Recently on another thread, at the end of a very long discussion about what constitutes “cultic” belief, Tom Zwemer (The Deacon) made this remark:

[quote author="The Deacon"]
I have serious differences with Adventism, Calvinism, [Arminianism], cultism. I have no differences with Paul or John or the synopic Gospels. Let us be for the Gospel.

To this, Steve (spitcher) said, “Amen”. I’d like to explore Tom’s statement more, but since it is off the topic of the original thread, I’ve created a new one to present a question for discussion.

The question is this: If we say we believe the gospel of Paul and John, are we willing to take what both men say about God’s sovereignty as indivisible from their gospel teaching? Neither apostle is delicate when presenting God’s sovereignty as a fundamental quality of his nature, and both see his purpose in election as being unable to fail.

”All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.” (John 6:37 ESV)

”No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.” (John 6:44 ESV)

“‘...But there are some of you who do not believe.’ (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) And he said, ‘This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.’” (John 6:64-65 ESV)

“And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad–in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls–she was told, ‘The older will serve the younger.’ As it is written, ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.’

What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, ‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.’ So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, ‘For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.’ So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

You will say to me then, ‘Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?’ But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, ‘Why have you made me like this?’” (Romans 9:10-20 ESV)

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.” (Ephesians 1:3-6 ESV)

John Calvin was not the only theologian to affirm the truths contained in these passages of Scripture. He stands with Saint Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Jonathan Edwards, John Owen, Martin Luther, Charles Spurgeon, George Whitefield and many others who do not back away from these very clear passages. Having said this, I don’t imply that these doctrines are easy to believe, but I think Christians must not shy away from dealing with them honestly and carefully.

So I ask again: If we say we believe the gospel of John and Paul, can we really say we fully believe while minimizing or disagreeing with their teaching on God’s sovereignty and election? In answering this question, I believe we should recognize this is not about an “ism”, but about being faithful to God’s Word.

Greg

Greg

With all due respect, you get your “election” doctrine from Calvin not Paul or John or from Jesus Christ.  The call to repentance and oneness with Jesus Christ is Universal.

Calvin and some very prominent theologians agree with your position. Yet the sum of the Gospel presented an entirely difference picture of God.

Calvin’s view is taken from Romans 8: 28-30 at translated in the Geneva Bible.

The question must be asked: “Whom did God not fore-know.” For whom did God, in Jesus Christ not die?” Whom of the issue of Adam was pre-ordained to damnation?

Listen to the Gospel invitations:

“For God So loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” John 3:16 The following verses are equally powerful

“Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden and I will give you rest” Matt 11: 28

I have set before them an open door, and no man can shut it:” Rev. 3: 8 (Not even John Calvin)

“Behold, I stand at the door and knock, if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.” Rev. 3: 21

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou tht killest the prophets and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!” Matt. 23:37

My Presbyterian pastor says (in private) I every time I get the urge to preach on predestination, I get a new sermon on procrastination! 

The story is told that William Carey went around England gathering support for his mission trip to India.  An old Calvinist stood up and said: “Young man! Sit down! If God wanted the Indians to be saved He would do it Himself without you help.”

As for me and my house: We go and tell it on the mountain. Jesus Christ saves to the uttermost.  Praise God from Whom all Blessing Flow.  The Dean.

[quote author="Deacon"]The story is told that William Carey went around England gathering support for his mission trip to India. An old Calvinist stood up and said: “Young man! Sit down! If God wanted the Indians to be saved He would do it Himself without you help.”

William Carey believed in predestination as Calvin, and the one who accused him was a hyper-calvinist who had a
distorted view of predestination. The most common objection to predestination in these days is that it is against mission. Historically it a fact that Calvin’s Geneva was one of the first cities who sent missionaries in other countries, and William Carey is one of the most important witness that a proper belief in unconditional election (predestination) is not against missions.

[quote author="Deacon"]The call to repentance and oneness with Jesus Christ is Universal.

Correct, but you are doing eisegesis, if you read in a universal call to repentance the ability of fallen man to respond positively to that call, to decide his salvation. God also expects from fallen men perfect obedience, this is God’s holy standard, does this imply that a fallen man can really be perfectly obedient? Is a man fallen able to render God perfect obedience? Even after regeneration, man cannot claim that he is without sin, that he’s doing all that God asks him perfectly “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” 1 John 1:8 How much more an unregenerate man is not able to render God perfect obedience. God call and command does not automatically presupposes ability on man’s part.

Regarding man’s ability to believe, Greg already provided the text which explicitly negates this ability.

“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.” (John 6:44 ESV)

No one “can, no one has the ability, “unless”, only if, with the exception that God draws him. You may say that God draws everybody, without discrimination. The problem is that, in the same context, Jesus said (another text quoted by Greg)

“‘...But there are some of you who do not believe.’ (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) And he said, ‘This is whyI told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.’” (John 6:64-65 ESV)

Jesus explains the “why”, the reason of his previous declaration, because “some” did not believe. Jesus removes the curtain and let us look behind the surface to understand why people rejected Him. This was because they were not able. Only if God the Father granted them faith, they could not believe. The man is not the cause of his faith, the Father is the cause of his faith, his faith is the effect, the gift that God gives to his elect. This gift is not given to all people who live in the world.

the same cause-effect relationship is seen in another situation with people rejecting Jesus

At that time the Feast of Dedication took place at Jerusalem. It was winter, and Jesus was walking in the temple, in the colonnade of Solomon. So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.” Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock. John 10:22-26 ESV

“Because” introduces the cause: “you are not part of my flock”, you are not my sheep, you are not part of the elect.  The same truth from John 6 is reiterated here again: the inability of man to come to Jesus, to believe, if he’s not elected and the gift of faith.

In conclusion, invitation does not imply ability, and the fact that this is the underlying assumption made does not excuse people in rejecting salvation, being instead a proof of eisegesis, reading in the text what it is not in it.

[quote author="Deacon"]Calvin’s view is taken from Romans 8: 28-30 at translated in the Geneva Bible.

The question must be asked: “Whom did God not fore-know.” For whom did God, in Jesus Christ not die?” Whom of the issue of Adam was pre-ordained to damnation?

Here is the commentary of R.C. Sproul, which touches the points raised

First, the conclusion that God’s predestination is determined by God’s foreknowledge is not taught by the passage. Paul does not come out and say that God chooses people on the basis of his prior knowledge of their choices. That idea is neither stated nor implied by the text. All the text declares is that God predestines those whom he foreknows. No one in this debate disputes that God has foreknowledge. Even God could not choose people he didn’t know anything about. Before he could choose Jacob he had to have some idea in his mind of Jacob. But the text does not teach that God chose Jacob on the basis of Jacob’s choice.

In fairness it must be said that at least the order of foreknowledge—predestination that we find in Romans 8 is compatible with the foreknowledge view. It is the rest of the passage that creates difficulty.

Note the order of events in the passage.

Foreknowledge—predestination—calling—justification—glorification.
The crucial problem here has to do with the relationship of calling and justification. What does Paul mean here by “calling”? The New Testament speaks of divine calling in more than one way. In theology we distinguish between God’s external call and God’s internal call.

We find God’s external call in the preaching of the gospel. When the gospel is preached, everyone who hears it is called or summoned to Christ. But not everyone responds positively Not everyone who hears the outward call of the gospel becomes a believer. Sometimes the gospel call falls upon deaf ears.

Now we know that only those who respond to the outward call of the gospel in faith are justified. Justification is by faith. But again, not everyone whose ears hear the outward preaching of the gospel responds in faith. Therefore we must conclude that not all who are called outwardly are justified.

But Paul says in Romans that those whom God calls, he justifies. Now, we grant that the Bible does not explicitly say that all those he calls he justifies. We are supplying the word all. Perhaps we are as guilty of reading something into the text that is not there as those who advocate the foreknowledge view.

When we supply the word all here, we are responding to an implication of the text. We are making an inference. Is it a legitimate inference to make? I think it is.

If Paul does not mean that all who are called are justified, the only alternative would be that some who are called are justified. If we supply the word some instead of the word all here, then we must supply it throughout the Golden Chain. Then it would read like this:

Some of those he foreknew, he also predestined. Some of those he predestined, he also called.
Some of those he called, these he also justified. Some of those he justified, he also glorified.

This reading of the text leaves us with a theological monstrosity, a nightmare. It would mean that only some of the predestined ever hear the gospel and that only some of the justified are ultimately saved. These notions are utterly in conflict with what the rest of the Bible teaches on these matters.

Yet the foreknowledge view suffers an even bigger problem from the supplying of the word some . If God’s predestination is based on his foreknowledge of how people will respond to the outward call of the gospel, how is it that only some of the predestined are even called? It would demand that God predestines some who are not called. If some of the predestined are predestined without being called, then God would not be basing his predestination on a prior knowledge of their response to his call. They could have no response to a call they never receive! God cannot have foreknowledge of a person’s non—answer to a non—call.

Whew! If we follow all of that, then we will see the conclusion screaming at us. Paul cannot be implying the word some . Rather, the Golden Chain necessarily implies the word all .

Let’s review the bidding. If we supply the word some to the Golden Chain the result is fatal to the foreknowledge view of predestination because it would have God predestinating some people who are not called. Since the view teaches that God’s predestination is based upon God’s foreknowledge of people’s positive responses to the call of the gospel, then clearly the view collapses if some are predestined without a call.

The supplying of the word all is equally fatal to the foreknowledge view This difficulty centers on the relationship of calling to justification. If all who are called are justified, then the passage could mean one of two things: (A) All who hear the gospel outwardly are justified; or (B) All who are called by God inwardly are justified.

If we answer with option A, then the conclusion we must reach is that everyone who ever hears the gospel is predestined to be saved. Of course the vast majority of those who hold the foreknowledge view of predestination also hold that not everyone who hears the gospel is saved. Some are universalists. They believe that everyone will be saved, whether they hear the gospel or not. But we must remember that the chief debate among evangelicals over predestination is not over the question of universalism. Both advocates of the Reformed view of predestination and advocates of the foreknowledge view agree that not everyone is saved. They agree that in fact there are people who hear the gospel outwardly (the external call of God) who do not respond in faith and who therefore are not justified. Option A is as repugnant to the advocates of the foreknowledge view as it is to the advocates of the Reformed view.

That leaves us with option B: all who are called inwardly by God are justified. What is the inward call of God? The outward call refers to the preaching of the gospel. Preaching is something that we do as human beings. The outward call can also be “heard” by reading the Bible. The Bible is the Word of God, but it comes to us in documents penned by human beings. In that sense it is external. No human being has the power to work inwardly on another human being. I cannot get inside a person’s heart to work an immediate influence there. I can speak words which are outward. Those words may penetrate the heart, but I cannot make that happen by my own power. Only God can call a person inwardly. Only God can work immediately within the deepest chambers of the human heart to influence a positive response of faith.

So if option B is what the apostle means, then the implications are clear. If all whom God calls inwardly are justified and all whom God predestines are called inwardly ,then it follows that God’s foreknowledge concerns more than a mere prior awareness of the free decisions humans will make. To be sure, God does know from all eternity who will respond to the gospel and who will not. But such knowledge is not that of a mere passive observer. God knows from eternity whom he will inwardly call. All whom he inwardly calls he will also justify.

I said earlier that the Golden Chain teaches more than the foreknowledge view wants it to teach. It teaches that God predestines an inward call. All whom God predestines to be called inwardly will be justified. God is here doing something in the hearts of the elect to insure their positive response.

If option B is the correct understanding of the Golden Chain, then it is clear that God gives one kind of call to some people that he does not give to everyone. Since all who are called are justified and since not everyone is justified, then it follows that calling is a rather significant divine activity that some human beings receive and others do not.

Now we are forced back to a serious question not unlike our original question. Why is it that some are predestined to receive this call of God and others are not? Does the answer lie in man or in the purposes of God? An advocate of the foreknowledge view would have to answer that the reason God calls only some people inwardly is that he knows in advance who will respond positively to the inward call and who will not. Therefore he doesn’t waste the inward call, he only gives it to those whom he knows will respond favorably to it.

How much power is there in God’s inward call? Is there any advantage to receiving it? If it is only given to those whom God knows will respond to it in their own power it would seem to be an inward influence without any real influence. If it does have any influence on the person who hears the outward call, then God is predestinating an advantage to some that he is withholding from others. If it has no influence on the human decision, then it is simply not an influence at all. If it is not an influence at all, then it is insignificant to salvation and a meaningless part of the Golden Chain.

It is crucial to remember that the inward call of God is given to people before they believe, before they respond in faith. If it influences the response in any way, then God is predestinating an advantage to the elect. If it does not influence the human decision, then what does it do? This dilemma is painful to the foreknowledge view, painful beyond relief. R.C. Sproul, Chosen by God

Gabriel

Greg,

God is sovereign.  God elects whom He will.  And anyone who comes to Him, He will in no way cast out.

I agree that you could call it “Calvinism,” but it’s simple Biblical exegesis.

Steve

Steve, I agree, it’s simple biblical exegesis, but I guess I’m puzzled by your “amen” to Deacon’s contrast between “Calvinism” and the gospel of Paul and John. His post on this thread clarifies that he sees a dichotomy between the doctrine of election and the gospel. Are you still willing to say “amen”?

Deacon, you know I agree with you on many points, but out of conscience I cannot agree with you here. Never in my post did I say evangelism was made obsolete by believing in a sovereign God. I avoided bringing Calvin as my chief witness and even cited scholars who lived centuries before him who believed the same thing. Calvin is not the author of these doctrines–God is. I do not intend to wield my belief in God’s sovereignty as a weapon, but I cannot easily brush aside the criticism of teachings that are plainly found in Scripture. I acknowledge that these truths are difficult to comprehend, but we make the situation worse by pretending they don’t exist or if we endeavor to minimize them as being of secondary importance.

Deacon, based on the texts you quoted, I believe your position necessitates overturning the clarity of John 6, Romans 9 and Ephesians 1. On my side, I don’t think any of the texts I quoted contradict the verses you cited. For example, John 6, Romans 9 and Ephesians 1 harmonize easily with the “whosoever” of John 3:16. If God is the causative agent in our salvation, “whosoever believes in him” includes all who have been given the ability to believe. But if “whosever believes in him” implies that every man is endowed with the same ability to be saved, John 6, Romans 9 and Ephesians 1 are unintelligible and must be dropped from Scripture to make the argument consistent.

This discussion is not just an academic exercise or a theological “rabbit trail”. God’s sovereignty touches almost every other Christian doctrine, including our very assurance in Jesus Christ. If God is not sovereign to save, we can never be certain of our salvation because our ability to persevere is the weakest link–what is left up to us can and will fail. But God’s purposes never fail, and he is faithful to complete the work he begins in us (Philippians 1:6). Isn’t this the essence of Paul’s argument in Romans 9? “So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.” (Romans 9:16 ESV). The same Paul who wrote Romans 8 also wrote chapter 9, and both chapters are equally inspired.

Greg

To say what I tried to express in the last post, but in much better words than I can find, let me quote John Piper’s concluding paragraph from his book, The Justification of God.

“For those who, like myself, confess Romans 9 as Holy Scripture and accord it an authority over our lives, the implications of [the preceding] exegesis are profound. We will surely not fall prey to the naive and usually polemical suggestions that we cease to pray or that we abandon evangelism. If we did that, we would only betray our failure to be grasped by this theology as Paul was who ‘prayed without ceasing’ (1 Thessalonians 5:17) and who labored in evangelism ‘harder than any of the other apostles’ (1 Corinthians 15:10). On the contrary, we will be deeply sobered by the awful severity of God, humbled to the dust by the absoluteness of our dependence on his unconditional mercy, and irresistibly allured by the infinite treasury of his glory ready to be revealed to the vessels of glory. Thus we will be moved to forsake all confidence in human distinctives or achievements and we will entrust ourselves to mercy alone. In the hope of glory we will extend this mercy to others that they may see our good deeds and give glory to our Father in heaven.” (pg. 220)

Hi Greg,

Yes, I see why the puzzlement.  When some use the word “Calvinism” they often mean “hyper-Calvinism.” Although I haven’t heard the term before, I also believe that some people referring to “Arminianism” are actually referring to a “hyper-Arminianism.” Each of the two “hyper” systems results in some of the glory going to man, as stated on the other thread.  Each system as well (without the “hyper"), if not taught correctly may result in some very incorrect actions and beliefs by those claiming to be members of the body of Christ.

My “Amen” to Deacon’s comment was simply towards his use of the text from Philippians as opposed to using specific theological labels.  Your quote from John Piper included the phrase, “to forsake all confidence in human distinctives...” which mirrors the kind of thinking I have when I refer to theological labels.

I in no way implied agreement or disagreement with the specifics of any of those, or any other theological system(s).

Steve

Maybe it is just the label that folks are hung up on. But there is an almost visceral disdain for anything to do with John Calvin. He must be one of the most universally hated figures among even those who call themselves “Protestant”, yet at the same time, Martin Luther is praised in evangelical circles and even in SDA circles. But Martin Luther held just as strongly, if not more so to the doctrine of predestination and election. It was when I read Luther’s “Bondage of the Will”, that I was most humbled in my spirit, and realized, that when I was dead in my trespasses and sins, it was strictly by the work of God, and not my own freewill, that I was saved. It is indeed humbling when the realization comes that I had absolutely nothing to do with my own salvation.

I responded to the gospel on my own freewill AFTER my will was changed. God changes the heart, and we respond to His calling by His sovereign will.

I am still waiting for anyone who has a quarrel with what Greg is saying above to explain what Jesus was saying in John 6:37,44, if He was not teaching the doctrine of election. The doctrines of sovereign grace come from the very mouth of Jesus, and were inspired by the Holy Spirit through the writings of the apostles.

It was the pure doctrines of the Reformation which were brought to America’s shores by the pilgrims, but Roman Catholic Jesuit missionaries were sent to America to corrupt the true gospel of grace. It was the Roman scholar and humanist Erasmus who fought Luther on these doctrines.

We may not like what the Bible teaches on election in John 6, Ephesians 1 and 2, Romans 8 (and BTW Deacon, what is wrong with the Geneva Bible? It is an excellent translation), and Romans 9, but we cannot ignore the plain pronouncements of scripture. It is interesting that folks wlll quote John 3:16 out of the context of a chapter where Jesus is actually talking about the doctrine of the new birth.

Nicodemus thought Jesus was talking about physical birth, when He was talking about spiritual birth.

But again I ask, is it possible for a person to be born physically by His own choice or freewill? Well, John 1:13 says plainly that we are not born of God by any human decision or will, but by the will of God.

Is not spititual birth a greater miracle than physical birth? Then, since most will say yes, then why does 90 percent of the evangelical church in America believe that you get born again by responding to an altar call, or raising your hand?

We are born from above on God’s timetable, and sometimes a person is born again while in the womb, as was John the Baptist, and in some cases God waits until the end of a person’s life to save them.

The gospel call goes out to the entire world. God will use the preaching of the gospel and the reading of the Bible to bring folks to faith. But God will bring the increase. We have no way of knowing who God’s elect are, so we are not to speculate on this as do the hypercalvinists.

Stan

What triggers the opposition toward the doctrine of unconditional election is the fact that it is nothing anybody can do in order to change his fate. Compared with what a conditional or an universal election (in which the will of man has the final word) offers, it looks as a very poor bargain, to renounce a free-will salvation in exchange with a free-grace salvation.

Our rational mind tells us that, if in order to be saved, we must exercise faith, and if we have not the ability to exercise faith without God electing us and giving us the gift of faith, this is a desperate situation: we are like before a well, a deep well, without any bucket needed in order to draw water from the well. We can die of dehydration even if we are close to the water we need so badly. Between two people, both lacking the means of reaching the water they need, their fate depends of someone else’s action to provide a rope and a bucket. Being in such a desperate situation is the reason why people reject predestination: when your fate is entirely in the hands of somebody else, and it depends on his mercy to give or not give the means of reaching the life-saving water, you have every reason to be scared to death.

But when you have all means to draw water from the well, if you have a bucket and a rope, the situation is no longer a desperate situation. You are able to reach the water and quench your thirst. You’re no longer threatened by death.

How this illustration applies to salvation? It illustrates the teachings of Pelagius, namely that man is able to believe in and by himself.

To give credit where credit is due, this is not the position of Arminians. Arminians believe that Man is not able to exercise faith by himself. They are before a well without bucket and rope, without any means of reaching water. But they introduce here what is called in theological language “prevenient grace”. In illustration, this means that the person who is before the well can be sure that somebody will give him the means of reaching the water. We have again a situation which is not threatening, it is no longer a desperate situation.

Basically the two positions agree that the water is reachable for all, and it depends on their ability to drink the life-saving water.

Regarding Martin Luther and the Roman Catholic, many will be surprised to find that Martin Luther knew from a long time that forgiveness is trough Jesus’ blood, and everything he did in the monastery was performed not in order to gain salvation, but in order to appriopriate the grace which was in Jesus. In Roman language, he needed to extract a portion of grace from a “deposit of grace”. For the Luther, there was no doubt that God is gracious, the problem was the subjectivity of applying salvation to himself,

“Have I did enough in order to appropriate the benefits of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection? How can I be sure?”

He discovered through a painful process that he can’t be sure. Everything which he did, his sorrow for sin, his confession of sin, his works of penance, all were imperfect and tainted with sin. He soon became desperate, because all these means of applying, or appropriating the benefits of salvation failed him at some point of another. He soon discovered himself a thirsty man before the well of life, before the water of life, with a broken bucket and a rope which was too short. All he was able to do was marked by his sin, his sinful nature.

What extracted Luther from this nightmare. One word: Imputation. He formulated the principle in this way

“Simul iustus et peccator” - “At the same time righteous and a sinner”. Justification is forensic. In Christ, we are declared, counted or reckoned to be righteous when God imputes the righteousness of Christ (an “alien righteousness") to our account. Christ’s righteousness ascribed to the redeemed individual without their personal merit. We are declared righteous in Christ, it is imputed to us—it is counted as ours ... not infused in us.

He understood that God does not justify sinners on the basis of their repentance, on the basis of a perfect obedience, on anything which is in them, infused in them by God prevenient grace (Arminian), but on the basis of the perfect obedience of Jesus, which stands in the place of the sinner. This means that repentance, faith, are no longer man’s saving act of applying the benefits of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection to himself. Man is not in the position of applying salvation to himself, saving himself. God is doing this, and He’s not only in the business of providing salvation, but also in applying the benefits of Jesus’ death life and resurrection to those who are the elect. God performs a perfect salvation, from start to finish. It is God, and God alone who saves, and to God alone must be the glory.

The difference between faith as the basis of justification and faith as instrument of justification may look as something too small for many, but in the reality is the difference between the RCC false gospel and the true gospel.
The Pelagian and the Arminian gospel are in the same place with the RCC gospel, because in effect both make faith the basis of justification: God looks to see if man has faith, and on this basis He elects him and saves him.

Look at how Robert Sungenis, president of Catholic Apologetics International talks in a recent interview (available in audio format here) with Michael Horton about the Roman Catholic understanding of justification by faith.

Where we would differ is this: We would go to Romans 4 again, and I would point out this same passage in Romans 4:18-25, and there it says, “Abraham was fully persuaded that God was able to do this, “ and it says in verse 22, “Therefore he was justified, because of that.” In other words, it’s something that God saw in Abraham, and it’s that reason that Abraham was justified. He wasn’t justified based on some alien righteousness. It doesn’t say that in the passage; it says that God justified Abraham based on Abraham’s faith, and that’s a real faith. It’s not a legal fiction. And that’s the difference, I think, between the Catholic and the Protestant view.

Not only the roman catholics are ready to point to this difference of views, but also the protestants made this distinction, again

Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth: not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness, by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God (Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XI, Of Justification)

As Dr. McMahon says

The litmus test to evaluate whether a person truly understands the doctrine is to first ask a simple question: Does the doctrine of justification have any thing to do with what men experience in any manner? If the answer to this in your own mind lies in the realm of “yes,” then you are among those who have misunderstood the doctrine.

It does not matter if justification has something to do with faith, or something to do with works. McMahon continues

The doctrine of justification is something independent from anything men can do, desire to do, or have done; and it is something which is not experienced.  It is something God alone accomplished in a single declaration, and it stands apart from the one justified. Those for whom justification is granted are those who have not worked for it, or done anything to deserve it.  Otherwise, the biblical idea of justification is lost.

Gabriel

Notice the discussion is about how men and women understand John and Paul.  Each one takes a position on the side of their champion.  Isn’t that exactly like the SDA church and E.G. White?

Scripture unsullied by men’s minds tells us that Jesus died for all of the issue of Adam--none excepted. I’m glad I am among that number. Deacon

P

Deacon,

As sinful humans, we all by nature have a “sullied” view of Scripture--yourself included. We all wrestle and struggle with the Bible to understand what it means. No theologian is the “infallible interpreter of Scripture” like Ellen White is for Adventists and I think you understand this. If you had written a compelling defense of the “free will” position, I wouldn’t hesitate to quote you without making you my “champion”.

We disagree not at the level of what our favorite theologian says, but at the level of what Jesus and Paul said in John 6, Romans 9 and Ephesians 1, among other examples.

Let’s agree to meet each other at the biblical text rather than side-stepping the issue by making this about any particular person’s theology. Deacon, if I’ve interpreted the above texts incorrectly, please tell me what they really mean.

Your brother in Christ,

Greg

There is a liberal theology that I was exposed to at Loma Linda which creates a theology and a “god” which is foreign to the plain words of scripture.

One of the proponents of this theology at Loma Linda would say that you have to take the general testimony and theme of scripture in the entire 66 books. He contended that there you will find a truly loving god who does not really pour out His wrath on the wicked. He had a way of denying the testimony of Romans 1. He also denied the substitutionary atonement of Christ, and said that the shedding of blood by Christ was not necessary. He said that the cross was primarily a demonstration of the love of God, and was in no way a penal substitution.

The above “gospel” taught at Loma Linda, and across the land at many liberal institutions is not the true gospel of the Bible that Paul, John, and Jesus taught.

This “gospel” does please the intellects of these people and gives their itching ears what they want to hear. But they have to ignore Romans 9 and many other passages to come up with their politically correct gospel. This is a gospel that sounds nice, but will not convict the hearers of their sins, or convict them of their need for a savior.

Stan

In contrast to the liberal gospel taught at Loma Linda, we have this stirring sermon by John Calvin:

http://www.reformedsermonarchives.com/Cal16.htm

“On Glorying Only in the Cross of Our Lord Jesus Christ”

This kind of preaching is truly soul stirrng and powerful to save those who hear these words.

Stan

Here is the opening paragraph of this powerful sermon by Calvin:

“We saw earlier that Paul condemned those whose only desire was to sit on the fence in order to please the world, and escape persecution. For this had caused them to twist the gospel, and we see numerous examples of this today. Having seen that pure doctrine and the truth of God are unacceptable to the world, but that wicked men are incensed against it, these people, I say, seek to find some way to avoid creating bad feeling and incurring hatred. This being so, if we today were to interview people with at least some good sense, we would scarcely find one in a hundred of them who would admit that there were errors in the Papacy. Most would say that we ought not to force them to abandon everything and that it would be enough if they were to get rid of some of their more unreasonable and absurd superstitions, even if they continued to nurture many other corruptions. Why? Because, as we have said, they desire to be esteemed and highly credited, and because it is all the same to them if they betray the purity of the gospel, provided they can remain exempt from persecution. What is it that motivates them, but the fact that they wish to be valued and to acquire a good reputation? Now the devil, who has stirred up this kind of conflict ever since the days of Paul, continues to this present day, and therefore we need to arm ourselves with this doctrine. The best remedy is the one that Paul proposes here: that we reject all glorying, save that which is in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
--------------------------------------------------------

Amen!

Stan

Greg:

Foreknowledge is a far cry from foreordination. If God foreordained Cain to kill Abel or Judas to detray Jesus--then God is no different that the devil himself. To foreknow is to see in the future to foreordain is to “fix: the future.  We all are called--few choose to come. Tom

Hi Deacon,

First, thanks for keeping this potentially volatile discussion charitable. None of us has all the answers and in our humility before God, let us submit our beliefs to his word and to each other.

The objection you raised is common–if an all-powerful God created man and man sins, then God is the author of sin. But remember that God created Adam and Eve with perfect freedom–their actions were not bound up in sin like ours are. They had the freedom to obey or not obey, and they chose to disobey. Through their original sin, all of humanity has become slaves to sin –our will is in bondage to the sin nature. This is exactly the apostle Paul’s argument in Romans 5:12-14:

“Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned–for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.”

God’s primary creative act was to make man in his own image, with the freedom to choose good or evil. That man chose evil does not make God responsible for sin! The principle of “primary” and “secondary” causes is helpful here. God is the “primary cause” of creation and all that is good flows from him. Man’s sin is a “secondary cause” and the guilt of this sin cannot be ascribed to God, since Adam and Eve sinned of their own volition. But now that sin has entered the world, ironically, mankind is less free than we were in the Garden of Eden–we are now slaves to sin and our wills are held captive by it.

This is what makes God’s redemptive work all the more amazing. Instead of leaving us to suffer the consequences of our sin (Genesis 2:16-17), he has taken the sins of his children upon himself on the cross (Romans 5:15-17).

It is difficult to understand, but God works through the sinful actions of man to accomplish his sovereign purposes. Remember what Joseph said to his brothers when they discovered his identity? “As for you, 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” (Genesis 50:20 ESV). God used the evil actions of Joseph’s brother to accomplish a greater good. Their actions were solely their responsibility (not God’s), but God foreordained good to come out of it.

Deacon, the Bible is filled with demonstrations of God’s sovereignty and his divine purposes in foreordination. Concerning God, Job said, “I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted” (Job 42:2 ESV). Speaking through the prophet Isaiah, God said, “As I have planned, so shall it be, and as I have purposed, so shall it stand” (Isaiah 14:24 ESV).

Consider that if God is unable to foreordain future events, the life, death and resurrection of Jesus is reduced to nothing but a “divine experiment”, since the Godhead had know way of knowing whether Jesus would even die, much less whether he would be resurrected from the dead. Indeed, this is what Richard Rice and Clark Pinnock (among others), teach in their theory of the “Openness of God”. These theories make God extremely small, shrinking him down to the level of a sinful human whose plans can and will fail. But God’s purposes never fail (Isaiah 14:24, Isaiah 46:9-10) and the incarnation was a supreme example of this. Recall Peter’s sermon at Pentecost: “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know–this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.” (Acts 2:22-23 ESV). This is a plain example of how God uses the actions of sinners to achieve his sovereign purposes while remaining perfectly free of sin himself.

God is not the author of sin, and if the future is not determined by him, there is no hope, since we do not know whether or not he will make good on his promises. Fortunately, we are not left with such a weak god whose plans for the redemption of his children can fail. The book of Revelation describes Jesus as the lamb who was slain from the foundation of the world (Revelation 13:8 ) because God’s purposes cannot be thwarted.

Deacon, you ended your short post by saying “We all are called–few choose to come”, yet this is precisely the opposite of what Jesus said. “For many are called, but few are chosen” (Matthew 22:14). And the apostle Paul agrees, saying, “he chose us in him before the foundation of the world” (Ephesians 1:4).

Thankfully, our salvation is not in question and is not left to chance, but is completely secure in the sovereign purposes of our Heavenly Father. “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them” (Ephesians 2:8-10 ESV). What glorious good news this is!

Greg