Comba(t)ting The Doctrines Of Grace

Comment on the reformed usage of John 3:27

2011-03-24T11:14:00.000-07:00

When pondering the question why some persons believe the gospel whereas others do not, I once posted the article Do you think you are smarter?! which argues that asking why anyone forfeits the commandment to accept the gospel (yes, it's a commandment!), is akin to the question why Adam transgressed God's commandment in the Garden Eden and subsequently, why there is sin anyway. For if Calvinists could reasonably tell why Adam took from the Tree of Knowledge rather than the Tree of Life, they could also tell why person A believes the gospel while person B does not. Anyhow, for some reason this question is seldom entertanined, and so it is no wonder that yet another reformd proof text is launched that aims at proving that faith is supernaturally bestowed in some unfathomable manner: John 3:27.

Here it is:

To this John replied, a man can receive only what is given him from heaven.

Is John the baptist saying that faith is a gift from heaven in the calvinistic sense? John 3:27 is not about why anyone believes, but refers to the receipt of a testimony from God. The disciples are inquiring John the baptist about Jesus' authority to baptize and point to John's testimony which he received when baptizing Jesus (John 1:33-34). This testimony by God that "Jesus is the son of God" (1:34) was by the father's voice and the holy spirit in the form of a dove, and hence "from heaven".

Does this just shift the question, from "why do you believe" to "why do you have a testimony"?
How can anyone receive a testimony that Jesus is the son of God? Of course, steadfast and reasonable faith requires a good witness and the witness comes by the word of God. The testimony is shared via the word of God, which is given to all believers, the disciples as seen in John 17:8:

For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them. They knew with certainty that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me; emphasis added.

This is what John in the context at hand refers to when he says (3:31 )

The one who comes from above is above all; the one who is from the earth belongs to the earth, and speaks as one from the earth.

Note, the word of God which is given to the disciples is "sharper than a double edged sword", (Hebrews 4:12) which means the argumentative power in preaching is indisputable. The preacher can logically set forth that Jesus is the son of God and repel any objections. The Logos penetrates even to dividing soul and spirt, joins and marrow, which means the preacher can convict the world of sin on the one hand, and to save them on the other hand. The word of God is His salvific instrument.

So how do you receive a testimony from God? Supernaturally? No, it is by means of someone preaching in such a way that all your doubts and objections die away! It is by cogency and indisputability. As long as a precher cannot repel all the objections raised against the gospel, it is because he has no valid testimony himself as a fundament of his own faith! In other words, he is not carrying a sword but a blunt pocket knife at best.

Thus, John 3:27 doesn't refer to some 'igniter' of faith!

Comment on the reformed usage of Acts 16:14-15

2010-04-08T01:21:00.000-07:00

14 One of those listening was a woman from the city of Thyatira named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth. She was a worshipper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul's message.15 When she and the members of her household were baptised, she invited us to her home. 'If you consider me a believer in the Lord,' she said, 'come and stay at my house.' And she persuaded us.
(Book of Acts 16:14-15)

When promoting the dogma of the effectual call, Calvinists like pointing to the case of Lydia's conversion to Christianity. The question at hand ist, whether Lydia made the first move toward God or whether God made the first move toward Lydia. Those who aim at proving irresistible grace point to the fact that the Lord opened the woman's heart so that she responded to Paul's message positively. The problem however is, that we are in fact presented an order of events here. Before mentioning that the Lord opened Lydia's heart, the text informs us about another fact. "She was a worshipper of God." This was Lydia's predisposition, her condition when she encountered Paul and received the gospel message. She was a faithful worshipper of God when her heart was made responsive to the gospel. Thus, we can say there is an order of moves here: Lydia first made a step toward God in that she was god-fearing. Therefore the passage is inadquate as a proof-text for irresistible grace and the conjecture of a mysterious effectual call invoked on some persons.

Another similar example put forward by Calvinsits is the case of Cornelius in Acts chapter 10. Cornelius' conversion story is amazing. And again, the question arises who made the first move? God or Cornelius? In Cornelius conversion story, four significant actors are involved: God, Cornelius, an angel and Simon Peter. Who is first in the chain of events? Let's see.

Cornelius was a god-fearing man who had been praying to God and given charity. One day he is visited by an angel who proclaims that his prayers have been heard by God and that good news are awaiting him. Cornelius shall send a delegation to order Simon Peter. After arriving at Cornelius, Peter proclaims the gospel which results in Cornelius' conversion to Christianity.

Acts 10:44-45 states:
44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. 45 The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles.

Now, can this be used to argue for the reformed ordo salutis? Are we facing a case of an effectual call here? Is God reaching out to passive, apathetic sinners, taking the first salvific initiative by invoking a spiritual influence on them? By no means! Notice the order in the chain of events. In the beginning Cornelius was visited by an angel. But is this the first element of the chain of events? No, the text is clear that Cornelius was "devout and God-fearing; he gave generously to those in need and prayed to God regularly."

Like in Lydia's case we see a human predisposition that stands at the beginning here. Cornelius had been a pious worshipper of God by the time the angel brought him the news that his faithful prayers had been answered by God. So the angel appeared as a divine response to Cornelius' goodness. So who did the first move in Cornelius' conversion to the christian faith? God or Cornelius? -- Clearly, it was the man Cornelius!

To conclude, the conversion narratives of both Lydia and Cornelius do not support the reformed ordo salutis, but to the contrary--they put the human initiative at the beginning of the order. These passages cannot serve as a pillar of the doctrines of grace at all!

Series on the reformed usage of Romans 9:11-24 -- Part II

2010-04-02T04:17:00.000-07:00

I've been busy working on my book about the topic of suffering and theism so I wasn't spending much time with Calvinism recently. Now I'm seizing the reformed treatment of Romans 9 again and will deal with the subject of God's discrimination between Ismael, Isaac, Esau and Jacob.

Ismael was Abraham's son with the slave woman Hagar. His existence isn't due to a miraculous act of God but the fleshly act of man. Isaac's birth on the other hand, was possible only because of God's special aid. He made possible the conception of a son by an already infertile old woman. Ismael is the prototype of a man born by the "will of man". John 1:13 says the children of God aren't born by the "will of man". Calvinists have used this verse to argue that you cannot become a child of God by your own decision. But "will of man" doesn't refer to a decision or the concept of man's free will as Calvinists understand it, but to sexual activity. Unlike the children of humans the children of God aren't made by sex. That's meant at John 1:13. The children born "by the flesh" or the "will of man", who are represented by Ismael, are contrasted with the children of God, whose names have been written in book of life before anything in the world came into being.

A person's name denotes his origin. Thus, we very often find references to a person's father in the name: Ismael, son of Abraham. Judas, son of Simon. The reference to one's own father is an important element of self-identification and knowledge of one's ancestry is important in legal matters. The bible is meticulous in passing on genealogical trees:

"...whose son was Elkana; whose son was Abiasaph; whose son was Assir whose son was Thahat; whose son was Uriel; whose Usia; whose son was Saul." (1 Chron. 6,8-9)

A child of God doesn't have another man as his father anymore because the child of God has been adopted into God's own family, and has died to his former nature, that is, to his former origin. Therefore, the child of God is a divine creation, it isn't made by sex.

(Compare John 6:40 to verse 71 of the same chapter. The first is a reference to Jesus' supposed sonship of Joseph. The people arround therefore concluded they knew where this man, Jesus, came from.
Verse 6:71 then mentions Judas carnal origin: Son of Simon. While Jesus was in fact not the son of Joseph, Judas' worldly origin is highlighted again.)

A child of God is legally considered older than any man born of the fleshly world. Though a divinely elected one might be younger (Isaac, "the last") than a carnal man (Ismael, "the first"), in God's sight the legal order is reverse. Why? Let's proceed.

Another first-second-relationship is the couple Adam and Christ. Adam serves as a representative of the natural man. How does the natural man become a divine son? He can do so only after Christ has appeared to enable him to become a child of God by a new birth. Adam, the first, is dependent on Christ, the second in order to be saved. The first-second-relation betwenn Ismael and Isaac is a foreshadowing of this reality.

Another first-second-relationship is the couple Old Israel and Gentiles. Israel serves as the source of salvation, the beginning from which the gospel is to be spread throughout the world, beginning in Jerusalem. God decided to deal with mankind in a salvific way through one specific channel: The nation of Israel.

So likewise, Ismael's salvation is only possible because of Isaac, who would be the origin of the nation Israel. Ismael is a foreshadow of the heathen nations that would have to be saved by the salvation coming from the Jews (John 4:22).

The natural order (Adam before Jesus Christ, Ismael before Isaac) is irrelevant. WHY?

Lets turn to the book of life again and the subject of adoption as a child of God. The origin of God's children is in God alone, that is, it is not of this world, but from before the creation of the world. Whatever is of the world will perish with it. Whatever is founded outside the world will instead overcome the world that is going to deteriorate and to be destroyed. That's why those written in the book of life will overcome the world: Their origin lies in eternity past, not in the time of the world.

While it is right that Adam temporally precedes Christ and is the first in the natural order of things, and Christ the "second one" in the natural order of things, in God's view the order is reverse. Christ's origin is before the foundation of the world, while Adam's origin is dated some time after creation, on the sixth day to be precise. Therefore, Adam has no right of the first-born but Christ does. Christ is the truly first born son of God, not Adam.

How does this concern the human beings who become christians? By their adoption into God's royal family they not only receive a new legal status but also inherit a new ancestry. This is not an endless lineage like ...was the son of....who was the son of.....who was the son of....and so on. Rather the lineage is short and direct: A son of God. A christian's origin is directly in God, he has died to his old ancestry. Adoption entails birth rights so the child of God is always the "first-born" in God's sight compared to a fleshly man even though the latter may be older.

And this is a mystery which was revealed only by the time of the gospel and which Paul is getting at here in the 9th to 11th chapter of Romans. Ismael has the same opportunity to be saved as Isaac. In fact these two person serve allegorically for the spiritual reality which is now (by the time Paul wrote Romans) being made public. Thus, Calvinism's very literal understanding of a personal rejection of Ismael and a personal benevolence towards Isaac is inappropriate and illegitimate. Like most Old Testament elements, the Ismael-Isaac-relation points to truths to be revealed in New Testament times.

The same pattern applies for Esau and Jakob. Esau was the first-born according to the natural order. But since the nation of Israel should be specified, the lineage was restricted once again, delimiting the nation of Israel by one son: Jacob. However, what is the meaning behind the announcement, that God loved Jacob even before he were born while he hated Esau in the same mode? Again, we are presented a metaphorical foreshadowing which points to the first-last-principle that is valid throughout the bible, yet made clear only by the time of Christ:

"The first will be the last, the last will be the first"

Esau, the first by nature will be the last. As a non-elect he has to wait for the salvation coming from the elected Israel, that is, Jacob. On the other hand, the "last" son Jacob according to the natural view will be the first in God's salvation. Generally spoken, Adam the first will be the second, while Christ the second is the first man born "out of the dead".

And likewise the first elected mosaic Israel will be the last to be gathered for salvation after the "last" (Gentiles) have become the fist ones (Christianized) .

Children of God have an origin in times before the time of their natural birth. That's why God can say his love precedes their human nature. That's the case with Jacob. The hatred towards Esau, who is a representative of natural man exactly like Ismael and Adam, is directed towards this fleshly nature of his. Paul is describing the mystery of God's discrimination between human nature on the one hand and divine essence on the other. The first originates with the world, the second with God himself. The first has a natural father, who is himself "of the world". The latter however has a direct divine father (by adoption) and therefore is legally preceding any man of this world! That's why the "inhabitants of the world" are those whose name is not written in the book of life (Rev. 13:8;17:8). Inhabitants of the world are those born by "the will of man".

Adopted children however receive a new family name, the name of God, pointing to their father. This is their everlasting, unquenchable name, dating back to eternity past.

To conclude, Calvinism's literal understanding of Ismael, Isaac, Jacob and Esau betrays their refusal to accommodate the two natures: The fleshly nature and the divine essence. They assume a particular individual election in eternity past by which certain men called Ismael and Esau were reprobated by decree while certain other men called Isaac and Jacob were elected unto glorification. That's reading a concern for individuality into Paul's theology which isn't there.
Election in the bible is corporate, not respecting individuals. Perhaps the focussing on and the sympathy for a concept of individuality with respect to election and salvation stems from modern era Americanism. From its early beginning, Americanism was based on the emphasis on individuality. "Every man ist the architect of his own fortune", is certainly a device perfectly supported by the theological companionship of Calvinism. Thus, the popularity of Calvinism in early America was perfectly compatible with the individual-centered american way of life.

However, it certainly doesn't fit Pauline theology. The concept of election according to the "doctrines of God's grace" is unbiblical.

Support Geert Wilders against the intolerant religion of Islam!

2010-01-02T12:58:00.001-08:00

Petition for Geert Wilders--The dutch politician Geert Wilders is persecuted for defending the freedom of speech in the Netherlands. The dutch justice system is blackmailed by sympathizers of Mohammedanism to condemn Wilders by threat of boycot of a variety of dutch products. Wilders made a comparison between the Qur'an by Mr. Mohammed and Mein Kampf by A. Hitler. Modern jihadists pursue exactly what their unholy book commands them yet few people will actually pay attention. Like Hitler didn't conceal his ideology and his goals but made his worldview blatantly plain, so the source of islamic evil is found directly in the unholy words of the Qur'an. Geert Wilders points out the truth about the self-proclaimed religion of peace and tries to awaken the sleepy european establishment. Moderate Muslims predominantely approve of muslim extremists' actions silently. European decision makers are on the verge of throwing our freedom overboard to protect the muslims' "feelings". Tolerance seems to be a one-way road.

Please support Geert Wilders and don't tolerate intolerance!

Sign this petition.

Series on the reformed usage of Romans 9:11-24 -- Part I

2009-11-25T08:33:00.000-08:00

This passage is the favorite reformed pillar of the doctriens of God's grace, in particular the dogma of double predestination is derived solely from this text. One might very safely bet there is no volume on the basics of Calvinism on the book market that gets by without making reference to this passage. Since many issues are to be dealth with in this context, I decided to divide this work into several parts.

In the light of recent occasions, I'll first address what I feel is a very basic snare Calvinists have been caught in and really enlightens where Calvinism's core problem is rooted. For not only was I just lately confronted with this challenge and asked to engage in the exercise suggested there, but someone also used a similar "weapon" in a recent comment: I'm speaking of verse Romans 9:19:

One of you will say to me: 'Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?'

The question anticipated here by the author of Romans is due to the preceding statement that God hardens whom he wills. Since the hardening is by God, the virtual objector is questioning God's justice. Now, the section of Romans 9-11 is very much concerned with the topic of divine hardening. Though I'll be dealing with the passage in-depth in the subsequent parts, I'll start with the reformed usage of verse 9:19 in particular, because it fits well as a response to the challenge posed by "int3grity" as mentioned above. But not only that. It fits well because this is probably the most frequently quoted verse by Calvinists I have encountered and it provides an entire basic framework for reformed presuppositions.

It is noteworthy that Calvinists do not have any idea about the divine hardening itself. Reformed theology doesn't contemplate how the sovereign God actually does this intervention and what is going on when God hardens someone. In other words, there is no deeper interest regarding the matter of the hardening and no idea whatsoever about a "hardening mechanism" or a divine "hardening instrument" that could be comprehended. No, in reformed circles these questions are never even touched to begin with. The assumption is that the hardening procedure itself is somewhat unfathomable and no attempts are made to peer into that. Since the subject of divine hardening is so prevalent and fundamental for an understanding of the section Romans 9-11, I'll start off with this topic. To be precise, in this part I'll be arguing that the key to a correct understanding of Romans 9 lies in an understanding of the hardening. Furthermore and in particular, I'll be arguing that if someone doesn't understand the hardening mechanism, it is because he is hardenend himself. Hence, it is absolutely vital to capture wisdom and knowledge about this subject. For how is anyone supposed to understand the scriptures (in this case Romans 9:11-24) rightly if he has been hardened? Therefore it is reasonable to seize on the matter where I think Calvinism's core problem is hidden.

So does the bible in general and Paul in particular reveal anything regarding the mystery of divine hardening? Among other things, one thing which can be affirmed and which I indicated in previous posts, is that the sovereign Lord hardens people by the law he has given them. What does this mean? One can distinguish three covenants God established with mankind. First, the covenant with Adam in the Garden Eden, second the Mosaic law and third the new covenant of faith in Jesus Christ.

As a matter of fact, the destructive effect of the mosaic law is a main thought put forward in the epistle to the Romans. The law which was given by God and meant to bring eternal life, effectively brought the opposite: death!

Rom. 3:20:
Therefore no-one will be declared righteous in God's sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.

To become conscious of sin or to have knowledge of sin is to be hardened.

Rom 7:13:
Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! Nevertheless, in order that sin might be recognised as sin, it used what is good to bring about my death, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful. (Emphasis added)

"Become utterly sinful" refers to hardening. Since the law is by God, it is divine hardening.

1 Cor 15:56
The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.

The law originates with God. It is the hardening instrument that leads to death.

Rom 7:7
What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law.

While the law brings knowledge of one's sin (=hardening), the law itself is certainly good, because it is from God. God's law hardens. This is how God "hardens whom he wills". Whom does God will to harden? To be precise, he hardens everyone who opposes the law. Not the law is bad, the transgressors of the law are!

As a matter of fact, the destructive effect of the new law of faith, the gospel commandment, is another main news put forward in the same epistle. What is the gospel's functionality as a divine hardening mechanism? The hardening is also encountered by Jesus Christ’s role as the cornerstone with an ambivalent function. Concerning this cornerstone Romans 9:33 says

“See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes people to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who believes in him will never be put to shame.'”

Christ, the cornerstone can work in two ways: If you believe in him, he is your savior. If you reject him, he is your stumbling stone. This stumbling function that makes people fall is divine hardening, for it was God who laid this stone in Zion! Jesus didn't come on his own but was sent by God.

How then, does Jesus Christ’s hardening work? If you believe that God raised the crucified Kyrios from the grave and accredited him by lifting him up to heavenly glory, then you believe that the crucifixion had a redemptive, good meaning.

Now it becomes interesting: If you are a sincere Jew and if you don’t believe that Jesus was the son of God and approved of by the Father, then you believe that God’s final word about Jesus was the curse of crucifixion, for “cursed is everyone that hangs on a tree”. As a sincere Jew who doesn’t believe in Jesus, you would have to conclude that Jesus did not only lack approval of God, but to the contrary: What Jesus taught (for instance the ethics of the sermon on the mountain, about Sabbath keeping, about fasting, food regulations etc) was explicitly despised by God. Thus, as a Jesus rejecting Jew you have to infer that Jesus’ teaching was not only neutral or wrong but really an abomination! And so you’d be confirmed in your mosaic law keeping efforts that only bring knowledge of sin and divert from ever gaining eternal life. You’d be hardened in your stubborn legalistic death-bringing works religion. You’d be reaffirmed of your works religion more than before! That’s how divine hardening works via Jesus’ role as a cornerstone. God isn’t actively involved in any development of evil!

John 12:48

There is a judge for those who reject me and do not accept my words; the very words I have spoken will condemn them at the last day.

The word is either your saving nourishment or a forensic hardening instrument. Since it is the Word of God, it is divine hardening. If you reject Christ, salvation is farther than before.

Now, the epistle to the Romans emphatically affirms the destructive (hardening) effect of both the mosaic law and the newly bestowed "law of faith" (Rom 3:26-27). What is left is the very first law God gave to mankind. Does this entail a divine hardening effect, too?

Most assuredly, it does. The very first law sounded:

Gen 2:16-17
And the Lord God commanded the man, 'You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will certainly die.'

Let us return to the starting question in this article, namely the question phrased in Romans 9:19 ("One of you will say to me: 'Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?' ") and remember how it was prompted. (Note, this is Calvinism's favorite question to raise).

Paul had just said that God is free to bestow mercy on whom he wills. I think one would hardly object to this. But Paul also pointed out that God is equally free to "harden whom he wills". Now, the letter to the Romans is written as a diatribe. Paul emulates a public speech before an imaginary audience gathered around a speaker, where he anticipates hecklings from the audience and answers them. This literary style is a practical way to get controversial issues across. Such anticipated questions occur several times in the letter (eg. v3:5; 6:1; 6:15; 7:7). Is the situation in 9:19 different? Well, while Paul is indeed going to answer this question in the remainder of the section, the treatment of the imaginary objector's question is rebuked in that way for a special reason. For what is the queston of v.19 if not a question about God's goodness? "Why does he find faul?" is an inquiry about justice which certainly has to do with the question of what it means to be good. It is certainly touching the possibility of injustice which is of course quite the opposite. "For who can resist his will?". So these are questions touching the ultimate realities about good and evil. The contemplation about God's goodness in his dealings with the world as outlined by Paul, are nothing else than attempts to gain knowledge of good and evil, questions like that are attempts to understand the ultimate standard of morality. Now, what is the usual human method to attain knowledge of good and evil? For instance, what would the imaginary objector of Rom 9:19 have to do in order to satisfy his thirst for knowledge? Well, if we think of Adam as a representative of natural humankind, and his behavior as exemplary of man's ways, then one can state that humanity's method to attain such knowledge is to take from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. That's "Adam's method". Philosophy. Trying to figure out the things of God by human wisdom. Though nobody is literally eathing an apple (or whatever the forbidden fruit was), this doesn't undo the inanity of human wisdom to capture divine truth. It rather reaffirms the sobering result: Trying to understand good and evil results in ever increasing perplexity the more one struggles to understand.

Eating from the tree of knowledge is the man-like approach to solve things. Like Calvinism. What does the fruit of the forbidden tree bring about? It doesn't provide saving knowledge, but rather spiritual darkness. Darkness is the absence of enlightenment and the opposite of salvation. You cannot see and hence cannot know any truth. The fruit of the forbidden tree brings death. It brings knowledge of sin--in other words: It hardens.

Now, what does this have to do with Rom. 9:19, the understanding of divine hardening and int3grity's task above? After having eaten from the forbidden tree and fallen into spiritual darkness, man constantly repeats the same procedure in order to gain knowledge. The knowledge of his sin doesn't make him wise. No, he rather grasps after the same fruit again and again in hope to receive knowledge why he grasped after it for the first time. Man ("Adam") applies the only method available to him, to receive knowledge of good and evil:--The forbidden fruit that won't help.
Every man-made vain exercise to understand the things of God, considering his goodness, justice, relationship towards mankind etc. are repeated bites into the fruits of this very tree.

So lets return to the starting question:

"Why does God still find fault with me?"

Okay, what should we do to answer this question? Is God unjust? In other words, is God evil? Obviously the answer can only be attained by the fruit designed to bring that knowledge, no? So let's take a bite into the fruit of the tree of knowledge.

Why does God hold me responsible anyway? -- Take of the forbidden fruit: Bite!
Why is there evil anyway? -- Grasp for the fruit again--Bite.

Given that background one might as well ponder int3grity's many "hard questions" and answer them by man's method, shall we?.....

-Was it unfair for God to rest mankind's eternal destiny in the will of Adam by giving him a choice to eat of the forbidden fruit?

To answer this question, imagine yourself standing under the tree of knowledge. Then break a fruit off the tree and bite in to get the answer!

-If it's unfair that God imputes the original sin of Adam to all men for no reason but their race is it unfair that God imputes the righteousness of Christ to some for no reason but His grace?

Bite!

-If God cannot impute the original sin of Adam to all men, how can He impute the righteousness of the Last Adam to any man?

Bite

-Does man's inclinations control his will or does man's will control his inclinations?

Bite

-Why is the question always whether sinners CAN choose Christ and not why do sinners EVER choose Christ?

Bite

-Is decisional regeneration dependent upon whether man's will is free or is it a question of whether man's will is good? (Jer 13:23)

Bite

- Why is it so hard to believe that our free will can be limited by our ability, and our ability can be limited by our nature, and our nature is wholly corrupted by sin? (1Cor 2:14; Rom 8:7-8)

Bite

- Is it fair for you to demand God to be fair according to your fallen notions of fairness? (Rom 9:14) Is it not fair to say that if God was fair to all sinners it would not fare well for you?

Bite

- Is it unfair for God to predestine for some a conformity to Christ which others have no desire for anyways? (Rom 8:29; 3:11)

Bite

- How do texts about God's universal love for all mankind nullify texts about His electing grace for all kinds of men? (John 3:16; 1Tim 2:4; Rev 5:9; Acts 13:48)

Bite

- Did GOD love you before you were saved in the exact same sense and way that HE loves those who he knows will always reject HIM? (Rom 9:11-16)

Bite

- Does the future exist because GOD knows it or does the future exist because GOD decreed it before HE created time? (Isaiah 46:10)

Bite

- Did GOD know who would be saved & who would be lost before HE created time or was HE surprised when Adam sinned & resort to "plan B"? (2 Thes 2:13)

Bite

- Is God's desire to preserve man's final self-determination greater than His desire to keep men from being unsaved?

Bite

- Did God esteem His desire to have a world in which there are final self-determining people more highly than He esteemed His other desire that nobody be lost?

Bite

- Does your cultural upbringing have any influence on who you are, the way you think, and the decisions you make? Do these influences God has allowed in your life have any bearing upon how you respond to the Gospel call if, in fact, you ever hear it?

Bite

- Is it truly possible to make any decision unaffected by outside influences in our lives? Is God in control of our influences?

Grasp another fruit and bite!

- If God loves everybody in the exact same way, why doesn't He orchestrate all events, circumstances, influences and inclinations of all people everywhere in such a way as to equally compel them all to willfully become His sheep? (John 10:11; 10:26)

Bite

- Does God know the future? Does He know what is required to persuade individuals to choose Christ? Does He exercise this persuasion upon all people equally customized to their varying inclinations?

Bite

- Does God temporarily remove every outside influence, preconceived idea, personality trait and psychological malady in order that a person can make a completely neutral free will decision to choose Christ? Would He not have to do this as well as give Gospel revelation to all people in order to be fair?

Bite

- If God gives a universal 50-50 chance for all people to choose Christ equally, shouldn't there be a 50-50 conversion rate?

Bite

- Which is more unfair: for God to have to graciously regenerate people before they can willfully believe the Gospel or for God to create people within circumstances where they will never hear or have a chance to willfully believe the Gospel?

Bite

- If there is no other name (Jesus) under heaven by which people must be saved (Acts 4:12) then how can the unevangelized get to heaven?

Bite

- What is the eternal destiny of the unevangelized? (Rom 10:13-14)

Bite

- Why aren't all people saved if it is God's desire to save all people? (Isaiah 46:10; Rom 9:18)

Bite

- Is there something more powerful than God in the universe that is usurping His will for all men to be saved?

Bite

- If it's possible for God to will that a sinful act come to pass without willing it as an act of sin in Himself to achieve His sovereign purposes (ie. the crucifixion; Acts 2:23), what higher prerogative of God restrains His desired will to save all people?

Bite

- Is there a greater will in God that supersedes His desire that all men repent and be saved?(Rom 9:22)
Is the display of God's wrath in judgment against sin a good thing or a bad thing? Why does God desire to show His wrath? (Rom 9:17)

Bite

- Since God's decreed will (Rev13:8; Isa 53:10) was for Satan (1Sam 19:9) to inspire Judas' (John 17:12) betrayal (Matt 27:4) of Christ to be murdered (Exo 20:13; Acts 2:23; 4:27-28), could it be said that God is willing to allow that which He does not will (Lam 3:32-33; Isa 53:10a) in order to accomplish that which He does will? (Rom 9:22-23; Eph 1:11)

Bite

- Will Christ save all of those that He intends to save or will He fail to save any person that He intends to save? (Acts 13:48)

Bite

- What is the difference between you and others which caused you to choose Christ while they reject Him? (John 6:37; 10:26)

Bite

- Is there anything that God did for you to bring about your salvation which He didn't do for those who reject the Gospel? (John 6:44; Acts 16:14)

Bite

- How can you deny God's right and power to effectually call people to salvation and then pray for the lost?

Bite

- If a sinner rejects the Gospel over and over again, and you ask God to open their heart to believe it, are you not asking Him to violate their free will?

Bite

- If God answers your prayers to save someone, does He not violate their power of autonomous choice by working in them in response to you asking for them to be saved?

Bite

- Why pray for people's salvation if God would be unjust in exercising selective sovereign influence upon their will in a more persuasive way than He does for individuals who have not been prayed for?

Bite

- Does God require unsaved people to pay for sin in hell that Jesus already paid for on the cross?

Bite

- Did Jesus atone for the sins of those who died and went to hell before He came into the world?

Bite! (Shouldn't you be standing knee-deep in apple cores by now?)

- If Jesus, the Good Shepherd, laid down His life for the sheep, why isn't every individual in the world one of His sheep? (John 10:11; 10:26)

Bite! Isn't perplexity ever increasing?

- Did Jesus die for the sin of unbelief in which Christians lived before they believed? If so, what about the sin of unbelief of people who never believe?

Bite

- If people go to hell because they don't believe in Christ (John 3:18), and unbelief is a sin, and Christ died for all sin everywhere, then why do people go to hell if they don't believe in Christ?

Bite

- Are people sanctified in hell or is their sin of unbelief perpetual for eternity? If unbelievers continue in unbelief (rejection of Christ) for eternity in hell, how could Jesus have finally paid for a sin that has no final ending point? (Mark 3:29)

Bite

- Are sins atoned for by Christ in the past or are they atoned for at the moment of the conditional exercising of faith on the part of the believer?

Bite

- 1. If GOD had created humanity and allowed sin to enter the world, but chose NOT to provide a Savior or redemption for ANY person ever, so all people who sinned went to hell under HIS wrath for eternity without any hope of salvation, and you were an angel in heaven observing all this, would you be happy with GOD?

Bite

- 2. If GOD created angels and allowed them to rebel, but chose NOT to provide a Savior or redemption for ANY of those who fell, so they went to hell under HIS wrath for eternity without any hope of salvation, and you were a person who, through Biblical revelation, knew all this, would you be happy with GOD?

The less you see the more you think you can see, don't you? - Bite!

- Why are people happy that satan and demons will be cast into hell without any hope of salvation? What makes people more deserving than angels?

Bite

- Is it unfair that God limited the atonement to fallen man but not fallen angels

Bite

- Was God unjust for not providing a savior for fallen angels? (2Pet 2:4)

Bite

- Do angels have free will?

Bite

- If man has completely neutral liberty to choose salvation, are Christians also free to choose to become unsaved?

Bite

- Does God take away a Christian's freedom to choose or reject Christ after they are born again?

Bite

- How can a Christian temporarily have eternal life? If eternal life is present, is it not eternally present for every person who has it without exception? How can a person presently have eternal life and then cease to have it after they die? Doesn't eternal life begin the moment you have it? If you can loose it, how can you possibly have it to begin with? (John 10:28; 6:40)

Bite

- Is it not possible for a Christian to live as though their salvation depends upon them and yet believe that it exclusively and ultimately depends upon God? (Phil 2:12-13)

Bite.

---The End of the Story---

How vain and hopeless "man's method" is! Eating from the forbidden fruit (seeking knowledge of good and evil) has a hardening result, just like the mosaic law and unbelief in the gospel. "Why then, does God still find faul?" -- Bite again .......

The anticipated question of Rom 9:19 is the ignorant inquiry of someone who hasn't yet received the good news and the full story. That's crucial. Paul is going to unveil the mystery of God's plan in the salvation history. In fact, the whole discourse was actually prompted by the question about Israel's fate and how it was possible for Israel to miss the Messiah. Calvinists who quote this verse over and over again, have no idea what divine hardening is about. They rather invoke Adam's method, the wisdom of the world, as seen above and do not realize that they are in the same position as the imaginary objector of Rom. 9:19. For here the word is true: "They know not the One who sent me!".

That's the irony of the reformed use of Rom. 9:19.

Eternal life is by epignoskos (knowledge) of the true God (John 17:3). Epignosko is contrary to any idea of inscrutability and transcendence. Nobody is saved in the state of a mere submitter to an unfathomable God. Emphasizing God's sovereignty just doesn't cut it. "They know not the One who sent me". A confession of the lofty oneness of a sovereign ruler just doesn't save anyone. You might point out the sovereignty of God all your life and still be be lost. Epignosko of the true God--in the bible a technical term for conversion to Christianity--is not compatible with ignorance regarding the ways of the Most High. As long as you keep pointing to the reality of divine hardening without any plan whatsoever how to un-harden the hardened and without any concept of the background of this divine work--it demonstrates the stubborn condition of your own hardedness.

To conclude, do we have a proof-text that God is the author of sin? By no means! We have seen that unless one knows the gospel (including the entire story of Romans 9-11 in context, rather than a few verses ripped out of coherence), one cannot possibly understand Israel's situation and the mysterious course of the gospel. One must not stop at v. 19, but continue to read the whole story, a task Calvinists regularly fail to accomplish. The holy God is neither the author of sin, nor do we have evidence for double predestination here. Yet sadly, that's Calvinism's characteristic doctrine. It's the bad fruit of divine hardening.

About calvinism's theodicy

2009-10-27T11:38:00.000-07:00

I just read and commented on this blog post about Calvinism's treatment of the problem of evil.
I said that there is nothing to ground culpability in reformed theodicy, except mere definition. In this sense, the calvinistic Greater Good Defense, which argues that the existence of sin in God's world serves a greater good, is untenable. What do Calvinists think is the ultimate greater good, that is served by the existence of sin? Usually, the answer given is that the greater good is the exertion of God's mercy and His justice. In order for these holy attributes to become displayed, there must be foregoing sin. But the question of culpability remains open. What grounds mankind's guilt? Mere definition?

The circle of reformed theodicy goes like this:

-Why is there sin in a world governed by God? (Starting question)

-Because it serves an ultimate good purpose, a greater good

-What is this greater good?

-It is the demonstration of God's mercy and his wrath

-Basically, what are mercy and wrath?

-They are responses to guilt

-Why or on what basis is there guilt?

-Because humans sinned

-Why did they sin?

(Circle closed)

Calvinists can still avoid this inconsistency by conceding that they simply don't know what the greater good is, and some calvinists in fact hold to this position. They leave this up to God's inscrutable mysteries. Fine, but then calvinists should stop claiming their system provides the only plausible response to the problem of evil, for an appeal to mystery is no answer at all, since theodicy is about a logical explanation of the co-existence of God and evil.

But even if one grants that there is some greater good served by evil, reformed theodicy has a problem. Why does God not realize this goal in a straight way, without the means of evil? Why does he go into debt like an investor in order to achieve a profit in the future? Is he uncapable of achieving this profit without utilizing evil? If yes, he isn't omnipotent. The other option is, that God wilfully decided to use evil in order to realize the greater good. In other words, the way through evil is appreciated by God. In this case, God wouldn't be holy. The very usage of evil would be willed by God himself, as a part of the greater good. However, to discard God's holiness isn't a valid option either. Thus, as long as the calvinist holds to a conjectured greater good without knowing what this is, he must either throw God's power overboard or his love and goodness. In a christian spirit, both options are utterly untenable. Of course there is a third option left, that is to deny the reality of evil. The calvinist can define evil away by the argument that since God uses the means of evil, which serve a greater good, these means must actually be good--evil is defined away! After all, the logical problem of evil only exists if God's attributes of omnipotence and goodness are as real as the existence of evil. But needless to say, the denial of evil's reality is biblically absolutely untenable as well.

Thus, calvinism's theodicy is a folly.

Rebuttal of the reformed usage of John 6:37-44

2009-10-20T08:07:00.000-07:00

John 6,35-45 is a favorite calvinistic passage to bolster the doctrines of grace. Especially verse 44 along with verse 65 is one of the most frequently cited statements by calvinists. It is used to argue that the submission to the gospel of Jesus Christ is impossible for natural man. Calvinists interpret this verse as saying nobody can believe in Jesus Christ on his own unless he is enabled so by God the father. This is the most frequently used reformed prooftext that faith must be a special gift from God. In this paper the reformed usage of John 6,35-45 is scrutinized.

It can be shown that the reformed interpretation of John 6:37-44 commits three basic exegetical fallacies:

1) It infringes the head-members-principle.
2) It disregards the principle "Scripture interprets Scripture"
3) It lacks support from plausibility and common sense.

This paper however, suggests an alternative interpretation that avoids the above blemishes.

Ancient documents usually lack meta data like disclosed introductions, chapters, conclusions, overviews etc. that we are accustomed to use and to find in modern writings. After all, these meta data alleviate following the author the way he intended to be understood and apprehend the right understanding. The bible authors used to write without punctuation, spaces and any outward structure, resulting in text strings difficult to handle. In particular, there is the problem of determining the author's objective and his writing's overall purpose. A variety of issues might be conveyed in an arbitrary way and coherence hard to find. However, if there is a certain key issue treated in a writing, then the head-members-principle demands that every part of the text is serving this key issue, the head, by contributing information that support the key issue. Thus, the key issue or the principle theme is the writing's "head", which is subdivided into several "members", the particular elaborations, explanations that constitute the text, the body.

A particular thought or theme conveyed in a writing is derived from a superior, preceding subject, which itself might have a predecessor and so on, up to the ultimate head subject. In the final analysis, a certain textual part subsumes or fulfils its subservient parts and ultimately everything is subordinate to the head, and thereby serving the author's goal.

Again, especially in ancient documents it is often difficult to determine whether there is one key issue that dominates the writing, because texts might as well consist of various fragments of information without coherence and so treat of different subjects. But if we are lucky, the author left a hint to his principle theme that is underlying his writing, thereby providing the hook on which the entire text is hung up. This provides the first clue to approach the text.

The text passage under scrutiny is contained in the gospel of John. Now, can we tell whether there is a key issue in the gospel of John, and if so, what is it? Fortunately, John didn't leave his readers uninformed about his overall intention. The key issue is given by verse 20:31:

"These things are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God and that by believing you may have life in his name"

The purpose is evangelical and the account's key issue is to provide the necessary teaching about Jesus Christ to convert the readers to the gospel. Therefore, we should expect that everything in John's gospel account serves this goal in one way or another. Now, what about verse 44, what status does it have in the body? The sentence of John 6,44 is embedded in the larger context of the bread of life teaching and seems to be made in passing. Even the repetition in v.65 doesn't change the status of this remark as a passing comment. One might object that the verse should still be more appreciated and this may be granted. But in any case, the notion that "no one can come to me unless the father who sent me draws him", is a minor matter in between and is settled in the text structure in a way one might sketch like this:

Now, while it is true that every part of the whole text must be compatible with the key issue, this doesn't necessitate that every part in itself actually contributes a real informative profit to the key issue. A writing might contain literary embellishments, comments made in passing or some "by the way"- insertions that don't seem to provide any informative value to the head and thus, are without use to the key issue in and of themselves. Besides, the author can side-step into a relative subject to gather additional information, in order to return to the original subject later with an additional informative avail. This is mustering knowledge from somwhere else. In such a case, the relative subject in itself might be quite alien to the orginal key issue. However, in this case it must still be apparent and traceable in which way this side-step is ultimately beneficial to the key issue and contributing to it. So it might not always be easy to determine in what way a piece of text is necessary or useful or whether it is dismissable.

However, there is one thing that cannot be: There can be no member in the text in opposition to the key issue. It is not allowed to have, say, a minor matter somewhere in between that thwarts the very principle theme, the key issue of the whole writing. Everything must be compatible with the overall issue and it isn't possible for the left little finger to work against the head. Rather all members must constitute a textual body that ultimately buttresses the head. Thus, if a part of the text, a member, suggests something incompatible with the head, then the important hermeneutic head-members-principle is infringed. In this case, the exegete should by any means seek an understanding that avoids this blemish. And generally spoken, an understanding that aligns with this rule should be preferred over an interpretation that breaks it.

Now, what about John 20,31 and John 6,44? The entire gospel account (the body) is an exhortation to believe in Jesus Christ and to provide the basis for that faith. The readers shall come to faith by this very text. However, if John 6,44 means that nobody can believe on his own and that faith is dependent on divine enablement, then there is a problem. The entire writing would lose its balance. While 20,31 is an exhortation to the addressees, v.44 would override this key issue, by putting the initiative of faith on God. Thereby it would undermine the exhorting and encouraging key issue. If the fulfillment of the key issue (to believe in Christ) is really out of the readers' hands, then v.44 is lifted up on the rank of the key issue and the whole text structure is out of balance. This is not to say, that we have a logical contradition here. No, that is not the case and this must be very clear. Theoretically, it is still possible that John's originally intended meaning is indeed what the reformed position holds. However this is doubtful, for we would have a severe hermeneutic blemish. The notion, that v.44 suggests that the issue of faith or unbelief is based on God rather than the entire textual body at hand (see 20,31), grossly violates basic hermeneutics. In this case it would be very unlikely that the author would not elaborate on this paradox any further. But there is more. If the calvinistic understanding of v.44 is correct, it is unlikely that the author would have structured his text the way he did, rather we would expect a text structure that contrasts two opposing main subjects and is built around the elaboration on this paradox. The shape of the text would be two-headed, highlighting the thought of John 20,31 on the one hand and the thought of John 6,44 on the other hand.

But of course, the gospel of John is not structured that way. The hierarchy sets v.20,31 above 6,44. To interpret v.44 as conveying natural man's inability to fulfill 20,31 without divine enablement, smells like fine-print. In fact, it is turning the textual hierarchy upside down. It is the "real truth" between the lines, which can easily be missed by a casual reading. In the midth of the bread of life discourse, the alert reader would find that with respect to the principal theme, there is a rub in the matter. Yes, it is very improbable that this is John's intended meaning.

Thus, if there is a convincing alternative to the awkward reformed understanding of 6,44 which doesn't deny man's innate ability to obey the gospel, then that interpretation should be preferred. And this alternative shall be delivered in the following, so let's get to the beginning of the passage, and examine it again.

The context of the discourse in John 6 is crucial as well. Calvinists start their argumentation by pointing to v.36 which says: "But I have told you that you have seen me and still do not believe". Now a calvinst commentator said, beginning at verse 37 Jesus explains their unbelief and the following discourse revolves around the explanation why some don't believe anyway. That's an unwarranted assumption. Rather it seems v.36 is a constatation that refers back to the preceding v.35. Jesus remarks that what he just said about the bread of life is of no use to these folks because they don't believe anyway. And this constatation is the point of contact that prompts the continuation of the sermon in a certain direction. It isn't self-evident what the said bread from heaven has to do with the person of Jesus, the speaker of these very words. Thus, beginning at v.37 Jesus continues the teaching about this precious bread from heaven and explains why it is necessary to believe in him with respect to the obtainment of this bread and about the consequence of unbelief. But nothing indicates that v.37ff is a disclosure of the reason why people disbelieve. Notice that explanatory statements are oftentimes introduced by the word "for", which refers to a preceding statement. This makes it clear that a reason is now provided. Yet v.37 isn't phrased as a reason for v.36. Rather v.37 follows v.36 as a deepening of the subject of the bread of life and its background. The motivation for Jesus to proceed his saying with v.37 is the underlying truth that the audience will not receive this bread unless they believe. However, there is no reason to assume that the passage 6,37-44 is a treatment of the mystery of unbelief which is unveiled. Jesus doesn't deal with the question why some folks, upon seeing and hearing the son of God, nevertheless stay in unbelief. This is absolutely important to grasp here, because calvinists make the unwarrented assumption, that the passage under scrutiny is a disclosure of the secret of unbelief.

That brings us to v.37 which is pivotal. It is grammatically noteworthy and its semantics are decisive with regard to the whole remainder of the sermon. The understanding of v.37 will essentially shape the interpretation of the rest of the passage. After all, the verse raises some interesting semantic issues.

First, what do the terms "give" and "come" mean in v. 37?

Second, the sentence structure is noteworthy. There is a double-arrival at Jesus. Does "give" have the meaning of a gift or a promise or a credit? Or does it simply refer to a transfer? Objects are first given to Christ and then come to Christ. There seem to be two ways on which one and the same object arrives at Christ. The giving might denote a promise that is later fulfilled. But this is unwarraned so far.

Third, why is "all" neuter and "whoever" personal in v.37? And again, why is "all", which is given and "it" which is raised up, neuter in v.39? Why not "all those" or "everyone" in v.37 and 39? Is there a deeper meaning behind this use of genders?

So what does it mean for the Father to "give" something to the son?

The following suggestions come to mind:

i)To give anticipates the idea of to draw in v.44. Hence, v.37 says that all who are drawn by the Father will come to Christ.

ii) To give denotes the pre-eternal decree of God where he decided to join a people to Christ. Thus, it denotes a definite decision of God, a promise to the son which is realized in the time of the world, when the individuals of this people actually believe in Christ and become adopted as sons.

What about i)?

It is strange why the meaning of drawing, according to calvinism the enablement to repent and believe in Christ, would be set equal to God's giving to Christ. To give me = To enable him is a weird way to say the same thing. The giving of v.37 indicates a transaction. There is a sender, a recipient and an object of that transaction. The Father is the sender, the giver. The Son the receiver. The one drawn would now be the object given. Such linguistic gymnastics appear somewhat awkward. Besides, the determination of the meaning of to give would be shifted to the determination of what to draw at v.44 means. The smooth reading would at first be interrupted by the ambiguity of what v.37 is actually all about.

What about ii)?

To think of God's actions before the foundation of the world and God's decree here, is quite far-fetched unless there is further support by the passage itself. But there is nothing which would render this interpretation nearby. Furthermore, the present tense of to give doesn't seem to suggest the absolute past tense of the decree of God. Calvinists, who adopt ii) might point out that God's decree is an eternal reality and the Father beyond time and so the usage of the present tense might be plausible. But v.39 uses to give in the present perfect ("has given"). If the giving refers to the eternal decree before the foundation of the world and the present tense at v.37 denotes its timeless nature, why then the present perfect at v.39? Or is the giving in v.39 again something different?--It's highly unlikely that the giving of v.39 refers to something else than the giving at v.37, considering the textual flow and the closeness of the words' positions. Thus, the argument that gives at v.37 is present tense because it denotes the timelessness of the decree, is very weak. Such arguments can only be understood from a precommitment to reformed theology. The present perfect in v.39 seems to be simply underlining the fact that Christ could possibly only lose what has alreday come to him. You cannot lose something you don't have yet.

But what about to come. Is it synonymous with to believe? An argument in favor of the equal meaning of the terms may be based on v.35, where the Lord says whoever comes will never be hungry and whoever believes never be thirsty. The unity of eating the flesh of the son of man and the drinking of his blood suggests that to come is a picture of faith and simply meant as another vocable for to believe. But there are good reasons that there is still a significant difference in meaning and a purpose why two verbs (to come and to believe) are used to express supposedly one and the same thing. Why do both these words occur in the passage, rather than a consequent usage of believe only? It might be just a linguistic device illustrating a believer's faith as an approach to the savior, showing how he escapes from his sinful state into the arms of a welcoming savior. Accepting that reading, the term come in that passage is indeed nothing else than a metaphor of faith. However, it can be shown that there is a convincing reason why Jesus chose to express his teaching that way and why there is a crucial semantic distinction between the words.

With regard to the interpreation of John 6:35-45 we can conclude so far, that since v.37 is grammatically so special and the proper meaning of the words "give" and "come" are unclear so far, we should be careful with our following interpretation.

It is vitally important to get the correct meaning of v.37.

The "bread of life" is only handed down by John. On the other hand, John omits another important concept of the synoptics--the gospel of John is not a gospel of the kingdom of God. Well, of course it is since John doesn't teach another gospel, but the phrase "kingdom of God" which is an absolutely prevalent motif of the synoptics, isn't contained in the entire johannine gospel account. All of Jesus' many sayings about the kingdom aren't narrated by John at all. John puts the truths in other ways. Another characteristic is the absence of parables in John's writing. On the other hand, the bread of life teaching which is the topic of the passage under scrutiny here, doesn't occur in any other gospel account. The evangelist John, who certainly reports about the same Jesus and the same apostles and the very same truths taught by Jesus, uses different traditions to convey the gospel message. It is quite outstanding that John's gospel of the kingdom of God gets by without mentioning that kingdom. The illustrations and imagery used are different.

Why is this observation important? Because sound exegesis is, among other cirteria, based on comparative studies where this is possible. If there are several scriptural witnesses to the same state of affairs then one might use a juxtaposition of these different accounts to develop a coherent interpretation. In such a juxtaposition one and the same truth might be approached from different angles. Thus, if we had another account of the bread of life discourse that portrayed the same issue as in John 6, then we might compare these accounts and perhaps gain deeper insights. After all, this John 6 discourse, including the critical sayings of vs. 37, 44 and 65 is without further support. No other biblical author seems to be confirming these critical verses. While Jesus introduces the last supper and Paul mentions this christian custom as well, a comparable elaboration isn't found elsewhere much less a backing of the pivotal verses 37,44 and 65.

Since John is writing about the same Jesus and the same gospel, the question needs to be asked whether the other gospel accounts contain anything treating of the same subject as John does in this discourse. Does our passage under scrutiny stand in isolation? Or is there another way of teaching the same spiritual realities as the bread of life in the other gospel accounts?

When we consider v.6,15 we see that the crowd that had been fed by the foregoing miracle, wanted to have Jesus as their king. The one who was able to supply bread forever, should be lifted up on the throne. Of course Jesus baffled this plan by withdrawing from them, but wasn't Jesus really sent to become a king? Yes, he was sent to become a king reigning on the throne of David. His kingdom shall outlast the world and his kingship shall last forever. Yes, Jesus was going to become a king. However, He was sent to take the throne of the kingdom of God. In other words, there was already a king who would hand over the kingdom to his son: God. The crowd was trying to make Jesus king by force. But Jesus' enthronement would be a transaction between his father and him. God the Father is king over the kingdom of God and Jesus Christ, the prince, is his successor.

When we consider this with regard to the passage John 6:35ff and the bread of life teaching, is there a relevance anyway? Most assuredly this is most relevant.

What does the teaching about the bread from heaven to do with the kingdom of God? Note, the kingdom of God is described in many ways and with many illustrations one of which is found in Matthew 22,2-14: The parable of the wedding feast. The kingdom of God is like....

The kingdom is compared to a king who organizes the wedding for his son. The son is the prince, the successor. Naturally, this one will be the next to sit on the throne. Now, the parable has an interesting allegory or comparison of the kingdom and its whatabouts. The kingdom of God is like....

What is the plot of the narrative in Matthew 22:2-14?

The father organizes the wedding feast and issues the invitation. He calls the guests that are to come to the person of honor, his son. It is important to notice that the son is not concerned with the preparations of the wedding, but the father is doing that. The king is going to hand over the kingdom to the prince, the father is going to give the kingdom to his son, and this is mirrored by the Father's giving a people of worthy guests to his son's wedding. The kingdom of God is like....

And Jesus' kingship is vastly different than what the unbelieving people of John 6 expected, as will become clear.

Another prevalent NT motif doesn't occur in John: The wedding supper of the lamb of God. Alternatively, John gives us the bread of life teaching. Both elements point to the same spiritual reality. The wedding supper is God's precious gift to the overcomers, the saints. It is agape, the closest communion with God. It is the joy of fellowship with God, of sitting on his rank at his table and the enjoyment of his communion forever. Since God is absolutely self-sufficient and self-sustaining he himself fulfills all needs. Thus, with respect to the wedding dinner there is actually no need for an additional extra "accessoire" that would be the basis for eternal joy, rather the wedding supper is divine in itself -- the flesh and blood of God himself. Thus, the bread of life is another illustration for the wedding supper of the lamb of God. Communion, the eternal and closest union with God. Obviously there is a similarity between the parable of the wedding banquet (see also Luke 14,15ff) and the bread of life discourse in John 6, which we are trying to understand.

If the kingdom of God outlasts this age while the rest of the world is going to be destroyed, then in order for someone to outlast the world he must be an inhabitant of the kingdom of God. The kingdom of God shall last forever, overcoming the world, and likewise those who attend Christ's wedding banquet will never perish. Entering the wedding feast and sitting down to sup with God is comparable to entering a saving ark.

"All that the Father gives me will come to me and whoever comes to me I will never cast out."

The king had first called a set of acquaintances (the Jews) who proved unworthy which led the king to the rejection of this group and to issue another invitation (gentile mission). The people chosen now and called by the servants, are those on the crossroads, the pagans out of the nations, "anyone you can find". The king (God the Father) gives "the poor, the crippled, the blind and the lame" (Luke 14:21) to the son. He chooses those from the highways and hedges as guests for his son, and compels them to come, without respect of persons.

Not everyone can come. Righteouness required! The king will not admit everyone!

"Good and bad" people are picked up now. This gathering of persons is like a fishing net that is thrown into the water and musters both good and bad fishes. Of course, the fishermen are only interested in the good exemplars.

Why won't Jesus cast anyone out? -- Because he is doing the will of the father: To reign over the kingdom which shall outlast the world. He shall reign without defeat forever. So will all the inhabitants of that kingdom, the guests at the banquet! They will likewise be raised up at the last day.

Why is Jesus saying anyway: "I will never cast out"? What is he referring to in the context of John 6? -- Well, there are actually persons "coming" on their own terms who will not be admitted to the wedding. In fact the father will not allow them entrance.

"When the king came in to see the guests....."

The man without a wedding garment (Matthew 22,11-13) was not honoring the king, nor his son but came on his own terms. He was "drawn" by selfish motives, not by divine motives. He lacked righteousness. Righteousness implies doing the will of God. Many a man in the audience of John 6 that were gathered around Jesus, were expecting to receive the bread of the world from a king of this world and have a happy empire of this world where they could pig-out. They wanted to make Jesus king, but on their own terms. They wanted this king to supply bread forever, but according to their agenda. But as a matter of fact, God the Father would make Jesus king and surrender the kingdom to his son! If anyone wants the desired bread from heaven, they have to come to the kingdom that Jesus would receive. There they would find the bread that you can eat and don't die. Can anyone come to that kingdom? How can you come?

Isaiah speaks of the righteousness of God as “garments of salvation” and “robes of righteousness” (Isa 61:10).

"The wedding garment, made of bright white linen is the righteous deeds of the saints" (Revelation 19,8-9)

No one can come to the wedding banquet without proper attire. No-one can receive the bread of life without the righteousness in the sight of God. The king didn't spare the acquainted guests that engaged in severe iniquity and inteded to have worthy guests in his wedding hall. It is clear that unworthy (unrighteous) persons are not welcome. In fact they are eliminated at the entrance.

The Father doesn't give sinners to Christ, but saints!

An absolutely crucial observation. Yes, exactly right here is the clue! Calvinists interpret John 6:37 as sinners being the objects of the divine transaction here. Dirty Sinners are picked up by the Father and moved to the son, so that the son should in turn cleanse them. It is very doubtful that this is the right perspective to begin with!

We can make the first constatation: The meaning of "to come to Christ". To come to Christ is equal in meaning with the obtainment of the precious bread from heaven. There can be no doubt about that. "Come to me" is synonymous with the receipt of the desired bread of life. Put differently, to come to Christ is in parallel with coming to the kingdom of God which is becoming the kingdom of the son of God. And since the kingdom of God is a picture of heaven, the concept behind "coming to Me" or "coming to Christ" is ultimately the entrance to heaven. But this can be buttressed further. After all, sound exegesis demands a proper understanding of the terms and expressions used and the way expressions are used sometimes is a peculiarity of the particular author. Thus, the question must be asked how the author of an available scripture uses a certain expressions elsewhere. So are there further occurences of the phrase "to come to me" in the johannine gospel account, apart from chapter 6? Yes, there are two more occurences of "coming to Christ": In 3,21 and 5,40.

The first occurence is in the judgment passage:

"But those who live by the truth come into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God."

The fact that this verse is in reference to judgment underlines the fact that the phrase "come into the light" is eschatological in meaning. And it presumes righteousness in the sight of God. Those and only those who have good works will come to the light. To come to the light then is in parallel with coming to Christ.

The second verse (5,40) says "But you will not come to me to have life". This seems to carry the meaning of coming to the source of the water of life and Jesus is presenting himself as the fulfillment of the jewish messianic hope. The eschatological connotation shines through here also.

Israel's salvation and the establishment of a messianic reign did not happen as the majority of Jews was expecting. The messianic era (gold) did not replace the old age (brown) in an abrupt break like this:

Rather the new age of God's kingdom (gold) would begin while the old age (brown) continues up until the last day. Then the old world will be destroyed and the kingdom of God continue forever. The result is a parallel co-existence of the visible present age and the yet invisible kingdom of God. They are overlapping and it is vital to enter the kingdom now, that is, to "enter the ark" that will overcome the current age. This crossing to God's kingom is the meaning of "coming to me [Christ]":

This is the right perspective on the relation between the current world and the coming age. The new age began with Christ's mission on earth and is currently invisibly co-existing with the old world (Luke 17,21). It will last forever. So the eschatological sense of "to come to Me [Christ]" fits in the johannine gospel narrative and is probably the intended sense of that phrase. (This temporal double nature of salvation (already/not yet) is also prevalent in the epistle to the Hebrews.)

Above I raised the question why Jesus differentiates between coming and believing in this discourse. Lest misunderstandings arise it should be emphasized here that all believers come and all who come are believers. Believing and coming are interchanging and they are overlapping just as the kingdom of God is overlapping with this current world. The double tension of salvation, that is, the already/not yet-double nature of the messianic kingdom shows this current parallel existence of the old world and the kingdom of God. Thus, the eschatological, future salvation is reaching into the present age.

Now, v.37 says whosoever comes will never be cast out. Faith is a mere mental assent, something personal and invisible. Casting someone out somehow denotes a forceful act. It awakes the association of a physical action. If coming means to believe, that is, a mental activity then how does "casting out" relate to this? Here it seems that the "coming" has an eschatological connotation. It means to come to the kingdom of God, to come to heaven. It doesn't merely denote a person's belief but a consequence of that belief. Furthermore, coming is something only righteous ones can do.

The following is decisive with respect to the interpretation of John 6:35ff:

When speaking of salvation Calvinists often reduce this to the soteriological meaning thereof: The legal delivery of sinners from their sins. In other words, the objects of salvation are sinners, the enemies of God, and these are saved from his wrath by being imputed the righteousness of Christ. This is the soteriological mode of salvation. Yet there is another level of salvation taught throughout the scriptures: The eschatological mode of salvation. The salvation of the saints from the world. Yes, God is ultimately the savior of the righteous. Nothing unclean will enter heaven, nobody who works iniquity will enter the heavenly city and become partaker of God's kingdom. In the final analysis no sinners are saved -- the saints are! This is the eschatological aspect of salvation and it is crucial to see the difference. The picture of coming to Christ's wedding dressed in fine wedding attire is a metapor of the eschatological salvation of the saints. If someone comes in street clothing (as a sinner), he will not be permitted.

One must be righteous before one comes to Christ's meal.

This is the meaning of v. 44. The gospel is both an invitation and a commandment. It is obligatory for the righteous ones to attend. You must be "drawn" by the love for God. Loving God, however is righteousness.

"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him". (v. 6,44)

This is, as said above, a sentence that doesn't have another witness in the bible by another author. But the truth that some persons are unable to be saved is pointed out elsewhere too. See Luke 13,23-27:

23 Someone asked him, 'Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?' He said to them, 'Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to. Once the owner of the house gets up and closes the door, you will stand outside knocking and pleading, “Sir, open the door for us.” 'But he will answer, “I don't know you or where you come from.”'Then you will say, “We ate and drank with you, and you taught in our streets.” 27 'But he will reply, “I don't know you or where you come from. Away from me, all you evildoers!”(Emphasis added)

The inquiry about salvation in v.23 is eschatological. Israel's ultimate salvation is meant here. Some will not make it through the narrow door. They will be unable. Why? The reason for the inability is given in v.27: iniquity. This is most probably the meaning of John 6:44. Nobody can enter heaven as a sinner. Righteousness is the prerequisite. That's plausible. But if so, how does anyone become righteous so that he may be welcomed to the wedding supper of the lamb of God? How does anyone receive the righteousness of God? -- Read the key issue that subsumes the entire gospel of John (John 20:31) -- it is by faith in Jesus, the son of God. Believe! Here is the reason for the interchanging use of "coming" and "believing" in that discourse.

Verse 64-65 have Jesus remark that not all in the audience believe. If they don't believe in Jesus Christ as the son of God however, they will stay in their sins and if they are sinful, they won't be able to come to Christ. The Father will not grant them access to the royal society. Considering the reformed understanding that coming is synonymous with faith, one might pose the question, why Jesus isn't simply saying that nobody can believe in him unless granted by the Father. Why doesn't the text read: "Some of you don't believe...that's why I told you that no one can BELIEVE in me, unless it is given him by the Father"?

So there are two senses of "salvation". The first sense, the soteriological sense, is along the lines of the question: "How do I get my sins forgiven?". The underlying problem is the lacking righteousness in the sight of God and the suffering of his wrath. The dirty clothes of wicked works, the lacking wedding garment, which is the dress code for heaven are the underlying misery one must be saved from. Hence, this meaning of salvation denotes a legal action.

The second sense, the eschatological sense, is the entrance to the kingdom of God, the passing through the narrow door (Luke 13,22-30), the bride's coming to the wedding supper of the lamb of God, the arrival at the holy city, the coming to Mount Zion, the trespass from the old world to the kingdom of God (even if it is still invisible). This is the ultimate meaning of salvation. And clearly, the objects of ultimate salvation are the righteous not the wicked. The saints, not sinners. And this is also the salvific meaning behind the Lord's words in John 6.

Thus, the calvinistic interpretation of John 6:35ff is based on the wrong perspective. The deeper problem stems from the fact that the meanings of the critical expressions "all", "come", "give" and "draw" are not set per se. Instead, these words are ambiguous. Now, a correct understanding of a text isn't solely determined by its grammar, its logical coherence and its smooth readability, but also by semantics. That means it is determined by the assignment of meanings to the naked expressions used. The interpreter must find the right setting for these vocables and determine their meaning. Thus, the interpretation of John 6:35ff depends decisively on how the meaning of ambiguous expressions is set.

So the error of the reformed understanding of John 6:35ff can be illustrated by the problem of consonant texts. In a consonant text, the skeleton of words is provided, but this of course doesn't determine a word completely much less does it enable the reader to pronounce the word. Rather the vowels must be filled in and that in the right way. Now, compared with the passage John 6:35ff one might say the expressions "give" "come" "all that", "draw", the syntax, the order of sentences etc. are like the consonants. They comprise the necessity and are indisputable. They aren't subject to debate. But in order to understand the passage, one must know some semantics too, which can be compared to the vowels. And this semantic problem is the assignment of meaning to ambiguous words. Calvinism does this by imposing sophistic theological concepts on the words.

--draw = inward address, effectual call, regeneration

--all that = the elect

--give = pre-eternal decretive promise given to Christ

--come = god-given saving faith

Consequently, the calvinists finds 3 of the doctrines of grace in that short passage: Total Depravity (v. 44), Unconditional Election (v.37) and Irresistible Grace (v.37).

But it is far-fetched to read the idea of pre-eternal election into v.37, because of the reasons provided in the beginning of this article. It is also far-fetched to find Total Depravity in the passage, because the idea that natural man is unable to believe the gospel is just outlandish and without any further scriptural support. More, there is a plausible explanation of v.44 which agrees with the NT's overall teaching. And last but not least it is far-fetched to read Irresistible Grace in the reformed sense into v.37 because the meaning of "give" in v.37 is already ambiguous (is it equal to the "drawing" in v.44 or is it the promise given to Christ prior to the foundation of the world?).

It has been shown that John 6,37-44 doesn't stand in isolation without any further biblical witness to bolster the truth conveyed there. Rather the expectation that John's unique bread of life teaching should somehow be treated by the synoptics also, has found confirmation. The truths described in the johannine gospel account align with the kingdom motif which is so prevalent and fundamental that it is nearby to seek parallels to this motif, rather than introduce completely new sophistic concepts into the passage. The latter is what the calvinistic interpretation does. And it is unjustifiable to impose complexity and foreign concepts on a text without a need to do so. Rather, the principle that scripture should interpret scripture should lead us to consider a juxtapositon of gospel accounts in the first place and develop our interpretation in harmony with these scriptures. This should especially be seen as the proper way since the synoptics approach the same truth and the same Jesus Christ from different angles. On the other hand, the calvinistic introduction of three of the "doctrines of grace" into this passage imposes a theological complexity onto the passage that is unnecessary and hence, illegitimate. This is especially true because the notion that faith in the gospel is basically impossible for sinners, betrays common sense. Thus, the reformed usage of John 6 is without a reasonable hermeneutic basis and can only be comprehended by a stubborn precommitment to reformed theology.

Finally, a few more words why the reformed usage of the passage betrays common sense. The notion of sinful man's incapability of faith is bizarre. The exhortation and even commandment to exercise faith in the Lord Jesus Christ is the core of the entire NT literature. Are we really to think that an arcane dogma is hidden as fine-print in the midth somewhere? Though it is convincing that natural man is unable to conform to the ten commandments and live a sinless life in the flesh, it is not equally convincing that he should not be able to repent of his sins and embrace the gospel of grace! The new covenant of the gospel (Rom. 3,21ff) has been bestowed in order to successfully save the fallen mankind that couldn't be saved through the old law of works. Thus, it is highly implausible that natural man shall be unable to believe in Jesus Christ. This is especially true in light of the exhortation throughout the whole New Testament to do just that!

To conclude, in light of John's key issue (John 20:30-31), it would require an extraordinarily strong argument for the reformed interpretation of John 6,37-44 to be plausible. This holds especially true for the doctrine of total depravity which calvinists claim to find evidence for in John 6,44. Yet such extraordinarily strong argument in favor of calvinism cannot be made, especially since there is another interpretation which is both in accordance with the rest of the bible and avoids textual imbalance. That interpretation therefore is by far superior to the reformed one.

The passage John 6,37-44 is part of John's unique way of teaching about the communion motif. Communion is the expression of agape, the fellowship with God in the form of supping together. This communion is God's love for the saints, the overcomers of the evil world, those who have washed their clothes and proved worthy. The pivotal difference between this and the reformed interpretation lies in the question of whom the Father gives to the son--saints or sinners? The calvinist assumes that the father joins sinners to Christ. Yet this article has argued why the objects of this divine transaction are by no means sinners, but saints. Far be it from God to give sinners to his son! Likewise, those who are granted to come to Christ and are drawn by the father, are no sinners, but righteous ones. Yet calvinists would have sinners to be the objects of this divine transfer. Though the text is syntactically unambiguous, the calvinistic understanding stems from a neglect of semantics and comparative studies. These are the errors of the calvinistic interpretation of John 6,37-44.

Reply to "christianclarityreview" on the subject "Is God the author of sin?"

2009-10-19T08:44:00.000-07:00

There is a reformed blogger out there who recently posted an argument why God is the ultimate origin of evil. Yes, this person is seriously teaching that the Holy One is the ultimate origin of sin in the way that he wanted sin to enter the world. The basis for this vehement contention is a very simple process of elimination, which goes like this: "Free will" (a buzz word for this fellow) cannot be real, therefore God, who is holy, must have willed sin. This post is dedicated to refuting this heretical contention and the blogger is asked to repudiate his dogmas.

Concerning the definition of sin this blogger says "sin is in fact a living creature" and not an act. However, scripture gives us a definiton of sin, as follows: Whosoever commits sin transgresses also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. (1 John 3,4)

There you have it. Sin is the transgression of the law. The transgression of God's law is to do what is contrary to His will, not what is in accordance with God's will.

In the following I will address this blogger, who calls himself "christianclarityreview", with "CRR".

Now, CCR holds that sin is in accordance with God's own will. Let's scrutinize this by means of the holy scriptures and see what's going on in scenes that treat of the final confrontation between sin and the holy God: The final judgment. It seems CRR the last judgment in mind also, when he says things like this:

"You should well consider what your answer will be if He asks you: “What are you doing in a speech I made for liars, thieves and murderers after I sent you myself as Word? Why did you think to mix that speech with me?” God being physically present in you is the actual new birth in Jesus Christ."

Now, CCR is making two statements, one about the final trial at the divine law court and one about what he thinks is the actual new birth in Jesus Christ. I will comment on these important things in the following.

I don't believe CRR takes the reality of sin in the face of a holy God serious enough, much less knows what he's talking about. So there is something serious to say in response to his heretic contentions.

You probably know the story of the guest without a wedding garment in Matthew 22,11-14. This story is part of the parable of the wedding banquet where the king chooses and calls people to come to the wedding feast of his son.

The metaphor of the wedding garment stands for the righteous deeds of the saints (Revelation 19,8-9; Isaiah 61,10; Col 3,12+14). No wedding attire means no righteousness and thus sinfulness. The situation in Matthew 22,11-14 is forensic.

Now let's meditate a bit about judgment. Judgment has to do with the establishment of guilt or innocence, right? Books are opened where all one's deeds are enrolled, even the sins. Now, how is sin detected?

Sin is detected by conviction. Lets contemplate what conviction is about. Conviction is a situation, a condition where the accused has run out of arguments and has no valid explanation why/how/in which way he is innocent. If there's some corpus delicti and you are charged, but are able to trace the guilt away from you to some source outside yourself, then you have exculpated yourself. You are excused and have justified yourself. In a perfect, just legal system you'll then be acquitted. However, conviction is a situation where the accused is unable to "pass the buck". There is nothing/nobody left whom he can put the blame on. For example if you are charged of shoplifting but you can credibly explain that you were forced by a group of big buddies outside to go into the shop and steal and were unable to resist, then the guilt has been shifted and you are free. If you stand before the law-court being accused of damage to property because you broke the window of someone else's car then the verdict will depend on how your defense is. If you can explain truthfully that there was a baby in the car, 30°C temperature and nobody around and you were saving the child from a fatal heat stroke then you will surely be acquitted and in fact be innocent. So if you can provide a true explanation why you are innocent, then you are indeed innocent, and will be acquitted provided the justice system is perfect.

So how is the sinner convicted? He is unable to locate the source of sin outside himself. On a trial, a delinquent is convicted by the inability to repel the accusations charged against him. He cannot provide a valid defense, fending off the blame. On the other hand, if the accused can provide a valid explanation that he is innocent (and if justice system is perfect), then he will be acquitted. If the accused can explain why he is not guilty then he will be found not guilty.

So what actually is conviction? It is the lack of a plausible defense, the lack of a rational explanation of your case. You are convicted of sin if you have no valid explanation of your actions that would convince the court that you are not guilty.

Back to the parable in Matthew and the man caught without a wedding garment. Does the king who notices this man immediately have him cast out? No! He takes him to task. This is judgment ("When the king came in to see the guests....". This inspection of the guests is judgment). God will not condemn anyone without a fair trial. So why is the man expelled from the banquet? Because he has no proper clothing? To be precise, he is ultimately expelled because he cannot answer the question

"How did you get in here without a wedding garment?"

The man cannot defend his sinfulness (lacking wedding garment). In other words, he cannot explain, how it was possible for him to come into the wedding hall without proper clothing.

Now CCR, what does this have to do with the question of God's authorship of sin? Note, the king had had trouble with unworthy acquaintances before, and was intending to have worthy guests. Besides, the king has dominion over the wedding hall, right? And I will be demonstrating that the man without the wedding garment cannot answer exactly the question "Why is there sin anyway?" He cannot answer the question, how it was even possible for evil to enter into God's own creation?!

Lets ponder the possibilities, shall we? How indeed did the man come in? Consider these 2 basic options:

i) He came through the public gate like everyone else, after all everyone was unconditionally called, right?

ii) He crept in secretly through a backdoor, a window, chimney etc. He sneaked in.

Is any of these 2 options possible?

In the first case, God (the king) would have called sin into existence, being the author of sin. It would have entered God's creation by God's own volition (through the main entrance).

In the second case, sin would have crept in beyond God's control (a security fault) and God (the king) would not be sovereign over his world (the wedding hall) .

The first case is incompatible with God's goodness and holiness. The holy God didn't call evil into his creation in any way. If so, the king wouldn't take the poorly clothed man to task, would he? Rather, there seems to be a case for the security staff here. The king's doorkeepers would surely not have permitted this fellow through the main gate.

The second case however is incompatible with God's omnipotence and sovereignty. Can God (the king) not grant security? Can evil creep into his creation out of his control through some secret holes? Is God not really sovereign? Of course not, so that option is untenable as well. Furthermore, since eveyone was unconditionally invited, why should anyone sneak in secretly? What would be the point in such action?

CRR would outrightly opt for the first case and say God willed sin to enter his dominion, right? Of course, your article on God's creatorship of evil couldn't be any clearer.

But now it becomes really interesting!

The question that keeps standing in the room is this: How then, did the man without the wedding clothing get in? It is remarkable that the narrative is silent here. And here lies the key to the parable. The man cannot explain how it was possible for sin to enter God's world. Recall what I said about trials and the detection of guilt/innocence. The guilty cannot explain why they sinned, why they lied when they lied for the first time, why the were selfish, why they cheated, stole, and so on and so forth. When do humans tell their first conscious lie in their life? Lets say at hardly three years according to psychologists. Who teaches or gives them the advice to lie? The parents? The elder siblings or buddies? No -- they do that out of themselves. The guilty, convicted sinners cannot explain their life and their works. They cannot explain why they sinned anyway. In other words, they cannot defend themselves and are hence convicted as described above.

So what about the origin of lies, for example? Whence lies? Since the parents usually don't teach their children to tell untruth, nor are they persuaded to cheat by other children, what's left? Do they inherit the desire to lie? Is the first lie prompted by some inherent influence, originating with the parents? If so, what prompted the parent's first lie in their lives? So when contemplating the origin of your own sins, you quickly reach humanity's first sin--Adam's transgression.

CRR, how are the evil ones detected in judgment? The evil ones are those who cannot explain evil. Their own iniquity. They fail the "wedding garment" trial. When they stand in the judgment of God and the books are opened, and their deeds are pronounced then they won't be able to explain their sin and hence defend themselves. Or to pick another Calvinist's words whom I was lately corresponding with:

If God didn't want sin to enter the world, then why did sin enter the world despite God's wishes to the contrary? Is God impotent to prevent sin from entering the world?

If the king didn't want guests with street clothing, then why did they enter the wedding hall despite the king's will to the contrary? Are we to think the king cannot grant security and sinners can creep in any time through the chimney? How does this all fit together? The man cannot tell and this ignorance prompts his condemnation.

CCR, the man who came without proper clothing is bound hand and foot lest he climbs in outrightly again. His dwelling place is the outer darkness. In the darkness nothing can be seen and hence, no truth be known.

If God is omnipotent then he doesn't need any evil and can hinder it.
If God is love and all-benevolent then he doesn't want any evil.
Whence then evil?

CCR, I, a helmet tell you that you will never, ever be able to reconcile the above trilemma by your own wisdom. Your man-made calvinistic sophistry cannot make you see in darkness. Natural man's hand and feet are bound and he cannot make any move out of the darkness toward a solution to that problem You are in the spiritual darkness where you have no discernment regarding the truth about God. The one you call your God you do not know, CRR!

The "Greater Good Defense" is just one among many man-made attempts to reach God by man's easysolutionism. You should abandon your heretical dogma of God's authorship of sin. God is holy! Abolish your wicked doctrines!

The omnipotent and perfectly holy, loving God is not the author of sin in any sense. Easysolutionism like Calvinism is a vain attempt to circumvent God's ways.

Now, recall CRR's words above:

God being physically present in you is the actual new birth in Jesus Christ."

If you are speechless at judgment when you are asked: "Why did you cheat?" , "Why did you kill?", "Why did you steal?",Why did you lie?" "Why did you dishonor my name?" "Why did you covet?",

Why, Why, Why, Why...???

then this speechlessness shows one thing: That the WORD is not in you. You are unable to defend yourself. If however, the Word is not in you, then Christ is not in you, for Christ is the Word. If Christ is not in you, then what you are uttering is actually NOT THE NEW BIRTH IN JESUS CHRIST!

Note, the parable ends with the words "Many are called but few are chosen". God will not leave the elect in ignorance. They will know God and be worthy guests in his presence. The elect will not be left in their false man-made easysolution-boxes, but know the truth.

Jesus said: "They will all be taught by God. Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me" (John 6,45). Those who have been taught by God will come to Christ's wedding banquet and not be cast out!

-a helmet

Some objections against the calvinistic usage of 2 Peter 2:1

2009-10-10T06:49:00.000-07:00

I just found a defense of the reformed usage of 2 Peter 2:1, which is a quite rarely mentioned verse by Calvinists. Someone is providing reasons, why the verse is not incompatible with the doctrine of Limited Atonement. The post can be found here

However, the author doesn't deal with all objections raised against the reformed treatment of that verse. There are some issues that would be worth considering in a fair treatment of the passage. The following is a comment on that post.

Concerning the question of the term “Master” (despotes) for Jesus Christ, this can be based on Jude 4, where the same term is indeed used for Jesus:

For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about2 long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a licence for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord. (Emphasis added)

The perversion of grace is directly linked to the “despotes”, Jesus Christ, here. And it is quite likely that 2 Peter and Jude were written by the same author. Thus the application of despotes in 2 Peter 2:1 to Jesus Christ is not unsupported.

Regarding the reality of ownership and the term “bought”, notice as well what v.20-22 say about the false teachers.

2 Peter 2:20-22
If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and are overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. 21 It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. 22 Of them the proverbs are true: ‘A dog returns to its vomit,’7 and, ‘A sow that is washed returns to her wallowing in the mud.’ (Emphasis added)

“They” are the false teachers. The two facts, 1) that their apostasy causes them to be worse off than before and 2) that it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness to begin with, point to a real corpus delicti, something substantial, something real, that was hurt or infringed by these people, because their guilt is now greater than before.

It is said that these people “have known the way of righteousness”. Of course one can only know what is true. One cannot know something false, but only erroneously believe that a wrong proposition is true. If there was no “real” basis for these false teachers (redeeming blood of Christ for them) to know, then they could not reject it, there’d be no corpus delicti in the first place. They would have rejected something unreal in the first place.

However, 2 Peter 2:20-22 suggests a real situation (”a sow that is washed”) and something which is discarded afterwards. A rejection of falsehood (no redeeming blood in store for them) would be no basis for sin.

-a helmet

Comment on the latest reformed attempt to deal with I Timothy 4:10

2009-10-01T03:46:00.000-07:00

Alan Kurschner from A & O Ministries just posted an exegesis of 1 Timothy 4:10. This post is an evaluation of the argument made there. Here's the verse:

“For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.” (1 Tim 4:10).

In the following, Alan Kurschner's (AK) words will be in blue.

First, the purpose behind AK's considerations about the faithful pursuit of the good doctrine remains unclear. Why is the observation that the only other instance of a perfect tense in this immediate section is found in verse 6 interesting? What is the point here? The same question must be raised concerning the phrase "have followed" about which he notes that this is an uncommon term in the New Testament, only used four times . Why is this constatation noteworthy? This doesn't become clear in the following.

AK then asks what is meant by "who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe"?

And suggests pondering "certain questions". Is there a theological connection between "the living God" and its qualifier "who is the Savior of all people"? What does "all people" mean here for Paul? Does it mean all people without exception or distinction? And most importantly, how can God be the Savior of those who do not believe? Or is there some other element that has escaped our notice?

It is interesting how the fourth question, how God can be the savior of those who do not believe is ultimately answered. Regarding 1 Tim. 4:10, calvinists have asked whether God has to actually save someone in order to be rightly called that person's savior. Or is it justifiable to call someone "savior" who is such in principle, even without actually saving?

But AK doesn't ponder another crucial question: Why is Paul making this statement in the first place?

A universalist reading should be ruled out since that would contradict Paul's unambiguous teaching in his corpus that many will indeed perish eternally.

I doubt that Paul's teaching is really that unambiguous. The scriptural foundation that some persons will definitely never benefit from God's grace is not that strong. I wouldn't categorically rule a universalist understanding out on the basis of Paul's scriptural corpus. But let's put that aside here.

AK says that according to Arminianism, the term "Savior" here must mean "possible Savior" . But according to his own interpretation which he calls the monotheistic exclusivism view, it is about the same. This notion regards Jesus as a principal way and a merely hypothetical savior.

But if Christ died for all sins, then there is no legal basis for him to punish or condemn any sinner to perdition; thereby making the Arminian an inconsistent universalist. What basis is there to punish the same sin twice: on the cross and on the sinner. There is none.

Objection! Only if one adopts a particular conception of the nature of the atonement and a certain line of reasoning do these ramifications follow. The origin of this theology is found in John Owen's atonement syllogism which assumes a direct assignment of units of punishment to units of sin. According to this view, the ransom of Christ's blood and undergone punishment is in some way proportionate to the amount of sin it covers. The idea of a proportionality and assignability of certain sins to a certain "amount of suffering" is fallacious in that it does injustice to the biblical concept of atonement. I, a helmet, have been debating this subject here, a comment thread where my rebuttal of this limited atonement rationale can be verified.

In addition, the context here does not state what Paul means by "all people."

Objection! We can derive from the context what people the author has in mind here. The following contemplations are helpful.

The purpose of the letter is pastoral. The young minister Timothy is instructed regarding various pastoral issues, particularly the proper behavior towards heretics, apostates and other opponents of the faith. Timothy was facing hypocrites and grumblers (v. 4:1-2) and is exhorted to be faithful to the "trustworthy saying" (v. 4:9) the good news of the gospel, and to "strive and labor" because of two underlying truths:

1) Unlike the dead idols worshipped by the false teachers and heretics, and the inanity of the old wives tales (v.4:7), the "trustworthy saying" is the word of the LIVING God. It pays to work for a living God, but it doesn't pay to work for dead idols and engage in exercises that don't contribute anything to the real life, which reaches out into the age to come. The living God is worth trusting, hoping and laboring for.

2) The struggle is not for Timothy's and the sake of the faithful ones alone. Rather the pastor is exhorted to put up with the heretics, because even these difficult fellows he must cope with are meant to be heirs of God's grace and hence, of His salvation. Timothy is urged to defend the truth against hypocrites and heretics and the basis for this encouragement is the objective fact, that God as the savior is mercifully reaching out even to these persons ("all men") as well. Why should Timothy struggle with heretics and suffer reproof? What's the point in such efforts? The point is that God is not only the savior of the faithful who diligently follow the trustworthy saying, but the savior of the heretics and idolaters, too! The fact that God is the savior of all men is emphasized as the fundament of hope for the pastor that his work is not in vain and as the encouragement to strive forward in the ministerial and evangelistic work.

So much concerning the context. AK doesn't contemplate the question why Paul is making this statement in verse 10 anyway. Why is Paul even saying this in this context?

However, AK claims: Paul makes it clear that he is referring to "all sorts of people,"

No, that's unwarranted. To the contrary, it is nearby to think that "all men" denote a wider group than the corpus of believers.

I conform with AK in my rejection of the "physical preserver" view. I agree that the term soter (savior) is soteriological.

AK's understanding of "savior of all men" is that God (and by extension Christ as Redeemer) is the only true Savior in the world, therefore humanity cannot find any other competing Savior outside of the living God. They have no other Savior to turn to.

As said above, the saviorhood is regarded as merely hypothetical here. Christ is not just a possible savior, but a theoretical savior only. But if we take it that way, how is this different from the universal, unlimited salvation view? The pivotal question that arises here is: Is he, or isn't he? If all men "have no other savior to turn to", does this mean that Christ is indeed everyone's savior? If yes, I see no difference between the arminian "possible-savior-view". But if no, then the title "Savior of all" is meaningless and cannot be accepted. However, what else would the title "Savior of all" imply than the reality of an unlimited atonement?

Another problem arises. If the saviorhood is merely theoretical but unreal then the word "especially" (malista) which indicates a precision of the former term, is quite awkward. For Christ wouldn't really be the savior of "all men" at all.

It is not by mistake that the phrase "living God," a term that suggests monotheism, is connected with this verse. This phrase is often found in the context of polytheism (e.g. Acts 14:15; 1 Thess 1:9; Josh 3:10; 1 Sam 17:26, 36; 2 Kgs 19:4). Since there is only one God who is alive, there is only one Savior for humanity to embrace.

Okay, but the mention of God's being the savior of all men is prompted by the mention of idol worshippers that are obstacles to Timothy's missions. Timothy's confidence shall be grounded on the fact that even the idolaters are meant to be heirs of God's salvation. This and the emphasis that Timothy's God is a living God, are the basis of his ministerial efforts. If the "savior" of 1 Tim. 4,10 is merely some reminder of monotheism, why doesn't Paul mention God's creatorship or his role as the only sustainer? After all, the verse might as well go: "who is the creator of all men, especially of believers". So why is Paul making this remark in the first place?

Finally, AK presents an altogether different interpretation, namely the one that translates "malista" as "that is". In this case, the verse simply says God is the savior of all men, meaning the believers. It is questionable whether this translation is best. But in any case, the adoption of this interpretation throws all of Kurschner's previous considerations overboard. He must decide: Either he takes the view he calls "monotheistic-exclusivism" or he takes the view endorsed by George W. Knight, the "malista=that is" view. The two are mutually exclusive and can't both be right.

To conclude, the reformed exegesis by Alan Kurschner fails to see the broader picture. The epistle's purpose is pastoral instruction and a lot has to do with what might nowadays be called church discipline. It is comprehensible from context what "all men" refers to and why the phrase "living God" is used right there. Yet AK doesn't grasp the coherence of 1 Timothy 4:10. The resulting interpretation is unconvincing to say the least.

-a helmet

Response to a commentor at "Triablogue" on John 6 and calvinism

2009-09-30T09:24:00.000-07:00

I've been discussing the reformed usage of John 6 over at Triablogue. For the sake of length, I'll post my latest response here.

Neal,

OK, in your ordo salutis the word “imputation” doesn’t occur. So I ask again: Are the objects given by the father to the son sinners or righteous? Does the father pull sinners toward Christ or the righteous ones? The “whoever” who come to Christ (v.37) are these sinners or not? That’s crucial!

you have a tendency to oversimplify and setup strawman arguments as evidenced from the above.

So when does a person become righteous? In other words, when does imputation occur? Put differently, when does the obtainment of clean clothes occur? That’s not evident from the ordo salutis, however if you think the father drags sinners to Christ in John 6,44 you have a very doubtful perspective to begin with.

but we don't need a helmet to translate them for us.

I wasn’t speaking of translation. We don’t have linguistic issues here, but semantic ones. I asked: “What does the "giving" denote here?” Well, lets face the possibilities, shall we? The following suggestions come to mind:

i)To give anticipates the idea of to draw in v.44. Hence, v.37 says that all who are drawn by the Father will come to Christ.

ii) To give denotes God’s pre-eternal decree where he decided to join a people to Christ. Thus, it denotes a definite decision of God, a promise to the son which is realized in the time of the world, when the individuals of this people actually believe in Christ and become adopted as sons.

What about i)?

It is strange why the meaning of drawing, according to calvinism the enablement to repent and believe in Christ, would be set equal to God's giving to Christ. To give me = To enable him is a weird way to say the same thing. The giving of v.37 indicates a transaction. There is a sender, a recipient and an object of that transaction. The Father is the sender, the giver. The Son the receiver. The one drawn would now be the object given. Such linguistic gymnastics appear somewhat awkward. Besides, the determination of the meaning of “give” would be shifted to the determination of what “draw” at v.44 means. The smooth reading would at first be interrupted by the ambiguity of what v.37 is actually all about.

What about ii)?

To think of God's actions before the foundation of the world and God's decree here, is quite far-fetched unless there is further support by the passage itself. But there is nothing which would render this interpretation nearby. Furthermore, the present tense of “to give” doesn't seem to suggest the absolute past tense of the decree of God. Calvinists, who adopt ii) might point out that God's decree is an eternal reality and the Father beyond time and so the usage of the present tense might be plausible. But v.39 uses “to give” in the present perfect ("has given"). If the giving refers to the eternal decree before the foundation of the world and the present tense at v.37 denotes its timeless nature, why then the present perfect at v.39? Or is the giving in v.39 again something different?--It's highly unlikely that the giving of v.39 refers to something else than the giving at v.37, considering the textual flow and the closeness of the words' positions. Thus, the argument that “gives” at v.37 is present tense because it denotes the timelessness of the decree, is very weak. Such arguments can only be understood from a pre-commitment to reformed theology. The present perfect in v.39 seems to be simply underlining the fact that Christ could possibly only lose what has already come to him. You cannot lose something you don't have yet.

Regarding “all that” you said:
Do you really need these things spelled out for you? "All that" refers to a class of people, as most people would take the meaning in everyday usage, while "whoever" denotes an individual. What's so hard about that?

But what if “all that” which is given refers to the ”summing up of all things in Christ” or ”to bring unity to all things in heaven and on earth under Christ.” (Eph 1,10) ? In other words, if “all that” refers to the kingdom which is spread throughout the world and going to be brought under Christ’s kingship?

If that is what the “all that” refers to, then the pre-eternal decree view is unapplicable here.
But take the other possibility. If the “giving” (v.37) means nothing else than the “drawing” (v.44) does it make sense to view the “drawing” as corporate in any sense, such that a collective neuter (“all that”) would make sense? Not according to Calvinism.

I said: “Is there a double-arrival at Jesus (given then come)?”

Note, “to give” doesn’t have to have the meaning of a gift, a present. Neither does it have to mean a promise. Basically it simply means to hand over. If that’s the case then there’d be some strange double-arrival, at least upon a natural reading, right?

Only to one who is trying to escape the normal usage of the words are they ambiguous.

I’ve gone through very normal considerations about the terms used. We’ve seen that the ambiguity stands. V. 37 is grammatically noteworthy and the underlying semantic background unclear so far. How one understands v.37 will decisively shape one’s interpretation of the rest of the passage.

Who claimed that [6,44] is the key issue? Just because it is not the primary issue doesn't mean it isn't taught in scripture.

I was addressing a basic(!) exegetical rule, the head-members-principle.
Ancient documents usually lack metadata like disclosed introductions, chapters, conclusions, overviews etc. that we are accustomed to use and to find in modern writings. After all, these metadata alleviate following the author the way he intended to be understood and apprehend the right understanding. However, if there is a certain key issue treated in a writing, then the head-members-principle suggests that every part of the text is serving this key issue, the head, by contributing information that support the key issue. Thus, the key issue or the principle theme is the writing's "head", which is subdivided into several "members", the particular elaborations, explanations that constitute the text, the body.

Again, is is sometimes difficult to determine whether there is one key issue that dominates the writing, because texts might as well consist of parallel fragments of information without coherence and so treat of different subjects. But if we are lucky, the author left a hint to his principle theme that is underlying his writing, thereby providing the hook on which the entire text hangs. This gives us the first key to approach the text.

The text passage under scrutiny is contained in the gospel of John. Now, can we tell whether there is a key issue in the gospel of John, and if so, what is it? Fortunately, John didn't leave his readers uninformed about his overall intention. The key issue is given by v. 20:31:

"These things are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God and that by believing you may have life in his name"

The purpose is evangelical and the account's key issue is to provide the necessary teaching about Jesus Christ to convert the readers to the gospel. Therefore, we should expect that everything in John's gospel account serves this goal in one way or another. Now, what about verse 44, what status does it have in the body? The sentence of Jn 6,44 is embedded in the larger context of the bread of life teaching and seems to be made in passing. Even the repetition in v.65 doesn't change the status of this remark as a passing comment. One might object that the verse should still be more appreciated and this may be granted. But in any case, the notion that "no one can come to me unless the father who sent me draws him", is a minor matter in between and is settled in the text structure like a finger at a body.

Now, while it is true that every part of the whole text must be compatible to the key issue, this doesn't imply that every part in itself actually contributes a real informative profit to the key issue. A writing might contain literary embellishments, comments made in passing or some "by the way"- insertions that don't seem to provide any informative value to the head and thus, are without use to the key issue in and of themselves. Besides, the author can side-step into a relative subject to gather information, in order to return to the original subject later with an additional avail. This is mustering knowledge from somewhere else. The relative subject itself might be quite alien to the original key issue. However, in this case it must still be apparent and traceable in which way this side-step is ultimately beneficial to the key issue and contributing to it. So it might not always be easy to determine in what way a piece of text is necessary or useful or whether it is dismissable.

However, one thing cannot be: There can be no member in the text in opposition to the key issue. It is not allowed to have, say, a minor matter somewhere in between that thwarts the very principle theme, the key issue of the whole writing. Everything must be compatible with the overall issue and it isn't possible for the left little finger to work against the head. Rather all members must constitute a textual body that ultimately buttresses the head. Thus, if a part of the text suggests something incompatible with the head, then the important hermeneutic head-members-principle is infringed. In this case, the exegete should by any means seek an understanding that avoids this blemish. And generally spoken, an understanding that aligns with this rule should be preferred over an interpretation that breaks it.

Now, what about John 20,31 and 6,44? The entire gospel account (the body) is an exhortation to believe in Jesus Christ and to provide the basis for that faith. The readers shall come to faith by this very text. However, if 6,44 means that nobody can believe on his own and that faith is dependent on divine enablement, then there is a problem. The entire writing would lose its balance. While 20,31 is an exhortation to the addressees, v.44 would override this key issue, by putting the initiative of faith on God. Thereby it would undermine the exhorting and encouraging key issue. If the fulfilment of the key issue (to believe in Christ) is really out of the readers' hands, then v.44 is lifted up on the rank of the key issue and the whole text structure is out of balance. This doesn’t mean a logical contradiction. Theoretically, it is still possible that John's originally intended meaning is indeed what the reformed position holds. However this is doubtful, for we would have a severe hermeneutic blemish. The notion, that v.44 suggests that the issue of faith or unbelief is based on God rather than the entire textual body at hand (see 20,31), grossly violates basic hermeneutics. In this case it would be very unlikely for the author not to elaborate on this paradox any further. But there is more. If the calvinistic understanding of v.44 is correct, it is unlikely that the author would have structured his text the way he did, rather we would expect a text structure that contrasts two opposing main subjects and is built around the elaboration on this paradox. The shape of the text would be two-headed.

Your logic is faulty.

I wasn’t speaking of a logical contradiction here, but of a severe exegetical faux-pas, that infringes the basic head-members-rule.

Regarding the second basic exegetical fallacy, the failure to let scripture interpret scripture, you wrote:
I agree. Hence in addition to John chapter 6:37-65, I also previously pointed you to these: John 12:37-40, Isaiah 6:9-10, Proverbs 21:1, Ezekiel 37, Acts 13:48, 2 Thess. 2:13-14, 2 Tim. 1:9, Eph. 1:4,5

The context of John 6,37ff is the bread of life. The critical verses 37 and 44 are embedded in this context. Where is the situation of this discourse treated by other authors in other writings? Do the scripture references you’re stating here treat of a comparable state of affairs as John 6? I don’t think so. What do John 12:37-40 or Acts 13,48 have to do with the mysterious bread-of-life teaching which we are trying to understand? Compare equal state of affairs!

Regarding the third basic exegetical fallacy, regarding plausibility, you wrote:
Finally we get to the crux of the issue. You find it objectionable because it betrays your notion of common sense.

No. It is very plausible that natural man is unable to never sin. But it is very far-fetched to think that the exercise of faith in Christ is equally impossible for natural man. Now, a claim that is far-fetched requires extraordinarily strong arguments in its favour to be plausible. Yet such a strong argument for Calvinism cannot be made. Every sincere exegete would expect far-fetched claims to be elaborated extraordinarily thoroughly, because this would be likely for the author to do. If you throw common sense overboard, you cannot do any sincere exegesis but engage in sheer sectarianism.

Note, that my interpretation avoids all the fallacies above and is therefore to be preferred over the Calvinistic understanding.

-a helmet

A response to triablogue

2009-09-17T08:29:00.000-07:00

I'm currently writing a book on the meaning of suffering from a christian, bible-based worldview, which deals with theodicic issues. Since I've been attacking the reformed response to the problem of evil (and will continue to do so), I have been asked repeatedly to provide my alternative and that's absolutely understandable. So far, my sole reaction has been a reference to my current writing project that treats of the subject and which hasn't come to an end yet.

Folks have said things like this:

You said you are working on a book, but surely you could throw us a bone.

and

He falls silent when we ask for his alternative.

and

I don't need to write a book (of if I am I don't need to finish a book) on the greater good defense in order to present it to people. It seems that if you are writing a book on the matter then you could easily share some of that with us.

All this basically means that I shall deliver sort of a summary of the book or at least a condensed statement of content as an overview of the main thoughts in there.

However, in the following I'll explain why this isn't possible. It isn't possible to provide a rough sketch of the content. In other words, in this post I'll explain why I can't give you a "theodicy in a nutshell".

Let me use an allegory: Cylinder locks.

There is a similarity between locks and their function and my book and its content. Essential for cylinder locks are 5 components: The cylinder (green), the plug (yellow), the driver pins (blue), the key pins (red) and of course the fitting key with its characteristic profile.

Without a key in the lock, the driver pins are pushed downwards, preventing the plug from rotating. The bar cannot be moved and the door stays locked.

----

When the correct key is inserted, the pins are thereby moved. The key's movement, that is the act of inserting it into the lock, shifts the pins up and down, depending on the key's characteristic zig-zag-pattern. When the key is fully inserted, the gaps between the key pins and driver pins align with the edge of the plug.

----

With the gaps between the pins aligned with the shear line, the plug can rotate freely. Now by this rotation the bar can be moved and the door be unlocked. Notice the following:

1) The pins are only required to be in their right position after the key has been fully inserted.
2) Only the correct key profile will in the end have shifted the pins in such a way that they align with the edge of the plug.

Now, what does this have to do with my book about theodicy? The following comparison can be applied.

The theodicy problem is like a locked door.

The various pins are like the various obstacles, difficulties and stumbling blocks that characterize the hardness of the problem of evil.

The movement of the pins is like an attempt to treat the problem, to tackle the logical difficulties, questions of consistency, and so on.

My book is like the correct key to the lock!

The reading of the book is like the key's insertion into the lock!

Reading the book from cover to cover is like inserting the key fully into the lock!

By reading a helmet's book (the key) on the theodicy problem (the lock), the many, many obstacles and stumbling stones (the pins) being encountered during that quest, are moved in various ways. But when you reach the end of the book, all the questions and problems regarding theodicy will have fallen into their places and been satisfiably answered--you can unlock and open the door!

As the key profile with its exact zig-zag-pattern is absolutely crucial for the key to work, so is the coherent, unabridged reading of the book. As the key must be inserted completely, so the book must be read completely.

Now, what about a rough sketch of the content or a short summary of the book? This would be like a rough sketch of a key profile! Suppose you ask someone what a key profile looks like, so that you might as well make some use of it. Now, suppose you are given some rough description
about how the zig-zag-pattern, the profile, is like. A "summary" or an "overview" of a key profile, in order to perhaps be able to almost unlock the door, perhaps to revolve the cylinder a few degrees? Or perhaps in order to insert the key at least half-way, for this is better than nothing?

Of course, that's nonsense. A key profile cannot be described in a summary. You need the exact profile or else it is utterly useless. Any shortened version of a key is no key at all.

Likewise, the book that I haven't finished yet because it's very extensive, cannot be described in 5 or 6 sentences! You must read the whole book, just like you must insert a key into a lock completely in order to open the door. Therefore I cannot and will not even begin to "throw a bone".

Let me conclude this with a remark on the commentor's statement from above:

I don't need to write a book[...]on the greater good defense in order to present it to people.

Well, this is no wonder because the greater good defense is based on easysolutionism. It closes its eyes to many serious defects that come along with it. In fact, this simplistic, man-made theory is a holey bucket that doesn't hold water and in fact has been refuted and will continue to be refuted over and over again. You should forsake the greater good defense!

-a helmet

"Do you think you are smarter?!"

2009-09-01T12:55:00.000-07:00

When you hear the gospel and positively respond to it, while your neighbor rejects it, -- WHAT MAKES YOU TO DIFFER?

This question is raised over and over again by Calvinists as a trick question to direct people to the supposedly indisputable doctrines of grace. This post shall provide a sober answer to this question, and since it is not such a quick response which the reformed questioners think must be possible, it isn't very often given as a reply. But let's start with some basics.

First of all, to repent and believe in the gospel is a commandment (Mark 1,4). While it is also an invitation, the obligatory nature of the gospel call is striking. Next, to keep the commandments is our expression of our love for God. To love God means to keep his commandments (Mt. 22:37; John 14:15; 1 John 5:3; 2 John 6). Sinners don't love God. Jesus summarizes the whole law by the love for God and for one's neighbor. In love the law of God is fulfilled. So why should we believe the gospel? Because it is God's commandment. Why should we obey God's commandment? Because we love him. Why should we love him? -- Wait, what was that? Why should we love God??!

Well, when we seek reasons for something, we actually ask for causes. Reasons are the more fundamental layers of the things we are inquiring. Let me illustrate this by a rather profane example dialogue

--Why are you setting the alarm?
**Because I have to wake up early in the morning
--Why do you have to wake up early?
**Because I have to get up early
--Why do you have to get up early in the morning?
**Because I must go to work
--Why do you have to go to work?
**Because I must earn money
--Why do you have to earn money?
**Because I have to make a living

--Why.....

What do we accomplish by providing reasons? We put more fundamental layers to ground the original proposition. Each layer provides a proposition that can in turn be questioned itself and demanded to be buttressed by a reason ("Why"). By answering that question, we add another more fundamental layer to ground that proposition. By proceeding the inquiry, one reaches more and more fundamental questions and more and more fundamental answers. Each "because" buttresses the former "why". Each reason carries the question that asked for this reason. How far does this go? It can basically go until one reaches an absolutely fundamental proposition, some truth that cannot be questioned any further but denotes a necessary condition, the bottom of reasoning.

Now let's turn to the query above again that is triggered by the question why some, upon hearing, believe the gospel while others don't:

--Why do we obey the gospel?
**Because it is God's commandment.
--Why do we obey God's commandment?
**Because we love him and love for God implies keeping his law.
--Why do we love him?

Now, we know that God the Father loves his son with an eternal, unquenchable love. Why? -- Because he does. Period!--Notice, that here is the bottom of inquiry. Here all questioning terminates. If there were a more fundamental "because", then the love of God would hinge on this reason and be dependent on it.

Suppose you would not have to get up early next morning. Then you would not set your alarm clock. If the cause ceases, the consequence does so, too. If the fundament vanishes, the consequence collapses.

God the divine father loves his divine son, because God is God. God is Love denotes this innate, necessary and unchanging love of God. It is an attribute of God that cannot be grounded on more fundamental foundations, because it is most fundamental. Here is no deeper ground. It is the deepest ground. So the reason why we love God is the same as why the Father loves the son. Because God is God. It is a necessary reality. It just is so. Period. If we could provide a reason "why" we love God, then the love for God would be contingent upon that reason. Whatever the reason would be, if it fell away, our love for God would be lapse as well. So there'd be something more important, more basic more necessary than the love for God and that cannot be. Therefore, here is the bottom of reasoning.

So lets turn back to the original question
"When you hear the gospel and positively respond to it, while your neighbor rejects it, -- WHAT MAKES YOU TO DIFFER?"

The actual mystey is not why we positively respond to the gospel. We do because we love God and and if God be God there can be no further reason and the question becomes vain. No, the question at hand is why do some people hear the gospel and still reject it? That's the real problem. Now, we have seen that faith in Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of God's commandment and the opposite of obedience to God is sin. Those who stay in nonbelief do so because of their sin. Their opposition is sin.

Sin!

Here the real reason why some people refuse to follow Jesus Christ must be sought. The mystery of unbelief is wrapped up in the mystery of sin. Thus, in order to understand the initial question in this post, one must understand why there is sin anyway. In other words, the question why some reject Jesus Christ is akin to the question why Adam chose the tree of knowledge over the tree of life. Indeed, why did he do that? We imagine two individuals who hear the gospel message together and one accepts it an becomes a christian while the other one ceteris paribus does not come to the same faith. In like manner we can imagine Adam standing before the tree of knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life and for some reason he chooses the tree of knowledge. Since the mystery of unbelief is wrapped up in the mystery of sin, shouldn't we explore the origin of sin in the first place? Indeed, one must understand the origin of sin, then the question of unbelief, along with many other questions, falls into its place also. However, calvinists do not know the mystery of sin or its origin. Consequently, they cannot resolve the mystery of human unbelief. Consequently, they apply sophistic answers and argue that obiously God must invoke some "inward address" in some people while denying it to others. After all, the question "What makes yo to differ? -- Do you think you are smarter?" keeps Calvinists' minds very busy and cries for clarification. But instead of going to the root, which is the the why and whence of sin itself, they claim to be cracking the big nut with one hit and introduce their wretched doctrines. That's easysolutionism!

Concerning John Piper's article on Romans 9,22-23 and the phrase "Fitted for destruction"

2009-08-15T09:09:00.000-07:00

Calvinists don't get tired of trying to make the holy God the author of sin. The favorite proof-text served up in such attempts is found in Romans 9 and especially verses 22-23 allegedly prove that God is the preparer of vessels of dishonor. John Piper provides an article about the phrase "fitted for destruction" as found in Rom 9,22 which I'm commenting on in this post.

At least John Piper realizes that the text at hand doesn't mention that the Most Holy One is the preparer of vessels for destruction, as we see:

Piper:does not the use of the passive voice in the phrase "vessels of wrath fitted (κατηρτισμένα) for destruction" suggest that Paul does not attribute their condition to God's doing especially since he uses the active voice in the phrase "vessels of mercy which he prepared before for glory"?

That's an accurate observation. God is clearly said (active voice) to be the preparer of vessels for glory, but there is silence about the creatorship of the other vessels. But Piper offers a process of elimination in order to construe a path that leads him to the conclusion he wants to arrive at: God's authorship of vessels of dishonor, that is, God's authorship of sin.

But to settle the question of the meaning of κατηρτισμένα one must first address the question of agency: who is doing the action?

There is no such solid, clear foundation that God is the one who did the "fitted for destruction". It is quite noteworthy that not even this important scriptural pillar for the reformed dogma of double predestination actually says what it is supposed to say! Not even this most frequently cited passage is spelling out in "bold letters" what isn't found elsewhere at all. Of course Piper wants to find a way of answering the question "who is doing the action?" that arrives at God doing that. Lets see.....

There are at least four views: 1) God is the one who fits (or creates) the vessels of wrath for destruction; 2) the voice is middle not passive and thus means that the vessels of wrath have fitted themselves for destruction [...] 3) the participle is to be construed adjectivally as "fit for destruction" with no implication intended about who did the fitting [...] 4) the passive is intended to express a mystery no human can break through

After first ruling out option 2, Piper goes:

That the fourth view contradicts the context of what Paul claims to know in Romans 9 and that the third view is true but does not go far enough, I will try to show by the following observations.

What does Paul claim to know in Romans 9 relevant to option 4? Did Paul claim to know who the author of vessels of dishonor (fitted for destruction) is? Isn't that what Piper is just going to figure out here? Piper is exploring the question "who is doing the action?". Did Paul mention already that he has the answer? No.

It seems to me that, after the clear and powerful statements of double predestination in Romans 9, it is grasping at a straw to argue that the passive voice κατηρτισμένα proves that Paul denied divine agency in fitting men for destruction.

Here Piper is really begging the question. Isn't the question of double predestionation the one he is exploring here right now in v.22-23 ? Where are the "powerful statements of double predestination", that Piper assumes already? Isn't he trying to demonstrate that v.22-23 are such statements to begin with?

Or have there been preceding statements that "powerfully" teach double predestination?

"Jacob I loved and Esau I hated" (9:13).

Uh. Obviously the topic of the section in the letter is completely ignored and the fact overlooked that the section draws on the first-last-relationships (Egypt/Israel; Ismael/Isaac; Esau/Jacob; Israel/Gentile; Old/New Covenant) that characterize salvation history -- in order to explain the mystery of Israel's rejection of the messiah. (Yes, context is a little more complex than just 2 or 3 verses preceding and 2 or 3 verses following a passage under scrutiny!)

"He has mercy on whom he wills and he hardens whom he wills" (9:18).

Problem: Do we know of any jewish-christian convert (vessels of mercy) that had been hardened before? (Romans 10,21; 11,10 -- for instance Saul of Tarse). Do we know of any gentile christians (vessels of mercy) that were hardened before? (11,32) . Obviously there exist persons that were hardened and later received mercy.

Can vessels of dishonor turn into vessels of honor or vice versa?

"He makes from the same lump a vessel for honor and a vessel for dishonor" (9:21).

The text doesn't say God, who is holy, is doing that. Rather The Potter has the right to do so. The verse doesn't make an affirmative statement that anyone makes vessels for honor/dishonor, but rather the emphasized point made here is about the phrase "of the same lump".

The "same lump" is a picture of corporations like the Jews and the Gentiles, which are divided into vessels of honor (christians) and of dishonor (unbelievers). Different vessels made "of the same lump" refers to the selection ("out of" or "from" in v.24) from among corporate entities (Jews and Gentiles).

Now, someone might have assumed that the Jews had to be altogether vessels of honor due to the "kind of lump" which they were as a nation according to the flesh. But Paul is saying that the worldly nation of Israel doesn't automatically consist of vessels of honor only. Rather the nation of Jews (a certain "lump") is divided into vessels of honor and dishonor. The same holds true for the Gentiles (another lump). In other words, all fish go into the net (the same kind) but not all of this kind are equal. Being of a certain kind (fish) doesn't prove all are the of the same quality (good fish, bad fish) and likewise, being of the nation of Israel, doesn't automatically imply being "Abraham's seed" (vessel of honor).

Thus, the "same lump" anticipates the entireties, from among which the christians are called, as in v.24.

So if "the potter" has power to make different vessels of a certain group then this shows that the "birthright claims by blood" are rejected. God doesn't have to save all jews automatically just because they are a special "lump". Being a certain lump doesn't grant any privileges itself. God's plan of salvation goes different than most were expecting by the time Romans were written. This doesn't mean that God (the potter) actually makes bad vessels, but rather that people who had thought themselves to be privileged actually don't know their potter. Paul is going to explain that the real dividing line between vessels of honor and dishonor doesn't run between Jews and Gentiles but between believers and unbelievers in Christ, without respect of nationality.

Is it really plausible after such assertions to argue that the differences between "vessels of wrath fitted for destruction" and "vessels of mercy which he prepared before for glory" are such that Paul is now denying or even trying to conceal the divine agency in the former?

Piper wants to find proof that God, who is holy, is the author of evil. Since there is no other statement in the holy bible that identifies the holy one as the author of evil (or preparer of vessels of dishonor), this passage in Romans 9 must be twisted to serve as evidence.

Piper misquotes the scripture:

Paul has just stated unabashedly that God makes from the same lump vessels for dishonor (9:21).

No, that's blatantly wrong, as seen above.

I cannot escape the implication that anti-Calvinistic apologetic is in control when in the next verse we are forbidden to suggest that the divine Potter is at work in the phrase "vessels of wrath fitted for destruction."

How about looking for comparative texts that treat of God's longsuffering and patience towards a glorious end?

'The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. When the wheat sprouted and formed ears, then the weeds also appeared. 'The owner's servants came to him and said, “Sir, didn't you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?” “An enemy did this,” he replied. 'The servants asked him, “Do you want us to go and pull them up?” “No,” he answered, “because while you are pulling up the weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: first collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.” '

And

Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots"

This is the right perspective on Romans 9,22-23. God, who is holy, is as much the creator of bad vessels as he is the sower of tares, the temper to sin or the planter of poisonous plants. Not at all.

Moreover, in view of the parallels between Romans 9:22 and 9:17 a most natural suggestion is that Pharaoh serves as an example of a "vessel of wrath fitted for destruction." And since Paul's inference from the Pharaoh story is that "God hardens whom he wills" (9:18), the most natural suggestion from the context is that "fitted for destruction" (9:22) refers precisely to this divine hardening.

Well, maybe the Pharaoh was a vessel fitted for destruction, but that doesn't serve Piper's goal. Piper ignores that the relation between Pharaoh (Egypt) and the bonded Hebrews (pre-exodus Israel) is the same as the relation between mosaic Israel of the time the letter to the Romans was written and the Gentiles. The pharaoh is a representative of Egypt and his hardening just as corporative in meaning as Israel's hardening was corporative at the time Romans was written. Piper mixes apples and onions: corporations and individuals. Romans 9-11 deals with both and it is crucial not to confuse these aspects.

Thus, Romans 9,22-23 does not make God, who is holy, the author of evil, an absurdiy calvinists like Piper are so zealous to entertain.

Comment on the reformed usage of 2 Timothy 2:24-26

2009-08-10T12:04:00.001-07:00

This is one among several scriptures offered by Calvinists to support the dogma that repentance, and "saving faith" are a special present from God and man by nature unable to repent. They say that this passage is particularly interesting because it is in the context of evangelism.

The first problem is, that is not the context to begin with. The subject of the passage in this pastoral epistle is the association with heretics and heresies in the church. Vs. 14-26 deal with false teachers and how Timothy is to behave towards them. The passage is not concerned with ignorance of the truth by those out in the world, but with opposition within the church. The concerns are internal, not evangelical.

In a conversation I had with a Calvinist, the same one said we should acknowledge that this passage is talking about a believer, referring to him as “the Lord’s servant”. We also know that this believer is talking to an unbeliever, referred to as “[the believer's] opponent”.

Again, I answer with no. The opponents meant here are heretics that introduce false doctrine. Note just v.17: “Their teaching will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus,”. The exhortation here is about the correct interaction with those who departed from the truth and are even about to sweep along the fellow brethren. While it is certainly true that these heretics are opposed to sound doctrine, the entire situation here is not evangelical. Paul is not instructing Timothy about missionary issues. The topic is not soul-winning outside in the world. The opponents of the Lord’s servant in this context arise from within the church and Timothy is called to correct them with meekness and patience, teaching the truth and to restore them back to the truth. Note also v. 20 “In a large house there are articles not only of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay; some are for noble purposes and some for disposal of refuse”. So the evil here arises from within the christian community. Paul is not conerned with the wickedness of the outer world that is to be preached the gospel, but with false brethren.

The Calvinist said, this unbeliever is also described as having been ensnared by the devil, doing his will. Because of these things it is clear that this is an evangelistic context.

No. The false teachers deviated from the truth and introduced false doctrine, bad codes of conduct or practiced severe lawlessness. This is meant with “ensnarement by the devil”. They are to escape out of this trap by returning to the truth. So while these need to hear the truth of course, the context is rather apostasy than mission. Those who shall be taught and corrected by Timothy here, are no “newbies”.

The Calvinists went on: Notice the motivation given for evangelism in this passage: “God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth”.

Here is the critical phrase: God may perhaps grant repentance. These church members had been taught all about the gospel, they had been evangelized, they knew enough already but nevertheless engaged in sinfulness and heresy. Why is Paul leaving it up to God to bring them to repentance? Note, v.23 “Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels.” Arguments only aggravate opposition and cause each side to entrench even more in their strongholds. Therefore Timothy shall be meek and patient with them, for only the circumstances might bring about a chance to return. Apostates, who have learned all the teachings already, are hardly to convince with arguments anymore. All this probably has been attempted. However, painful life experiences, chastening sufferings and afflictions are often turning points that lead to repentance. If someone has lifted up his heart against God, he’s hardly persuaded by arguments anymore, until he might find himself hit rock bottom. Underfoot, like the prodigal son. Then people may “come to their senses”. This is the meaning behind “God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth”. Since quarrels are of no use, Timothy shall leave it up to God, and don’t engage in quarrels.

The text is in parallel with Hebrews 6,4-8 which says that apostates may be so ensnared by the devil as to make it completely useless to keep arguing with them in an attempt to renew them to repentance. The only hope is that God will intervene, as described above.

So the meaning here is not in accordance with the reformed concept of repentance and faith being a divine special gift.

2009-08-02T06:13:00.001-07:00

Regarding Romans 9-11 and this previous post on the section, a commentor said:

Where do you get from the text that "All had been hardened at their proper time so that God would grant mercy to all"?

I get it from Romans 11,29-31. There are two aspects to consider throughout the section. Individuals and corporations. There are both collective entities (Israel, Gentiles) and individuals (9,24: "even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles") treated as the objects of salvation. There is the fulness of gentiles and the fulness of jews. These collectives are all hardened at their time and pardoned at their proper time. That's according to the salvation history Paul is explaining. Is individual and corporate salvation mixed in Romans 9-11? Well, one must rightly divide the word.

The divine hardening is both in a collective and an individual sense. Israel was collectively hardenend by the mosaic law (Romans 3,20; 7,7-8; 7,13) and the Gentiles by God's giving them over to their fleshly lusts resulting in greater ungodliness (Romans 1,26-32). The Pharaoh's hardening represents a collective hardening too, it is the reprobation of the empire Egypt which the pharaoh is the representative of (Egypt's "god" versus YHWH).

All these hardenings happen to an already fallen world. God doesn't harden innocent people. That's crucial! Now, what about the preparation of vessels for destruction? This clearly carries the meaning of creation for destruction. It becomes first relevant at 9,22-24:

"What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath- prepared for destruction?" 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory- 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? (emphasis added)

Note, this is speaking not of a collective whole but "us" is a subset of both Gentiles and Jews, the christians. It is clear that the vessels of mercy are christians. Who prepared the vessels of mercy? God did. Are we told who prepared the vessels for destruction? No. Shall we conclude that God prepared the vessels for destruction? No, because here the distinction between individuals and corporations becomes apparent:

You'd agree that Israel was hardened as a collective (Rom. 10,21; 11,10). Right? The Gentiles also (Rom. 11,32). Right?

But you'd also agree that the "us" in v.9,24, the vessels of mercy, refers to a subset of these corporations, to the individual believers.

Now, was there any gentile christian (vessel of mercy!) who did not belong to the "hardened" collection before? Of course not. Likewise was there any jewish christian (vessel of mercy!) who was not "hardened" before? No! -- see Saul as an example.

So obviously we have some vessels of mercy here that had been hardened! Does that mean that they were vessels for destruction that changed into vessels of mercy? And is "hardened = vessel for destruction"? Note, God's divine hardening spoken of above is not equal to the preparation of vessels for destruction. The preparation (creation) of the vessels for destruction is by the devil:

Matthew 15,13: "...Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots" (emphasis added)

1 John 3,8: "He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work." (emphasis added)

The hardening is God's just treatment of sinners. Vessels for destructions are the work of the devil.

Again, why does v.22 simply say that the vessels for destruction have been prepared for destruction (by whom?) while it denotes God as the creator of the vessels of mercy only?

Now, considering v.21: "Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?" - The potter (creator of the vessels) is either God or the devil. The virtual objector ("why does he still find fault?") does not know God's plan which Paul is just about to explain. He doesn't know yet how God's salvation has nothing to do at all with human efforts and achievements. He represents someone "hardened" and ignorant of the truth that is only revealed by Paul's gospel. This is really the news the virtual objector cannot know yet (after all, all have been given over into disobedience: hardened!).

Now, if he is a vessel for destruction, then his potter is the devil. If he is a vessel of mercy then his potter is God. God is not the sower of tares nor the potter of bad vessels. But God is patiently bearing the vessels for destruction so that it might ultimately become apparent to all which is a good vessels and which a bad one (v.22-23). And it is ultimately explained who is who: the vessels of mercy are released because they are un-hardened by the "hardening instrument" which becomes their salvation: The cornerstone Jesus Christ. Believe in him and be saved or disbelieve and be hardened the more. That's how the vessels are distinguished. And God is not the author of unbelief.

More notes on reformed theodicy

2009-08-01T09:08:00.000-07:00

In their support of the Greater Good Defense, Calvinists ponder these two questions:

i) Is an agent responsible for his evil actions?

ii) Can evil actions have good consequences?

The first question everyone affirms. Without any restriction of generality, an actor is basically responsible if he works iniquity. When it comes to the Greater Good Defense, the second question is much more crucial. The underlying question here is, whether a bad act can have good consequences as a by-product. The transgression against the law creates a new situation which can then be the basis for something good to come about.

As example for a good outcome of an evil work one might imagine a healthy person being killed. The organs of the victim can in turn be used to as transplants to save the lives of others. So while the murder itself was evil, and the murderer certainly responsible for that, by the sinful act a new situation was realized. Now, as the victim is dead, his good organs are available to realize a greater good. Thus, a by-product of the murder is the possibility to do good now which otherwise would not be possible. If other lives are saved now by organ transplant, then a greater good has been realized. Voilà!

So much for the reasoning underlying the reformed theodicy, lest anyone think the example is unsuitable, I've lately read this from an adherer to reformed theodicy.

Okay, now what? -- While no one can deny that it is true that question ii) must be answered positively here and that it is certainly true that bad actions can be the grounds for other works that are good, the problem is that this provides exactly nothing to the solution of the logical problem of the co-existence of God and evil. Observations like (ii) are not the answer, but only a starting point on which the quest for the mystery of the problem of evil can begin in the first place!

The Greater Good Defense needs the distinction between doing evil and using evil. In the above example, the murderer is doing evil and responsible for it, while the surgerer who uses the victim's organs for good purposes is simply using evil. The sin in this example is murder, the greater good is the salvation of several other lives. So the ultimate rescue of other lives is the good goal reached in the end.

What the calvinist is missing when he serves up such examples, is simply: the almighty and all-benevolent God. If the greater good is the rescue of others' lives, why does God not realize this good in a way that gets by without a crime? It is still open why the sin is commited in the first place. Is it necessary that someone becomes delinquent in order for God to heal these patients? As long as you simply present the human, worldy example as above everything is plausible, but things get inconsistent, when the almighty and all-good God is added to the story. Obviously, God is simply using sins like the physician who simply makes use of the organs for a good purpose. Yet the problem of evil asks why there is evil in the world. Obviously, God cannot be dependent on this evil to reach his greater good of rescuing other lives, or else he'd not be almighty.

Note, what the Calvinists do when they present examples such as this and point out that obviously God does bring good consequences out of bad deeds, is merely an observation of facts such that the real dealing with the question can now begin. Examples like that are not the answer to the problem of evil, but the starting ground to even begin to find an answer.

Take another perspective: How was it possible for the patients in need of an organ donor to become so sick and indigent in the first place? Was this also due to some foregoing evil? Whence and why then this evil?

So obviously God merely using evil like the surgerer merely uses evil to do good, is not an explanation why it wouldn't work without evil in the first place. So the distinction between using and actually doing evil are waft of mist and not contributing anything to the core problem. The core problem, namely the question why there is evil anyway is not touched by the use/do-distinction at all.

Now Calvinists like to point out, that the simple fact that God does yield good outcomes of man's sinful works should be a sufficient answer to the problem of evil, an argument from reality. Again, this is just an inventory, an observation of things even unbelievers do. No atheist would negate question (ii). That doesn't lead him to embrace the Greater Good Defense. No, the calvinist apologist must do more than just oberve that the Lord's betrayel by Judas resulted in a greater good. The very origin of evil desires themselves that are the grounds for culpability according to Calvinism, are not accounted for at all.

Concerning "Triablogue" and Romans 9,17-21

2009-07-31T10:20:00.000-07:00

The following is actually a response to a critique of a comment of mine at triablogue.blogspot.com Two persons said I had wrongly interpreted Romans 9,22-23 by saying God is not the preparer of vessels of destruction.

---

DBT & Neal,

You are both making basically the same objection. Is God the preparer of vessels of destruction? Here is the text again, including DBT's emphasis.

17 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.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills ... Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?

There are 3 ciritcal issues to be considered (which correspond to the 3 bold phrases):

1) what is "the purpose" here?
2) what is the "hardening"?
3) Who is making vessels for dishonorable use here?

----

Lets answer these questions by considering the topic of the section this passage is embedded in. The current topic in Paul's letter here is the mysterious salvation history. Especially the salvation of Israel did not come as expected. The Gentiles shall understand their role in the salvation schedule of God and their relationship to the original beneficiary of salvation, Israel. That's the underlying topic here.

The entire section of Romans 9 is characterized by the outline of some of the biblical first-last-relationships and God involved therein. These first-second-relationships are a theologic motif underlying the entire salvation history from Genesis through Revelation. (For example Old covenant versus New Covenant. ) Romans 9 mentions four of these dual relationships:

First	Last	ref
Ismael	Isaak	9,8
Esau	Jacob	9,13
Egypt (pharaoh)	pre-exodus Israel	9,17
OT Israel	Gentiles	9,25-30

Furthermore, there is a salvation history which these pairs are the objects of, respectively. The salvation history always runs like this:

1) The first would have to be natural heir or beneficiary of a certain privilege. (Ismael, father of kings; Esau, birthright; Egypt a world empire, Israel the recipient of the mosaic law)

2) The second would not have natural blessings but be promised spiritual blessings also.

3) The first would be rejected and forsake its natural privilege for reasons unknown

4) The second would receive spiritual blessings which include the understanding of step (3)! (crucial for us to grasp here!)

In other words, the first (Ismael, Esau, Egypt, Old Israel) would become the last and the last (Isaak, Jacob, bonded Israel, Gentiles) be the first. Now, what? The first, who was the heir of God's blessings by nature did not receive the blessings by nature. The last on the other hand, that was without any natural promise, received spiritual blessings. The first will be the last and the last the first.

That's the first part of the story and the first side of the coin.

It follows the second part of the story and the second side of the coin.

Paul explains to the Gentiles (9,31) that they have become implanted branches and become heirs of God's salvation by mercy because Israel was rejected. In other words the Gentiles wouldn't have become heirs of the gospel of salvation if Israel had not rebelled against God (10,20-21). The gospel promise wouldn't have become theirs.(Rom 11,1ff)

So step 3 above is now made known to the last: The first were rejected, so that the last could become the first. In other words, the mystery of the rejection of the first in step 3 is now resolved. (Romans 11,1-9).

Now, of course, since the last are now the first and the first are the last, the same rule

THE FIRST WILL BE THE LAST AND THE LAST WILL BE THE FIRST

is applied again: The "new" first (Gentiles) are the last and the "new" last are the first! (Romans 11,17-21). How so? As soon as the Gentiles have become the first, they must realize that they are the branches that hinge on the root that carries them. Only owing to Israel's disobedience were the Gentiles saved, hence their salvation is not their own, but due to Israel's deferment. Seeing that, they are the last again, and Israel, the root, is the first (Romans 11,24)

Finally nobody is the first and nobody is the last. All had been hardened at their proper time so that God would grant mercy to all, so that nobody can boast that he is the first.

----

So what does this tell us about "this very purpose" the pharaoh was raised to? God wanted to show his power and proclaim his name throughout the world. In other words, to be proclaimed even to the Gentile nations far and wide. This proclamation of God's power is beginning by the time Romans chapter 11 was finished.

Thus, the purpose pharaoh's hardening (Egypt's rejection) is, principally, the very same purpose that Israel was hardened. Egypt's hardening (rejection as the first!) is parallel with mosaic Israel's hardening (rejection of the first!). So what? -- Note, the pharaoh is a representative of Egypt, a worldy empire (natural blessing). The purpose of his hardening was to save Israel (out of slavery, a foreshadowing of eternal, spiritual salvation).

So the three questions above can be cleared up now.

First, the purpose of pharaoh's hardening was part of the pattern outlined above:

1) Egypt had a natural privilege (world empire) by God's will.
2) Israel was in slavery and far from any visible blessings from God.
3) Egypt (pharaoh) should be rejected and lose its privileges so that Israel could be released from bondage ("saved").
4) The thus saved Israel should be hardened also so that the spiritual blessings would finally come to the Gentiles (including Egypt hence, back to Egypt).

That's the biblical pattern of salvation: THE FIRST WILL BE THE LAST AND THE LAST WILL BE THE FIRST. It works either way. You can never boast to be the first! As soon as you are the first, you can also be shown to be the last.

Second, the hardening was previously explained.

In case of the pharaoh it is like this: God wanted to free the Israelites out of the bondage of the pharaoh and could have done so quickly by bringing the pharaoh to a swift destruction. This would have saved a lot of trouble on Egypt and the pharaoh himself. But God, after exerting a plague withdrew the plague after some time and showed mercy by ending the horror. In good times, when no afflictions are in sight, humans tend to forget God and the past chastisements he brought on them and become arrogant again. So does the pharaoh. After he witnesses that (in the beginning his sorcerers perform quite well also) and sees that all these chastisements of God came to an end and he himself survived, why not become boastful again? Important: God hardened the pharaoh by being slow to exert his wrath and prolonging his reign! This corresponds with Romans 9,22-23.

Third, is God making vessels for dishonorable use?

No, as we have seen all the first-last-relationships are corporate. It is true that the first ones in the bible are altogether hardened (and receive mercy in due time). But there is no individual hardening. Both pharaoh and Esau are foreshadowing realities to be reveald in NT times (Note, the OT must be interpreted in light of the NT, not the other way round). The question in 9,19 "One of you will say to me: Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" is due to the ignorance of someone who hasn't heard the rest of the story. The objector doesn't know the meaning of the Pharaoh story and what it is foreshadowing. In fact it couldn't be know before (see step 3 above). Now, the mystey which the Exodus story including the pharaoh is all about, is going to be revealed by Paul in the following.

Verse 21 is merely a rhetorical anticipation of the essence of the things he is going to reveal: Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counsellor? Who has ever given to God, that God should repay him? For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory for ever! Amen.

Regarding the following vs.22-23, that speak of prepared vessels either to destruction or to mercy, Paul points out that he has called "us" as such, namely as vessels of mercy out of the Gentiles and the Jews. The believers ("us") are altogether considered vessels of mercy. The bad vessels prepared here are not believers and not "prepared" by God.

That's why it is so important to keep the context in mind rather than ripping things out of their coherence like Calvinists do.

DBT:
"You're being patently dishonest with the text, A Helmet. In fact, God's preparation of vessels of wrath is the exact question Paul is addressing"

No, in fact he doesn't stop there. Further reading recommended!

and Neal:
"This is the same pattern found in Job, when he questions God, God's response is a series of rhetorical questions that Job cannot answer."

No, this is not the same pattern, Paul is providing an elaboration leading up through the end of ch. 11 where the question in v.19 is just one piece that is processed in the following and therefore mustn't be ripped out of context and highlighted in isolation. The diatribe style that characterizes the entire epistle (see also ch.6) is pedagogic and not comparable to the poetic book of Job! Paul is not leaving his readers in ignorance.

Reply to the "Triabloggers" on the absurdity of reformed theodicy

2009-07-29T06:16:00.000-07:00

Steve,

You had asked:

If God didn't want sin to enter the world, then why did sin enter the world despite God's wishes to the contrary? Do you think God is impotent to prevent sin from entering the world?

There is something serious to say in response to this. You probably know the story of the guest without a wedding garment in Matthew 22,11-14. This story is part of the parable of the wedding banquet where the king chooses and calls people to come to the wedding feast of his son.

The metaphor of the wedding garment stands for the righteous deeds of the saints (Revelation 19,8-9; Isaiah 61,10). No wedding attire means no righteousness and thus sinfulness. The situation in Matthew 22,11-14 is forensic.

Now let's meditate a bit about judgment. Judgment has to do with the establishment guilt or innocence, right? Now, how is sin detected? By conviction. Conviction is a situation where the sinner has run out of arguments and has no valid explanation why/how/in which way he is innocent. Conviction is a situation where the accused is unable to "pass the buck". There is nothing/nobody left whom he can put the blame on. For example if you are charged of shoplifting but you can credibly explain that you were forced by someone else to go into a shop and steal and were unable to resist, then the guilt has been shifted and you are free. If you stand before the law-court being accused of damage to property because you broke the window of a car then the verdict will depend on how your defense is. If you can explain in truth that there was a baby in the car, 30°C temperature and nobody around and you were saving the child from a fatal heat stroke then you will surely be acquitted and in fact be innocent. So if you can provide a true explanation in which way you are innocent, then you are indeed innocent, provided the justice system is perfect.

So how is the sinner convicted? He is unable to locate the source of evil outside himself. On a trial, a delinquent is convicted by the inability to repel the accusations charged against him. He cannot provide a valid defense, fending off the blame. On the other hand, if the accused can provide a valid explanation that he is innocent (and if justice system is perfect), then he will be acquitted. If the accused can explain why he is not guilty then he will be found not guilty.

So how does conviction work? It is the lack of defense, the lack of a rational explanation of your case. You are convicted of sin if you have no valid explanation of your actions that would convince the court that you are not guilty.

Back to the man that is caught without a wedding garment. Does the king who notices this man immediately have him cast out? No! He takes him to task. This is judgment. God will not condemn anyone wihtout a fair trial. So why is the man expelled from the banquet? Because he has no proper clothing? He is ultimately expelled because he cannot answer the question

"How did you get in here without a wedding garment?"

The man cannot defend his sinfulness (lacking wedding garment). In other words, he cannot explain, how it was possible for him to come into the wedding hall without proper clothing.

Now Steve, what does this have to do with your question above? Note, the king had had trouble with unworthy persons before, and was intending to have worthy guests. Also, the king has dominion over the wedding hall, right?

Note, the man without the wedding garment cannot answer exactly the question you posed above. He cannot answer the question, how it was even possible for evil to enter into God's own creation?!

How indeed did the man come in? Consider these 2 basic options:

1) He came through the public gate like all others, after all everyone was called, right?

2) He crept in secretly through a backdoor, a window, chimney etc

Is any of these 2 options possible?

In the first case, God (the king) would have called evil into existence, being the author of evil. It would have entered his creation by God's own volition (through the main entrance).

In the second case, evil would have crept in beyond God's control (a security fault) and God (the king)would not be sovereign over his world (the wedding hall) .

The first case is incompatible with God's goodness and holiness. The holy God didn't call evil into his creation in any way. After all, the king wouldn't take the poorly clothed man to task, would he?

The second case however is incompatible with God's omnipotence and sovereignty. Can God (the king) not grant security? Can evil creep into his creation out of his control through some secrete holes? Is God not really sovereign? So that option is untenable as well.

----

So how then, did the man without the wedding clothing get in? It is remarkable that the narrative is silent here. And here lies the key to the parable. The man cannot explain how it was possible for sin to enter God's world. Recall what I said about trials and the detection of guilt/innocence. The guilty ones cannot explain why they sinned, why they lied when they lied for the first time, why the were selfish, why they cheated, stole and so on and so forth. When do humans tell their first conscious lie in their life? Lets say at hardly three years according to psychologists. Who teaches or gives them the advice to lie? The parents? The elder siblings or buddies? No -- they do that out of themselves. The guilty, convicted sinners cannot explain their life and their works. They cannot explain why they sinned anyway. In other words, they cannot defend themselves and are hence convicted as described above.

Steve, how are the evil ones detected? The evil ones are those who cannot explain evil. They fail the "wedding garment" trial. When they stand in the judgment of God they won't be able to explain evil, or to pick up your words:

If God didn't want sin to enter the world, then why did sin enter the world despite God's wishes to the contrary? Do you think God is impotent to prevent sin from entering the world?

If the king didn't want guests without proper attire, then why did they enter the wedding hall despite the king's will to the contrary? Are we to think the king cannot grant security and sinners can creep in any time through the chimney? The man cannot tell and is therefore cast out.

You said:
Perhaps a helmet has been playing too much footfall without a helmet! That might explain his disorientation.

Steve, the man who came without proper clothing is bound hand and foot lest he climbs in right away. Furthermore, he is in the darkness. In the darkness nothing can be seeen and hence, no truth be known.

If God is omnipotent he doesn't need any evil and can hinder it.
If God is love then he doesn't want any evil.
Whence then evil?

Steve, I, a helmet tell you that you will never, ever be able to reconcile the above trilemma. Natural man's hand and feet are bound and he cannot make any move towards a solution to that problem! You are in the spiritual darkness where you have no discernment regarding the truth about God. The one you call your God you do not know, Steve!
The "Greater Good Defense" is just one among many man-made attempts to reach God by man's easysolutionism. You should abandon the Greater Good Defense!

The omnipotent and perfectly holy, loving God is not the author of sin in any sense. Easysolutionism like Calvinism is a vain attempt to circumvent God's ways.

Note, the parable ends with the words "Many are called but few are chosen". God will not leave the elect in ignorance. They will know God and be worthy guests in his presence. The elect will not be left in their false man-made easysolution-boxes, but know the truth.

Jesus said: "They will all be taught by God. Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me" (John 6,45). Those who have been taught by God will come to Christ's wedding banquet and not be cast out!

-a helmet

Against the reformed theodicy

2009-06-26T06:57:00.000-07:00

One major flaw in Calvinism lies in its theodicy. Calvinism embraces what they refer to as the greater good defense. That means, sin is used by the sovereign God in order to realize a good purpose, to reach a greater goal in the end. Yet this is clearly in contradiction to God’s omnipotence. Wouldn’t an almighty God realize His desired purpose in a direct, straight way rather than be dependent on the means of evil to accomplish this goal? The greater good defense presents God as an investor who makes and investment, going into debt first, planning that after a time of amortization he earns a much greater profit, a return on investment he wouldn’t have been able to realize without going into debt in the beginning. Thus, according to reformed theodicy the almighty Lord would need to borrow from evil to fulfil his desires. He would need sins as a means to accomplish his purpose. But is the only true God comparable to an investor that needs unsavory means to achieve a higher return on investment in the future? This is clearly a denial of His omnipotence.

But what about the notion, that not only the end but also the way itself is desired by God? In other words, the very way through sin and evil itself might be a part of the entire good, that is served. What if the means (sin) is in itself part and parcel of the entire greater good? Well, in this case, God would be evil himself and the author thereof. If evil is actually good, then we’ve turned God’s holiness and hatred of evil on the head. Thus, the idea that the “way through evil” is good and desired by God, means nothing else than that God is evil.

So the greater good argument must either deny God’s omnipotence or his holiness and love. Both options are untenable. Therefore, the reformed theodicy is fallacious and even falls short of a mere defense of the God of the bible.

Comment on the reformed usage of Acts 2:23 and 4:27

2009-06-24T10:19:00.001-07:00

The reformed answer to the problem of evil is the greater good defense. This theodicy holds that there is a secret good purposed served by all evils. I think I will write an article about the greater good defense in more general on this blog some time, and for now, I'll address two scriptural proof-texts that are always served up by Calvinists when trying to support their contention that there's a greater good in human sin -- references to Jesus' execution by wicked men, an event foreordained by God for a good purpose. In Acts 2 Peter is preaching the good news of Jesus resurrection to the ones who were liable for handing Jesus over to the roman authorities to have him killed. Peter unveils the divine salvation plan underlying this event. A similar statement making reference to God's predestination of Jesus' crucifixion and mankind's role in this, is made in chapter 4. So here we have the best known and most frequently (not to say: always) cited bible passages, cited by Calvinists in order to defend their theodicy according to which God ordained even each and every sinful act happening in this world.

The crucifixion of Jesus is in reality a very awkward attempt to support God’s will for sin to occur. In Jesus’ death God directed the evil unto Himself. It was a crime God ordained against Himself, because Jesus is God incarnate. But in no way does this mean that God ordains murder among men in general which would truly be heretical. The singular case of Jesus’ crucifixion, an act where God ordained for HIMSELF TO BE THE VICTIM cannot serve to establish a general case that God wants evil to happen. Jesus crucifixion was part of God's own salvific dealings with this world and was clearly a unique case where God predestined evil against HIMSELF. We cannot infer from this that God predestined, say, Cain’s murdering his brother Abel. That would disregard the exceptional nature of Christ’s death, where God actually took suffering on Himself. But God doesn’t predestine anyone to commit evil against others (something against His will!) in general.

Calvinists suggest the following reasoning:
In Jesus’ crucifixion God ordained Himself to be a victim of wicked men, therefore God ordained for Cain to kill Abel, and murder in general. Of course this is a very far-fetched and inappropriate conclusion. The distinct case of Jesus' death is generalized to explain all murder and other sins. Not only was Jesus sacrifice a unique case, embedded in God's salvation history but there is another important aspect to consider. The fact that its purpose has been made known is absolutely vital! We do know what the purpose behind the Lord's death was. This has been known to us and in fact Peter in his sermon in Acts explains this good purpose that was served by the crucifixion. And here is an outstanding difference to the greater good defense, which holds that the alleged good purpose of evil isn’t really knowable. Calvinists contend that there is a mysterious good purpose served by sin, something we can't peer into any deeper. The predestination of the Lord's suffering and death by the hands of sinful men on the other hand, is clearly explained to be serving the salvation of mankind. No inscrutable purpose here. A double-will of God and his general predestination of sin and its alleged hidden good use, is unsupportable by Acts 2:23 and 4:27.

God is not the author of sin!

"All that the Father gives me will come to me" -- more remarks on the reformed usage of John 6:37

2009-06-11T04:45:00.000-07:00

More remarks on the calvinistic treatment of John 6:37. When Jesus says that all that the Father gives him will come to him, what does this mean? First, "all" here is neuter, it might also be translated "everything". So everything, or all things that the Father gives Jesus will come to Jesus.

A natural reading suggests that the objects of this sentence arrive at Jesus twice. The things (which include persons) under consideration somehow get to Jesus twice, they are given to him by the Father and then they come to him. So what is meant here with the actions of giving and coming? Calvinists have basically two possiblities to deal with this double-transaction.

The first option is, that the "giving" of the Father is the same as the "drawing" in v. 44. In other words, the father enables individuals to believe, he "regenerates" them which results in their exercise of faith. But why is Jesus using an expression that indicates that the father gives "to him"? If the Father gives "to Jesus" individuals isn't this exactly the same as the result of their coming? Why isn't he saying "All that are given the ability [to come] by the father will come to me"? Here, there'd be no double-arrival at Jesus. The objects would arrive at Jesus once, after having been initiated by the Father. So this understanding is linguistically a little awkward.

The second option is, that the "giving" of the Father refers to the pre-eternal decree were he "chose us in Christ" (1 Eph. 1ff). Yet there are two problems with this understanding. First, the context doesn't provide any ground for the idea of a pre-eternal time leap undertaken in the sermon here. Such an idea has to be found elsewhere and must then be re-imported into the bread of life discourse. There's nothing in the text of John 6 itself that suggests the idea of God's eternal decree before the foundation of the world and it requires a great deal of reformed pre-commitment to "see" this notion in John 6:37. The second problem is, that the tense used wouldn't do justice to the pre-eternal action of God. The text says "gives" (present tense) and "will come" as a consequence. So the transaction from the Father to the son ("gives") seems to be happening in the time Jesus was speaking and probably lasting as a continuous process from there on. However, using the present tense to denote a one-time action before the time of the world is far-fetched. One might argue that since the decree denotes an eternal reality and God is beyond time, the present tense ("gives") is appropriately used to point out the fact that the decree is actually an eternal, timeless reality. Thus, the present tense of the verb "to give" would simply emphasize the timeless nature of God's decree. However in verse 39 the word "to give" appears in the past tense, which would nullify the timeless aspect just established two verses earlier. Moreover, the future tense of "to come" would have to fit this usage of the tense as well and be wrapped up in a whole sentence like "all that the Father gives me comes to me". Yet the coming is clearly an action whose ongoing present tense, that is, its present and future aspect is emphasized. Thus, the option that the giving of the Father to Christ in v. 37 refers to the decree is highly eisegetical and hence untenable.

However, the interpretation of John 6:35ff I have provided here on the blog makes sense. But the double-arrival of objects that are transferred to Christ (give & come) is another observation that the calvinsitic usage of the passage is objectionable.

Some more notes against "Total Depravity"

2009-06-09T06:06:00.000-07:00

That the doctrines of grace are based on philosophical presuppositions and won by a system-driven exegesis, (rather than be an exegetically derived theological system) is particularly seen by the reformed treatment of Romans 3:10-31. This section is split into the two halfs vs. 10-20 and 21-31.
The first half cites from various Psalms on the wickedness of man and concludes with the establishment that the law (of works) cannot possibly save any man but only harden him. The second half then introduces the gospel, that is, the new covenant of faith that is both a substitute and a fulfillment of the old covenant.

The doctrine of Total Depravity entails natural, sinful man's inability to repent and believe the gospel. This post is aiming at showing the impossibility of this contention from the passage in question, Romans 3:10-31. Not only is Total Depravity not supported by this passage, but it instead hermeneutically impossible. In other words, I will show how the notion that natural man cannot believe the gospel anymore than he can keep the ten commandments, is positively irrational.

The first half of the passage, vs. 10-20 is about sinful man's condition. This is the culmination of the thorough portrayal of man's sinful condition throughout the first 2 chapters of the epistle. Natural man, regardless whether Jew or Gentile was utterly unable to satisfy God's standard of righteousness. Important buzz phrases for Calvinists here are

There is no-one righteous, not even one
and
here is no-one who understands; there is no-one who seeks God.

While these words are taken from lamenting Psalms they describe man's condition in general, which is the basis for his failure to please God. Natural, sinful man cannot be justified because of his nature. The old law cannot possibly save man, but only bring knowledge of his sinful condition and utter lostness. This is the conclusion drawn by v. 21.

Now notice the transition from verse 20 to verse 21. Verse 21 is a turning point in the chapter (and in the entire epistle so far). Paul has been describing sinful man's condition and concluded that he could not please God, neither Jew nor Genitle. Concerning the Jews, their law couldn't save them either, but only bring knowledge of their sins. "But now", Paul continues, something new is invoked. The righteousness of God is now given to all who believe in Jesus Christ. "For all have sinned". These "all" are exactly those who had just been identified as being not righteous, not understanding and not seeking after God. These sinful humans could not be saved by the law or their vain attempts to win God's approval. But now Paul says there is hope for them and they can nevertheless be saved. The old law could not save them -- but this new "law of faith" (v.27) can!

Now, lets consider Calvinism and Total Depravity. According to Calvinism, no one is righteous, no one understands and no one seeks after God and therefore he cannot possibly believe in Jesus Christ according to verse 22. The righteousness given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe, cannot be obtained by the sinful men under consideration, because after all, this faith would be something good, require some foregoing understanding and be a kind of search after God. Therefore the sinful man under consideration who could not please God before (v.10-20) due to their sinful nature, cannot keep the law of faith now for the very same reason: their sinful nature. This is basically the doctrine of Total Depravity. In other words, since his sinful human nature would hinder man to keep the ten commandments and be justified by them, he cannot keep the new commandment to believe the gospel either. And note, the reason according to Calvinism is the same: the sinful nature. According to Total Depravity the reasoning is as follows. Sinful humans are unable to keep the ten commandments -- for the same reason they are unable to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Now, there are severe problems with this logic. Paul's entire rationale to introduce the gospel of grace here, must be disregarded in order to adopt this logic. Paul has been elaborating on the fallen human nature as a prelude to introduce the gospel of Jesus Christ through faith. The entire reasoning on man's inability to please God culminates in the necessity of the real news, as presented beginning at verse 21. Because the point Paul is making here is that the new covenant is radically different to the old covenant with respect to their satisfiability. The old law couldn't make man righteous, it couldn't save him -- but the new law can! That's the crucial difference and the author's entire reasoning throughout this entire passage must be thrown overboard in order to adopt the reformed logic sketched above, namely that since nobody could fulfill the ten commandments due to his fallen nature, he cannot possibly believe either. Such a reasoning ignores the whole argument Paul is making here. In fact, Paul's entire reasoning throughout the passage which leads him to the introduction of the gospel, would be lapse and meaningless.

Now Total Depravity advocates will object that the ability to believe in Jesus Christ must nevertehless be given, such that then an individual is able to obey the commandment to believe and be saved. After all, these humans are still "not understanding", and "not seeking God", right? In other words a sinful individual must be given a new nature which will then allow him to have faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. But this notion is completely ruled out by the reasoning here as well. When Calvinists speak of a "new nature" or "new heart" that must first be given to a sinful man so that he will then seek the Lord, they rightly point out that the sinful man in vs. 10-20 doesn't have such a new heart. And as clearly seen above, this is the reason why they weren't able to please God. In fact, the old law was only revealing this sinful nature. However, if God gave them a new nature then they would right away please God according to the old standard of righteousness and there would be no need to abolish the old law and invoke a new one. There would be no need for a righteousness through faith if man were given a new nature which enabled him to seek after God and be righteous according to vs. 10-11. Yet at v. 21ff the gospel is presented as a completely new way of getting right with God.

The crucial issue is as follows. Who are the recipients of the gospel here? They are "all who have sinned" that means all who are caught in a sinful nature. These inherently sinful humans are the addressees of the new commandment to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. If they couldn't repent and believe in Jesus Christ any better than they could please God according to works as before, then what would be the use of the gospel? Suppose they needed a new nature first in order to exercise faith in Jesus Christ, then why a new covenant anyway? Why the law of faith as a substitute and fulfillment of the law of works if a new nature were given? A new nature would immediately enable man to keep the old law of works. So a new nature would eradicate any necessity for a "law of faith". However, the gospel is given because man's nature is sinful. The new righteousness of faith is given because the old law could not be fulfilled by man due to his nature. Here again, the radical difference between the gospel commandment and the ten commandments with respect to their satisfiability becomes apparent. The sinful human nature would thwart the old law, therefore the gospel was given. The old covenant could not save anyone because of man's natural condition therefore the new covenant was given to natural man, so that they might be saved! Thus, the notion that one needs a new nature in order to be able to fulfil the new covenant is irrational. The text in Romans 3 doesn't allow for this view. In his fallen condition, man according to vs. 10-20 had nothing to get right with God. Therefore God graciously gave something which would make the inherently sinful, those who "fall short of the glory of God" (v. 23) nevertheless righteous (v.24).

So the clue of Romans 3:10-31 is that those who fall short of God's glory because they are inherently sinful, are justified in spite of this sinful nature. In spite of it! Total Depravity and the necessity for sinful individuals to be given a "new heart" first, is completely ruled out by this passage. This view is hermeneutically impossible to maintain.

Comparison: Matthew 22:1-14 and John 6:35ff

2009-06-07T09:23:00.000-07:00

As worked out in the article Comment on the reformed usage of John 6:37ff, the bread of life discourse found in the 6th chapter of John doesn't teach that faith in Jesus Christ is a gift of God given only to some. The reformed doctrine of Total Depravity, whose chief implication is natural man's inability to repent and believe the gospel, isn't in any way served by this passage. I outlined the similarity between the bread of life discourse and and the overall motif of the supper in the kingdom of God. The following is a more direct cross reference comparison of the parable of the wedding guests found in Matthew 22:1-14 and the John 6 discourse relating to the bread of life. Note the forensic character of both the parable in Matthew 22 and the John 6 discourse.

Matthew 22	John 6
Matthew 22:2 The kingdom of God is like...	John 6:15 Jesus, knowing that they intended to come and make him king by force, withdrew again to a mountain by himself
Matthew 22:4b: Tell those who have been invited that I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and fattened cattle have been slaughtered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding banquet	John 6:35 I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never be thirsty and whoever believes in me will never be hungry
Matthew 22:2-3a: 'The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son. He sent his servants to those who had been invited to the banquet to tell them to come	John 6:39 For this is the will of the one who sent me that of all he has given me I shall lose nothing but raise it up at the last day.
Matthew 22:9: Go to the street corners and invite to the banquet anyone you find	John 6:37a All that the father gives me will come to me
Matthew 22:14: For many are invited but few are chosen	John 6:37b: and whoever comes to me I will not cast out
Matthew 22:8 The wedding banquet is ready, but those I invited did not deserve to come	John 6:65: Nobody can come to me unless it is granted him by the father.
Matthew 22:11: But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing wedding clothes.	John 6:44;65 Nobody can come to me unless the father who sent me draws him; Nobody can come to me unless it is granted him by the father.
Matthew 22:12b: The man was speechless	John 6:45b Everyone who has heard and learned from the father comes to me.
Matthew 22:13: Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness	John 6:66: From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

The phrase "to come to Christ" clearly denotes the entrance to the kingdom of God, which is being handed over to the son (John 6:37). This is further supported by John 3:21:

But those who live by the truth come into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.

It is right that those and only those who believe in Jesus Christ will come to him, will come to His kingdom which is sowed and established here on earth already and reaches into the next age to last forever. But the important thing to grasp here is this: "To come to Christ" is not synonym with "to believe in Christ". You need righteousness to "come to Christ", to enter the heavenly city. And how do you become righteous? By believing in Him.

The equality of the wedding supper as God's precious gift to the righteous and the flesh and blood of Christ himself points to God's self-sufficiency and self-sustainence. God is all in all and fulfils all needs. Note, the prerequisite to "come to Christ" is righteousness, which is described here as works done in God. To come to the light is to come to Christ. To be "drawn" by the Father (John 6:44) means that one's works have been done in God (John 3:21). It means to be drawn by godly motives, that is to come to Christ's dinner with a wedding garment. God's granting "it" according to John 6:65 refers to His admittance to enter the wedding hall. This is solely conditioned on the visitor's righteousness.

There is no teaching of a bestowed ability to exercise faith in the Lord Jesus Christ in John 6, which is granted to some only. The passage is not about that at all.

Comment on the reformed usage of 1 Timothy 4:10

2009-05-29T05:04:00.000-07:00

1 Tim. 4:10 is not among the pillars of the doctrines of grace, quite to the opposite. Calvinists who have already made up their minds and hold to the doctrines of grace, must deal with this verse as well and the various attempts at explaining the meaning of 1 Tim. 4:10 are actually rather awkward. There are several attempts endeavoured by Calvinists to deal with this passage, so I'm here picking the one offered at A & O Ministries by James White. The only comment on the passage found there is the following text:

This passage is not, in fact, in a soteriological context, and unless we are going to read it in a universalistic perspective, are we not forced to suggest that God is the potential Savior of all men, but really the Savior only of those who believe? Where else is the Greek term "Savior" used to refer to a hypothetical Saviorhood rather than a true one? In reality, this is a general statement about God (notice Paul does not specifically designate Christ as the Savior here). Just as God is Creator of all, even of those who do not acknowledge His creatorship, and Lord of all, even over those who refuse to bow the knee to Him, and just as He is King of kings and Lord of lords, so too, since He is the only Savior that exists, He is Savior of all men. If this term was meant in a hypothetical sense, the following phrase "but especially" would make no sense. "Malista" does not take one from the hypothetical to the real. Instead, the point is that since God is the only Savior that exists, He is the Savior of all, but only those who believe know Him in that role as Savior. Nothing in the text is speaking to the issue of the atonement, its scope, or purpose.

That's all James White has to say regarding 1 Timothy 4:10. Since this is actually no positive explanation of the verse, but rather sounds like a hasty attempt to fend this biblical text off, I'll have to provide a sound interpretation while commenting on the quality of White's explanation. I'll pick up the above text and comment on this "exegesis" sentence by sentence.

First, White points out that the context is not soteriological. That's right, the context is pastoral as is the entire epistle. The epistles to Timothy are no treatise on soteriology like the epistle to the Romans. Yet this doesn't inhibit the possibility that we may nonetheless discover insights about the scope of the atonement, as we'll see.

What is this passage in the letter to Timothy and this verse in particular speaking of? What is the context? Let's see.

The purpose of the letter is pastoral. The young minister Timothy is instructed regarding various pastoral issues, particularly the proper behavior towards heretics, apostates and other opponents of the faith. So Timothy was facing hypocrites and opponents (v. 4:1-2) and is exhorted to be faithful to the "trustworthy saying" (v. 4:9) the good new of the gospel, and to "strive and labor" BECAUSE even these difficult and grumbling fellows he must cope with are meant to be heirs of God's grace and hence, of His salvation. Timothy is taught about encouragement of skeptics, the correction of hypocrites and even heretics and the basis for this encouragement shall be the objective fact, that God as the savior is mercifully reaching out even to these persons ("all men") as well. The fact that God is the savior of all men is emphasized as the fundament of hope for the pastor that his work is not in vain and the encouragement to strive forward in the ministerial and evangelistic work.
So much concerning the context and meaning of the verse.

The following rhetorical question is astonishing:

unless we are going to read it in a universalistic perspective, are we not forced to suggest that God is the potential Savior of all men, but really the Savior only of those who believe?

The joke is that the answer is in fact a clear and emphatic YES, for this is exactly what the text intends to convey, but White sounds here as if he was asking "are we not forced to suggest that the doctrines of grace are wrong?" --- And since this must not be, the text must be forced to say something else, right? There's an expression for this kind of attitude and approach to the scriptures: Eisegesis. Reading one's already made up opinion into the text, regardless what the text intends to say. Where is the problem with the bible teaching that Jesus Christ is the potential savior of all and the actual savior of the believers? Well, the only problem is that White has already made up his mind and decided to embrace the doctrine of Limited Atonement. And now the rest of the bible must be adjusted accordingly. So the answer to White's surprised question is: YES, we are supposed to understand the text just like that. And there is no room for such surprise in the first place unless one comes by with a great deal of reformed precommitment to the doctrines of grace.
The next sentence makes just as little sense.

Where else is the Greek term "Savior" used to refer to a hypothetical Saviorhood rather than a true one?

This is actually nothing but raising a pseudo problem. First of all, in which way is the Greek particularly decisive with respect to the question at hand? In what way is the issue about the actuality/potentiality of the saviorhood a significant matter of the Greek? Would there have to exist a greek vocable carrying the exact meaning of "potential savior"? The greek word soter means just someone who rescues. Exactly like in english. A savior, a rescuer. White obviously wants us to think there is some tricky ambiguity here about the term "savior" which justifies the raise of this pseudo problem. Second, the inanity of this question is also seen by the fact that one might raise that objection against almost anything. If something is provisional (like the saviorhood here) does it have to be consorted with at least one comparable example in the text or does it have to be unequivocally pointed out? Vain objections! However, the hypothetical saviorhood via the gospel is in fact clearly laid out in the biblical text, that is, also in the Greek.

In reality, this is a general statement about God (notice Paul does not specifically designate Christ as the Savior here).

Right, the name Jesus Christ isn't mentioned but the glorious term Living God. (Guess whether there are any references in the NT on who claimed to be the living God?) But is it strange, that the author isn't using the name Jesus Christ here but rather referring to the living God? Does this have any impact on the issue at hand? No. After all, the text is not a treatise on soteriology --as White himself admits-- and doesn't particularly need to mention the name by which we must be saved in this context. Paul is not explaining the gospel once again to Timothy here in chapter 4 and elaborating why Jesus Christ is the living savior and the like. Rather he is emphasizing that "we", that is, the Christians who hold on to the trustworthy saying are working for the the One, who can truly save. It pays to strive and labor for this God. It is worth the struggle because the hope behind Timothy's and Paul's endeavor is the living God. Thus, the use of the term "living God" directs our attention to the encouraging meaning and purpose of Paul's words here, underlining the value of the pastors' work. Timothy's work is not useless. That's the point.

On the other hand, the remark about the absence of the word Christ is again a pseudo argument, the vain attempt to diagnose a problem without reason. By the way if Christ were not the savior in question, then who would be meant?

Just as God is Creator of all, even of those who do not acknowledge His creatorship, and Lord of all, even over those who refuse to bow the knee to Him, and just as He is King of kings and Lord of lords, so too, since He is the only Savior that exists, He is Savior of all men.

So White admits that God is the savior of all men. How so? Because He is the only savior that exists. God is the creator of those who don't believe that He is their creator. Therefore He is also the savior of those who don't believe that He is their savior? That's the analogy drawn here.

Since God created everyone, therefore he saves everyone? That's the analogy drawn here. But objection: Of course White doesn't believe this savior actually saves those who don't believe in Him -- but nevertheless, according to White, he somehow IS their savior as well, just like He is their creator as well.

If this term was meant in a hypothetical sense, the following phrase "but especially" would make no sense.

There are two remarks about this.
First, he says God is the "Savior of all men". Obviously he contends that God is not just a hypothetical savior, but the actual savior of all men. Just as God actually created all men, so He actually saves all men. He contends that the term "savior" must not be applied to someone who doesn't actually save. So in what sense is God the actual savior of all men?
Second, the notion that the word "especially" wouldn't make any sense if the salvation of all was hypothetical, is wrong. It is absolutely justified to express it that way. Note the invitation in Revelation 22:17:

The Spirit and the bride say, 'Come!' And let those who hear say, 'Come!' Let those who are thirsty come; and let all who wish take the free gift of the water of life.

"Come!" is the free offer of the water of life to all who wish ("all men"). The provider of this water can rightly be called savior and this is most likely the intended meaning of 1 Timothy 4,10. Christ is the potential savior of all men and the actual savior of believers. Since everyone might theoretically believe, he can rightly be called "savior of all men". So the usage of the term "especially" is legitimate.

"Malista" does not take one from the hypothetical to the real.

This is again a pseudo proof. There's no reason why the word cannot be meaningfully applied like that, is there? Does White offer anything else than an unsupported proposition? Again, the word "malista" means "especially". Is it unreasonable or even impossible to apply the meaning of "offerer of water of life" to the word savior in the sense that the water of life is offered to "all who wish" and to the word savior in the sense that only believers benefit from it? So the usage of "especially" in the meaning of the unlimited, universal atonement view, is absolutely legitimate and meaningful.

Instead, the point is that since God is the only Savior that exists, He is the Savior of all, but only those who believe know Him in that role as Savior.

Okay, this conclusion where White arrives at is unlimited, universal atonement. Does he even know what he's writing? White seems to correct his previous contention that a savior must actually save in order to be justly called "savior". Now he says "God is the savior of all". Right! And these aren't just empty words. If these are not just empty words, then in which sense is God the savior of all? -- In a potential sense! And that's just the doctrine of unlimited atonement. He admits that only those who believe know Him in that role as savior. And this results in their actual salvation. This, and nothing else, is the doctrine of unlimited atonement.

Nothing in the text is speaking to the issue of the atonement, its scope, or purpose.

Well, there is no introduction like "In the following, Timothy, I'm going to explain the scope of the atonement....", that's a right observation. In fact nowhere in the biblical texts do we find a dedicated disclosure of the issue of the scope and purpose of the atonement in the way theologians would like to have it. So there's no such theological treatise of the subject in the bible anyway. We must figure out these things more or less indirectly from the texts we have. However, as said above, while the context of 1 Timothy 4:10 is pastoral and not expressly concerned with soteriological matters of dispute, there is nevertheless insight regarding that matter. How so? Remember the context as described above. Why is Paul not saying here: "...the living God who is the creator of all men" or maybe "The king of all men", but rather "the savior of all men"? Because the pastoral work aims at the salvation of all men which includes the very enemies of the faith! Timothy shall endure even dispraise because the dispraising enemies are also meant to be heirs of salvation. This can only be said if there is a real basis for such an encouragement: This basis is the potential salvation offered by God to all -- in orther words, the universal atonement.

So this remark is again a mere blowing in the hope that much smoke and dust will be dispersed.

To conclude, in dealing with 1 Timothy 4:10, James White acts like someone who is subtly playing with fire, then strongly blowing to cause much smoke and then complaining that the firefighters delay. In other words, he identifies pseudo problems and offers pseudo arguments when dealing with the text and suggests that these obstacles can only be countered by his "exegesis". He says much about what the text cannot mean but nothing to be taken seriously about what it does mean. Rather the explanations he offers are the solutions to the pseudo problems he had first imposed on the text. This can hardly be called "exegesis" at all.

Against John Owen's atonement syllogism

2009-05-27T04:11:00.000-07:00

The following syllogism by John Owen is one of the chief fundaments for the doctrine of Limited Atonement. Calvinists cite it as a classic argument for this doctrine, even to date. Since hardly any rationale for Limited Atonement provided by Calvinists gets by without referencing Owen's reasoning, I'm getting tired of responding to this argument over and over again. And therefore I consider it useful to post a refutation of Owen's syllogism here once for all.

Here is Owen's argument:

God imposed his wrath due unto, and Christ underwent the pains of hell for, either all the sins of all men, or all the sins of some men, or some sins of all men. If the last, some sins of all men, then have all men some sins to answer for, and so shall no man be saved; for if God enter into judgment with us, though it were with all mankind for one sin, no flesh should be justified in his sight: "If the LORD should mark iniquities, who should stand?" ...If the second, that is it which we affirm, that Christ in their stead and room suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the world. If the first, why, then are not all freed from the punishment of all their sins? You will say, "Because of their unbelief; they will not believe." But this unbelief, is it a sin, or not? If not, why should they be punished for it? If it be, then Christ underwent the punishment due to it, or not. If so, then why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which he died from partaking of the fruit of his death? If he did not, then he did not die for all their sins. Let them choose which part they will.

The reasoning here assumes that there is somehow a definite assignment of particular persons' particular sins to the punishment undergone by Christ on the cross. In other words, this argument assumes an assignment of a "portion of Christ's suffering" to particular sins which have been committed by particular persons. The phrases "suffered for", "undergone punishment" and "pain of hell" all refer to a price paid for something. For what? For such-and-such sin of such-and-such individual. So Owen assumes that the atonement can be thought of in terms of such a definite assignment and reckognizes 3 possible variants thereof:

1) All the sins of all men.

In this variant, Christ would have endured punishment due unto all sins of all men.
Imagine there were 3 Persons A, B and C and 4 different sins, murder thievery, deceit and unbelief. Then the first variant would look like this:

person/ sin	Person A	Person B	Person C
murder	forgiven	forgiven	forgiven
thievery	forgiven	forgiven	forgiven
deceit	forgiven	forgiven	forgiven
unbelief	forgiven	forgiven	forgiven

2) All the sins of some men. Here Owen seems to have something like this in mind:

person/ sin	Person A	Person B	Person C
murder	forgiven	not forgiven	forgiven
thievery	forgiven	not forgiven	forgiven
deceit	forgiven	not forgiven	forgiven
unbelief	forgiven	not forgiven	forgiven

3) Some sins of all men.

Here everybody has some sins to account for. For example as follows:

person/ sin	Person A	Person B	Person C
murder	forgiven	forgiven	forgiven
thievery	forgiven	forgiven	forgiven
deceit	not forgiven	not forgiven	not forgiven
unbelief	not forgiven	not forgiven	not forgiven

I am aware that Calvinists are not very fond of taking the application of Christ's death to sins in such a direct way. But Owen's whole reasoning as presented above, is based on this notion. So this is nothing else than the underlying mindset behind the argumentation for Limited Atonement here.

Now, the problem is that Owen misrepresents the nature of the atonement, in other words, disregards what the atonement is about. In OT times, an animal was sacrificed for sins. Which sins and whose sins? That depended. Sometimes an animal was slaughtered for the sins of one individual (Lev. 4:1-3), sometimes for several persons (Lev. 16:11), or even the whole people (Lev. 4:14). A bull could carry all sins of the sons of Israel (Lev. 16:16,34). When the animal was slain it didn't suffer in correspondence to the severity of sins it was atoning for. When the lamb or the bull was killed it didn't suffer proportionately to the amount of sins it was sacrificed for. That's absolutely crucial to grasp. The suffering endured by the animal was not in any way dependent on the sins that had been committed and hence, cannot be said to be assignable to any particular sin. Let me explain this further. Suppose the beneficiary (the sinner, who the sacrifice is made for), had broken the Sabbath. Then the animal was slain for the sin of breaking the Sabbath. Suppose the sinner had bowed to an idol. Then the animal would have been slain for the sin of idolatry. Would the animal have suffered more in the latter case? Would it have sufferd less in the first case? No, the suffering ("undergone punishment") would have been the same. And if the sinner were a Sabbath breaker and an idolater and a cheater? Then the victim's suffering would be the same also. So the notion that there is some sort of "proportionality" between the suffering of the victim on the one hand and the severity of the sins atoned for on the other hand, is a misleading notion. A sacrificial animal died for sins. Death was the price for sins demanded by the just God. And it was the victim's value that counted. The victim's value is decisive regarding the amount of sins it was able to cover. A high value animal could cover more sins than a low value animal. Thus, there are no varying degrees of suffering in the atonement, such that the remission of severe sins demands a higher degree of suffering of the victim. Rather the sacrifice itself, that is the victim's own value, is decisive.

Next, the notion that the suffering of the victim is dependent on the number of beneficiaries is misleading, too. As said already, sometimes an animal was sacrificed for the entire people. We know that Jesus Christ was one offering for the whole world. One sacrifice. Not several sacrifices. For all who believe. Now, are we to think that Christ was suffering proportinately to the number of believing individuals? If only half as many humans were elected, would Christ have suffered half as much? Or, if twice as many humans were chosen, would Christ have needed to suffer twice as much? No, and here another fallacy of Owen's view of the atonement becomes apparent. For Owen's fails to see whom Christ died for and hence who the beneficiary of the atonement is. Well, who are the recipients of Christ's sacrifice? Answer: God's people. Jesus Christ, through His sacrifice, purchased the people of God. That is, he purchased a corporation. An entire union: The Body of Christ, the Sheep, the Fold, the Church, the Bride, the Elect -- note, all these are corporate terms, they refer to a unity, to an entirety. Over and over throughout the bible, we encounter the corporate nature of God's people. Israel, People, Sheep, Elect. It is noteworthy that these are all singular terms, but they mean a set of individuals. Why is this important to note? Because the people of God was purchased with one fixed price. Christ, by His blood, purchased the church, that is, God's people as a whole. There's no respecting of individuals here. The people of God was bought by Christ's blood and this price is independent on the number of individuals belonging to God's people. If God's people consisted only of the OT saints plus the 12 apostles, then Jesus Christ would have redeemed by His blood these persons. If the people comprised also the 120 disciples gathered in Jerusalem at Pentecost, then all these would be among those purchased by the blood of the lamb. And if God's people consists of billions of believers, then all these are purchased by Christ's blood. The penalty for sin is death. And Christ underwent death for all the members of God's people. And this price is not dependent on the number of individuals belonging to the church.

Back to Owen's view of the atonement. The above shows that there is no "proportionality" between the price paid by Christ's blood and the number of persons in question. The assignment view portrayed by Owen, where such-and-such amount of "Christ's death" is applied to such-and-such sin of such-and-such individual grossly fails to reckognize the corporate nature of the redeemed. Again, the purchase price paid on the cross can cover all the sins of anyone.

But who are the members of God's people? They are those who believe the gospel. And here the question about the role of faith that is raised in the reasoning, can be cleared up. One becomes a member of God's people by faith and then the High Priest intercedes for the believer which results in the remission of sins. When Christ died, many believers didn't yet exist and hence, hadn't committed any sins. At the end of the age, everyone will either be a christian or not and then its identity is settled.

If someone never believes the gospel and finally has to account for his sins alone, does this mean that there is a "double payment" situation or does this mean that somehow "Christ's blood failed"? No! Again, there is a fixed payment for sin in general. The actual removal of sins happens at intercession and intercession is for believers only. If someone doesn't believe then he must pay the price for his sins himself. Christ didn't suffer more or less depending on whether such a person believes or not. Hence, the double payment argument that is sometimes endeavored by Limited Atonement advocates, is a straw man argument.

So this means that Owen's portrayal of the death of Christ as a definite assignment of a certain "pain of hell" to a specific person's specific sin, is really fundamentally flawed. Yet till this day it stays a chief argument for Calvinists to sell their heretical doctrines.

Besides Owen's disregarding the nature of the atonement, the reformed view of the nature of the atonement has some bizarre implications. As pointed out above, when Christ died for sinners, many of these sinners didn’t exist yet. How did Christ wash away the sin of a 21th century shoplifter anno 30 AD? How meaningful is it to say that Christ forgave sins, that hadn’t been committed yet?

And how would Christ purchase men, if these didn’t exist? Rather, Christ did make a sacrifice for sins in history, yet this sacrifice is applied to specific sins, in due time. For instance, if the 21th century thief turns to Christ, then Christ’s blood that was shed 30 AD is applied to this thief’s specific sins. If Christ had already respected this particular sin of a person living 2000 years later, then this person would necessarily have to commit this sin, because Christ atoned for it already! Future sins would be necessitated. That’s absurd. And if a sinner turns to Christ in faith, then he is actually purchased by Christ’s blood and becomes His. Christ applies His blood, redeems and purchases those who approach him by faith. Yet we all weren't born yet when Christ shed his blood. And we weren’t purchased, because we are all born in sin, as children of the world rather than God’s property.
Furthermore, if Christ actually erased all your sins at Calvary, then you’d have to have been born sinless. Yet everybody is a child of wrath until he in converted. No christian is born as a saint because Christ already took care of his sins on the cross. So the error is the ignorance that Christ’s bearing of sin wasn’t specific to particular sins of a particular individual. Rather it was provisional and universal to be applied in due time to those who believe.

And if Christ actually removed all the elect’s sins at Calvary, why is it necessary that he lives forever to intercede for them (Hebrews 7:25)? Why intercession if it’s all been done? And why does John say in his first epistle that when we sin we have and advocate, so that Christ’s blood cleanses us from sin (1 John 2:1)? If sins have long before been done away with, what is there left to cleanse? Futhermore, Paul and the Letter to the Hebrews point out the necessity of intercession as the act where sins are actually erased. Without intercession, there’d be no forgiveness. Since intercession is the work of the living Savior, the High Priest, forgiveness is by Christ’s life, not by his death. This is absolutely crucial!
So what did Christ’s death do? It is comparable to the slaughter of a lamb. In order for this to become a sacrifice to God however, a lamb must be offered on the altar. This is what is meant with intercession. And without intercession, no remission of sins. So Christ’s death alone (without the resurrection) is only like the mere killing of an animal in old times. Animals weren’t only killed for sacrificial purposes, but for consumption also. So there mere killing of an animal doesn’t make a sacrifice. It is the act of offering which makes it a sacrifice. Likewise, Christ’s life allows him to apply his blood for the remission of sins. So without Christ’s life there’d be no remission of sins. Thus, the reformed view of the atonement, doesn’t dignify Christ’s resurrection and intercessory role enough. Following the reformed logic, there’d be complete forgiveness of sins even if Christ hadn’t resurrected at all, simply because “the price was fully paid on the cross”. And this error is also the basis for Owen’s syllogism. Christ the High Priest cleanses those who come to him. Since he is divine and therefore his sacrifice of infinite value, it can cover any sin! So did the sins disappear at the cross? No, Christ made a provision for the forgiveness, and the actual removal of sins is by the application of His sacrifice. That makes perfect sense and I don’t see how this text can be understood without adopting a potential and provisional atonement view.

Summing up, John Owen grossly misrepresents the essence of the atonement and introduces a false trilemma. The reformed concept of propitiation neglects the important action of intercession performed by the living (not dead!) savior, Jesus Christ. All these errors lead to some really bizarre ramifications. The provisional atonement view, embraced by most christians, makes much more sense.

Comment on the reformed usage of 2 Chronicles 18:22

2009-05-18T08:11:00.000-07:00

Often directly accompanied by 2 Chr. 10:15, calvinists use 2 Chr. 18:22 as another alleged proof of God willing evil. Here is the text and what is to say about that.

2 Chronicles 18:22 Now therefore behold, the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouth of these your prophets. The LORD has declared disaster concerning you.

This example shows that one must look a little deeper at the context in order to determine whether God is ordaining evil here and what the text is all about anyway. Tearing this verse out of its context and looking at it in isolation, is really proof-texting and misses the message carried by this text. So what’s 2 Chr. 18:22 about? Reading the entire chapter 18 reveals the following:

Ahab, the king of Israel together with Jehoshaphat, the king of Judah were considering waging war against the Arameans. Jehoshaphat asked Ahab to consult the prophets before, whether such a battle would be successful. Yet many false prophets appeared who univocally suggested engaging in battle because God would be with Israel and Judah against the Arameans and secure victory. Jehoshaphat doubted that these prophets were speaking the truth and wondered whether they were true prophets of the LORD.

Now it becomes interesting. Ahab knew that Micaiah (Micah) was the true prophet of the LORD, yet Ahab hated Micaiah, because he had been giving so many prophecies to Ahab’s disadvantage. Therefore Ahab rejected Micaiah and rather had his ears tickled by false prophets who spoke good about him. Micaiah wasn’t promising Ahab victory and hadn’t prophecied much good about Ahab (verse 18:6). That’s why Ahab had been disregarding Micaiah’s words and hence, had been disregarding the word of the LORD. Micaiah, who is now consulted again due to Jehoshaphat’s pressure, explains that Ahab wouldn’t survive if he went against the Arameans. And he explains why all the other “prophets” were suggesting the opposite. God gave them a spirit of deception, BECAUSE AHAB HAD BEEN REJECTING GOD’s WORD SPOKEN THROUGH HIS PROPHET MICAIAH. So the Lord was acting forensically by admitting false prophets to speak among Israel because of Ahab’s rejection of Micaiah.

So we see again, the Lord put a lying spirit in the mouths of the false prophets because of Israel’s prior rejection of the true prophet. So is God doing inscrutable evil here which has some mysterious good purpose according to the “greater good view” of reformed theology? By no means! Again, the Lord brings judgment on a wicked world, yet there is no good purpose in evil itself and God has no “second will” to the contrary.

Comment on the reformed usage of 2 Chronicles 10:15

2009-05-18T08:04:00.000-07:00

2 Chr. 10:15 is sometimes cited by calvinists in an attempt to prove that God must have two wills. A revealed will and a concealed will. According to His revealed will, God hates evil and is in no way responsible for it. Yet according to the secret, hidden will He must will evil to occur. Thus according to calvinism, there are two wills in God. This is of course a very objectionable dogma and cannot in any way be sustained upon biblical scrutiny. Here is the text:

So the king did not listen to the people, for it was a turn of affairs brought about by God that the LORD might fulfill his word, which he spoke by Ahijah the Shilonite to Jeroboam the son of Nebat.

Instead of using this single verse as a proof-text, one must consider what this sentence in Chronicles is referring to. It refers to a word of the Lord spoken to a prophet, which should be fulfilled. The background thereof is found in 1 Kings 11:29-33:

About that time Jeroboam was going out of Jerusalem, and Ahijah the prophet of Shiloh met him on the way, wearing a new cloak. The two of them were alone out in the country, 30 and Ahijah took hold of the new cloak he was wearing and tore it into twelve pieces. 31 Then he said to Jeroboam, Take ten pieces for yourself, for this is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: ‘See, I am going to tear the kingdom out of Solomon’s hand and give you ten tribes. 32 But for the sake of my servant David and the city of Jerusalem, which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel, he will have one tribe. 33 I will do this because they have forsaken me and worshipped Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, Chemosh the god of the Moabites, and Molech the god of the Ammonites, and have not walked in my ways, nor done what is right in my eyes, nor kept my statutes and laws as David, Solomon’s father, did.

Note, the Lord reacts to the idolatry of men. Here is the background of God’s turning affairs in a certain direction according to 1 Chr. 10:15. God explains why he brings evil on the kingdom of Salomon. There is a reason: THEIR SIN! I said already God does indeed bring judgment on the world but he does so in response to an already sinful world. In fact God’s commandments to Israel to conquer their neighbor peoples is also a kind of judgment on an already wicked world.

However, it is something altogether different to judge a sinful world than to ordain sin itself! Judgment has a good purpose: JUSTICE. But does this make God the very origin of sin, or as calvinists suggest, having “two wills”? This is more than absurd. The bible doesn’t allow for this concept.

On the reformed usage of Philipians 1:29

2009-04-24T07:25:00.001-07:00

Phil 1:29 is another vain attempt to prove that sinful men cannot believe in Christ on their own.

For to you it has been granted for Christ’s sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake

The Philipians had received the gospel through Paul and so been granted to believe in Christ as an alternative to the various false gods before. They had been delivered the news about Jesus Christ. Faith comes by hearing the gospel preached. So what was granted to the addresses in this epistle? They were granted to believe in Him. Calvinists, read this as they were enabled to believe in Him, emphasizing the act of faith rather than the object of faith. The good news is about the object ("whom"), Jesus Christ, not about the exercise of faith. It is the object of faith which is the focus, not the "work" of faith, or the ability to have faith. Furthermore, they were also granted to suffer for Christ's sake. Are we to think that suffering is a deed which natural man isn't able to? Did God by a miraculous work enable the Philipians to suffer? Surely not.
Thus, Phil. 1:29 is another bible verse the reformed abuse to sell "Total Depravity".

On the reformed usage of Rom. 3:10-12 -- "Total Depravity"

2009-04-19T11:27:00.001-07:00

THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS,
THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;

Paul's quotation of various verses of Psalms in Romans 3 is one of the chief reasons for calvinists to embrace the doctrine of Total Depravity. According to this doctrine, man is by nature unable to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. Since "no one does good" and no one really seeks for God and understands, it is reasoned that man cannot even have faith on his own. In the following I'll rebuke this mindset by pointing out two bizarre ramifications that follow from this view.

1) The entire section of Romans 2:1-3:20 is a prelude to the introduction of the gospel. The author provides a rationale why there is a need for a new covenant in the first place. The old law, including the ten commandments, couldn't be fulfilled by man, because it would be thwarted by his fallen nature. Nobody, neither Jews nor Gentiles would conform to God's standard of righteousness. Human nature would stand in the way, making it impossible for anyone to be righteous in God's sight. One interesting question in this elaboration is, why the Jews were given this law anyway if nobody would be able to fulfil it. The answer is provided. The law's real purpose was to convict the people of their sinful nature (3:20). In the explanation why nobody conformed to God's standard of righteousness, the author also draws on the Psalms above. So the whole section 2-3:20 is actually a prelude to the principle theme and an explanation why this old law needed to be substituted by a new one. Verse 3:21 is a turning point in the letter, the introduction of the new covenant, the law of faith (3:26-27).

Now, what about the notion that nobody can believe the gospel, because of the spiritual conditon of man? Note, the old law couldn't be fulfilled because of man's sinful condition and therefore God graciously bestowed a new law. If we hold that the new law cannot be kept any better than the old one, then Paul's entire reasoning as summed up above, is thrown overboard. If the new covenant is thwarted by the sinful human nature just like the old one, then what use is it? Why a new covenant if it cannot be fulfilled any better than the former? So the entire elaboration that leads the author to the conclusion of the necessity of the new covenant of faith, must be disregarded. If nobody can believe because of his fallen condition and hence cannot naturally fulfil the new covenant, the law of faith, then Paul's entire argument throughout the first part of the epistle, is meaningless. As the first covenant was meant to bring the knowledge of sin, so the second covenant is to bring real justification. There is a contrast between the old and the new law with respect to their satisfiability. This difference regarding the satisfiability of the covenants is a key argument in Paul's reasoning here. Yet Total Depravity totally disregards this vital difference.

2) The lack of understanding here refers to the spiritual things. Spiritual death implies that we cannot know the things of God. Now, when it comes to our salvation, a spiritual dead person cannot tell how he must be brought to life. Spiritual dead persons have no say! Since we have no access to the things of God, we cannot make an establishment how salvation must work, how someone “dead in sins” must be made alive. This is just part of the lack of understanding which Rom. 3:11 speaks of. Therefore the following is crucial: Since we cannot judge rightly, it seems that we can only BELIEVE what the scripture says about how we are to be raised to spiritual life. And if the scripture says it is by FAITH, then who are we to deny this? We can either believe the testimony of scripture, which says that we are brought to life BY FAITH, or we make up our own ideas, what must first be. Now, Calvinists suggest spiritually dead individuals cannot believe. But note, spiritually dead persons have no grounds on which to make such a claim. If the bible says spiritually dead, not understanding sinners ARE able to believe, then are we justified in negating this? I think, no. Again, since no one understands, all he can obviously do is, believe. And everybody believes in something. It depends on WHAT you believe in. So it is important to believe in the right object.

In the bible spiritual death is described as walking in the darkness. In the darkness nothing can be seen and hence, no truth can be known. Hence, spiritual death is spiritual darkness, the inability to "see".

Let me further illustrate this as follows. If a spiritually dead sinner is told by a spiritually living person that he shall and can believe in the Lord Jesus Christ for his salvation, then according to Calvinism he would have to object: NO! I'm dead and must first be made alive. Yet the irony is, that it is the spiritually dead sinner that has absolutely no grounds on which to make such a denial! He has no eyes to see spiritual truth. Therefore, he cannot claim to need a spirtual miracle, that must first happen. The "dead" man cannot tell the living one how he must be made alive! Yet this attitude is exactly what the doctrine of Total Depravity wants us to embrace. In this manner, Total Depravity undermines the gospel and turns it on its head: The not-understanding, dead person knows more than the understanding, living one. The dead persons dictates how, by what means and in what order he must be brought to live. Calvinism's denial of sinful man's ability to have faith, undermines the gospel.

--------

Finally, there's another frequently offered explanation, why nobody can naturally believe for his salvation. It goes as follows. "Paul says, quoting the Psalm "there is none who does good". Since faith in the gospel is commanded, and obedience to God's commandments is good, nobody can possibly believe the gospel". The first problem is, that Paul and other authors of the NT in fact refer to examples of OT characters who did something good in the sight of God. Abraham's act of faith is praised as a good deed. Rahab's act of faith is an example of a truly good work. Calvinists often argue that non-regenerate persons can do works that are apparently good in the sight of the world though, but not in the sight of God. Yet note the example of Abraham's offering his son Isaac. This was surely not a good work in the sight of the world! Yet it was good in the sight of God. Abraham's obedient act of faith was truly good in the sight of God. Furthermore, it cannot be said that Noah's goodness was no goodness at all, for then there wouldn't have been any comparative standard on which to measure his goodness compared to his contemporaries. So what about Paul's saying that no one is good here in Romans 3? Surely, he's drawing on a Psalm, a poetic type of literature. It is questionable whether this Psalm should be understood in a strict descriptive sense. It might well be intended to carry a lamenting meaning, pointing out that no one is completely righteous, no one is blameless on his own. The Psalm might also be intended to draw Israel's conscience towards the truth that the exhaustive mosaic law could never fully be kept and thereby fulfill its purpose to bring the knowledge of sin (Rom. 3:20). The standard Be holy, for I am holy wasn't fulfilled by anyone. This is most likely the meaning behind this Psalm verse. This however doesn't mean that man is completely unable to do any good. Since there are many examples throughout the OT of people being good in the sight of God, this single verse of a Psalm shouldn't be launched as an argument against all this. In fact, the OT saints' faith was their righteousness, a righteousness valid before God. Furthermore, if no one could do good according to the ordinances and commandments of the mosaic law, then one can now do good according to the new law of faith.
So this frequent reformed argument for Total Depravity has really no substance.

Since there is no further explicit statement in the bible that denies sinful man's ability to believe on his own, the doctrine of Total Depravity is really the product of man. In the darkness, however, no truth can be established.

Comment on the reformed usage of Rev. 13:8 and 17:8

2009-04-12T05:49:00.000-07:00

Revelation 13:8 and Revelation 17:8 are used by the reformed to support the doctrine of predestination and unconditional election. It is argued that since the book of life is a record of individual names that were enrolled therein before anything existed, the doctrine of unconditional election must be inferred. In this article I am presenting serious arguments against this claim.

First but not foremost, there is a grammar issue to be considered which might further be relevant. Most of the available english translations aren't accurate in their translation here. The following are the texts in Today's New International Version.

Rev 13:8
All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the Lamb's book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world (TNIV)

Rev. 17:8
The beast, which you saw, once was, now is not, and will come up out of the Abyss and go to its destruction. The inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the creation of the world will be astonished when they see the beast, because it once was, now is not, and yet will come. (TNIV)

The original text has the word "name" in singular in both verses. 13:8 doesn't orginally contain the phrase "all" or "everyone". A precise translation of 13:8 is:
"All inhabitants of the earth will worship him, [everyone] whose name (singular!) has not been written in the Lamb's book of life"

17:8 would read "[...]The inhabitants of the earth whose name (singular!) has not been written..."

The idea that a name has been written in the book of life before the foundation of the world points to the person's origin in God. Only God is from eternity past to eternity future and everything else is part of the creation wrought by God. Having one's name inscribed in the book of life is therefore evidence of one's being born of God and one's possession of eternal life. Solely the ones born of God have their origin before the foundation of the world and only what is born of God, who lives forever, will likewise overcome the temporal world. Whoever isn't inscribed in the book of life prior to creation, must be part of creation and hence not a member of God's family.

Now, the name is an outstanding motif in the Book of Revelation. There are mentionings of persons being given a new name in the Book of Revelation. Let's list some occurences of this feature.

The first occurence is in 2:17 where the overcomers of Pergamon are promised a white stone with a new name inscribed which is only known to the receiver.

3:12 has the overcomers receive the name of God written on their foreheads and Christ's new name.

14:11 portrays the elect as carrying the name of the Father and the Son on their foreheads. They are contrasted with the one's carrying the name of the beast or its number.

17:5 describes Babylon as carrying a name on her forehead as well.

19:13-16 tells that Christ has a secret name which is "The Word of God", known only to himself. He is the only Word of God, the only mediator, the only Logos. No one can muster the secrets of the hidden God save the only Word. His name is also "King of kings" and "Lord of lords", written on this garment.

22:4 eventually describes the redeemed as having written God's name on their foreheads.

Outstanding is the contrast between the name of God and the lamb written on the foreheads of the elect and the name of the beast written on the foreheads of all those who are of this world as opposed to being born of God. They are the "inhabitants of the earth", in contrast to the inhabitants of the New Jerusalem. The old earth however, is going to deteriorate and be destroyed. This includes its inhabitants. Blessed is the one who has another home. Blessed is the one who is not of this world but rather of an eternal origin in the creator. There are truly but two groups of people and everyone belongs either to the prince of this world, whose days have been numbered, or to God who lives forever. A name carried on one's forehead is regarded as one's own name. Adopting such a reading, there are but two names, the name of God and the name of the devil. But there is more! There nevertheless seem to be given individual names in the Book of Revelation. And Jesus' has several names, indicating several different roles.
More on this later.

The next point worth considering is the argument from adoption. Adoption is considered a legal act where someone becomes a member of another family and hence receives a new name. Christians are adopted into God's family (Gal 3:26; Gal 4:4). The adopted child of God receives a new origin: in eternity past. Being born of God precedes the birth of everything born of the flesh. The new eternal name is a metaphor of this new nature that is adopted, the new past tense reality. One might easily think of a set of names, stored in God from eternity past. Whoever turns to Christ receives such a name, that is, a divine nature and an ancestry originating only in God. Thus, the names in the book of life are a symbol of the adopted nature of God.

As pointed out above, 13:8 doesn't originally contain the word "everyone" or "all who" in brackets. Skipping this addition, the text would literally address the beast's name that is missing in the book of life. All inhabitants of the earth would worship the beast and that beast's name isn't in the book of life. Since everyone is by nature of this world, and a child of wrath rather than a child of God, the text would be saying that every one on earth worships the beast -- which itself is not contained in God's book of names. All are by nature not written in the book of life, they are "inhabitants of the world".

On the other hand, one might as well embrace the reading most bible translation suggest. This is the reading that includes the word "everyone", such that the worshippers' name(s) is (are) not found in the book of life. Both readings are possible and make sense.

Another noteworthy point is baptism. Christians are baptized on the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:38; Acts 8:16; Rom 6:3; James 2:7). This is paralleled with the reception of Christ's name, which is an identification with His likeness.

The first notion of a new name in Revelation appears in 2:17, where the new name is written on a white stone handed over to each overcomer. The white stone was used to pronounce a verdict at the law court. A black stone would mean "guilty" a white stone would mean "not guilty". The overcomer receives an acquittal. He receives a new name known only to him, which indicates that he is truly free.
Slaves are given names by their masters so that they can be called thereby. The dominant names the inferior. Parents name their children and hence exert authority over them. Humans name their pets. The one who names someone else dominates him. Yet whosoever cannot be called, has no master over him. A secret name points to one's independence. Israel's God wouldn't fully reveal his name and the Jews didn't dare uttering God's name, but rather abbrevate it with the four letters YHWH. When God was asked for his name he replied "Why are you asking for my name?" (Genesis 32:30). When Israel's God said I am who I am he was revealing that there is no further ancestry to him, nobody whom God could be named after. Note, oftentimes people are described with a phrase like "the son of...", indicating that there was someone before them, someone else giving them a name and thus exerting dominion over them. A remarkable example is found in John 6:42, where the Jews call Jesus the Son of Joseph, and point to his earthly genealogy, to his parents whom everyone would know were mere humans:

Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph whose father and mother we know? How can he say: I have come down from heaven?

Jesus was called the son of Joseph, emphasizing the fact that there was someone prior to him, who gave him the name Jesus. Surely Jesus was not the son of Joseph, but all christian believers have in fact earthly fathers. However, christians are adopted into God's family and so are given a divine name. They receive a new nature (2 Cor 5:17) and this new, divine nature is accompanied or symbolized by a new name, one that is eternally enrolled in God. So if someone has a name written in the book of life before anything even entered into existence, then he has more than worldly parents. He has died to his natural family. He is a son of God. His family is not of the world. He is not a son of man anymore. Therefore, Jesus speaks of himself having a new name as well (Rev. 3:12; Phil 2:9).

On the other hand, it is interesting to note that there is no such thing as a "book of death" which contains the names of the wicked. Rather the book of life will be mustered from cover to cover at judgment day to lookup each sinner's name. An imaginary book of death, listing the sinners' names would maybe reveal a certain name on page one, so that the issue would quickly be settled and a verdict could be pronounced. Yet there is no such book of the wicked. There can only be an unsuccessful lookup for a name in the book of life. Either one is found in the book of life or not. Thus, evil is detected only as a negative. Evil is detected only in the way that something good is missing. There will no substantial ground for evil be found at the judgment seat, only the absence of one's name in the book of the righteous. Traditional Calvinists embrace the doctrine of active predestination to reprobation, which means an active, definite divine decision to write particular names in an imaginary book of death. Yet there is no such book mentionend. Rather the only judgmental basis for a sentence to the second death is an unsuccessful lookup of a name in the book of life.

So the book of life motif with its names seems to be a metaphor of one's divine nature, which is received through faith Christ. Whosoever believes in him, has been born of God already, because he is adopted into the family of Him who is from eternity past. Thus, he receives a new past. This is allegorized by a new name, since the name is paralled with one's being, essence and nature. I do not pretend to settle the issue regarding the usage of the singular (name/names) in these reformed proof-texts. They might speak of a corporate name or of individual names. In any case, there are no fleshly natures like "Jim, the son of Joe" found in the book of life. In fact, fleshly natures didn't exist when the book was written, and just this is the crucial meaning that is intended to be grasped about the book of life. Thus, the calvinsitic doctrine of unconditional election finds no support by these texts.

To conclude, the Book of Revelation, a highly figurative literature is basically inappropriate to establish doctrine alone. A dogma of an eternal list of particular names, would have to be buttressed by additional, clear scriptures. However, there is no confirmation of this in the rest of the bible. The idea of a list of names is only won by the two verses Revelation 13:8 and 17:8 which boils down to a classical example of "proof-texting". Yet I have shown why the reformed concept of election does not follow from these verses. It would be sufficient to show that it doesn't necessarily follow to legitimately reject the doctrine due to its otherwise lacking confirmation in the rest of the bible. However, there are sound interpretations of these two sentences to the contrary. The names (or the corporate name) in the book of life are no worldy persons' names, but names received by adoption. This is in perfect harmony with the rest of the bible, which expresses the reality of the christians' origin in God: Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God --children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God. (John 1:12-13). Christians receive a new ancestry through faith!

Comment on the reformed usage of John 6:37ff -- Part II

2009-04-08T06:43:00.000-07:00

This is a continuation of the previous article on the calvinistic usage of the bread of life discourse in John 6. Calvinists think this text is useful to prove that it is impossible for natural man to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. The gospel of John more than any other book of the NT emphasizes the doctrine of salvation by faith. The verb "to believe" with its various grammatical forms appears 98 times in this gospel account. Over and over the necessity of faith in Jesus Christ is pronounced. This is even the main subject of the gospel of John (John 20:31). So the key issue of that book is the conversion to faith in Jesus Christ. Now, calvinists argue that there's a rub in the matter. Then they draw on four parallel sentences made in John chapter 6, to argue that the fulfillment of the commandment to believe is impossible without special divine aid. These four statements however, do not even use the words "believe" or "faith" at all. On the other hand, the commandment for everyone to believe is abundant in the johanine gospel account. The four statements, which are to serve as proof-texts for the inability to exercise faith are John 6:37;44;45 and 65

Everything the father gives me will come to me (v.37)
Nobody can come to me unless the father who sent me draws him (v.44)
Everybody who has heard and learned from the father will come to me (v.45)
This is why I told you that nobody can come to me unless it is granted him by the father (v.65)

Calvinists read these verses, that all basically convey the same message, as

Everything the father gives me will believe in me (v.37)
Nobody can believe in me unless the father who sent me draws him (v.44)
Everybody who has heard and learned from the father will believe in me (v.45)
This is why I told you that nobody can believe in me unless it is granted him by the father (v.65)

In sound exegesis every text must be interpreted, among other criteria, in accordance with common sense and in accordance with the author's principle theme and his overall intention. The calvinistic reading as above contravenes these criteria. Neither is it in agreement with common sense that nobody can believe something even despite the verbose and often repeated exhortation throughout the entire NT to do just that, nor is it in agreement with the evangelist's main subject, which also is the exhortation of everyone to believe the gospel. The context of the discourse in John 6 is crucial as well. The passage in question is embedded in the bread of life context, and it is unreasonable to assume the introduction of an utterly strange doctrine, which would surely provide grounds for controversy, here, dedicated as a minor matter in between. Instead the supposed doctrine of man's inability to have faith isn't seized again in the gospel anymore. It isn't even picked up anywhere in the rest of the bible. Silence everywhere. Nowhere in the entire bible do we discover a word that explicitly states that nobody can naturally believe in Jesus Christ, unless enabled so by God. There is no further scriptural witness to this dogma, which would certainly be of impact, if true. Nothing. If we additionally take into consideration that these statements, which are actually but one statement articulated in different versions in this one and only setting, don't even contain the word "believe", then one must wonder where the calvinsts get their interpretation from and what exegetical criteria they apply. Moreover, an important criterion in deciding which possible interpretation of a text should be adopted, is the likelihood of whether a particular meaning is intended by the author. So in evaluating different possible interpreations of the passage, one must consider what particular reading is actually most likely to be right. Now, is it likely that John in this passage is expecting us to grasp the fact that faith in Jesus Christ isn't normally possible, given the principal theme of his account? If faith without divine aid is impossible, wouldn't the reader expect to find the actual usage of the word "faith" or "to believe" here instead of the predicate "can come"? Finally, there are 6 reasons why I regard the calvinistic interpretation of John 6:37ff as improbable to be the author's intention:

1) Too far-fetched. It betrays common sense, since the idea that no one can believe on their own is bizarre.

2) Against the key issue of the entire writing, which is the exhortation to believe in Christ. An inability to do just that would turn the writing's key issue on its head. It is very unlikely that the author wouldn't elaborate on this paradox any further.

3) There is no support of that dogma in the rest of the bible. It is very unlikely that a single narrated occasion, contained in only one book of the bible teaches an arcane doctrine.

4) The verses 37,44,45 and 65 of John 6 are different versions of the same announcement. This puts the reformed usage close to proof-texting.

5) The actual absence of the expressions 'to believe' or 'to have faith', in just these instances.

6) The existence of an alternative interpretation of the passage, that is hermeneutically sound.

So what does Jesus mean when he says that nobody can "come to him" unless he has the divine enablement to come? There is a similarity to the parable of the wedding feast in Matthew 22. And it is much more likely for this to be the real story behind this text than for a brandnew arcane dogma to be discovered here. Note, Jesus is talking about the bread of life here, which is a counterfactural to the Manna, the bread of this world which Jesus had just graciously bestowed on the world by feeding the crowd which is now gathered around him. Surely these hungry persons "come to him", they even followed him over the sea, in order to receive an ongoing miracle of feeding. They "believe in him", for instance that he is the prophet who was to come into the world and that he would make a good king. On the other hand there are Jesus' disciples. They are also "coming to him". So there are two groups of persons that come to him, the first group here is motivated by their flesh. They desire the bread of this world. They feel invited to come to the wedding banquet of the king's son to have access to a free all-you-can-eat buffet. So these are motivated or "drawn" by themselves, their worldly needs.

On the other hand, there is the second group that "comes" to Christ. Their motivation is different, these are "drawn by the Father". They are drawn by godly motives, that is, they do what is right. Righteousness implies to be motivated by the love for God, by God's will. So the righteous ones, who wear wedding clothing, come with right intentions. They are not drawn by themselves, but by the will of God. Now Christ says that only the righteous can come to him to eat the bread of life. Christ is the bridegroom, his flesh and blood is the wedding supper. The identity of the king's son and the supper points to God's self-sufficiency and self-sustainance. God Himself fulfils all needs. The father keeps watch over the wedding hall lest any unclean person creeps in. The father judges everyone, glances their appearance, that is, their clothing and grants admittance to the ones who comes with righteousness, in bright, white linen. Thus one needs the righteousness in the sight of God to come to sit down to eat the bread of life for ever. Whosoever comes by their own desire to to pig out is rejected right away. He is cast out. Yet those who come as righteous guests are never cast out.

Now the question is, how does anybody receive the righteousness of God? The righteousness in the sight of God is by faith in Jesus Christ, by believing the gospel. Those who believe the gospel are made righteous. And they are permitted to come to the holy city and sit down with God and sup with him. On the other hand, no unclean thing will enter God's place. While there are no parables in the gospel of John, this discourse conveys the same truth as Matthew's parable of the wedding banquet and the guest without a wedding garment and the bread of life passage in question is just as forensic in purpose as a parable. Those drawn by themselves are indeed driven away by these words.

Now let us take the passage piece by piece and see how it doesn't support the calvinstic interpretation. Calvinists start their argumentation by pointing to v.36 which says: "But I have told you that you have seen me and still do not believe". Now a calvinst commentator said, beginning at verse 37 Jesus explains their unbelief and the following discourse revolves around the explanation why some don't believe anyway. That is wrong. Jesus doesn't explain why the audience stays in unbelief. He isn't explaining the reason for their unbelief in v.37ff. Note, oftentimes explanations are introduced by the word "for" (because) in the following verse or sentence. Such statements then explain the previous statement. Verse 37 however, doesn't seem to be explaining why some persons don't believe, rather it is exlaining the consequences of this unbelief. Verse 36 makes the notion that some don't believe. Verse 37 says everything (not: everyone) the father gives to Christ, will come to Christ. All power and glory is going to be given to the son and the fullness of God is appointed to dwell in the Son. This include the humans that are born of God. They are part of the father's possession. The children of God are righteous, they are no sinners. These children of God, who love God and do what is right, are going to come to the lamb' wedding banquet. Nobody who is righteous refuses to follow the king's invitation to come to his banquet. On the other hand, only the righteous are granted access to the banquet, are admitted to come to Christ. These are not cast out. However, everyone else is cast out.

Verse 38 continues now with the explanation why this is so. Note, the word "for" is used now. Jesus isn't going to cast anyone out because he is accomplishing a mission. This is why he came. He came as a sent one. A sent one accomplishes the will of the sender and not his own will.

Verse 39 explains what the will of the sender is. It is that everyone who is joined to Christ should not only be safe in this age, but for all eternity. All persons given by the father, that is, all who are born of Him, shall be fed with the precious bread that gives everlasting life. And Christ Himself is that bread. Those who eat this bread will overcome death and live for ever more.

Verse 40 reveals who the sender is and specifies what his will is: The sender is His Father in heaven. The sent one is his son! God's will is that everyone who believes in the son shall be given eternal life. This eternal life however, is obtained through the bread of life. The bread of life is only for the righteous. And righteousness is by imputation for all who believe in Christ. It is the participation in the kingdom of God which has both present and future aspects. It begins in the presence on earth and reaches out into eternity. This explains why it is so crucial to believe in the son of God, because this is how to get the bread of life, which the audience was seeking and not understanding what it is.

Now the unbelieving Jews couldn't accept the allegation to be the son of a Father in heaven, made by a mere man, a fact they were well aware of (vs. 41-42). God becoming a man was unthinkiable in a conservative jewish mindset. Yet instead of responding "But I am God who has become a man, not the son of Joseph", he rebukes them by pointing to their unbelief. Unless they are drawn by God (v.44), they cannot receive any more miracles, for Jesus wasn't going to repeat the feeding of the mass. Here is the forensic aspect of the passage. The audience is left with a question mark: What shall we do? Unless they believe the gospel, there is nothing more to say.

Verse 44 is boldy cited by calvinists to argue for the inability to believe beyond divine help: No one can come to me. In other words, no one is able to come. Sure, but this hardly means that no one is able to believe, but rather that no one can possibly enter the kingdom of God unless he is righteous. And he will be raised up on the last day. "Coming to me" means "coming to heaven", this is the surprising news the Jews didn't believe. Again, the kingdom of God has present age and future age aspects. It begins with Christ's mission on earth, even with his first disciples, it grows and overcomes the world to reach into all eternity. This "already/not yet"- double nature of the kingdom of God is portrayed vividly in the synoptics as well as in the book of hebrews. Now is the time of repentance. Now is the time to come to Christ.

Verse 45 has been given much attention in the previous part on the passage John 6:37-45. Everyone who has heard and learned from God will surely come to Christ. Now calvinists are ever unable to tell just what God is teaching here. What do people learn that inevitably leads them to Christ? No calvinists has ever told me. This verse draws on an old prophecy about the new dispensation of grace that is characterized by a true knowledge of God. Everyone who receives the call to follow the king's invitation will certainly come -- provided he knows the dress code and attends in proper clothing! God isn't teaching that one must come to Christ but the secret about the wedding dress code.

Verses 63-65 repeat the thought of v.44. Some of the hearers don't believe his sermon. Now, would it make sense for Jesus to tell them why they don't believe if they don't believe what he says anyway? Surely not. Would he tell the believers around why some others around don't believe? While this would be more reasonable, this is surely not the message of the text. It is still far-fetched to guess that Jesus is telling the believers why some persons in the midth of them disbelieve. Jesus isn't explaining the reason for people's unbelief here any more than in the previous verses. Rather, their unbelief hinders them from receiving the righteousness of God. They don't receive a wedding clothing. Unless they believe the gospel, they stay in their sins, in their wickedness. They might desire to come to a miraculous sustainer of their fleshly concerns. They might want to come to a public all-you-can-eat party. Yet without the right prerequisite, that is, the righteousness of God, they won't be be granted admittance. This is why unbelievers cannot come to Christ.

To conclude, the reformed interpretation of John 6:37-45 and 65 is objectionable because it is very unlikely to be intended by the author. Instead, there is another reading of this text which is exegetically sound and maintainable. Thus, John 6:37ff doesn't serve as a pillar of the doctrines of grace.

"But faith which allows for boasting is no better than boasting in works"

2009-03-26T06:48:00.000-07:00

This is a very frequent argument brought forth by calvinists, in order to argue that faith in the gospel must be a gift of God. I just encountered it again in a comment dialogue on www.reformationtheology.com. Since it is an ever repeated standard argument, let me make some remarks to combat this attitude.

"But any such faith which allows for boasting is no better than boasting in works."

First, one might ask: Boast before whom? Before the unbelivers? Note, Christ crucified is a stumbling block and a folly to the Jews and the gospel is foolishness to the Greek (1 Cor 1:23). The unbelievers reject the gospel, therefore you cannot boast in your faith in it before them. You can only boast in something generally admired and appreciated. If someone boasts in his income or his achievements then he does so because society appreciates and honors these achievements. However, since the gospel is a folly to the world, where is the boasting effect? Rather believers are regarded as fools. Not exactly akin to someone who shows off with his own land, house, car boat and status before his peers. Boasting is only possible where society honors the object of boasting.

What about boasting before fellow christians? This doesn't make sense either, because there is no competition among believers. There are no leagues for beginners, advanced and champions. Everybody stands equally before God. Paul especially exhorts his readers that masters and slaves are equal with respect to their position as christians before God. Either you believe or you don't. If you are a christian, you stand on the same level as all brethren.

What about boasting before God? Why are the christian believers saved? Because of their wisdom? Or their better moral? No. When God decided to save them, they didn't exist. Nothing was yet in existence. God decided to save believers ("in Christ") before the world began (Eph 1:4). This is why election is without respect of persons (eg. Rom. 9:18; 2 Tim. 1:9). Therefore, the believers' faith isn't what motivates God to save them. Furthermore, when Jesus Christ sacrificed His life, we didn't live yet either. Our faith in no way motivated God to save us. Rather, God saves believers because it is in accordance with his good will and pleasure that it be so (Eph 1:5). It was God's will that believers be saved before any believer existed. So faith is not the reason for God to grant mercy, rather it was God's own decision to grant mercy to believers. In the sight of God, we are but servants who do our duty. It was God's decision to save believers, not the believers'. We have nothing to offer, not even our faith impresses God and earns anything. Jesus Christ provided 100% of the work of salvation, not just 99%, leaving the rest for us to do. So there's nothing to boast before God either.

But what about "boasting in works" anyway? I mean, is it necessary to perform something on one's own in order to have grounds for boasting? Is boasting always conditioned on works? No! People boast in their ancestry, race or nation -- things they didn't control at all. People boast even in things that are absolutely not based on their works. Yet the perversion is, that they still boast! If you have full hair you can boast in your advantageous genes before baldies. If you have a beautiful nose you can boast before those who aren't blessed with such beauty. One shouldn't believe it, but it is so. Boasting isn't necessarily based on one's own achievements whatsoever.

So when it comes to the reformed concept of faith being a gift of God, the reformed like to point out that the believer has no grounds for boasting, after all his salvation is based soley on the unconditional election. Now, there is no calvinist who doesn't believe he's among the elect. Furthermore, since the election decree is irrevocable and the elects' security is an eternal reality, this can lead the calvinist to feel pretty important. Being conscious to be an elect beneficiary of God's grace, a fact which can never be undone, is grounds for boasting as well isn't it? If people boast in their ancestry, how much more grounds for boasting is there for those who are saved from all eternity to all eternity? So if faith is a reason to boast, then unconditional election is so, too. Now, the calvinist might raise the objection that a "true" believer won't boast in his election but rather humbly reckognize the sheer grace and void of his own contribution to salvation. However, if this is so, then one can expect the "true" non-calvinist believer to reckognize this fact also and restrain from boasting.

But what about Paul's words that justification is by faith as opposed to works lest anyone boast? Well, the mosaic law was imposed on all Israel, many messed out by failing to keep it perfectly. The tax collectors and sinners would realize that the Pharisees were performing much better then them. The comparative situation, where achievements are generally appreciated by the society, is clear here. It was really an achievement that could be enviously observed and admired by society. Now, the point is, that the gospel of faith is foolishness to unbelievers, there is no envy aroused by a christian believer. Those who don't believe don't care about it anyway, hence the believer in the crucified messiah cannot yield any boasting effect! The message of the cross is a folly to those who perish. On the other hand, the mosaic law was no folly to the sinners and tax collectors. They knew well, that they were to keep the law as well. Now, since the old law was based on works of the flesh and generally accepted, there was an atmosphere were the pretended "champions" could boast in their goodness and works. This condition however, disappears with the gospel, which is either a stumbling block or the power of God.

Another important insight regarding showing-off in one's alleged goodness can be gained by the parable of the pharisee and the tax collector in Luke 18:9-14. The pharisee thanks God that he is better than the tax collector, in that he faithfully keeps the commandments. Note, the pharisee does acknowledge God's sovereignty here. He doesn't boast before God. Yet his bravado is due to the comparison with the tax collector that is expected to perform better as well, since the law is for the pharisee and the tax collector alike. The mosaic law is in no way foolishness in the eyes of the tax collector, as the gospel is in the eyes of unbelievers. For the gospel provides no ground for competition which would consequently arouse an atmosphere of boasting. Interestingly, the pharisee in this parable reckognizes God's sovereignty and nevertheless boasts! This resembles the calvinistic boasting in their unconditional election. The awareness that you have been saved from all eternity to all eternity, a status which is irrevocable and secure is surely appealing to the carnal mind and can cause you to feel pretty important despite the common "I am a worm" rhetoric. But note as well, in this parable, the tax collector's repentance and faith are in no way conceived of as a ground for boasting. If faith gives reason to boast, then sovereign, unconditional election does so, too.

Faith is not a gift

2009-03-03T00:30:00.000-08:00

Calvinism promotes the concept that the christian faith is a gift from God and doesn't originate with the believer. While the christian does the believing, its initiative was based in God. In calvinism, the christian faith is part and parcel of the entire gift of salvation. In the post against limited atonement, I already pointed out the problems that arise from such a view, and this demonstration shall be further elaborated in this post. I will argue that the idea of faith being a gift is logically fallacious and that the christian genuinely does the believing on his own. One bible passage always used by calvinists to argue for faith being a gift is Eph. 2:8-9, which I dealt with here. This text doesn't teach that faith itself is a gift from God. When calvinists say that faith is a gift, then they mean the faith that saves a person, the individual faith according to the gospel. Here problems arise, because it must be established what exactly these propositions are that are only believable by God's aid. Lest there arise any misunderstandings, I'm well aware that according to calvinism, it is actually the ability to believe, which is crucial. God's granting a person the ability to believe something, is understood to be the gift of God.

The gospel can be stated --in short-- as follows:

Jesus Christ provided full and complete salvation for all who believe this gospel.

This statement is either true of false. Assume it is true. Thus, if anyone believes this statement (the gospel) then he has been provided full and complete salvation. It is not possible to believe this while still arguing that man must contribute anything to his salvation. Because those who believe it, have been fully and completely saved already. It has been accomplished by Christ in the past, it is finished. Arguing that, after Christ finished his work, there is still something to work for and to complete, is disbelieving the gospel statement. That means, a person becomes partaker of salvation by faith in the gospel, but then receives a completed work of salvation for himself. With "full and complete" salvation here, I want to indicate that Christ provided 100% of the salvific work. The believer becomes the object of salvation, but does not take part in the salvific work. For calvinists often claim that only the doctrines of grace accommodate that God is the sole author of salvation and man the mere recipient. Since salvation reaches further back into the past, prior to Christ's life and work in eternity past, I'll re-formulate the gospel above as follows.

(1)
God saved those who believe (1)

This statement shall be used in the following to refer to the longer statement above. So God, through Jesus Christ, completely and fully saved all who believe that message. "(1)" is a number of the statement. Thus, this line says, God saved those who believe this very statement.

Now calvinists object that the person that turns from unbelief to belief, causes his salvation by this faith. So the act of faith ultimately triggers the entire salvation package and decides whether it applies to the person or not. Therefore, the person's faith is in itself a part of the salvific work. Thus, the gospel as formulated so far here, cannot be true. Faith then, it is argued, must be a gift as well. In calvinism, the elect receive salvation from God which includes faith. So calvinists might agree with the statement God saved all who believe it as far as it goes, but then quickly add that the believing itself is part of the salvation package as well. The object of salvation must not be described as "those who believe sth.", but as those "whom God chose" or "the elect". So according to calvinism the gospel can be formulated in short as follows (statement (2)):

(2)
God provided complete salvation, which includes the belief that _____________ (fill in the blank), for the elect.

Here faith flows from the salvation wrought by God. It is imparted on the recipients of salvation who then voluntarily exercise this faith. The recipients are an unknown group, the elect. But what are the beliefs give here by God as a gift? What do the elect get to believe? As noted above, calvinists don't accept the gospel as God saved all who believe this for this does damage to the concept of faith being a gift, which is included in God's salvific work and flows to the elect. The faith must not originate with the believer, but with God. So what is or are the propositions that are to believed in the first place? What does God enable the elect to believe?

Now, since (1) is generally agreed to be true, yet with the addition that even the faith itself must be part of the "saved" part of the gospel, that is, part of the work of salvation by God, one might be inclined to fill the blank above simply with (1). Then the calvinstic gospel would read as follows.

(2)
God provided complete salvation, which includes the belief that [God saved those who believe it], for the elect.

I inserted (1) in the blank here. This means, God provided complete salvation for the elect, which includes faith in the simple gospel statement (1). Thus, the elect that have been provided comlete salvation, get to believe (1) as a gift. Now, there are immediate problems with that. (1) must not be the faith that is given here in (2). The reasons are as follows.
Calvinists object that (1) is true. Whoever believes (1), embraces synergism, because he doesn't accommodate that the faith is part of the work of God. So remaining at (1), one embraces a false statement. If, according to calvinism, (1) were true, they would embrace it, but they don't. According to calvinism (1) is false. Now, God is not a liar and therefore he doesn't give the recipients of salvation a false faith. Therefore (1) cannot be the filling in the blank in (2). It cannot be the gift of God. So the blank must be filled with another faith. We must look further, what faith could be given there.

The reason why calvinsts reject (1) is because it makes the object of salvation do something (to believe). Thus, the recipients of salvation are those who believe, which isn't acceptable to calvinists. According to calvinism, the elect are not natively "those who believe", but rather are spiritually dead and must first become "those who believe" to begin with. So one might omit the object "those who believe" when considering what belief is to be filled in the blank in (2), so that one might formulate the expression:

(3)
God saved sinners.

Which would then be filled in the blank. Then (2) might be rather go as follows:

(2)
God provided complete salvation, which includes the belief that [God saved sinners], for the elect.

Here (3) is inserted in the blank. Note, "God saved sinners" is quite a general expression for a statement that doesn't include a person's individual faith (a phrase like "those who believe"). One might insert a more comprehensive expression here, the point however is, that the notion that someone actively believes, shall not be contained. So alternative beliefs instead of (3) might be, for example:

-Jesus Christ died and resurrected
-Jesus Christ is the Son of God
-Jessu Christ, the Son of God, died for sins.
-etc.

In any case, the personal element must not be contained in this statement of faith.

But there are severe problems with that gospel as well. Assume an elect receives the belief that "God saved sinners". Then what does this have to do with him? How does this elect know, whether he is one of those sinners? After all, (3) doesn't answer anyone's personal concern regarding his salvation. If an elect comes to believe (3) but doesn't know or believe the entire statement (2), then what does this good news help him personally? So obviously the belief "God saved sinners" can only be applied personally, if the entire statement (2) is assumed and known to the believer. For then he knows that his belief is caused by God as a by-product of his complete salvation. In other words, it is not enough to believe (3), one must also assume (believe) the entirety of (2) in order to receive personal good news. Further it is necessary, that the gift (3) is a gift from God and could not otherwise be believed (Total Depravity). Because even if a person accepts (2) and therefore understands that God grants (3) as a gift, it is still open whether (3) must necessarily be a gift. It might be possible for the non-elect to believe it anyway. Therefore, in order to know that (3) has been given as a gift, it must be otherwise impossible to believe (3). So (2) might be reformulated yielding (4)

(4)
God provided complete salvation, which includes the [normally impossible] belief that [God saved sinners], for the elect.

I inserted the total depravity restriction here. So if a person who believes (3) also accepts that (4) is true, then he can conclude that he has been saved completely.

But now the problems of the calvinstic concept of faith being a gift, really come home to roost. If we accept that (3), namely "God saved sinners", is given as a gift, then what about (4)? What about the entire truth? This must still be believed by the recipient, the elect. The elect must believe (4) to be true, that his faith in (3) is a gift from God and that this faith saves him. In other words, he must believe that his faith saves him. What has he won? If (3), which is an impersonal expression of faith, is a gift from God then this gift of faith can only be personally applied by faith in (4) which is not a gift, is it? So ultimately, man must believe on his own.

Now, one might raise the objection that (4) is also a gift. However, that makes it even worse. If someone --by God's enablement-- believes that statmenet (4) is true, then he must believe the included statement (3) as well (provided God doesn't deceive). However, the emphasis of the included specially given belief in (3) then becomes redundant. If the entire statement (4) is a gift, then (3) is it by necessity as well. Since (3) is given only to the elect, that are saved, those who are given faith in (4) then, must be the elect. In other words, whosoever believes (4) believes (3) also. Therefore, all believers in (4) are elect and the recipients of the complete salvation. However, if all who believe that (4) is true, are saved, then (4) is equivalent to statement (6):

(6)
God provided complete salvation, which includes the [normally impossible] belief that [God saved sinners], for all who believe (6)

What is the result now? (6) is actully identical with (1), saying God provided complete salvation for all who believe it. The subordinate clause "which includes...." can be skipped. So we end up with the belief (1), which I repeat here:

(1)
God saved all who believe (1)

and the conclusion that ultimately it is man who believes on his own. There is never a gospel which allows faith to be a gift without losing its meaning and contradicting common sense. Finally the relationship between the gospel, faith, salvation and the believer boils down to the following causal pattern:

(i)
God causes some to believe (ii), which normally no-one is able to.

(ii)
If you believe (i) then you have been saved.

Now let (i) be true and you personally believe (ii) to be true. Since God is not a liar, your faith in (ii) is a gift of God. But what about (i) itself? -- You must still believe it. So the dogma that faith is a gift of God, is untenable. It dosn't make sense. It is fallacious. Stay at (1) and accept that man genuinely believes on his own.

To conclude, let me turn to (1) again:

(1)
God saved those who believe that (1) is true.

Or the original, longer form:

(1)
Jesus Christ provided full and complete salvation for all who believe it.

Now, we have seen that this statement cannot be reasonably countered with the objection that the act of believing must itself be a part of the full and complete salvation provided. Then one runs into trouble as we have seen.

-a helmet

Against limited atonement

2009-02-26T05:33:00.000-08:00

The doctrine of limited atonement is mainly derived indirectly, due to a precommitment to the other doctrines of grace. It has very weak scriptural support. This is why calvinists, when they establish limited atonement, set a high value on clarifying what they think is the nature of the atonement first. Though this blog is actually dedicated to dealing with certain scriptures mainly, when it comes to the doctrine of limited atonement, it is necessary to deal with the arguements regarding the nature of the atonement, that are brought up by calvinists. So calvinists pose the question What did Christ's death accomplish? This is were we must start. In this essay I will argue, that the reformed understanding of the nature of the atonement is fallacious from the start, so calvinists set the doctrine of limited atonement on a wrong answer to the question above. That is to say, while calvinists point out that a correct view of the nature and purpose of the atonement is important to decide the question about the extent of the atonement, they actually come to an incorrect view of the nature of the atonement, which means they start with a wrong foundation right away. The further reasoning that leads to the doctrine of limited atonement, is consequently flawed. Not to mention the lacking scriptural evidence.

Calvinists argue that the following dilemma needs to be resolved:

Did Christ pay the penalty for anyone's sins on the cross? If yes, then all these beneficiaries must be forgiven. If no, then he made forgiveness only possible and actually dependent on additional works of the beneficiaries, even if it is just the act of faith.

Another question closely related with this is:

For whom did Christ die?

Now, first let me say that calvinists by default rule out the option of universalism. They assume as an irrefutable fact, that not everyone will benefit from Christ's atonement. This is remarkable, because the scriptural basis, that some persons will never be saved is much weaker than the scriptural basis in favor of a limited atonement and the doctrine of limited atonement hinges on the assumption that some will never benefit from the atonement. While this alone already severely weakens the calvinstic position, in this post I will deal with the arguments calvinists actually ponder regarding the extent of the atonement, that is, I will deal with the dualism between a universal/limited atonement excluding the possibilty of universalism.

Now calvinists present a false dilemma. Either he died for the whole world or for God's people only. In the first case, the atonement is unlimited and provisional, in the second case it is limited and actual.

This is a false dilemma for the following reasons. Christ died to make a sacrifice for the sins of God's people. These are the believers in the gospel, Christ's disciples of all times. So the people of God is a corporation, consisting of all those who believe in Jesus Christ, and is described with terms such as the church, the spotless bride and the body of Christ among others. It is corporate, that is, an entire union that was bought with one purchase price. Jesus Christ, with one offering, purchased the people of God. He paid one price once and this price is not proportionate to the number of the redeemed just like a sacrificed animal did not suffer in proportion to the number of beneficiaries it was offered for. Furthermore, the sacrifice is not dependent on the severity of the sins it covers. Like in old testament times, the lamb which is Jesus Christ, carries all sins of the people. At the beginning the identity of the people of God is open, because the members are all who will believe. So every person that believes, becomes a member of God's people. Since this might theoretically be everyone, the atonement is universal and for the whole world. Everyone is invited to come out of the world and join Christ's disciples, thereby becoming a part of the body of the Lord. In the end, all christians represent God's people, all believers constitute the people and then its identity is settled. The qustion, for whom Christ died must be answered as follows: Christ died to provide a full and complete salvation for all who believe it. So we might pose the following questions and answers.

Question 1: Did Christ's death infallibly secure the salvation of God's people?

Yes, he perfectly saved all the elect, that is, all believers. All the believers' sins were fully atoned for at the cross of Golgata. It is finished.

Question 2: Is the atonement provisional for everyone and is there a sincere, universal offer of the atonement for everyone in the world?

Yes, the atonement was made without respect of persons and everyone is invited to join Christ's disciples, becoming a member of His people. Whoseover believes will be saved. The sacrifice is sufficient and intended for all.

Question 3: Imagine God wants to save a specific person, say, Joe the pizza guy. But if unlimited atonement is true and Joe simply refuses to believe, doesn't this mean that God cannot save whom he wants?

This question is based on a false assumption, namely that we don't know anything about whom God wants to save. God didn't leave us uninformed about whom he wants to save, thus the question is based on a hypothesis which isn't valid. For God's intention is to save all believers. God loves only Christ and all who are in Christ. Those in Christ partake in the love of God towards Christ. So if Joe the pizza guy doesn't believe and hence isn't in Christ, then God has no pleasure in him. Since God's character doesn't change and His decree doesn't change, such hypothetical considerations are nonsensial.

Question 4: If the atonement is unlimited, then doesn't it follow that Christ accomplished "99%" of the work of salvation and leaves the remaining "1% "up to man's work even if it is just the act of faith?

No, this question is due to a confusion of the work of salvation and the objects (recipients) of salvation. Let me explain.

The gospel can be formulated in short by the following statement:

Jesus Christ provided full and complete salvation for all who believe it.

This statement is either true or false. Assume it is true. Then all who believe it, have been provided 100% of the work of salvation. No-one who believes this statement (the gospel!) can at the same time think they provide any part of the salvific work. Then they wouldn't truly believe it.

Though salvation is caused by faith (which is not a gift in the calvinistic sense), the believer has absolutely no part in his salvation. If someone believes then he has been saved. By faith a person becomes the object of salvation, but doesn't work for his salvation. Indeed the full and complete work of salvation happened in the past, so man's works cannot have any part in it. As mentionend above, the question "For whom did Christ die?" is answered with "For the believers of all times".
So this question is based on a false conception of the gospel and of faith.

But not only that. The idea behind this question, namely the reformed dogma of faith being a gift and man being but the recipient of that gift of faith is a hopelessly fallacious idea. For if faith is a gift from God, then what is the object of this faith? What is the content, what do people get to believe? Contrary to the statement above, the calvinistic gospel statement might be formulated like this:

God provided complete salvation, including the belief that _______________ (fill in the blank) for whom he chose.

Now, what are the beliefs given by God here? What does a believer believe according to Calvinism? Ultimately, the relationship between salvation, the gospel, faith, and the believer boils down to the following causal pattern:

(1) God causes some to believe (2).
(2) If you believe (1) then you have been saved.

Assume statement (1) is true, God doesn't lie and you believe statement (2) to be true. Then your faith in (2) is not your doing. However, faith in (1) is still your doing. Thus, you still believe on your own. Faith is never a mere gift.

Question 5: If some persons don't benefit from Christ's atonement and must ultimately pay the penalty for their own sins, does that mean that some of Christ's blood was shed in vain and does this imply "double payment"?

No, Christ paid one price for the entire people, regardless how many persons that involves. The purchase price is independent on the number of person belonging to God's people. Jesus Christ paid one price for the entire people, regardless whether it consists only of the 120 disciples that were gathered in Jerusalem at Pentecost or whether it consists of billions of believers. Christ bought a corporation, so the objection that universal atonement implies that some of Christ's blood is "wasted", is a straw man argument.

Spurgeon wrote:

That Christ should offer an atonement and satisfaction for the sins of all men, and that afterwards some of those very men should be punished for the sins for which Christ had already atoned, appears to me to be the most monstrous iniquity that could ever have been imputed to Saturn, to Janus, to the goddess of the Thugs, or to the most diabolical heathen deities. God forbid that we should ever think thus of Jehovah, the just and wise and good!

This misrepresents the nature of the atonement. In the same way there is no double payment, because Christ paid and intercedes for believers only. Unless a person benefits from Christ's high priestly intercession before the Father, he must pay the price and endure the penalty himself. Here is the error: Calvinists think the atonement is proportionate to the number of individuals it is made for.

Question 6: If the atonement was unlimited and no-one or only few ones accepted it by faith, wouldn't that mean that Christ's love failed?

No. John 3:16 says God loved the world of believers only. God loves the inhabitants of the world only if they are in Christ. So God didn't intend to save the world in its sinful condition, but only insofar as particular individuals cross over to the community of Christ's disciples. This is an offer to everyone in the world. So God loved the world on the condition of faith in Jesus Christ. If no-one believed, God would still be contend and in everlasting community with the son. God can only gain the more disciples are in Christ and the more His grace is glorified and thanksgivings increase. All believers will be saved, therefore God's love, which is to the believers only, doesn't fail.

Another important misconception that is nourished by calvinists concerns the relationship between the atonement and the proclamation of the gospel. If the atonement is unlimited then you cannot tell anyone "Christ died for your sins". Calvinists argue that such a general promise isn't part and parcel of the gospel message at all, thus the proclamation in the form of an offer is unbiblical.

So we must ask whether the gospel is an invitation or a commandment. Calvinists favor the view that the gospel is actually a commandment, rather than an invitation and in support of the claim that nowhere do we find anyone telling a person Christ died for you, they quote the book of Acts.

When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, 'Brothers, what shall we do?'Peter replied, 'Repent and be baptised, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:37-38)

Note, the people posed a question towards Peter, they asked "What shall we do?" Peter directly answered by saying they should repent and be baptised. It would be inappropriate for Peter to answer the question What shall we do? with the proclamation of a general fact and with the pronounciation of an invitation like "Christ died for you". Rather he is very directly answering the question what they shall do. So the absence of an apt proclamation that Christ died for the persons in the setting here, is no wonder no argument against the gospel being a sincere invitation to everyone.
Another example:

He then brought them out and asked, 'Sirs, what must I do to be saved?' They replied, 'Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.' (Acts 16:30-31)

Again, a person directly asked what he must do to be saved. Instead of saying that Christ died for this man (and perhaps adding: every person in the world as well), they shortly replied "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ". This is answering the question what he must do to be saved, rather than presenting the gospel as an invitation, or presenting a whole theological treatise or a sermon on the nature of the atonement. This doesn't prove calvinism's allegation that the gospel is not a universal invitation and the atonement is limited.

So these texts are very weak arguments against the unlimited scope of the atonement and the universality of the gospel offer. Rather the calvinistic notion the bible doesn't present the gospel as an offer, is plainly false.
There are sciptures that clearly present the gospel as an invitation:

The Spirit and the bride say, 'Come!' And let those who hear say, 'Come!' Let those who are thirsty come; and let all who wish take the free gift of the water of life. (Rev 22:17)

The gospel is both an invitation and a commandment. However the fact that it is a commandment is an argument against limited atonement. Since the rejection of the gospel is a sin itself, such a rejection then increases guilt. This only makes sense if there is a real corpus delicti, if there is actually something to harm or to damage. If the gospel is rejected, then there must have been something substantial to reject in the first place. That means, the offer of salvation must be sincere which means, the atonement must be universal. Note 2 Peter 2:1

But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves.

The false teachers sow desctruction and therefore reap destruction. Verse 20-22 continue

If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and are overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. 21 It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. 22 Of them the proverbs are true: 'A dog returns to its vomit,' and, 'A sow that is washed returns to her wallowing in the mud.'

This is a direct parallel to Hebrews 6:4-6 & 10:26-31. They came to Christ as sinners, escaped the corruption of the world, were cleansed, then fell away and are finally worse off than at the beginning. Hebrews 10:29 uses the expression insulted the Spirit of Grace to describe the sin in question. What does "spirit of grace" mean? It is the full knowledge of the truth about the grace through the gospel (Heb. 10:26). So either there was grace in store for such a sinner and he had knowledge about this and still rejected it, or there was grace in store for others only, he had knowledge about that and rejected that fact. The first case implies unlimited atonement, the second case a limited one. Which one is it? Now, the text says (v.26) that in such a case there is no sacrifice left for sins. This renders only the first option valid and meaningful. This is an argument against limited atonement -- of course there are many more.

Comment on the reformed usage of Eph 2:8-9

2009-02-22T06:46:00.001-08:00

Ephesians 2:8-9 is the most frequently quoted passage by calvinists to prove the doctrine that faith is a gift of God. Hardly any discussion about "saving faith" gets by without making reference to this passage. Escpecially the grammatical structure of that text is said to serve as a proof of the reformed position, that faith is a gift of God. This post is a rebuttal of the calvinistic conclusion drawn from Ephesians 2:8-9.

Here's the text:
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. (Ephesians 2:8-9)

Now the reformed argument that faith is a gift, runs as follows:

The first question is, what does ‘this’ (in “this is not your own doing”) refer to? To the grace, to the verb ‘have been saved’ or to faith?

‘this’ is neuter and singular. It points to the antecedent which is likewise neuter and singular.

So if ‘faith’ were neuter, it would point to faith. Then faith would be a gift.
If ’saved’ were neuter, it would point to salvation. Then salvation would be a gift.
If ‘grace’ were neuter, it would point to grace. Then grace would be a gift.

Which is it? What is the gift here, grace, salvation or faith? One must find out, which one is neuter. Fact: none of the 3 words is actually neuter.
‘grace’ is feminine, ‘have been saved’ is masculine and ‘faith’ is feminine. So there is actually no noun here, no antecedent which grammatically qualifies for the demonstrative pronoun ‘this’.

Now, this is important to note: If there is no antecedent for the demonstrative pronoun ‘this’ in’ the preceding phrase, because there is no gender that fits the neuter (of ‘this’), then the pointing pronoun ‘this’ must refer to no specific preceding noun (antecedent) but must refer to the entirety of the preceding phrase. That means, ‘this’ refers to all 3 words, ‘grace’, ’saved’, and ‘faith’. All these are a gift of God. Hence, the entire “salvation package” is a gift of God.

So far the reformed argumentation that faith is a gift of God.
There are 2 problems with that line of reasoning. It is correct, that the word this (or that) here cannot refer to only grace, only salvation or only faith. Because the nouns are

1) feminine (grace),
2) masculine (saved),
3) feminine (faith).

Since the genders differ, the demonstrative pronoun ‘this’ must refer to all 3 words as a whole we are told.

First however, the fact that the entire preceding clause is referred to, doesn't imply that each particular part is meant in isolation. In other words, an "entire package is not the same as each component in it". The singular, neuter pronoun refers to the reality of the preceding clause, to the given fact (=that) of the preceding clause. That would mean, the gift is actually the entire gospel (all about salvation), which was given wholly on God's initiaitve. It doesn't necessitate the understanding, that each particular "component" (antecedent) in the "package" (clause: by grace you have been saved throught faith), is a gift in itself. What holds true for the entirety, doesn't need to be true for each part of that entirety.

Second, not only do all 3 words differ in gender, but the first 2 (’grace’ and ’saved’) differ already in gender (feminine, masculine). So if Paul had intended to say, “salvation by grace is a gift”, then the grammatical situation would be the same, that is, the differing genders of ‘grace’ and ‘have been saved’ would already require the usage of the neuter ‘this’. So if Paul had simply said that “by grace you have been saved and this not of yourselves; it is a gift”, then the grammatical form would be exactly the same.
So while it is possible for this text to mean faith is a gift, it isn’t grammatically necessary. Rather it is likewise possible that faith is mentioned parenthetically as the means of the gift of salvation. And since it is possible but unnecessary, we must find out whether it is likely that the text means faith is a gift of God.

So lets proceed and determine whether Paul holds that faith is a gift here. The next interesting vocable in this passage is not so diligently scrutinized by reformed theologians: The word gift. The word gift is the translation of four different greek vocables used in the NT. Lets look at these in particular
(The following about “gift” is using material from Middle Town Bible Chuch ):

1) δäρον (gift, present) neuter noun

This word is used to refer to the “gift of God” only once, and that is in the passage under consideration (Ephesians 2:8)

2) δωρεά (gift) feminine noun

John 4:10–the gift of God is everlasting life (compare verse 14).

Acts 2:38; 8:20; 10:45; 11:17–the gift of God is the Holy Spirit.

Romans 5:15,17–these verses speak of the gift of justification (righteousness) and life (compare verses 18,21).

2 Corinthians 9:15–this verse speaks of God’s unspeakable gift which is God’s grace.

We should note that this word is never used of FAITH.

3) δώρημα (gift, present) neuter noun

This word is never used of FAITH but it is used of God’s gift of salvation or justification (see Romans 5:16).

4) χάρισμα (a gift freely and graciously given) neuter noun

Romans 6:23–the gift of God is eternal life (compare Romans 5:15-16).

This word is never used of FAITH (except in 1 Corinthians 12:9 which is speaking of the various gifts of the spirit and in particular of the miracle working faith, but not faith in the Lord Jesus Christ in general).

—

Thus, in no other place in the New Testament does the word gift ever refer to faith in Jesus.
So Paul uses the expression ‘gift of God’ numerous times, but it is outstanding that the term in Eph. 2:8 is only used once. Yet it is clear that the salvation by grace is generally a gift of God and that salvation is by faith. This makes it plausible for Paul to make the statement in Eph. 2:8.

In no way do we have any evidence that faith is a gift in the reformed sense so far!

Lets proceed with the next phrase which reformed theologians do not investigate diligently in this context either, which however might be revealing as to whether the understanding of faith being a gift is intended by the author.

It is the phrase “not a result of works, so that no one may boast”. What is not of works here? It is the ‘this’, the very thing we have been talking about so far. It is that which Paul says is a gift of God. So in order to determine what this gift is, we are provided more information here, it is something Paul says is “not of works”. This is helpful, because there is a great deal of scriptural material on Paul’s usage of that phrase:

In Romans 3:20 Paul says that justification is not of works.
In Romans 3:27 Paul says that justification is not of works.
In Romans 3:28 Paul says that justification is apart from works.

In Romans 4:2,6 Paul says that justification is not of works.
In Romans 9:11 Paul says that election is not of works.
In Romans 9:32 Paul says that righteousness is not of works.

In Romans 11:6 Paul says that election is not of works.
In Galatians 2:16 Paul says that justification is not of works.

In 2 Timothy 1:9 Paul says that God’s salvation and calling are not according to works.
In Titus 3:5 Paul says that salvation is not of works.

It is outstanding, that there is no statement claiming that faith is not of works. This is no wonder, because Paul contrasts faith with works without any further explanation (Rom. 4:5) and thereby takes it as granted that faith is no work. So there is no need to explicitly say “faith is not of works”, for such a lesson would be irrelevant, given the matter of course that faith is no work. But this in no way supports the reformed doctrine of faith being a gift. So if Paul says “this is not of works”, then we are reminded of salvation by grace which is not of works. So ‘this’ which is not of works, is something we read about in various places of Pauls writings — the salvation by grace. And as elaborated above, this is grammatically compatible with Eph. 2:8-9.

To conclude, Eph. 2:8-9 doesn't teach the reformed dogma that faith is a gift. The grammatical structure does not demand this understanding. To the contrary, there are serious linguistic and contextual reasons against this interpretation.

On the reformed usage of Rom. 8:28-30 -- "The Golden Chain Of Redemption"

2009-01-24T03:45:00.000-08:00

Romans 8:28-30 is a very frequently quoted passage by Calvinists in order to justify the doctrines of grace. They call the teaching outlined there the "Golden Chain of Redemption" and consider it one of the most outstanding illustrations of how pauline soteriology conforms with reformed doctrine. Hardly any calvinist writing on the topic of salvation gets by without making references to this passage. As the primary rule of deriving theological doctrines should be Sola Scriptura, the doctrines of grace must be established by an appeal to the scriptures in total, and there are some outstanding cornerstones of scripture that are supposed to buttress calvinistic doctrines in irrefutable clarity and can in fact be regarded as classical pillars of the doctrines of grace. Now, one of these pillars is Rom. 8:28-30.
I strongly disagree with the reformed position and argue that the passage in question does not in any way convey a calvinistic meaning. In this essay I will refute the calvinistic implications derived from this passage.

To begin, lets quote the text:
28) And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. 29) For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; 30) and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

The first question to be answered is in what context is the text embedded. The immediate context is encompassed by the verses 18-39 which describe a confined part within the epistle. The topic of this part is the creatures' sufferings and anxieties in this present world. Paul encourages the readers to endure the afflictions of this age because there is a greater hope for the future. While all of creation is subjected to frustration, even the christians who have the firstfruits of the Spirit already are not excluded from the afflictions and anxieties of this world but rather walk their journey in hope of their future glory and find comfort in the promises of prayer. From this encouragement to have hope and trust, which is the topic of verses 18-27, the "Golden Chain" verses follow in smooth transition.

The text immediately following the "Golden Chain", that is verses 31-39, draw an inference of the verses 28-30. God is greater than all other powers and will certainly protect and save to the uttermost those who love Him. God's provision of his own son is evidence, that he will also give the elect all the heavenly glory. While there are sufferings, tribulations and even persecutions in this world, these do not break God's sovereign purpose and cannot thwart God's faithfulness to the christians. The entire passage 18-39 is summed up in the last two verses, 38-39, where Paul establishes God's ultimate sovereign power to protect his beloved ones.

So what is the context of Rom 8:28-30? Verses 18-39 describe a confined part in the epistle which treats of suffering, tribulation and persecution and God's sovereign salvation out of this misery. These are the key words that describe the context of Rom. 8:28-30.

The term "to foreknow" carries the meaning of "to choose". It is an act of benevolence. The foreknown (chosen, elect) ones in this passage are inevitably predestined, called, justified and glorified. Why is evey verb in the past tense? Calvinists say the chain portrays a finished process from the viewpoint of an eternal God beyond time. Furthermore, the past tense points out the perfection and infallibility of the chain, emphasizing its immutability as an eternal reality, so that Paul can speak about all the steps in the past tense. This is, in my words, how Calvinists account for the past tense used in the passage. I adopt the positon that the passage points out some general, certain realities, a decision made by God. So I agree with Calvinists here that the past tense is used to emphasize a certain reality. Some have suggested the chain presents a review from the end point, revealing the path that lead to that end. This is hardly objectionable.

However, the tense is not primarily the subject of controversy. The chain has an anchor, a starting point. Those who are called according to His purpose are the ones who are foreknown, predestined, called, justified and glorified. Those called according to his purpose constitute the group that is the object of the entire chain. Here is the starting point. Who is this group? Do we know more about it? Yes, there is another information provided. They are those who love God . Those who love God and those called according to God's purpose are one and the same group. With regard to this anchor group, Calvinists now pose the following question:

Do they love God because they are called?
Or
Are they called because they love God?

Now we are at the core of the matter Calvinists try to process here. How does people's love relate to God's call, is the core question. One thing is clear. Everyone who his called here, is justified and glorified. They are those who love God. Now, the love for God implies the keeping of the commandments (Mt. 22:37; John 14:15; 1 John 5:3; 2 John 6). Sinners don't love God.
Those who love God are therefore righteous. They do what is right. They are good and blameless. Therefore God justifies them.

Later in verse 33 Paul uses the term "chosen", to refer to those who are justified by God. Obviously all who are called here are elected. As we know that all who are called are justified, we must find out what this calling according to God's purpose is about and what it comprises. According to Rom. 8, called means elect. But calling is not always equated with election. The parable of the wedding banquet and the guest without a wedding garment, is an example for such a differentiation and is entirely about the subject of calling. Who are the elect in the parable of the wedding banquet? They are those who come with wedding clothing. They come dressed with "Fine linen, bright and clean" (Rev. 19: 8) -- "Fine linen stands for the righteous acts of God's people". The righteous are welcome to the wedding banquet. Their brightness will be seen by the king, he will notice their righteousness. "Blessed are those who are invited to the wedding supper of the Lamb!" (Rev. 19:9). They are righteous, which means they love God. They are blessed.

The question that needs resolving is that about the relation between God's calling people and people's love for God (Rom. 8:28). This will be the focus of the following considerations and we shall investigate the subject of calling, for it seems to be complex and much comprising.

The parable of the wedding banquet deals with two groups of invited people. In the following I will mostly refer to them as the first and the second group. Both are called. The first group does not follow the invitation to attend the wedding, proves to be sinful and unworthy and is rejected and destroyed. Because of the first group's iniquity and rejection, the second group is called as a substitute, to fill the wedding hall.

---------------------
Let us ponder some questions regarding the relation between the calls, the called ones, and the motivations of God and men behind all this.

1) Is anyone called because they are righteous?
No. The first group engaged in iniquity. And if their righteousness had been the reason for their invitation, why were not all the other good ones invited in the beginning, those who are invited by the second call? Righteousness is not the reason for being called.

2) Is anyone rigtheous because they are called?
No. The calling revealed people's sinfulness. To be called does not make a person righteous.

3) Is anyone coming because they are righteous?
Yes. The invitation is actually a command. The called must attend. The righteous come because they are called to the wedding of the king's son. They don't come in their own honor.

4) Is anyone righteous because they are coming?
No. The guest without wedding clothing proves that not everyone who comes is good. Righteousness precedes the attendance.

5) Is it necessary to be called in order to be righteous?
No. The anonymous masses in the streets were not bad because they were not called first. Nobody becomes righteous by being called.

6) Is it necessary to be righteous in order to be called?
No. The wicked ones picked up in the streets and the guest without wedding clothing indicate that righteousness is no precondition to be called in the first place.

7) Is it necessary to come in order to be righteous?
No, because righteousness precedes the call and hence also the coming. However, the good ones of course come. Furthermore, attendance is necessary in order to get justified.

8) Is it necessary to be righteous in order to come?
Yes. The guest without wedding clothes (righteousness) was not welcome. No unrighteous person can come to Christ!

So from these 8 questions we can conclude that no-one loves God (is righteous) because he is called or vice-versa.

--------------------

Let us look at the chain of Rom. 8:29-30 now. With regard to the first group, it seems to be as follows. They were foreknown (acquainted & invited) by the king to attend the wedding supper of his son (predestined) and called through the servants. However, here the golden chain breaks. This break is inexplicable. Instead of the justification of the called ones, they do the very opposite of anything worthy of justification and mistreat and kill the servants. They are condemned instead of justified. Here the chain of Rom. 8:29-30 mysteriously breaks. How is that possible? We'll see.

foreknown	predestined	called	...???
"those who had been invited"	"to come to the banquet"	servants urged	they...killed them

(chain group 1)

This break of the chain, which is still unaccountable given the sovereign purpose of God in light of the fixed chain of Rom. 8:29-30, causes the king to start another call. Since the first group proved unworthy and could not be justified, a second group of people is called now. Those "into the streets" (foreknown) shall now "fill the wedding hall" (predestined), so the king sends out his servants to "gather up" (call) these multitudes.

So there have been opened two chains now, one for the first group, one for the second. The first chain lasted until the third link called and then aborted. The second chain also reaches the link called and people attend the wedding banquet. Now we will have to look at the surrounding conditions more closely.

foreknown	predestined	called	justified	glorified
"those in the streets"	"to come to the banquet"	"gathered them up"	"king came to see the guests"	conformed to... the son

(chain group 2)

Those who come with wedding clothing (righteousness) are beheld by the king. This is judgment. The brightness of the wedding clothing is the persons' holiness, the visibility of their righteouness. The dress code is the sign of belonging to the group of the elect. These are justified by the kings approval. He notes their purity. On the other hand, there is the fellow without a wedding garment. He lacks the righteousness. But he is not immediately thrown out because of his "nakedness". Rather, the king addresses him as "Friend" and asks him a question: Again, this is judgment. His justification depends on the answer he gives now. While those properly dressed do not give any further account, the one without the wedding garment is judged now according to his response. The question he is asked is as follows:

How is it possible for a sinner like you to come to Christ?
("how did you get in here without wedding clothes?")

The question in convicting in that it conveys the notion that it is actually impossible for a sinner to get into the wedding hall. Now, the guest's destiny depends on whether he can explain (=justify himself!) his attendance. If he can account for his attendance, then he is thereby justified and can stay.
On the other hand, if he cannot explain "how he got in there", then he must obviously be an intruder who is to be thrown out of there, tied hands and feet, lest he climbs in outrightly again.

So why is it actually impossible for an evildoer like this man to be invited to begin with? Remember the run-up story. Why did the king call the second group anyway? Because the first group messed out. They proved unworthy. The iniquity and unworthiness of the first group is the reason why all the persons present at the wedding banquet, were called to begin with. The king did not want and did not justify those who work iniquity. Instead he sent his army to destroy them. Therefore, it is clear that unworthy and sinful persons like the former ones, are not welcome. Since God did not justify the sinners of the first group, of those who he was acquainted with, but rather judged them, why should he justify a strange sinner of an anonymous mass? Note the "golden chain" of the first group that aborted at step 3. These were called but not justified. They were sinful. So the caught person without appropriate clothing cannot give a reason, why a sinner like he could be justified.

With respect to the "golden chain", the caught person cannot explain how called inevitably leads to justified ! If he could, he would be justified by that answer! This is absolutely important to grasp here.

But what would be the nearest answer? Wouldn't it be the hint to the public invitation? Could he not say: "I was unconditionally invited!"? In other words, could he not argue that the mere fact of being called is a justification to come, sit down and eat? Is being-called-and-attending = righteousness and therefore a grounds for justification? Note, those who love God are called according to his purpose as said at the beginning, and the guest without the wedding garment is now in a situation where he has to answer the question I posed above: How are being called and being righteous related?

So what about the suggested answer "In spite of my sins, I am justified to be here because I was called!"? Note, the calling was not unconditional. For if it were unconditional why were the anonymous masses not invited from the beginning together with the special guests in order to fill the spare places? Rather the calling targeted people who are worthy in contrast to the first group that was unworthy. Besides, the king obviously disagrees with that answer because otherwise he would not ask the question.

What about the ones who conform to the dress code at the banquet? They are justified. Can they explain, what the "naked" guest cannot explain? Do they know something he doesn't know?
Lets look at the golden chain again. For group 2. Those who attend the banquet with a wedding garment have been justified by the king (v. 22:11) and can now enjoy the presence of the lamb (glorification). Can they tell us what could have justified the speechless guest? We'll see. Let us look from the point of view, and the knowledge, of the blessed ones, written in blue.

The blessed elect are glorified as the last step in the chain. Why are they glorified? Because they were justified and had been predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ. Okay. Why were they justified? Because they were called. Why were they called? Because they were taking the place of the first group that messed out. So why and on what basis are they glorified? On the basis of the first group's iniquity and the purpose of God. Again, why are they in the position they are now (justified, glorified) ? Because the first group sinned, thereby proved unworthy and thereby provided the grounds for the calling of those, who are now justified and glorified. Their sins brought about the glorification, they proved to have been in accordance with a godly purpose. The explanation for the sins of the first group is thereby given. Their wicked deeds resulted in the glorification of others and showed that iniquity cannot enter heaven. However, the explanation of the deeds of the first group, is their justification. If one can explain works and show that they are in conformity with the purpose of God, then these works are justified! So thereby, the first group, that had been called, is ultimately justified as well.

As Christ's glorification resulted in the justification of the elect, so the elect's glorification results in the justification of the first group.

Why is the speechless guest condemned? Because he did not give this explanation, the answer here in blue! He does not know why the first group sinned! That means, he cannot explain the mystery why the former "golden chain", which is controlled by the sovereign purpose of God, broke between the links called and justified. Therefore he cannot know and explain on what basis he should be justified either. The purpose of God is unknown to him. And if he does not know and cannot explain how the first group can be justified, then he will not be justified either. If the guest could account for the wickedness of the first, could give a meaningful reason for their iniquity and hence justify them, then this would explain the reason for his own invitation and justify him.

What does this tell us regarding Calvinism's treatment of the "golden chain" ? Obviously, the person without wedding clothing is unable to explain the transition called => justified. How do Calvinists explain it? Well, they draw on mystery! The "inward address", or the "effectual call" would be a Calvinist's response when sitting in the wedding hall without adequate clothing, being pressed to explain: "How is it possible for you to be here?" Now, the "inward call" is an unexpressible mystery. I haven't met any Calvinists who could explain how he was "irresistibly drawn", or how he knows that he received an "inward address". Will they say to the king: "But you drew me, didn't you?" So the Calvinist's speechlessness when it comes to explain "how they can come to Christ", speaks volumes.
Calvinistic regeneration does not regenerate any man and calvinistic saving faith does not save anyone!

Back to the exegesis. Finally all who are called are indeed justified. But the order is not quite apparent. The reason for the past tense used here is also more obvious now. It becomes comprehensible only from the point of view of the justified, from the future to the past. Though the chain runs one-way, God's way of working becomes apparent from the end.

------------------

To conclude, the passage of Rom. 8:28-30, does not in any way promote the doctrines of grace!
In an attempt to build the bridge between called and justified Calvinists invent the unbiblical concept of an "inward address" (or "effectual call", "preemptive regeneration") to explain how all who are called are justified. Thereby they introduce another type of calling, which is based on sheer eisegesis and contrary to the biblical understanding of God's calling which is by the word. Rom. 8:28-30 however, does not in any way convey the idea of a secret divine action in a sinner's heart that Calvinists need to introduce their doctrine of regeneration.

The doctrines of grace are based on questions like "why do some sinners believe and others don't?" But note the context of this passage. None of the words "sin", "sinner", "believe" or "faith" appear in the whole encompassing section v.18-39! The context is indeed God's sovereign salvation but not the soteriological aspect thereof in particular, but God's sovereign dealings in the world and His providence in suffering, affliction and persecution. Even the verse 8:32 "God gave [Jesus] for us all", which is clearly a reference to the imputation, does not impose a soteriological context on the section.

It almost goes without saying that the entire idea of calvinistic election does not follow from the passage either.
So another pillar of the doctrines of grace has collapsed. Rom. 8:28-30 does not buttress Calvinism but refutes it.