Tag Archives: Calvinism

Some Thoughts on First Timothy (4)

17 Wednesday Nov 2021

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, ,

In chapters 2 and 3, the Lord’s apostle gives attention to what should be done in a “church setting” (3:14-15). Thus, what Paul writes is from God, not something generated by him simply because of the culture in which he lived at the time (cf. 1 Cor. 14:37). The importance of this will be seen as we progress.

In a “church setting” or when the saints gather to worship, let prayer be offered to the Lord for those in positions of responsibility (2:1-2). This is not simply a cultural matter, but always appropriate regardless of a cultural context. The reason to do this is stated: that we may live in peace, according to godliness. In this setting, the Lord’s influences go far.

The influences of the Lord are to go far and wide because the Lord does not want any to perish, but for all to come to a penitent heart (2:3-4). The importance of this point, among other reasons, shows that the religious doctrine associated with Calvin can’t be more wrong than that which originates with God’s great adversary. The doctrines I have in mind are “unconditional election” and “limited atonement.” Both are deadly.

I will explain.

Unconditional election is directly tied to the doctrine of limited atonement. “The doctrine of election declares that God, before the foundation of the world, chose certain individuals from among the fallen members of Adam’s race to be the objects of His undeserved favor” (Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, and Documented; p. 27).

Why is this so deadly? The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some count slackness; but is longsuffering to you-ward, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance (2 Pet. 3:9, ASV). These two statements are opposed one to another. Just in case you may not see it, notice the quote from the book on Calvinism. God chose certain individuals, in other words, He chose a select number of people (a number only He knows) apart from the will of those chosen being involved (“He chose to save some and to exclude others.” This was not based on any foreseen decisions or responses they would make; p. 27).

Clearly, from the perspective of Calvinism, God only desired SOME to be saved and come to repentance. The Holy Spirit said God desires ALL to come to repentance. The two are directly opposed to one another. Which one is the right doctrine?

Spiritual Death Analogous to Physical Death?

30 Tuesday Jul 2019

Posted by in Exegesis, Sound Doctrine

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

It is my purpose in this study to set forth an exegetically sound interpretation of Paul’s words to the church in Ephesus on Ephesians 2:1. In addition to this, I will also set forth common interpretations that are contrary to my own. I will give attention in this presentation to the theology of those who are of a Calvinistic persuasion.

NKJV: And you he made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins.

ASV: And you did he make alive, when ye were dead through your trespasses and sins

NASV: And you were dead in your trespasses and sins.

KJV: And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins

Williams: You too were dead because of the shortcomings and sins

A brief setting of Paul in Ephesians 1 and 2. CHAPTER 1. Spiritual blessings are in Christ; none outside (1:3). Before the foundation of the world, those chosen to be in Him are to be blameless and holy (1:4). Those chosen in Christ have been predestined to adoption (1:5-6). In Him is redemption, that is, the forgiveness of sins (1:7-8). In the wisdom of God this is made known to us in the life and message of Jesus (1:8-10). It is in Him that one inherits from God (1:11-12). One is in Christ after having heard and believed the message preached, sealed by the Holy Spirit (1:13-14). Paul’s prays for the saints in Ephesus, for their enlightenment in wisdom, knowledge and the power of God, which is Christ seated at the right hand of the Father (1:15-21). Seated at the right hand of the Father, He is over all things to the church, which is His body (1:22-23). CHAPTER 2. The saints in Ephesus were once dead in sin because of the life they chose to walk (2:1-3). Paul identified himself with those of Ephesus who once walked the same path (2:3). Even when dead in sin, it was because of God’s mercy the saints in Ephesus were made alive in Christ (2:4-7). It was by God’s mercy each one is saved by grace; saved by grace (i.e., taught; 1:13-14; cf. Titus 2:11-12) means each one is God’s workmanship (2:8-10).

An interpretation frequently presented to me. The saints in Ephesus were once dead in trespasses and sins because they walked in accordance with what they wanted to do, having no regard for what God wanted. They willfully chose to indulge their desires in the flesh (2:3). They were dead in sin without regard to their own will, but because of Adam; they are only able to make things worse (volitionally) in their state of “dead in sins and trespasses.” QUESTION: If they could willfully choose to do this (make things worse), on what basis could they not also willfully choose to turn away from doing this? There is none – except that of a theological persuasion.

Connecting this with Paul’s words in Romans 5:12 and 6:3, one enters the realm of death by birth, the one born does not inherent Adam’s sin, that is, one is not judged by God as sinful based on what Adam did! One enters the physical realm of death by birth, one enters the spiritual realm of death by choice.

Interpretations from varied expositors[1]

“Physical death is a condition in which the functions of physical life have ceased; spiritual death is that where the functions of spiritual life are no longer active, and indeed, apart from the intervention of divine grace are no longer possible…” Again, a few lines later we read, “The incapacity of the unregenerated mind for the exercise of spiritual affections, is what is meant by spiritual death.”[2]

Spiritual death is nothing but alienation from God, and this is because “we are all born dead and live that way until we become partakers of the life of Christ.”[3] Chrysostom (who predates Calvin) does not concur with this sentiment. Speaking of spiritual death, he says, “But the death of the soul is the result of a free choice.”[4]

Barnes seems to take a moderate view. He states there is an affirmation of depravity, affirming the fact of it, but “…it does not settle any question as to their ability or power while in that state” to exercise their mental powers of their intellect toward the direction of God. Even though he attempted to exegete, he later writes contrary to this attempt: in regard to religion, the sinner sees no beauty in it “and no human power can rouse the sleeping dead, or open the sightless eyeballs on the light of day. The same power is needed in the conversion of a sinner which is needed in raising the dead” which means God.[5] I interpret this as a contrary remark to his exegetical attempt.

William Hendriksen recognizes that a person dead in trespasses and sins can do good in a natural world. This good, however, is not done with the attempt to please God and/or obey His law. It is “[o]nly when God turns him is he able to turn from his wicked ways” because he is depraved from the time Adam brought sin into the world; man today is guilty of original sin and he merely adds to it his own.[6]

John Stott said of those who are spiritually dead: they are as “unresponsive to him as a corpse.”[7] He does not speak in an explicit Calvinistic way, but with his words he might as well have.

Man has no ability within himself to change. “Men left in their dead state are unable of themselves to repent, to believe the gospel, or come to Christ. They have no power within themselves to change their nature or to prepare themselves for salvation.”[8] Passage used (abused) to support the declaration: Job 14:4; Jeremiah 13:23; John 6:44; 1 Corinthians 2:14; 2 Corinthians 3:5.

Analysis of the Issue:

In physical death there are no life functions, including the will (that is, the emotional and mental will). Physical life and everything associated with it is completely over – Hebrews 9:27.

In spiritual death, in contrast to physical death, extant are all the capabilities associated with physical life. That means one can live and go to this place or that; one can think and analyze this issue or that. One can willfully choose what he or she wants to do. Calvinism accepts this, but with limitations. They assert there is no ability within the spiritually dead to willfully move in God’s direction. They grant willfulness in life, but not willfulness toward God. Jesus makes clear with His words in John 5, Calvinism is a lie.[9]

Spiritual death is the result of trespasses and sin, in effect, the sin of disobedience (1 John 3:4). Calvinism maintains one is spiritually depraved from the time of birth, going back to the time of Adam and his transgression. The sinful corruption within man extends to every part of man; thus, the natural man is totally unable to do anything spiritually good, he does not have the ability to choose spiritual good over evil.[10] Passages used to justify this declaration: Genesis 2:16-17; Romans 5:12; Ephesians 2:1-3 (among others).

The only way for one to be saved, according to Calvinist theology, is for God to take the initiative. By itself, this remark is not troublesome; it’s what is meant that is false. Calvinism says God’s initiative activity is more than just preaching the Gospel to ears that want to hear; without God’s initiative to the elect only, that is, in addition to Gospel preaching,[11] salvation does not result. Consider the following points.

  • If one has free will while spiritually dead (to make things worse for themselves), but one can’t choose spiritual life on his own volition, then free-will is not total, instead free-will is limited.
  • If free-will is limited (i.e., spiritual life cannot be secured by one’s choice), then if one is prevented from securing salvation because of that limitation imposed from an outside source; thus, the one who prevents salvation is culpable.
  • This is inescapable![12]

Those who are spiritually dead have free-will to do what is desired; a spiritually dead person perpetuates their spiritual death (i.e., they choose to continue in their disobedience). While in this spiritual realm of death, a person can’t be pleasing to God because his spiritual darkness is a matter of choice (Romans 8:3-7). This means no man can determine his own path to God (Proverbs 14:12; Jeremiah 17:9; 10:23).

The realm of spiritual death is presents a gap, a separation between the created and the Creator (Isa. 59:1-2). This gap can’t be bridged by the created because he does not have the wisdom to know how to do it; neither does he have the capability to accomplish it even if he had to wisdom to do it (which he does not). In fact, that which originates within man is only corruption (Jeremiah 17:9) and can never be anything else. Anything he does that does not have its origin in God’s will falls short (Romans 3:23). Sin and sinful thinking/ways prevents man’s arrival on “God’s landing pad” (so to speak). This gap that exists between the Creator and the created does not prevent the created from choosing to hear and obey.

God, therefore, initiates a bridge (John 3:16), and based on the person’s response to God’s bridge or invitation (Matt. 11:28-30), salvation or damnation is the result. According to Acts 2:21, all who call on the Lord can be saved. Couple this with Hebrews 4:2, we learn the reason salvation did not result with some because the Word preached and heard was not “united by faith” (NASV).

Syllogistic Arguments:

If the Gospel is God’s power to save everyone who believes, it is possible for everyone to believe (Rom. 1:16; 2 Pet. 3:9). The Gospel is God’s power to save everyone who believes. Therefore, it is possible for everyone to believe.

If the spiritual realm is associated with the will/volition of man, and if man is still alive to exercise the will/volition that is required in physical life’s use, then the spiritual functions of life are still active (Johnny Polk).

If God’s message is to be preached to the whole world (creation) which is dead in sin, then the whole world (creation) which is dead in sin can hear and obey (Mark 16:15). God’s message is to be preached to the whole world (creation) dead in sin. Therefore, the whole world (creation) dead in sin can hear and obey.

To show partiality in rendering judgment[13] is sin (Gal. 2:11-14). Calvinism teaches God shows partiality in rendering judgment.[14] Therefore, Calvinism teaches God sins when He shows partiality in judgment (I think this fails meeting categorical syllogistic argument standard; use Venn. Needs work).

[1]  Without the resurrection there are none who are dead in sin because Jesus brought life and immortality to light through His message and His resurrection, having overcome the fear of man, which is death (2 Timothy 1:10). Lazarus was dead (physically), yet when the Lord called out, Lazarus heard. Those spiritually dead, when the Lord calls out through the Gospel, the spiritually dead hear.

[2] Justin A. Smith. Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians, An American Commentary (vol. 5: Corinthians to Thessalonians), The American Baptist Publication Society, 1890; p. 33.

[3] John Calvin. Reformation Commentary on Scripture: Galatians, Ephesians (New Testament: Vol. X). IVP Academic; 2011; p. 276.

[4] Chrysostom. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians (New Testament: Vol. VIII). IVP; 1999; p. 120.

[5] Albert Barnes. Ephesians. Notes on the New Testament: Explanatory and Practical: Ephesians – Colossians. Baker Book House; 1974; pp. 36-37.

[6] William Hendriksen. New Testament Commentary: Ephesians (Galatians-Ephesians). Baker Book House; 1979; pp. 110-112.

[7] John Stott. The Message of Ephesians. IVP. 1979; p. 72.

[8] Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, and Documented. P & R Publishing. 2004; p. 25

[9] “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth him that sent me, hath eternal life, and cometh not into judgment, but hath passed out of death into life. Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour cometh, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and they that hear shall live” (John 5:24-25, ASV).

[10] Five Points of Calvinism. p. 19.

[11] “The gospel invitation extends a general outward call to salvation to all who hear the message. In addition to this external call, the Holy Spirit extends a special inward call to the elect only. The general call of the gospel can be, and often is, rejected, but the special call of the Spirit cannot be rejected; it always results in the conversion of those to whom it is made” (Five Points, p. 61). RT – if the elect can’t reject, can the non-elect accept? According to Calvinism, to ask is to answer!  

[12] Some are easily able to see this but due to a perceived understanding of (or lack of properly understanding) God’s sovereignty, Calvinism theology is accepted with “I just don’t understand, I only accept it.”

[13] Judgment in this context is not exclusively God’s eternal wrath, but includes both wrath and reward.

[14] “Before the foundation of the world, God chose particular individuals for salvation. His selection was not based upon any foreseen response or act performed by those chosen. Faith and good works are the result, not the cause of God’s choice” (Five Points of Calvinism, p. 31; italics in quote-RT).

Modus Ponens (Calvinism and Free Will)

30 Tuesday Apr 2019

Posted by in Salvation, Sound Doctrine

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

A recent discussion I had with a brother in the Lord who accepts the false teaching of limited atonement, a portion of Calvinism. In our discussion (last week of Mark) he gave not a single bit of attention to either one of these arguments. Instead, he dismissed them with a wave of the hand by saying “you need to use things like syllogisms to try and make your point but in the end you have zero scriptural support for your point.”

Anyone who turns against formal logic does so because formal logic turns against him.

He said I didn’t use Scripture. You have to be the judge of that.

1) If Scripture teaches God desires all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth, then any teaching which teaches God chooses only some to be saved (those He desires; limited atonement) is a false teaching.

2) The Scripture teaches that God desires all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Tim. 2:4; 4:10).

3) Thus, any teaching which teaches God chooses only some to be saved (those he desires, to whom He limits His atonement) is a false teaching.

Or another argument from our discussion:

1) Since it is the case God wants none to perish (1 Ti,. 2:4), and

2) Since it is the case that whoever calls on the name of God shall be saved (Acts 2:21),

3) Then it is the case anyone (or whosoever) calls on the Lord’s name can be and will be saved (Rom. 10:12-13)

Calvinism

21 Saturday Jul 2018

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

,

Modus Ponens
1) If Scripture teaches God desires all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth, then any teaching which teaches God chooses only those He desires (limited atonement) to be saved is false. 2) The Scriptures teaches that God desires all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Timothy 2:4; 4:10), thus, 3) any teaching which teaches God chooses only those He desires (those to whom He limits His atonement) to be saved is false.

Calvinism teaches this

God’s Choice/Election

07 Saturday Oct 2017

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

R. C. Sproul wrote: “Let’s assume that all men are guilty of sin in the sight of God. From the mass of humanity, God sovereignly decides to give mercy to some of them. What do the rest get? They get justice. The saved get mercy and the unsaved get justice. Nobody gets injustice” – Chosen by God

Justice is rendered by God in ALL respects, but as Sproul asserts it, this can be misunderstood. In the context of God’s choice/election, some make, perhaps unintentionally, God arbitrary in His decisions. They (otherwise known as Calvinists in theological perspectives) try to get around this by speaking of God’s sovereignty, that is, it is God’s sovereign will, His sovereign choice to save some and not others. What is in view with this perspective is this: God chooses who will be saved (apart from that person’s individual will) and who will be lost (in spite of a person’s desire to be saved). To a rational person, this makes God arbitrary, even a monster!

Some reply like this: God chose to save Noah and those in the ark, but decided to let the others drown (callously, without regard to their own desire to willingly submit to the preacher of righteousness and obey).

The word sovereign is defined: Supreme in power; possessing supreme dominion; as a sovereign ruler of the universe (Websters). It is true that God’s sovereignty gives mercy to some; this is in accordance with Hebrews 5:8-9 (“Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him”). It is in His power to do this; thus, His sovereignty is exercised. Justice is render to all (2 Corinthians 5:10: “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad”), and in this justice, mercy is extended to those who choose to obey. There is nothing in the word “sovereign” that intimates the supreme power (sovereignty) of God taking away volition from His creation, those created in His own image.

Before us, therefore, I offer the following:

  1. Man has free will and can choose whether or not to obey the Lord’s express will. This is taught in Joshua 24:15, Matthew 11:28-30 and Acts 26:19 (just to name a few).
  2. It is God’s desire to save all. This is taught in 1 Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9.
  3. Thus, God has given all the choice whether to be saved or not. This is taught in Acts 2:40

Remarks in relation to Romans 9. The word “Israel” is the physical nation and the church (9:1-6). The children of Abraham are: 1) through promise (Isaac), 2) physical descent (Ishmael) (9:6-10). Thus far, the only reason for individual identification is to contrast physical descent with spiritual descent. The context of God’s election (choice) is this: a contrast between physical and spiritual descent. It was through Isaac and it was through Jacob that God chose to bring His Son into this world; it was not through Ishmael and neither was it through Esau. God’s choice of election was through whom He chose to fulfill His promise to Abraham – not a word about salvation (9:10-11). In Romans 9:12-18, Paul illustrates, via Scripture, God’s choice in this process. 1) God spoke about what would happen (from the perspective of Rebekah) in Genesis 25. The older (Esau) would serve the younger (Jacob). In that which Scripture speaks concerning them, i.e., their individual lives, this did not happen. Three options: First, it never happened, and God was wrong. Second, it happened, but is not recorded. Third, application of the prophetic words did not apply to individuals, but to the two nations. For those who accept the Inspiration of Scripture, the first is ruled out. To accept the second option, a viable one, one needs evidence (for which there is none). That leaves the third option, and the context of Romans 9-11 bears this out.

God chose Jacob, and it was near 1,500 years later the words of Malachi records God’s choice in terms of love/hate. Certainly, Coffman had it right when he wrote, in his remarks on Malachi, “This choice between Jacob and Esau had nothing at all to do with individuals, but concerned whole nations of people. ‘The selection of Jacob was the selection of a people rather than an individual.’ … the eternal destiny of Jacob or Esau is not connected in any way with what is written here. This passage in Malachi was written centuries after Isaac’s twins were born; and it was the posterity of those brothers concerning which the prophet wrote” (Barnes, Calvin, Butler, Ellicott, Lange, Pulpit, all affirm similar).

CONTEXT: Paul speaks concerning a contrast between two peoples: spiritual Israel and physical Israel, with the former in good standing with God, the latter not. It was God’s choice to show mercy to those of spiritual Israel rather than physical Israel, and it was God’s choice to show mercy to one nation as compared to another nation. God showing mercy to one, not the other is based on God’s choice (9:15). In this context that Paul makes clear salvation is not in view, but God’s sovereign will in relation to nations is (cf. Dan. 4:17), thus Egypt was brought into the discussion in relation to the physical nation of Israel. Paul’s point in this is not exclusively “God’s prerogative to choose” (though this certainly applies), but to show that God chose to offer salvation to the Gentiles (non-Jews) as He did to the Jewish people (Romans 1:16-17; 9:25-26). Moreover, those who identify themselves with physical Israel, it’s only the remnant of those identified with physical Israel that will be saved (9:27-29).

Why will only a remnant be saved? Because, as Paul states, those of physical descent chose (elected) their own way of salvation, and not the Lord’s (9:30-10:3).

 

DISCUSSION ON FREE WILL IN RELATION TO SALVATION

29 Thursday Dec 2016

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , ,

This discussion took place between myself and Brent Baxter on a FB Christian Discussion page. Brent, after the discussion, expressed to another that I attacked him. As you read the discussion, you must decide whether I did or not. I can tell you that I made it a point not to do so. I was hard on his handling of Scripture, but I did not attack him. He also mentioned he is pleased to converse with me because he likes the fact that I will engage in conversation to a great depth. Though Brent denies he is a Calvinist, he argued in this discourse as one. In the course of the dialogue, one will see bracketed notes. These are transcribed from the hard copy I printed, with some additional elaborations. Typos and pitiful expressions are from the discourse, a “cut and paste” into this word document.

The original post from Brent Becky Baxter (BBB)

Humbling thought

It is true that God’s word, the Bible was written for His chosen in that it is spiritually appraised by those He has enabled to hear. This enabling comes by no intrinsic value of the hearer but solely by God’s sovereign grace alone. Jesus said. Through John that His sheep hear his voice and another they simply will not follow.
It’s a work He initiates in the believer and swears by His own character to bring it to completeness.
No one knows who is going to hear. Our responsibility as faithful stewards to whom He has entrusted it, is to proclaim the gospel. Reasoning in the scripture as necessary.
This really is a good discussion group for just such fellowship

RT: I will engage. Since God enables some, but not others, then God is responsible for those who are not enabled. If I understand you correctly, this is what you are saying. I am interested in your scriptural support.

BBB: You finally got it.. never quite understood What is so hard to understand about ” He loved us even when we were dead in our trespasses and sin, He made us alive”
Further, Eph 2:3 by nature, children of wrath, leaves no capacity to consent to ones own new birth. The natural man cannot appraise his spiritual condition of needing salvation. 1 Cor 2:14

RT: Thus God is responsible for the natural man’s damnation since the natural man has no capacity to consent. The natural man is not responsible.

BBB: Genesis 2 and 3 gives a crystal clear account of who is responsible for death and damnation and it wasn’t God.
When God set before the nation of Israel life or death, their response was. ” all that the Lord has said, we will do and will obey”. Ex 23:7. Now I don’t know about anyone else but it’s pretty clear that until God puts a new heart in them they can say and do whatever, but it’s only the remnant that God reserves unto himself that are redeemed. Now the whole OT ends in showing how well their self will according to the flesh worked out for them. The arrogance of self effort for them is clearly stated in Malachi. “How have we despised you ?” They said

RT: You go to the OT to develop at NT teaching? Your remark on Ephesians is wrong. I want you to develop this from what Paul taught to Ephesus. In Gen. 2 & 3, was Adam a natural man, that is, a fleshly man? If he was, did he have freedom of will? In Deut 30, was the nation of Israel natural, that is, fleshly? Did they have freedom of will to accept or reject?

BBB: Paul in Romans 5 makes the case for the development of a N T teaching beginning in the O T. The second Adam. Follow closely Romans 5, Romans 8, 1 Cor 15:45.
Adam, had freedom of will concerning the tree of knowledge of good and evil. He ate and died that very day. Than what free will did he have thereafter ? All the choices of a dead man.
How did Israels freedom of will turn out for them ? What was the sum total of their spiritual dead state ? They couldn’t even identify their Messiah . Romams 9. 10, and 11 is not describing a frustrated God who is waiting for Israel to exercise their free will or free choice but God who is in control of who and when He will give life to the spiritually dead. This is consistent with Ezekiel and Gods intentions.
Now as far as Ephesians the spiritual death is clear. That which, while it was dead, God made alive. Paul teaches the same truth in Ephesians that he teaches throughout Romans and he is consistent with the Genesis nerative of death, the need of a new heart in Ezek 11:19. The spiritual birth of John 3

[To this point, note the following remarks he made from the dialogue: (1) “This enabling comes by no intrinsic value of the hearer but solely by God’s sovereign grace alone.” (2) “It’s a work He initiates” (3) “Eph 2:3 by nature, children of wrath, leaves no capacity to consent to ones own new birth” (4) “it’s pretty clear that until God puts a new heart in them…” (5) “but God who is in control of who and when He will give life to the spiritually dead.” To this point this boils down to this: man has no free will in relation to salvation. In other words, there is nothing he can do to initiate or do to be saved, God must do the initiating, that is, enabling him to respond.]

RT: Your remark on Romans 5 needs to be more specific. There is nothing within C-5 that speaks against freewill. With regard to your remarks on Adam, making a choice does not speak against his freewill, only a prohibition set in place concerning a particular tree. There wss [was] nothing Adam could do to generate a plan to get back to God. This speaks nothing against freewill, however. On Romans 9-11, that is answered in 9:30 – 10:3. Israel tried to establish their own plan, complementary to my point on Adam. In Ephesians, spiritual death is clear, but where does Paul speak against freewill? Moreover, your remarks along this line are contrary to Acts 10:34-35. John 3 speaks nothing about freewill (for or against), only that one must be born again from above.

BBB: The contrast between the first man Adam and the second Adam and what comes by each is not unclear or nonspecific. That would be the passages in Romans and Corinthians for those Armenians in Broward co.
As for the passage in Ephesians, here is a list of the fruit of free will from a spiritually dead person not yet made alive:
1- walked according to the course of this world
2- walked according to the prince of the power of the air
That would be Adam and Eves free will.
For Armenians that would be their free will before death, to walk according to the deceiver not according to Gods command
3- walking according to the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience
4- living in the lust of the flesh
5- indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind
6- by nature children of wrath
Now Paul justifies his theology of dead in sin in Romans 3:11 when he quotes the Psalmist that there are none who seek God. Now only a Plegian and Arminian inserts a free will to choose God in this theology
It all goes back to the difference in how one interprets the passage in Genesis 2:17, ” in the day you eat from it you will surely die “.
And therein Ron, you and I evidentially will never interpret the same

[An analysis of the foregoing: Paul’s point in the Ephesian section alluded to by Brent is in the fact those dead in sin chose to walk as Paul described, they chose willfully to live in accordance with the ways of the world. those who chose to walk in a certain way, is it possible those same ones can choose to walk in a different way? In regards to the Romans 3:11 remark, if none seek God, and God controls the who and when of a person’s salvation, then life given to the spiritually dead is a directly a consequence of God’s action. Or, to state it differently, if God chooses not to give person X an enablement to be saved, then person X is not culpable, not accountable for why he is lost.]

RT: Of course, I said nothing in relation to a confusion of contrasts in Romans 5:12-21. It’s obvious the Holy Spirit is making a contrast, but not against free will. Paul speaks about that which passed (death/life) from one to all (be it Adam or Christ), not a contrast of enabling/non-enabling or free will/non-freewill.
There is nothing in Ephesians 2 that speaks against free will, and neither does Paul intimate such a thing. Paul begins his thought in C-2 by saying God made those in Ephesus alive, but did He say how? He made us alive together having raised us up in Christ when those saved were saved by faith, something Paul said they heard (they heard the gospel taught), then obeyed that which they heard, as stated in 1:13 (cf. Acts 16:31-33). There is nothing in chapters 1 and/or 2 that speaks against free will, but there is something in chapter 1 that speaks of hearing, trusting (believing), then being sealed.
Paul’s point in the litany of Scripture (Romans 3:11ff) is NOT against free will, but only that man does not seek the Lord. I will leave off saying anything more on this point until you have something further to say.
Yes, it may be the case that you and I will not interpret the same way, but there is no chance that you are correct in your reasoning against free will. 1) You have implicitly prescribed to God culpability in one’s damnation, making man excusable, something expressly denied by Scripture (Romans 1:2). 2) God commands all people everywhere to repent, but if a person can’t repent because God has not enabled that one to do so, then point #1 is additionally established. 3) You make God partial in salvation with your teaching of enabling / non-enabling, something the Scripture expressly denies (Acts 10:34-35).

BBB: What does mans free will produce ? What is it that free will that initiates the new birth when Christ makes it clear that those He saves are according to Gods eternal purposes..
Free will connotates a will independent from any other will. Man’s free will is not Gods will or it would not be free.
As to the being made alive, its called the new birth. John 1:12. Makes no allowance for the free will of man because the receiving is qualified as that exercise of God. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

RT: Man’s free will produces that which he desires to seek. In and of himself, there is no chance that man can generate his own road to salvation. That is Paul’s point with regard to the Romans in chapters 2 through 11. The eternal purposes of God do not, and never have, mitigated man’s free will. Man’s free will can’t initiate salvation’s path, but it can respond to the Lord’s invitation as it pertains to salvation. Paul had free will to produce the fruits of his service against God’s way of righteousness, but it was his free will that generated his response to the Lord when called (Acts 26:19). Man’s free will is not God’s will; in this you are correct (Proverbs 14:12; Jeremiah 10:23), but man’s free will can align itself with God’s will (Luke 6:46). Your following remark, however, does not follow. Man’s free will may or may not be in line with God’s will. It’s all about obedience (John 3:36; Hebrews 5:8-9). Yes, being made alive in in relation to the new birth, but Paul explained how that occurred in chapter 1.
Your remark on John 1:12 is perplexing. Those who received the Lord, as the verse states, did so because they were enabled by God to do so? It says no such thing! Those who received the Lord had the right, the power, the opportunity to become children of God. Those who respond to the Lord’s invitation (Matthew 11:28-30) have free will to do so; otherwise, the Lord’s invitation is a plain mockery to those who can’t (not won’t, for “won’t” implies free will). Those who reply and obey are born of God.

BBB: Zombie theology puts the free will of the spiritually dead working alongside Gods will and gives credit to the flesh for the internal workings of the Holy Spirit in the drawing process where Christ states plainly ” no man can come to the Son except the Father draw him.” Purely the Holy Spirit’s work on the rebellious free will of the flesh. As to the mockery of God toward those He has not chosen, What man or chunk of clay can accuse God of unrighteousness in His sovereign choices ? To base an entire theology of free will on that false assumption is not is not a sound Biblical theology of sin.

RT: This is all that you can do in the way of argumentation, to be disparageing? Be that as it may, you have not refuted one single point of anything I have offered. You have dismissed it, but not refuted it. You misuse John 6:44, for you did not cite the next verse that speak of how the drawing occurs. That which you call false theology has certainly stood the test of this discussion, for if you could refute it biblically, you would have. As it is, you have not and cannot. If you want to debate the workings of the Holy Spirit, then we can, or if you want to debate what Paul meant in Romans 9, we can. Hopefully, others will find this discussion beneficial to their own studies.

Robert Kramer: Nothing new here from the reformed theology side. It’s hard to believe they actually believe they’re representing accurately the arguments they oppose. I love my brothers who are “reformed” leaning, but the constant misrepresentation of those with whom they differ continues to leave me perplexed. Seems a lot like what we see in DC today on politics. I certainly hope it’s not an intentional misrepresentation.

BBB: The only intentional misrepresentation set forth as Biblical doctrine in this thread is that man has free will to accept or reject God’s offer of salvation. And the best that has been done in argumentation is to insert the concept of free will in every passage mentioned where it is not. Every person is responsible to accept Gods offer of salvation but until God changes that persons will, he continues in his rejection.
Where in scripture do we find. “The Lord’s invitation is a plain mockery to those who can’t “. Now there is some real sound doctrine to build an argument for free will upon. The fact is God is no respecter of persons. To inject free will or even the remote concept into the Ephesian’s 2 passage or the Roman passages mentioned is pure error.
It’s not hard to separate a works religion from a salvation by grace faith. The only acceptable obedience in relation to salvation is that which is led by the Holy Spirit when a believer is filled by the Holy Spirit. The filling and leading is not a result of an active self will, but a self will that is not in control.
The follower of Christ is to die to self daily, pick up his cross and follow. And the proponents of free will say that by exercising the very thing they are to lay aside is the very thing they are to exercise. To take up ones cross and follow is done by denying himself. Now inject self will into that one and it becomes a works religion.
To acknowledge Gods sovereignty into this passage and the predestination of God for the believer makes it a work of grace on the part of God. (Matt. 16:24- )
What the Armenian and Pelagian heresies do is interpret scripture through the ideology that God’s sovereign will is always subject to the free will of lost man. That there is enough good in every human being to exercise free will to choose or reject God’s offer of salvation and that is the definition of a works religion.
Paul states clearly, in the Ephesians 2 passage with no suggestion of free will in any remote sense that we are saved by grace and that not of our selves. The works religionist adds according to man’s free will to receive or reject.
In the John 1 passage those who are given the right to become children of God, were born not of the will of blood nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man but of God. The works religionist adds except for the exercise of the free will of man
Now there is the boast before God. That one has exercise of free will because there is enough good in his lost dead soul to accept or reject Gods grace.

[Bringing the earlier italicized remarks forward from the dialogue, note the following: (1) “This enabling comes by no intrinsic value of the hearer but solely by God’s sovereign grace alone.” (2) “It’s a work He initiates” (3) “Eph 2:3 by nature, children of wrath, leaves no capacity to consent to ones own new birth” (4) “it’s pretty clear that until God puts a new heart in them…” (5) “but God who is in control of who and when He will give life to the spiritually dead.” (6) “John 1:12. Makes no allowance for the free will of man.” (7) “the internal workings of the Holy Spirit in the drawing process…” (8) “Every person is responsible to accept Gods offer of salvation but until God changes that persons will, he continues in his rejection.” It has been argued that man has no free will in relation to salvation. If man has no free will in his salvation, and if he is saved it is only because God enabled him to be saved with some inner working of the Holy Spirit, then if there is no inner working of the Holy Spirit for a man to be saved, then it is not possible for man to be responsible for his “lostness” or damnation.]

RT: Intentional misrepresentations? You are good at assertions, but wanting in evidence. If I am guilty of intentional misrepresentations, then demonstrate wherein I have done so as you have accused; to this point you have not.
You insert “no free-will,” but I have shown via the context you have misused the passage, both in Ephesians 2 and John 6. What have you done in reply, only dismiss it. Moreover, I have conclusively demonstrated you have made God partial in His handling of man in conjunction with salvation. What have you said in reply. Nothing.
You assert every man is responsible to God, but you fail to make the case for this to be so when you assert that God enables one to be saved, but not the other. There is no chance you can reconcile the idea of man being responsible to God for his “lostness,” but at the same time affirm unless God nudges him he can’t be saved! “Every person is responsible to accept Gods offer of salvation but until God changes that persons will, he continues in his rejection.” Thus, you declare, man is responsible; but if man gets no nudge from God – how can he be responsible? YOU have made God responsible for man’s “lostness.”
I have not affirmed the Lord’s invitation is a mockery to those who can’t respond to God’s invitation; instead, I have shown where YOU make it a mockery. YOU make a mockery of God’s invitation extended to all people, but unless God gives some nudge or enablement, one can ‘t be saved. You say [God speaking], “You all need to be saved, but unless I give you a nudge to be saved, you can’t.” Yes, a mockery in full-force.
You have misused Ephesians 2 to make your case, but the context does not allow you to sustain your point.
You assert that I affirm “pure error.” Very well, demonstrate that I have, rather than just assert it.
Man is responsible for his damnation, but how can man be responsible to God for his own condemnation if God does not (or did not) give him an opportunity to reply in the affirmative with an enabling nudge from God? He can’t. There is no chance you can reconcile this. None!
You speak about “works religion,” in relationship to “saved by grace,” but with your reasoning here, I wonder if you even know what Paul means when he speaks of the word “works” in Romans (for instance).
You say “the only acceptable obedience in relation to salvation is that which is led by the Holy Spirit when a believer is filled by the Holy Spirit.” Where does the Scripture teach this?
You say “The filling and leading is not a result of an active self will, but a self will that is not in control.” Where does the Scripture teach this?
You don’t know what it means to die daily or to pick up one’s cross and follow. To do such a thing as this, does one do this of his own free-will, or is this action generated from an outside source, not of his own free-will at all? Identify what the Holy Spirit means when He speaks of a “works religion,” and as you do so, be sure to develop this from the context in which the term is used, that is, assuming you can find this term in Scripture.
I await your answer to these.
The so-called definition of “works religion” is your own, not anything from Scripture supports this definition from man. Am I wrong? I await your reasoning from Scripture to show that I am wrong.
You remark that “Paul states clearly…” in Ephesians 2 that man is saved by grace and that “not of ourselves.” Fine! Your point is? The Scripture also teaches us that God’s grace teaches man to deny ungodliness and to live soberly, righteously in this world (Titus 2:11-12). Does God’s grace teach the non-free-will person?
It appears you have arrived at a point where you are frustrated in this discussion with your insertion and accusation of those who think contrary to you, calling them “works religionists.”
In John 1:12, you have failed to understand the Holy Spirit’s point. When one submits to the authority of God, believing Jesus Christ is the Son of God, then that one who submitted has the right, the power, the privilege of becoming a child of God. Vincent Word Studies states, “Here, therefore, ἐξουσία [authority, power] is not merely possibility or ability, but legitimate right derived from a competent source – the Word.”

BBB: Free will or Gods will is the great theme of scripture from Genesis to Revelation. Failing to understand scripture accurately is not unique to any one person in this thread.
God reveals the truth about Himself in Biblical Scripture. The reader can accept it or reject it. That’s the sum total of free will according to Genesis 2-3. No one can change it. There is no higher standard of right and righteousness than God Himself. Many cannot accept that God is not subject their model of what is right and what is sin.
Romans 9:11 for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, 12 it was said to her, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 Just as it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” 14 What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! 15 For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate MY power in you, and that MY name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.” 18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. 19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” 20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it
That is a reality about God that the “fig leaf” of self will has no capacity to accept.
For certain, the history of Israel bears this out. This is the name that The LORD proclaims of Himself. No one can change, redefine, or reinterpret this self proclaimed excellency of His being. All would do well to believe all that He discloses.

RT: Not sure if this is something to which I should reply. I have much to say about this passage, but I wonder if there is fatigue in our conversation. To this point I have enjoyed the dialogue. I hope I have not failed you as a disputant. If you think it is warranted, I will continue. On the other hand, if you want to let it rest, then I will do so.

BBB: The text is self explanatory even a new born babe in Christ can understand it. Fatigue or not one cannot explain it away. There are many things in scripture that are hard to hear and as you and I prove once again there is much to consider. Best wishes my C D friend…

Robert Kramer: Once again, when one doesn’t agree with a Calvinist, they “don’t understand self explanatory texts even a new born Christian should understand” with the accusation of not hearing God’s Word. They believe in “heretical” theology. Brent, so if one does not believe in reformed theology/Calvinism, would you represent them as heretics ?

(This is the last bit of the discussion between Brent and me that is germane to this post.)

Spiritually Dead and Adam’s Sin

16 Friday Jan 2015

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

For Bible class this morning I have done much study on Romans 5 and the particular point Paul was making. This study pertained to Romans 5:12-16. I have always enjoyed this portion of the chapter because of its difficulty; if something is difficult, then it requires of me much effort to correctly understand it. This is very stimulating to me. Sometimes, however, difficulty is more in the words used to convey the teaching than the teaching itself.

Paul’s primary point in chapter 5 is associated with the word justified. In 5:1, Paul states that Christians are “justified by faith,” while in 5:15-17, Paul explains this justification in relation to Adam’s contribution of judgment. In other words, Adam’s gift to mankind was death, judgment, and condemnation. Because physical man is of the “seed of Adam,” there is no way for Adam’s posterity to escape his contribution to our present and future. On the other hand, Jesus’ contribution to man was (is) life, acquittal, and pardon (or redemption). Because we have chosen to be of the “seed of Abraham” (4:18-25) in our obedience to God’s will, that from which we could not escape on our own (death) has been overcome/crushed (John 16:33).

One might wonder: “But, we still die. How have we escaped?” What Adam brought into the world was physical death, and the verdict of God from that time forward was the same (Hebrews 9:27). Adam’s spiritual death was not something that transferred to each generation thereafter. Spiritual death became our own (if you will) when we walked the same path Adam walked, that is, a path of disobedience.

Our escape, then, is in two parts. First, Jesus was victorious over physical death in His resurrection. With that, He gave man hope of the same. Second, with man being spiritually separated (dead) and without hope, Christ died for the ungodly (all of us; 5:8), and with this comes forgiveness. This is what Paul is saying in Romans 5.

This is the exegetical idea in Romans 5:12-16. Paul now makes application to this understanding in Romans 6; he exhorts “Since this is the case, then why in the world would you (a saint in Rome) think it is okay to live according to one’s own ideas?” Yet, so many Christians do think it is okay, and this is the challenge the Lord has with “getting through” to His people. Consequently, this rejection of the Lord’s authority and wisdom amounts to one either being totally, or almost the case, spiritually dead. RT