure from Eph 3. It was the timing of God saving Paul and David that was for His good pleasure. Obviously God could have saved them prior to the murder and torture but He didn’t.

[TylerR] I am aware of the seeming inconsistency in upholding God’s absolute sovereignty and man’s willfull rejection at the same time.

There’s not a seeming inconsistency in the Calvinist view. God is absolutely sovereign and man willfully rejects God. It is only when God replaces the heart of stone with a fleshly heart (Eze 11:19 & 36:26) that man has the ability to do OTHER than willfully reject. Dead Lazarus could not will himself to live, but when Jesus commanded him out of the tomb, the command carried life and the ability to obey the command. Regeneration provides the repentance and faith necessary to believe and those gifts always actuate in belief.

[TylerR] How can folks be condemned for rejecting the record of Christ’s work if the benefits of this work were never offered to them in the first place?

The benefits of Christ’s work ARE offered in the preaching of the Gospel and unregenerate men reject it all day long every day because their “carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be (Rom. 8:7).

[TylerR] Therefore, we must tell everybody to repent and believe.

YES and AMEN!

The difference between Arminianism, Calvinism, and Hyper-Calvinism:

Arminianism and Calvinism agree that all men everywhere should repent.

Arminianism and Calvinism DISagree about their natural ability to repent. Arminianism insists that the command implies ability, arguing that God cannot require that which man is incapable of doing.

Calvinism and Hyper-C agree that all men everywhere do not have the natural ability to repent.

Calvinism and Hyper-C DISagree about their responsibility. Hyper-C insists that the lack of natural ability implies a lack of responsibility. That is why Hyper-C’s deny that the “gospel is to be offered indiscriminately to all (Art. 29).”

The Doctrinal Statement of The Gospel Standard Churches (England) is Hyper-C:

ARTICLE 24 (p.34)
GOSPEL INVITATIONS
We believe that the invitations of the Gospel, being spirit and life*, are intended only for those who have been made by the blessed Spirit to feel their lost state as sinners and their need of Christ as their Saviour, and to repent of and forsake their sins.

* That is, under the influence of the Holy Spirit.

ARTICLE 26 (p.35)
DUTY FAITH AND DUTY REPENTANCE DENIED
We deny duty faith and duty repentance – these terms signifying that it is every man’s duty to spiritually and savingly repent and believe . We deny also that there is any capability in man by nature to any spiritual good whatever. So that we reject the doctrine that men in a state of nature should be exhorted to believe in or turn to God .

ARTICLE 29 (p.37)
INDISCRIMINATE OFFERS OF GRACE DENIED
While we believe that the Gospel is to be preached in or proclaimed to all the world, as in Mark 16. 15, we deny offers of grace; that is to say, that the gospel is to be offered indiscriminately to all.

[Jay] It doesn’t matter if you identify yourself as Calvinist or not. It doesn’t matter if what you believe about the scope of the potentially redeemed and whether faith precedes belief or vice versa. What matters is that we follow Him. Let’s go find some unsaved people and give them the gospel.

and

I just have to do what God told me to do, so it really doesn’t matter if I’m Calvinist or not (and, for the record, I consider myself more Arminian).

Clearly it does matter to you as you self-identify as “more Arminian.”

I too think it matters because it affects how you present the Gospel to unsaved people. I wrote an entire blog article last year on the issue - Preaching & Evangelism​

A Calvinist will not tell a lost person that Christ died for them as the reason they should believe. Since Calvinists affirm particular redemption, and since we do not know who the elect are, we don’t know if Christ died for the lost person we are talking to. What we will boldly say is that if they repent and believe they will find that God is willing and able to save them. That approach is the example we find in the NT.

Since an Arminian will reject this approach it would certainly affect partnership in evangelism, so it does matter what one believes.

[JohnBrian]

TylerR wrote:

How can folks be condemned for rejecting the record of Christ’s work if the benefits of this work were never offered to them in the first place?

The benefits of Christ’s work ARE offered in the preaching of the Gospel and unregenerate men reject it all day long every day because their “carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be (Rom. 8:7).

[JohnBrian]

I too think it matters because it affects how you present the Gospel to unsaved people. I wrote an entire blog article last year on the issue - Preaching & Evangelism​

A Calvinist will not tell a lost person that Christ died for them as the reason they should believe. Since Calvinists affirm particular redemption, and since we do not know who the elect are, we don’t know if Christ died for the lost person we are talking to. What we will boldly say is that if they repent and believe they will find that God is willing and able to save them. That approach is the example we find in the NT.

Since an Arminian will reject this approach it would certainly affect partnership in evangelism, so it does matter what one believes.

[JohnBrian]

Jay wrote:

It doesn’t matter if you identify yourself as Calvinist or not. It doesn’t matter if what you believe about the scope of the potentially redeemed and whether faith precedes belief or vice versa. What matters is that we follow Him. Let’s go find some unsaved people and give them the gospel.

and

I just have to do what God told me to do, so it really doesn’t matter if I’m Calvinist or not (and, for the record, I consider myself more Arminian).

Clearly it does matter to you as you self-identify as “more Arminian.”

I too think it matters because it affects how you present the Gospel to unsaved people. I wrote an entire blog article last year on the issue - Preaching & Evangelism​

A Calvinist will not tell a lost person that Christ died for them as the reason they should believe. Since Calvinists affirm particular redemption, and since we do not know who the elect are, we don’t know if Christ died for the lost person we are talking to. What we will boldly say is that if they repent and believe they will find that God is willing and able to save them. That approach is the example we find in the NT.

Since an Arminian will reject this approach it would certainly affect partnership in evangelism, so it does matter what one believes.

No, JohnBrian, I will disagree with you again here.

Clearly it does matter to you as you self-identify as “more Arminian.”

There are two reasons why I use the term.

• The majority of SI readers will have some idea what it is and, if they don’t, can click a link for quick reference so they can know where I land on this topic.
• The site has received criticism for being ‘too Calvinistic’. So by choosing to identify my beliefs by the system (although I usually prefer not to), I can counter that perception. I don’t go around introducing myself as “Jay the Arminian”, and my goal isn’t to create more Arminian disciples.

You also said:

Synergism is focused on the response, and the success of evangelistic enterprises is determined by the quantity of respondents.

Is really man-centered easy believism. It’s not Arminian theology, and depending on how it’s presented, may not be the gospel at all.

JohnBrian:

Appreciate the link about hyper-Calvinist statement of faith. I have never read anything by real hyper-Calvinists (critics try to tar normal Calvinists with that brush, and they’re wrong). Very odd. They are clearly in error.

[JohnBrian]

The word propitiation “involves appeasing the wrath of an offended person and being reconciled to him.” You affirm that Christ’s death appeased the wrath of God for all men without exception but only potentially, not actually. If it in fact was actual then you would be a universalist and you are not. I affirm that it was actual only for the elect, which is the “whosoever believes” of John 3:16.

How can you say that Christ’s death actually appeased the wrath of God for the elect and still claim that they are at any point actually lost? I know you claim that is not what you are saying, but it sure seems like it to me.

[JohnBrian]
Boettner, in his Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, uses the analogy of a bridge:

Let there be no misunderstanding at this point. The Arminian limits the atonement as certainly as does the Calvinist. The Calvinist limits the extent of it in that he says it does not apply to all persons (although as has already been shown, he believes that it is efficacious for the salvation of the large proportion of the human race); while the Arminian limits the power of it, for he says that in itself it does not actually save anybody. The Calvinist limits it quantitatively, but not qualitatively; the Arminian limits it qualitatively, but not quantitatively. For the Calvinist it is like a narrow bridge which goes all the way across the stream; for the Arminian it is like a great wide bridge which goes only half-way across. As a matter of fact, the Arminian places more severe limitations on the work of Christ than does the Calvinist. [p.153] (text here)

If Calvinism truly teaches that Christ’s death has actually accomplished the salvation of sinners as Boettner states, then in what sense can any one of the elect be considered lost even prior to conversion? I am sorry if I seem to simply be reiterating my question, but you still have not offered any real response or explanation of how it can be otherwise.

[JohnBrian]

Spurgeon, in his Particular Redemption sermon (#181, pt. V, pg. 7 of the pdf), said:

We say Christ so died that He Infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ’s death not only may be saved but are saved, must be saved and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved!

I know you said that your argument does not necessitate that the elect are born redeemed, but it sure seems like you, Boettner and Spurgeon are all saying exactly that. Now I suppose that you could respond by saying that Christ’s death appeased God’s wrath for the elect, so that their eventual salvation was secured, but that is nothing more than saying that Christ’s death potentially appeased God’s wrath for the elect, contingent upon their eventual salvation, and you have already said you do not believe that.
It may seem that I am being belligerent, but I am not intending to be so. I have never had any Calvinist (living or dead) offer a logically consistent explanation of limited atonement, though many have tried.

While we’re on the topic of Lorraine Boettner, what do you think about the doctrine of reprobation, JohnBrian? Boettner agrees with it, as did Calvin himself.

Jay,

JohnBrian will have to answer for himself, but, since you asked about reprobation. This is a portion of an article found on Ligonier. I think it provides a clear, concise answer to your question.

First, the fact is that all mankind is in sin and rebellion against God. God does not have to elect anybody. When God chooses to save a sinner, He puts forth an action to save that person. God works to create belief in us. This contrasts with the doctrine of reprobation. God does not put forth an effort to cause people to sin. When God chooses to bypass a sinner, He does not work to create unbelief in that person’s heart. Rather, God simply lets him go his own way.

Thus, second, we say that election and reprobation are not “equally ultimate.” In election, God powerfully acts to change a person from a sinner to a saint. God does not act to change a saint into a sinner. Election is an act of God; reprobation is simply the reflex of that action, the fact that God has not elected everybody.

Third, we have to say that God’s action of deciding to save some is simultaneously a decision not to save others. The decision to save is called election, and the decision not to save is called preterition. Since this is one action, it can be seen as two sides of one coin, and “equally ultimate” in that sense.

But, and this is most important, when God implements election by calling the saints, He saves us apart from anything we have done. When God implements preterition by reprobating the wicked, He does not do anything to them; He simply leaves them alone. In this important sense, the work of God in condemning the wicked is not the reverse side of His work in saving sinners.

Chip,

Thanks for the explanation. I’ve heard it before from other Calvinists, but I don’t accept it. It seems like a bit of convenient illogic to build a system that is completely based on God’s selection of some and then argue that those who were not selected are simply ‘passed over’ and that they are condemned as a result of their own sins because God chose to “pass them over”. If God chooses to pass them over, then how can they be held culpable for their rejection of God? Romans 9 essentially tells us to stop asking the question (which I am fine with), but since I don’t see reprobation clearly taught in Scripture, I’m hesitant to agree with it or teach it as the natural ‘reflex of that action’. It seems to me like a logical next step, but but I don’t see a scriptural basis in Scripture for it. That might be why even the staunchest Calvinists get defensive when questioned about it, if they are willing to even acknowledge that there is a validity to the question. Having read more than a few Calvinist writers in grad school, I was not impressed with their rejection of reprobation or their defense of it, if they did choose [and yes, the pun is intended =)] to go that route.

That, when combined with the free offering of salvation to all and any - starting in the OT with the call for pagans to convert to Judaism to be saved from their sin and in light of passages like I John 2:1-2, and John 3:12-21, where it is clear that the call to salvation is available to ‘all’, ‘any’, or ‘whosoever’. Then there’s arguments elsewhere that God is not willing for any to perish in Peter (and other language to that effect elsewhere), so it seems to me that it is best and simplest to argue that God offers salvation to all, and that those who are able to respond are able to do so because of God’s enabling grace (John 6:36-71). Those who hear the gospel and reject it are therefore self condemning (cf John 9:35-41).

So my issue isn’t as much a rejection of predestination as much as a rejection of reprobation, which I see as a necessarily critical component of Calvinism.

Finally, we have no problem acknowledging the ability to choose in other contexts. I’m choosing to reply to you on my lunch break. You chose the outfit you’re wearing today, probably the computer and web browser that you’re using, and certainly to look up Ligioner and share that with me. Another person will choose to buy a specific commentary over another. God himself chooses - and we are made in His Image. So why does ‘choice’ become an issue when we enter the realm of theology? And if ‘choice’ is the issue, then why not just go the full mile and say that God preordained everything to come to pass, and it must all happen that way (Theological Determinism)?

I clearly see - in both Testaments - the ability of man to reject God’s call and prophesies, especially in the OT prophets to both other countries, Israel and Judah itself. Yet we don’t say that the nations were reprobated to rebellion against God (to take this concept out of a salvific context). So why do we argue that it’s a part of the Calvinist system? Especially without Scriptural support for it?

You can’t have a cake you want and then insist that you don’t want it too. :)

[Chip Van Emmerik]

Jay,

JohnBrian will have to answer for himself, but, since you asked about reprobation. This is a portion of an article found on Ligonier. I think it provides a clear, concise answer to your question.

First, the fact is that all mankind is in sin and rebellion against God. God does not have to elect anybody. When God chooses to save a sinner, He puts forth an action to save that person. God works to create belief in us. This contrasts with the doctrine of reprobation. God does not put forth an effort to cause people to sin. When God chooses to bypass a sinner, He does not work to create unbelief in that person’s heart. Rather, God simply lets him go his own way.

Thus, second, we say that election and reprobation are not “equally ultimate.” In election, God powerfully acts to change a person from a sinner to a saint. God does not act to change a saint into a sinner. Election is an act of God; reprobation is simply the reflex of that action, the fact that God has not elected everybody.

Third, we have to say that God’s action of deciding to save some is simultaneously a decision not to save others. The decision to save is called election, and the decision not to save is called preterition. Since this is one action, it can be seen as two sides of one coin, and “equally ultimate” in that sense.

But, and this is most important, when God implements election by calling the saints, He saves us apart from anything we have done. When God implements preterition by reprobating the wicked, He does not do anything to them; He simply leaves them alone. In this important sense, the work of God in condemning the wicked is not the reverse side of His work in saving sinners.

There is some mystery in these doctrines of predestination, but as we have said before, if we don’t say that God predestines all things, we don’t have a God at all. If He is not totally sovereign, He is only a “big man” like Zeus or Baal. At the same time, there are some things we can say about the doctrines of election and reprobation, and we need to say them.

So in this paragraph he is saying that if we don’t have a God who predestinates all things, then we don’t have a God at all. Then in the next paragraph he says of a sinner, “God simply lets him go his own way.” Well does a person actually have “his own way” if God is truly predestinating all things? In regards to preterition, the author says God “does not do anything to them, he simply leaves them alone.” How can God leave someone alone if God is fully sovereign? Maybe the author was just writing in a general sense, and there is actually a more precise way to state the position, but it sounds on the surface to be contradictory.

So in this paragraph he is saying that if we don’t have a God who predestinates all things, then we don’t have a God at all. Then in the next paragraph he says of a sinner, “God simply lets him go his own way.” Well does a person actually have “his own way” if God is truly predestinating all things? In regards to preterition, the author says God “does not do anything to them, he simply leaves them alone.” How can God leave someone alone if God is fully sovereign?

Kevin, this is actually fairly easy for Calvinists to handle. They simply write it off as “the secret things of the Lord”.

It may be asked, Why does God save some and not others? But that belongs to His secret counsels. Precisely why this man receives, and that man does not receive, when neither deserves to receive, we are not told. That God was pleased to set upon us in this His electing grace must ever remain for us a matter of adoring wonder. Certainly there was nothing in us, whether of quality or deed, which could attract His favorable notice or make Him partial to us; for we were dead in trespasses and sins and children of wrath even as others (Ephesians 2:1-3). We can only admire, and wonder, and exclaim with Paul, “O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past tracing out!” The marvel of marvels is not that God, in His infinite love and justice, has not elected all of this guilty race to be saved, but that He has elected any. When we consider, on the one hand, what a heinous thing sin is, together with its desert of punishment, and on the other, what holiness is, together with God’s perfect hatred for sin, the marvel is that God could get the consent of His holy nature to save a single sinner. Furthermore, the reason that God did not choose all to eternal life was not because He did not wish to save all, but that for reasons which we cannot fully explain a universal choice would have been inconsistent with His perfect righteousness.
-Lorraine Boettner, Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, p. 71

Or Calvin, in his Institutes [Page 739 and 758]:

But before I enter on the subject, I have some remarks to address to two classes of men. The subject of predestination, which in itself is attended with considerable difficulty is rendered very perplexed and hence perilous by human curiosity, which cannot be restrained from wandering into forbidden paths and climbing to the clouds determined if it can that none of the secret things of God shall remain unexplored. When we see many, some of them in other respects not bad men, every where rushing into this audacity and wickedness, it is necessary to remind them of the course of duty in this matter. First, then, when they inquire into predestination, let then remember that they are penetrating into the recesses of the divine wisdom, where he who rushes forward securely and confidently, instead of satisfying his curiosity will enter in inextricable labyrinth. For it is not right that man should with impunity pry into things which the Lord has been pleased to conceal within himself, and scan that sublime eternal wisdom which it is his pleasure that we should not apprehend but adore, that therein also his perfections may appear. Those secrets of his will, which he has seen it meet to manifest, are revealed in his word—revealed in so far as he knew to be conducive to our interest and welfare…

Then after starting the objection, Is God unjust? instead of employing what would have been the surest and plainest defense of his justice—viz. that God had recompensed Esau according to his wickedness, he is contented with a different solution—viz. that the reprobate are expressly raised up, in order that the glory of God may thereby be displayed. At last, he concludes that God has mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth (Rom. 9:18). You see how he refers both to the mere pleasure of God. Therefore, if we cannot assign any reason for his bestowing mercy on his people, but just that it so pleases him, neither can we have any reason for his reprobating others but his will. When God is said to visit in mercy or harden whom he will, men are reminded that they are not to seek for any cause beyond his will.

And that’s why I can’t go there. God is morally culpable if He makes agents that are preordained to eternal suffering and therefore MUST refuse His demands for repentance. Yet that is exactly what Calvin and other Calvinist champions must decree in order to make their system work.
You should note, as well, that Calvin expressly declares that the Apostle Paul teaches this concept of reprobation. Yet Calvin’s argument is based on Paul’s note that God “will harden whom He will”, which is not nearly the same thing as what Calvin is teaching.

[Kevin Miller] JohnBrian, are you saying that the non-elect are actually offered justification from sin even though it is impossible for them to actually ever be justified?

Fred Zaspel in The Free Offer of the Gospel writes:

The question at issue is whether a sincere offer of salvation can legitimately be made indiscriminately to the lost.

and

The gospel goes to all, passionately and indiscriminately, and by it the elect are saved. The gospel is the external means of calling, but the sovereign Spirit alone makes it effective and gives saving faith.

The gospel is offered to all who hear, but salvation is conditioned on the hearer believing (John 3:16). All men are commanded to repent (Acts 17:30), and those who do receive eternal life.

[Kevin Miller] what exactly is the content of the belief that a person is supposed to have?

That he is a sinner and that Christ is the savior. On that all bible believers agree, whether they are Calvinist, Arminian, or something in between.

[Jay] [Synergism] Is really man-centered easy believism. It’s not Arminian theology, and depending on how it’s presented, may not be the gospel at all.

agreed!

[Jay]…what do you think about the doctrine of reprobation

and

God is morally culpable if He makes agents that are preordained to eternal suffering and therefore MUST refuse His demands for repentance.

Last summer I engaged in an inbox discussion here on SI with a gentleman who has shown himself to be a rabid anti-Calvinist in many of his posts here and in other places. Without identifying him, I posted our dialog to my blog.

He insisted, based on his logic, that Calvinists must necessarily affirm that God is the author of sin, then used that logic to argue against Calvinism. The problem is that no Calvinist will affirm that God is the author of sin because the Bible denies such.

We deny that logic demands that we affirm a ‘morally culpable’ God!

In Genesis 37, we have the record of Joseph and his brothers. We notice that “before he came near to them they conspired against him to kill him” (v.18). It was not God that incited them to murder, but was the wickedness of their own hearts. What God did was restrain their evil so that ultimately they committed the lesser evil of selling him to the Midianite traders (v.28).

In Genesis 50, we see that there is a purpose to the evil when Joseph tells them that “you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today (v.20).

A perfect illustration of how evil served the purpose of God.

Job is another example. God didn’t incite Satan against Job, but restrained him in his attack on Job.

Peter’s sermon in Acts 2 shows how “the hands of lawless men” that crucified Jesus, fit into the delivering up of Jesus “according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God” (v.23).

The only option left if we deny that God allows and restrains evil for his purpose, is to insist that evil serves no purpose and that God is helpless in the face of evil. This brings us back to the question in an earlier post, “Why did God not save Paul before his reign of terror on the church?” The only answer is that the evil serves some purpose of God, even though we may not know what that is.

Voddie Baucham preached a sermon titled Who Do You Think You Are? in which he answered the question of God being “unjust because He has mercy on whom he will.”

[pvawter] How can you say that Christ’s death actually appeased the wrath of God for the elect and still claim that they are at any point actually lost? I know you claim that is not what you are saying, but it sure seems like it to me.

and

If Calvinism truly teaches that Christ’s death has actually accomplished the salvation of sinners as Boettner states, then in what sense can any one of the elect be considered lost even prior to conversion?

and

I have never had any Calvinist (living or dead) offer a logically consistent explanation of limited atonement, though many have tried.

I think you left out the words “that satisfies me” after the word “atonement” in the last sentence I quoted!

The elect must believe in order to be saved, so that they are lost until such time as they believe. Christ has secured their salvation in order that they will believe. I wrote an article titled Monergism in John’s Gospel, looking at all the passages in John that speak of the cause of belief.

I noted:

that all of the passages that speak to the CAUSE of believing show that God is that cause, which is what Monergism affirms. All of the passages that show the EFFECT of believing neither affirm nor deny either view, as neither view disputes the notion that all who believe will be saved.

The Father elects a people; Jesus propitiates the Father’s wrath for those people; the Holy Spirit regenerates them by means of the Word proclaimed, giving them the gifts of repentance and faith, which actuate in saving belief.

[Steve Picray] Anyway, Acts 3:2 says that he had been lame from birth (“from his mother’s womb”), and Acts 4:22 says the man was over 40 years old. Why is this significant?

That means that Christ Himself most likely walked past this man over and over without healing him, when He could have done so at any time.

Very true!

Also the invalid in John 5. He had been that way for 38 years, and yet when Jesus asked him if he wanted to be healed, he spoke about his inability to get into the pool. Jesus healed him on the Sabbath, establishing his claim to be equal with God.

Also the man born blind in John 9. When the disciples asked whose sin had caused his blindness, Jesus told them that the purpose of the blindness was “that the works of God might be displayed in him” (v.3). The sole purpose for his blindness was that he would be sitting outside the temple on this particular day for Jesus to give him sight.

Also Lazarus in John 11. Jesus could have returned to heal Lazarus when he got the word that he was sick, or he could have sent a healing message back with the courier. But instead Jesus stayed until Lazarus was ‘good and dead’ because his death was “for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it” (v.4), and “that they may believe that you sent me” (v.42).

there just might be a sermon outline in those 3 stories - hmmm!

There was some earlier discussion of free will and here are links to older discussions:

2007 - Free Will

2010 - Free Will Redux

No one, not even God, has libertarian free will, as no one can act contrary to their own nature.

We do make free choices that are in “accordance with [our] fallen nature.”

For example, when it’s time to go to lunch, there is no force exerted on me to go to a certain restaurant. I freely choose where i want to go. However, my choice has at least 2 built in restrictions, money and time. I can only spend the money available to me in the time allotted to me. Once I choose the place I am further restricted in my choice by the menu at that restaurant.

The unregenerate can nor more choose to be saved than the leopard can change his spots (Jer 13:23), as he doesn’t have that menu option. He needs to have his nature changed so that the option of choosing Christ is available to him.

The problem is that no Calvinist will affirm that God is the author of sin because the Bible denies such.

We deny that logic demands that we affirm a ‘morally culpable’ God!

JohnBrian,

I have no problems with Job, Joseph, Judas or any other Biblical examples that you can think of. God created them as morally free agents - as morally free as someone is dead in their trespasses and sins can be - and then used their free choices in a way that fulfilled His plan. Since He is omniscient, He can do that and still know the future and still give them the ability to choose. He will do that with the Anti-Christ’s choices during the end times as well.

I have no doubts that Calvinists will verbally deny that God is the author of sin; I’ve talked with them enough and read enough of their works to know that. My point above was that Calvinists use the “escape hatch” of God’s “secret counsels” to avoid ascribing sin to Him, even as they argue that the created order must do what He wills. So again, if they must do what God wills, then how are they ‘free’ in any sense of the term? That’s like me writing a Perl script, then arguing that the script got it wrong…the Perl will only do what I make it do. It’s my fault if the Perl doesn’t do the right thing, because the script does exactly what I tell it.

This is why it’s important to read Calvin, Boettner, and the like. They follow the system right to the logical endpoint, unlike some who say that they are Calvinists even as they dismember the system to make it more palatable to some. If someone wants to be Calvinist, then be Calvinist lock, stock, and barrel.

You said:

God didn’t incite Satan against Job,

But God is clearly the one that offers up Job as “none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil?” and then Satan takes the bait, saying, “Does Job fear God for no reason?” (Job 1:8-9). So yes, in a way, God DOES incite Satan to do His worst, even though He later explicitly tells Satan to stay his hand from Job’s himself (1:12).

As for this:

The only option left if we deny that God allows and restrains evil for his purpose, is to insist that evil serves no purpose and that God is helpless in the face of evil. This brings us back to the question in an earlier post, “Why did God not save Paul before his reign of terror on the church?” The only answer is that the evil serves some purpose of God, even though we may not know what that is.

Is utter hogwash. First of all, I’ve never argued - and never will argue - that evil has no purpose. You’re ascribing something to me that is not true. Secondly, even though I do disagree with you on this matter, my position is the same as yours. Saul, being trained in his lifetime to hate and persecute Christians, did what seemed right to him until Jesus appeared to him and straightened him out. As for believers in this day and age, it is enough for us to know that God does all things well, and that the God of all the Earth shall do right. We need no more explanation than that, because it is all the explanation God, in His Wisdom and for His purposes, has chosen to give to us. So we can and should rest in that, even if we want more answers. God is not required to give us explanations for what He does, as Job himself notes:

“Truly I know that it is so:
But how can a man be in the right before God?
3 If one wished to contend with him,
one could not answer him once in a thousand times.
4 He is wise in heart and mighty in strength
—who has hardened himself against him, and succeeded?—
5 he who removes mountains, and they know it not,
when he overturns them in his anger,
6 who shakes the earth out of its place,
and its pillars tremble;
7 who commands the sun, and it does not rise;
who seals up the stars;
8 who alone stretched out the heavens
and trampled the waves of the sea;
9 who made the Bear and Orion,
the Pleiades and the chambers of the south;
10 who does great things beyond searching out,
and marvelous things beyond number.
11 Behold, he passes by me, and I see him not;
he moves on, but I do not perceive him.
12 Behold, he snatches away; who can turn him back?
Who will say to him, ‘What are you doing?’

[JohnBrian]

Kevin Miller wrote:

what exactly is the content of the belief that a person is supposed to have?

That he is a sinner and that Christ is the savior. On that all bible believers agree, whether they are Calvinist, Arminian, or something in between.

First of all, I’ve never argued - and never will argue - that evil has no purpose. You’re ascribing something to me that is not true.

I wasn’t ascribing that to you, which is why I used the word WE. I’m sorry that it was misunderstood.

Would a Calvinist refrain from using Romans 5:8 in a gospel presentation? You seem to be saying that Christ should be presented as the Savior in a more impersonal way than Romans 5:8 presents Him. Is that right?

Not at all.

Christ is the ONLY Savior and is willing to save all who will believe.

Those who believe do so because they have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit.

Note the order in John 10:26

But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep

Belief is the EFFECT not the CAUSE of being His sheep.

[JohnBrian]

pvawter wrote:

How can you say that Christ’s death actually appeased the wrath of God for the elect and still claim that they are at any point actually lost? I know you claim that is not what you are saying, but it sure seems like it to me.

and

If Calvinism truly teaches that Christ’s death has actually accomplished the salvation of sinners as Boettner states, then in what sense can any one of the elect be considered lost even prior to conversion?

and

I have never had any Calvinist (living or dead) offer a logically consistent explanation of limited atonement, though many have tried.

I think you left out the words “that satisfies me” after the word “atonement” in the last sentence I quoted!

The elect must believe in order to be saved, so that they are lost until such time as they believe. Christ has secured their salvation in order that they will believe. I wrote an article titled Monergism in John’s Gospel, looking at all the passages in John that speak of the cause of belief.

I noted:

that all of the passages that speak to the CAUSE of believing show that God is that cause, which is what Monergism affirms. All of the passages that show the EFFECT of believing neither affirm nor deny either view, as neither view disputes the notion that all who believe will be saved.

The Father elects a people; Jesus propitiates the Father’s wrath for those people; the Holy Spirit regenerates them by means of the Word proclaimed, giving them the gifts of repentance and faith, which actuate in saving belief.

JohnBrian,

Now we are finally getting somewhere. As I read your reply to me and to others, it seems to me that you agree that Jesus’ death did not actually save anyone at the cross, because faith remains the condition for salvation, even after Jesus’ atoning death. In fact, I believe you said as much in your reply to KevinMiller.

[JohnBrian] “The gospel is offered to all who hear, but salvation is conditioned on the hearer believing (John 3:16).”

Now, the issue then becomes the meaning of faith/repentance. According to the article you shared concerning monergism in John’s Gospel, I take it you consider repentance to be a work, and if that is true then I completely agree with you that man can do nothing to commend himself to God. Yet Scripture, I believe, nowhere teaches that faith or repentance are works that merit eternal life. They are simply the response of man under Holy Spirit conviction to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Not being meritorious, we can avoid the accusation of synergism, because salvation is only secured by the work and power of God, and not being works, we can avoid the determinism which Limited Atonement and Irresistable Grace (or Efficacious Grace, if you prefer) inevitable introduce.

As far as my satisfaction, that is unimportant. I did not leave out any words in my own statement earlier, because every presentation of the doctrine of Limited Atonement that I have ever read has been logically inconsistent, claiming to reject determinism, while at the same time pointing directly towards determinism.

[JohnBrian]

Note the order in John 10:26

But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep

Belief is the EFFECT not the CAUSE of being His sheep.

But it’s really not that simple, is it? How does one become one of His sheep? Is it not by believing? Therefore belief is both the effect and the cause, depending on how you look at it.

[pvawter]

JohnBrian wrote:

Note the order in John 10:26

But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep

Belief is the EFFECT not the CAUSE of being His sheep.

But it’s really not that simple, is it? How does one become one of His sheep? Is it not by believing? Therefore belief is both the effect and the cause, depending on how you look at it.

According to the article you shared concerning monergism in John’s Gospel, I take it you consider repentance to be a work, and if that is true then I completely agree with you that man can do nothing to commend himself to God.

I DO NOT consider repentance to be a work because I affirm that it is a gift given at regeneration.

I DO affirm that faith and repentance ARE works if they are not a GIFT.

In other words, if all men naturally have faith, and I use my faith to become a believer and my brother who has the same faith, does not become a believer, then I have DONE something better than he.

If, however, faith and repentance are actuating gifts, (which I’ve shown above), then even though I’m using them to believe, they are not my works as they did not originate in me.

The point is that God does not do the believing for me. I actually repent and believe BECAUSE I have been given the ability to do so.

Lazarus came out of the grave AFTER God, by His command, restored him to life, establishing that LIFE precedes ACTION.

I understand and reject the idea that Prevenient Grace is given to all men everywhere,

…prevenient grace is the grace of God given to individuals that releases them from their bondage to sin and enables them to come to Christ in faith but does not guarantee that the sinner will actually do so. Thus, the efficacy of the enabling grace of God is determined not by God but by man.

The same article notes that:

The Reformed doctrine of irresistible grace is a type of prevenient grace,

Wow. I’ve never seen someone equate prevenient grace with irresistable grace. By definition they are not the same since prevenient grace makes available without guaranteeing while irresistable grace is - well - irresistable, which means it does guarantee.

[JohnBrian]

I DO affirm that faith and repentance ARE works if they are not a GIFT.

In other words, if all men naturally have faith, and I use my faith to become a believer and my brother who has the same faith, does not become a believer, then I have DONE something better than he.

that dude said: NAU Romans 4:5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,​

Faith is not a work. The Bible says so.

[Don Johnson] that dude said: NAU Romans 4:5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,​

Faith is not a work. The Bible says so.

Exactly. It’s not a work specifically because it’s a gift, and one that actuates in belief!

Unfortunately, there are some who insist that it is THEIR faith (by this I mean that it is sourced in them) that THEY use to gain salvation, thus making it a work, all the while insisting that it is not a work.

A few years ago, a friend on FB, on their spiritual anniversary, wrote words to the effect that they were so glad that they had made the correct decision. I was sorely tempted to respond by asking them how much credit for their salvation did they want to share with God, but I thought that wouldn’t be kind and gentle.

The text says nothing about faith as a gift, you are reading that into the text. The previous verses contrast works (something the human does) as attempts to justify self. In contrast, faith (something the human does) is not a work, by definition. The text says nothing at all about faith being a gift. It simply says that faith is not a work.

You claim that faith, if initiated and exercised by a human, is a work. That is explicitly not true according to this passage. Faith cannot ever be a work. It is expressly declared NOT to be a work.

That is all the text says. You are reading your system into the text.

Off of Don’s post - Galatians 3 comes into play here:

Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith—just as Abraham “believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”?

It seems to me that faith can’t be considered a work if Paul is contrasting being saved by faith with being saved by keeping the law.

Edit - It ALSO seems to me that there is no possible way you can call believing God “a work”, as some want to do.

[Don Johnson] The text says nothing about faith as a gift, you are reading that into the text. The previous verses contrast works (something the human does) as attempts to justify self. In contrast, faith (something the human does) is not a work, by definition. The text says nothing at all about faith being a gift. It simply says that faith is not a work.

You claim that faith, if initiated and exercised by a human, is a work. That is explicitly not true according to this passage. Faith cannot ever be a work. It is expressly declared NOT to be a work.

That is all the text says. You are reading your system into the text.

Since you are just joining the discussion I can understand how you might not have read all of the previous comments. You are right that this particular passage says “nothing about faith as a gift.” Earlier I referenced 2 Thes. 3:2 which states that “not all have faith,” and 2 Pet.1:1 that speaks of obtaining faith. It is those passages that confirm for me that faith is a gift and does not naturally occur in man.

Since it is a gift, it cannot be a work, as it is not initiated by the human . Once it is given to the individual, it is then exercised by the individual in believing, so that it is actually the individual who believes.

[Jay] It seems to me that faith can’t be considered a work if Paul is contrasting being saved by faith with being saved by keeping the law.

We finally agree on something! - Faith is not work.

Where we disagree is where the faith originates.

I say it originates with God and is gifted to man

You say it exists in all men everywhere naturally.

My objection to your view is that if it exists naturally and one man uses it correctly, and a second man with the exact same faith does not, then the first one DOES SOMETHING GOOD that the second does not, thus making faith that is not work into faith that is work.

From my perspective the only faith that is not work, is faith that does not exist naturally in man, but is gifted to him. The passages I referenced bear that out.

[Chip Van Emmerik]

pvawter wrote:

JohnBrian wrote:

Note the order in John 10:26

But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep

Belief is the EFFECT not the CAUSE of being His sheep.

But it’s really not that simple, is it? How does one become one of His sheep? Is it not by believing? Therefore belief is both the effect and the cause, depending on how you look at it.

JohnBrian can pick this up when he gets back to the thread, but I wanted to jump in for a minute. This is the rub. We become His sheep by being named such by Him. It is His choice, His decision, not ours. This is why the monergist places regeneration before faith in the ordus salutis. Regeneration is the cause; belief is the effect.

Chip, monergism, as you describe it, sounds nice but ultimately it runs afoul of the plain truth of Scripture. Life is the result of repentance and faith, not the other way around. Jesus said it in John 3:16. The congregation in Jerusalem said it in Acts 11:18. It was the Jews’ unbelief which disqualified them from receiving life in Acts 13:45-46. JohnBrian even said it http://sharperiron.org/comment/67973#comment-67973

[JohnBrian]

My objection to your view is that if it exists naturally and one man uses it correctly, and a second man with the exact same faith does not, then the first one DOES SOMETHING GOOD that the second does not, thus making faith that is not work into faith that is work.

From my perspective the only faith that is not work, is faith that does not exist naturally in man, but is gifted to him. The passages I referenced bear that out.

I think this is where you misunderstand what Don was saying (He responded before I had the chance to do so, but my answer would have been the same, and I have read all the comments on the thread.) Faith, by definition according to Romans 4:4-5, is not and cannot be a work. For you to say that faith can be made into a work is to redefine faith so that it is no longer faith at all. It is something akin to describing a square circle. The only way you can do that is to redefine what it means to be a circle into something that is, by definition, not a circle.

[pvawter] For you to say that faith can be made into a work is to redefine faith so that it is no longer faith at all.

You are correct and have affirmed the point I am making!

Faith that is a work is a re-defined faith that is no longer faith at all.

That is why faith MUST be a gift, given by God, not existing naturally in man, per the passages I quoted.

I say it originates with God and is gifted to man

You say it exists in all men everywhere naturally.

No, because if it existed in all men everywhere naturally, then I’d be a Pelagian:

​Pelagianism views humanity as basically good and morally unaffected by the Fall. It denies the imputation of Adam’s sin, original sin, total depravity, and substitutionary atonement. It simultaneously views man as fundamentally good and in possession of libertarian free will. With regards to salvation, it teaches that man has the ability in and of himself (apart from divine aid) to obey God and earn eternal salvation. Pelagianism is overwhelmingly incompatible with the Bible and was historically opposed by Augustine (354-430), Bishop of Hippo, leading to its condemnation as a heresy at Council of Carthage in 418 A.D. These condemnations were summarily ratified at the Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431).​

I believe that man has libertarian free will, but not absolute libertarian free will. God can extend His offer, but man can not and will not because of sin (see Luke 13:31-35; John 1:9-13, 3:16-21, 8:32-47)

[JohnBrian]

Since you are just joining the discussion I can understand how you might not have read all of the previous comments. You are right that this particular passage says “nothing about faith as a gift.” Earlier I referenced 2 Thes. 3:2 which states that “not all have faith,” and 2 Pet.1:1 that speaks of obtaining faith. It is those passages that confirm for me that faith is a gift and does not naturally occur in man.

Since it is a gift, it cannot be a work, as it is not initiated by the human . Once it is given to the individual, it is then exercised by the individual in believing, so that it is actually the individual who believes.

JohnBrian, I’ve followed the discussion.

But here again, you are reading your system into these passages - neither of them say that faith is a gift. Your interpretation assumes that faith must be a gift because of the wording of the passages. I am willing to concede that faith as a gift would not contradict these passages. However, neither would faith “not-a-gift”. Linguistically and logically one could hold either view and not be disturbed by the wording of these passages. Ergo, they don’t prove your point.

However, the point Romans 4.5 makes is that faith is not a work. Full stop. I can argue that the faith of Rm 4.5 originates in the believer just as the works of the passage also originate in the man (see the preceding verses). No real distinction is made as to source when it comes to either works or faith in the passage. Given that they are contrasted with one another, it is at least legitimate to interpret that the source is the same for both. Admittedly, that is an inference, not a direct statement, but it seems to me to be a pretty strong interpretation of the text as it stands.

In any case, regardless of source, faith is not a work. Faith is just believing. You don’t do anything. You just believe. The text explicitly tells us, on the authority of God’s explicit revelation, that faith is not a work.

So if the source is the believer himself, it is not a work.

I don’t think you have proved so far that the source of faith is external to the believer. I don’t think you can prove it, because I don’t think the Bible teaches it anywhere.

[JohnBrian]

Would a Calvinist refrain from using Romans 5:8 in a gospel presentation? You seem to be saying that Christ should be presented as the Savior in a more impersonal way than Romans 5:8 presents Him. Is that right?

Not at all.

Christ is the ONLY Savior and is willing to save all who will believe.

Those who believe do so because they have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit.

Note the order in John 10:26

But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep

Belief is the EFFECT not the CAUSE of being His sheep.