Repost from the great crash 0f 08
I have heard this since I was a very young Christian. It seemed somewhat reasonable as it was explained to me by pastors in sermons and by Christians as they explained the seriousness of sin. Their theology goes something like this:
All sin is so bad that even the smallest of sins deserves eternal punishment in hell. It does not matter if it is losing your temper at a lousy referee, not sharing your Icee, or speeding 36 in a 35, every sin deserves eternal torment in Hell. Why? Although it may seem unreasonable to us (as depraved as we are), it is fitting for a perfectly holy God who cannot be in the sight of sin, no matter how insignificant this sin might seem to us. In fact, there is no sin that is insignificant to God. Because He is infinitely holy, beyond our understanding, all sin is infinitely offensive to Him. Therefore, the punishment for all sin must be infinite.
I have to be very careful here since I am going against what has become the popular evangelical way to present the Gospel, but I don’t believe this is true. Not only do I not buy it, I think this, like the idea that all sins are equal in the sight of God, is damaging to the character of God, the significance of the cross, and I believe it trivializes sin. Let me explain.
First off, I don’t know of a passage in the Bible that would suggest such a radical view. It would seem that people make this conclusion this way:
Premise 1: Hell is eternal
Premise 2: All people that go there are there for eternity
Premise 3: Not all people have committed the same number or the same degree of sins
Conclusion: All sin, no matter how small, will send someone to hell for all eternity
The fallacy here is that this syllogism is a non-sequitur (the conclusion does not follow from the premises). Could it be that people are in Hell for all eternity based upon who they are rather than what they have done?
Think about this. Many of us believe that Christ’s atonement was penal substitution. This means that it was a legal trade. God counted the sufferings of Christ and that which transpired on the Cross as payment for our sins, each and every one. Therefore, we believe that Christ took the punishment that we deserved. But there is a problem. We are saying that we deserve eternal Hell for one single sin, no matter how small. I don’t know about you, but I have committed enough sins to give me more than my share of life sentences. I have committed sins of the”insignificant” variety (I speed everyday) and significant variety (no description necessary!). So, if Christ were only to take my penalty and if I deserve thousands upon thousands of eternities in hell, why didn’t Christ spend at least one eternity in Hell? Why is it that he was off the Cross in six hours, payment made in full? Combine my sentence with your sentence. Then combine ours with the cumulative sentences of all believers of all time. Yet Christ only suffers for a short time? How do we explain this?
You may say to me that I cannot imagine the intensity of suffering that Christ endured while he was on the cross. You may say that the mysterious transaction that took place was worse than eternity in Hell. I would give you the first, but I will have to motivate you to reconsider the second. Think about it. Do you really believe that the person who has been in hell for 27 billion years with 27 billion more times infinity would not look to the sufferings of Christ and say, “You know what? Christ’s six hours of suffering was bad. It is indeed legendary. But I would trade what I am going through any day for six hours, no matter how horrifying it would be.” You see, what makes hell so bad is not simply the intensity of suffering, but the duration. Christ did not suffer eternally, so there must be something more to this substitution idea and there must be something more to sin.
I believe that Christ did pay our penalty. I believe that hell is eternal. But I don’t believe that one sin sends people to hell for eternity. Sin is trivialized in our day. Sin is first something that we do, not something that we are. In other words, people think of God sitting on the throne becoming enraged (in a holy sort of way) each time that someone breaks the speed limit. It is only the cross of Christ that makes Him look past the eternally damning sin and forgive us. Don’t think that I am undermining the severity of sin, but I am trying to bring focus to the real problem that has infected humanity since the Garden.
The real problem is that we are at enmity with God. From the moment we are born, we inherit the traits of our father Adam. This infectious disease is called sin. This disease issues forth into a disposition toward God that causes us to begin life with our fist in the air, not recognizing His love for us or authority over us. It is rebellion. While this rebellion does act according to its nature, the problem is in the disposition, not so much the acts. When we sin, we are just acting according to the dictates of our corrupt nature. But the worst of it—the worst sin of all—is that we will never lower our fist to God. We are “by nature, children of wrath” (Eph. 2:3) and as a leopard cannot change his spots, so we cannot change our rebellious disposition toward our Creator (Jer. 13:23).
This disposition is that of a fierce enemy that cannot do anything but fight against its foe. Paul describes this:
Romans 8:7-8 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
We are of the “flesh,” therefore we commit deeds according to the flesh. Does this mean that the person in this state does no good at all? Well, it depends on what you mean by “good.” Can an enemy of God love his neighbor? Of course. Enemies of God can and do all sorts of acts that the Bible would consider virtuous. But from the standpoint of their relationship with God, they cannot do any good at all (Rom. 3:12). Giving a drink to someone who is thirsty with the left hand while having your right hand in a fist clinched toward heaven does not count as “good” before God. Why? Because we are in rebellion against Him. This is our problem.
This I propose is the only sin that keeps people in Hell for all eternity.
It is important to understand that hell not is filled with people who are crying out for God’s mercy, constantly hoping for a second chance. People are in hell because they have the same disposition toward God that they had while they were walking the earth. They do not suddenly, upon entrance into Hell, change their nature and become sanctified. They still hate God. People are in hell for all eternity, not because they floated a stop sign, but because their fists are still clinched toward God. They are not calling on His mercy. They are not pleading for a second chance. They are in hell for all eternity because that is where they would rather be. It is their nature. As C.S. Lewis once said, “The doors of hell are locked from the inside.”
Christ, on the other hand, was the second Adam. He did not identify with the first either in disposition or choice. He gained the right to be called the second Adam who would represent His people (Rom. 5:12ff). He is not spending eternity in Hell because he was never infected with the sinful nature which caused him to be at enmity with God. His fist was never clinched toward the heavens.
Will one white-lie send someone to Hell for all eternity? No! To say otherwise trivializes sin and makes God an overly sensitive cosmic torture monger. Sin does send people to Hell. People will be punished for their sins accordingly. But the sin that keeps people in Hell for all eternity is the sin of perpetual rebellion.
462 replies to ""One White Lie Will Send You to Hell For All Eternity" . . . and other stupid statments"
Seth,
I don’t think I have commented on this statement of yours, “Saying that we are free simply because we get what we want, when, in fact, it is God who deliberately programmed us with those wants is to posit a definition of the word “free” that I think most people would reject.”
I agree with you 100%. (Kind of interesting to find myself agreeing with you in a discussion instead of being on the opposite side of an issue!)
Yes; and that statement still must be read in context. Nowhere in the Bible is “God is love” used to justify loving everyone we come in contact with; it’s used only here, and here it justifies loving the brethren.
You’re absolutely right; that would be eisegesis. I don’t draw that conclusion from this verse (nor from any verse — it’s not present in the Bible, thus not true). However, this verse is our only source for claiming that Love has a special place among God’s attributes, and when read in context, it does not justify claiming that God’s love necessarily extends to all men in the same way.
Because God’s love doesn’t extend to all men in the same way, your argument requires more support than simply citing “God is love.”
Not in this way. You’re pulling ideas far out of context. This would be valid only if God’s love is known to be manifested in the same way to all men; but the Bible is clear that God’s love shows itself in different ways to different targets. For example, God’s love means to Christians that we can be called the sons of God; to the world as a whole it means that God gave His Son so that whoever believes will not perish; but what does God’s love mean to the one who rejects God?
Actually, Rom 13 is an odd choice for you, as it provides a negative definition of love — essentially, “do no wrong.” 1 Cor 13 is a more thorough definition, but Luk 10 is the best for your case, as it not only shows an example of sacrificial love, but even explains that the target of neighborly love is broader than we’d like to think. How do you think Luk 10 applies to God’s love?
-Wm
Most Arminians do deny that it refers to individual election. My trouble isn’t with your interpretation of Rom 9, but rather that the questions you ask me are apparently the exact same ones Paul asks in order to clarify what he’s teaching in Rom 9, right after Paul teaches the doctrine I’m explaining.
It’s uncanny — Paul teaches a doctrine and anticipates a specific response, and then when I teach the doctrine (as I read it), I get the exact response Paul anticipated. Doesn’t this hint that I’m reading and teaching Paul correctly? If so, don’t you think that Paul’s answers have some bearing on your questions?
Will you stand by this judgment in light of Christ’s words in Matt 7:13-14 and Luk 13:22-30, or Paul’s (quoting Isa 10:22) in Rom 9:27? How about Revelations, which declares that all the Earth will worship the Beast, and everyone who worships it will be condemned to the lake of fire?
These are not disputed points: God DOES in fact declare in the Bible that the majority of people will go to hell. I don’t have to tell you “how” it’s possible; you need to accept that it’s possible because it’s what God’s revealed about Himself.
-Wm
I think you’re assuming that Calvin followed a process that he did not in fact follow. Calvin got his theology through exegetical study, as you can read in his Institutes, not through philosophy. Calvin didn’t try very hard to make his results philosophically strong; most of the talk about the sovereignty of God and all the talk about free-will compatibilism comes from later authors, not Calvin.
Starting with “God is love” or “God is all-powerful” will lead you to an idol. Starting with the Bible — God’s revelation — is the only way to find God.
-Wm
WM,
That simply begs the question.
You can’t just tell me “Calvin didn’t have any preconceptions – he just went by the Bible” and actually expect me to take you seriously, can you?
I’ve had Calvinists do this to me before. Whenever the conversation doesn’t go well, they just start mouthing “well, we’re just following the Bible – so there!”
Well, I don’t think you are.
So there.
Really, the rest of your back and forth here has been much more reasonable. I expect a little better from you than a grandstanding exercise in question-begging.
But, since I’ve already admitted to not having read the Institutes, I’m willing to admit that you may well be right that a lot of the other stuff was added by later authors. Point taken on that limited issue.
What did I say that was rude?
No it’s not — it’s a question that people ask about Christians. All of us, especially the arrogant ones.
It’s perfectly obvious that I take it VERY seriously.
Do you think you’re saved? Do you think there are others who are not? Do you ever evangelize? Doesn’t that prove that you think you’re among the saved and they aren’t? (These are purely rhetorical — the answers are obvious.)
None of this excuses arrogance, but I don’t see where that accusation is based here.
Please cite anything that could give that impression. It’s a pretty serious claim, and would definitely be both heretical against all Christianity, and self-contradictory within the context of the doctrines taught by TULIP.
I’ll definitely apologize and retract anything I said that would lead to that conclusion. I can’t just admit guilt without a fair trial, though. At least let me see the charges brought against me. I can’t recant if I didn’t know I said it.
Oh, it’s very much a “have you quit beating your wife” type of question. In this case, you accuse me of not answering the “real question”, but you’re unable to explain why you think anything I’ve said ever led to that question.
And not interacting would be foolish — you’re accusing me of preaching that only Calvinists go to heaven. For me to not contradict that would be allowing you to affirm it.
-Wm
Willam,
I never said that most people won’t go to hell. But there is dfference in God knowing most people will go to hell and stating it as a fact and in determining ahead of time that they will go there and there being nothing they can do about it.
And I am not disputing what Romans 9 says. What I am disuputing is the way that Calvinists interpret it in the light of the rest of Scripture and the way that God has revealed Himself in the light of the rest of Scripture. There is some very severe tension there that I don’t think Calvinism has necessarily solved by way of it’s interpretation at all.
You say, “it does not justify claiming that God’s love necessarily extends to all men in the same way.” And what I am saying is that I don’t get how it can be showing love in any way, shape or form to create a bunch of people–indeed most of the population of the world with a set final destiny of torture in hell. The few years of enjoying a bit of good on this earth that Calvinists would agree is God’s love to all people (as I understand it) is so far outweighed by the totality of their existence in eternal torment, that I can not for the life of me see how that constitutes love.
What do you do with a Scripture that declares that Jesus wept over Jerusalem? Sounds to me like He loved them. He also declared that He longed to gather them together but they would not. If He longed to gather them, did He not love them? And He also said they would not. Sounds like they had a choice in the matter to me.
You know, when it comes right down to it, I don’t think carrying on this conversation any more is worth either of our efforts. We come at this whole thing from such a different understanding that I don’t see how it is going to be of benefit to go on with this. Maybe I will change my mind, but that is how it seems to me at the moment.
I probably need to add a clarification to my statement above, ” Sounds like they had a choice in the matter to me.”
I just need to say again, as others here have also, that I don’t see how it is having a “choice” if the decision on what they will choose has been made for them before the creation of the world and they can make no other decision at all. That is not then their choice. It is God’s choice for them–He made it and they are only doing what He said they would do have to do.
Wm,
Suggest you go back and read CMP’s:
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2009/05/calvinists-lets-calm-down/
I’m responding to your specific charge that Calvin’s mistake was starting with God’s sovereignty rather than God’s love. Calvin definitely made mistakes, but that wasn’t one of them; the theology which took his name is based on his thorough exegesis, NOT on philosophy.
Demonstrably false: Calvin was exegeting the Bible. Whether he did so correctly is a different matter, and well worth debating.
How can it be right for you to presume Calvin’s motivations, and wrong for me to correct you on them?
I don’t know what you mean by “added”.
Later people used other means to attempt to explain TULIP, including philosophy and argument from the nature of God or the nature of man; Calvin used the Bible, and generally didn’t touch the philosophy.
I’m not saying Calvin approached the Bible as a blank slate; of course you’re right that such is impossible. Nor can I claim Calvin used no philosophy; again, that’s impossible and even undesirable. My point is that Calvin didn’t justify his theology by means of philosophical extensions and arguments; he worked directly from Biblical exegesis. If you’re going to attack him — go for it — attack what he actually did.
If you want philosophy, I’d recommend Jonathan Edwards’ Freedom of the Will (available as PDF there!). That doesn’t start out with God’s sovereignty either; but that’s because it’s primarily a look at the nature of man’s ability to choose. I’ve seen it edited to remove all reference to God, and it still stands up as a decent work (although missing some important parts).
-Wm
OK, got it. That clarifies things for me.
I just got done with a conversation with another 5-Point Calvinist who kept ignoring my points and insisting that he wasn’t putting any “lens” on the Bible and just “telling the plain language.” So maybe my irritation with him clouded the conversation here.
To your point that Calvin started with “the Bible” – I would ask:
Which part of the Bible?
mbaker, I’m sorry, but we can’t continue on — you’re holding something against me, and you refuse to tell me what it is. Until you tell me what I’ve done to offend you, please consider this topic closed. I don’t like doing this, but I’ve spent too much time and energy trying to get you to tell me what you think is wrong.
Perhaps you’re holding me personally responsible for any wrong committed by any Calvinist anywhere?
-Wm
Wm,
I agree you and I can’t continue on. I am holding nothing against you, or anyone. I just feel that you attack me personally, rather than attempting to interact courteously with my posts, and I don’t care for that sort of thing.
So I will say goodbye to you as well, and God bless.
Re Tanksley’s post #164, “Also, it’s not true that we have no say in the matter. We have precisely the say in that we choose what we desire. We don’t get to set our own desires in general — but how (by what causal force) could we possibly accomplish that?”
Since our desires are established / preordained by God, we have no capacity to change them. Even our choices are ordained by God. According to TULIP Calvinism God ordained our creation, our fall and only to elect a few. In what relevant way do we have a choice or say in the matter? None, except for the weird way in which contemporary Calvinists (mis)define “choice”. Calvin himself was more straightforward: you’re going to hell, God didn’t elect you, suck it up because you can’t talk back to God, nor can you know why he didn’t choose you.
Oh, I get it. If I planned for my wife to tie up my kids and toss them off the sailboat into the water, and then I reached over the side an pulled out one of them, and then sat and watched the rest drown, THAT wouldn’t be loving. BUT if God did it, that would be loving. Because of course His love is so different from the love of those made in His image, that it’s loving for Him to watch His images go to hell. Excellent. Awesome. I can hardly wait until I get to heaven and have my faulty sense of love fixed and then I can sit on a cloud and watch (with love in my heart) all those who are suffer on the other side of the abyss, in hell.
BTW, if Calvin was such a great exegete, how is it that he believed in infant baptism, but most of the current crop of TULIP Calvinists do not? I doubt that the fact that he wrote before the passing of several hundred years of learning about the Greek and Hebrew languages, and additional understanding and learning about the Bible and exegesis gives him better insight into the meaning of the Bible.
Tanksley keeps referring to randomness. I’ve addressed his inconsistancy and error in my posts 128 & 133, but in any case I fail to see how referring to randomness at a subatomic level has any relevance to human decision making and their ultimate destiny.
Regards,
#John
False. The reason we don’t change our desires is that we don’t want to change our desires. Why would we? They’re what we desire.
TULIP doesn’t speak to whether God ordained the fall. Some Calvinists believe that He did, some don’t. The rest of this is what all orthodox Christianity believes.
Compatibilism is a very old solution to the problem of free will. If you’d like to study the issue, it’s very interesting; I recommend it. It’s certainly not a closed issue, contrary to your claims.
False. Calvin didn’t claim to know who God elected. Other than that, you’re quoting Paul, not Calvin.
No, that’s not what I said. What I said is that God’s revelation shows us many things about Himself; we can’t reject one simply because of another.
Are you a universalist? That is, do you believe that in the final analysis, nobody is going to hell? Your diatribe is a condemnation of all Christian theology of hell, not of Calvinism.
I didn’t say that. I said that he _was_ an exegete, and that his work should be judged on that basis. I don’t think that should be controversial.
Trivially: neither position is unambiguously supported by exegesis. Both are implied by side-meanings.
-Wm
What? I mentioned it once, in passing, and replied once to your comment about it. How does that constitute “keep referring to”?
Post 128 mentioned randomness in the last paragraph with a completely unsupported claim that Calvinists can’t believe in randomness (which I reported to be incorrect with a brief explanation). Post 133 doesn’t have anything to do with randomness, doesn’t mention the word at all.
I have no idea why you’d think that it does. DO you think that it does? I don’t.
Randomness has no more relation to God’s providence and sovereign rule over the universe than gravity or Maxwell’s law or human free will: they’re all facts of the universe, and they’re all part of how He provides for them.
-Wm
“The reason we don’t change our desires is that we don’t want to change our desires. Why would we? They’re what we desire.”
Very circular kind of argument.
And who made us with those desires?
Why not make us with different ones?
Wm,
Good grief, I feel like we are going around and around in hopleless circles here.
You said, “False. The reason we don’t change our desires is that we don’t want to change our desires. Why would we? They’re what we desire.”
And why is it we have those particular desires? Because according to Calvinism GOD GAVE THEM TO US. And He gave them to us without any way of us changing them–we are what we are because He made us that way and there is nothing we can do about it. So of course we don’t want to change our desires–we can’t. And we did not choose our desires–He did.
So He gave us our desires, decreed from eternity past what they will be and we have to be just as He said. And now we are at fault because of the desires that He created us to have?? And we are punished eternally for the desires He created us to have?? And this is the way God loves us?????
And to add to that, you can’t see that ultimately then it is God’s fault in this scheme of things that we carry out wrong desires when He has given us no other option but to do so??
I didn’t intend to say that “Calvin started with the Bible.” I find that an odd thing to say, except perhaps to emphasize that his arguments tended to start with what the Bible said rather than with what philosophy dictates (we’ve done the opposite here). I said that Calvin was primarily an exegetical student of the Bible; that’s what most of his writings were about.
Thus, if we wish to criticize Calvin effectively, looking at his actual exegeses would seem to be the most effective way to do it.
-Wm
RE: Comment #219
Yes, and if so does that make a holy God responsible for sin? This is the dichotomy I see about TULIP Calvinism. On the one hand it suggests that a God who is omnipotent and sovereign makes the decision in advance on who will go to heaven, and we have no choice in the matter. Yet somehow, without any choice, sinners choose to sin. And our desires are ours.
Calvinists claim they don’t believe in double predestination by God- i.e. that He condemns those He doesn’t choose before creation to hell in advance. If the only two places there are to go to after we die are heaven or hell, and God alone selects only those in advance who will go to heaven, where do the others go? Do they go to hell simply by default?
This starts out on the wrong foot. It defines God’s entire character based on a sentence fragment taken out of context, and it ignores the entire rest of the Bible based on an extrapolation to infinity of our ideas about the abstract concept expressed in that sentence fragment.
It’s as bad as the Calvinist who tries to define God’s entire character based on Christ’s statement that no sparrow falls apart from His will.
You’d probably best study your opponent better… You don’t know what most of TULIP is.
Well said; the problem is that the Bible says MANY times that there is nothing in us capable of choosing God. It says that all of our righteousnesses are as bloody rags, not merely unacceptable but utterly repugnant.
No, that’s not what it means; unconditional election means that God chooses us for redemption in spite of how bad we are. There’s no element of coercion there.
The Bible doesn’t use the image of a love potion; it uses the image of a second birth and of being brought alive from death. The action of irresistible grace isn’t to “force” us to love God; it’s to bring our spiritual being from death into life, and from slavery to sin into freedom.
Going into heady philosophy for a moment: if God is ultimately Love, then God is also ultimately lovely. Anyone who knows Him would naturally love Him; anyone who didn’t must have something wrong. If God were to repair that wrongness, would it be because of compulsion that we love Him? No; it would be because of the nature of Love and of God.
The “P” in TULIP is “perseverance of the saints”, not “predestination.” And saying that something doesn’t work isn’t the same as showing that it doesn’t work. In particular, “predestination” is actually in the original text of the Bible — if it “doesn’t work”, the Bible is simply wrong.
-Wm
Some Calvinists do seem to believe in double predestination by God. I have read quotes that seem to make that plain. I think some of them were quoted on the other thread where this was being discussed recently. Can’t remember the name of that thread at the moment.
Hmm, despite several posts that tried to keep a focus on CMP’s original comment, this thread seems to have spun off into a discussion of TULIP Calvinism in relation to white lies and other matters. As with my last few posts, I’ll go with the flow.
I agree with Seth’s post 217 and Cherylu’s post 218: Tanksley’s argument is circular. I’ll add that it is does not even make sense. Why is it that (according to TULIP Calvinsism) we don’t want to change our desires? It’s because we inherited (i.e., have no control over and are not responsible for) a sin nature that does not want to change our desires. We can’t change our desires unless God first regenerates us (part of election). Moreover, isn’t not wanting to change desires a desire in and of itself? and part of our God given and ordained nature?
TULIP Calvinism does speak to the fall: it assumes / presumes that all are fallen, depraved (like, totally) and need election in order to be saved. Since God ordains everything, that includes the fall. Hence Calvin himself writes: “Again I ask: whence does it happen that Adam’s fall irremediably involved so many peoples, together with their infant offspring, in eternal death unless because it so pleased God?… The decree is horrible indeed, I confess. Yet no one can deny that God foreknew what end man was to have before he created him, and consequently foreknew because he so ordained by his decree . . .” (Institutes, 3:23.7)
And,
“As if God did not establish the condition in which he wills the chief of his creatures to be! . . . For the first man fell because the Lord had judged it to be expedient; why he so judged is hidden from us. Yet it is certain that he so judged because he saw that thereby the glory of his name is duly revealed.” (3:23.8)
When I paraphrased Calvin, I meant “you” in the generic second person plural sense. Under Calvinism, no one can know if they are elect, which is why it does not provide any present assurance of salvation.
Before Jesus launches into the parable of the good Samaratin, a questioner asks Jesus, “and who is my neighbor?” This is not an innocent question, but motivated by his desire and Jewish (mis)understanding to draw as small a circle of love around him as he could. Jesus responds with the story of the Samaritan (a racial and religious group hated by Jews) who sees on the side of the road a Jewish victim of a mugging, and goes well out his way to help him, even to the point of incurring personal expense. Jesus’ point is that even this hated Samaritan had more a sense of God’s love than these “pious” Jews (a priest and a Levite) who did not hesitate to step over a countryman in need. Effectively, Jesus tells “Let your hated enemy show you what love is”. TULIP Calvinism is like having someone else tell the story, but instead of the Samaritan, Jesus comes along and kicks the beat up person in the ditch (hell) while exclaiming, “You’re not elect”.
The interesting thing about this statement is that both of us agree on what God’s actual actions are — God is doing the exact same things in Arminian theology as for Calvinistic.
So why do you think they’re wrong for Calvinism, and not for Arminianism?
It doesn’t. If all we had was philosophy, we’d never settle the matter by thinking about God’s attributes. Being all-powerful allows Him to do things that take more thinking than we can possibly do :-). That’s why I don’t use that argument.
On the other hand, the Bible is very clear that man chooses to hate God and MUST choose to love God, and that God selects those He will save. You can set these up in utter opposition if you want, but if you do that you’re arguing against the Bible. It’s much wiser to find a way to NOT oppose them.
I’m not anti-philosophy, by the way; I just think that God’s attributes are a little out of our reach. Reasoning about man’s free will is much more approachable, which is why I feel at liberty to adopt the framework of free-will compatibilism (even though the Bible doesn’t speak directly on the topic).
-Wm
Thank you for the corrections WM.
The learning is why I value reading this blog.
Wm,
“The interesting thing about this statement is that both of us agree on what God’s actual actions are — God is doing the exact same things in Arminian theology as for Calvinistic.”
What?!? He most certainly is not. Many people end up in hell in both theologies. But in the one they are not decreed to go there before the world began with absolutely no way to escape it and with out the possibility of Jesus death ever being applied to them. In the other theology they go to hell because they have deliberately rejected Jesus’ offer of salvation. Not because God decreed before the creation of the world that they would go there with no other possible choice available.
Do you not believe that this IS the end result? Many people ARE going to hell, of their own free choice, as the end result; some are elected and predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ, saving them from hell. If you think that’s awful, I understand; but you have to abandon the Bible.
You seem to know a lot more about the suffering in hell than I do. Is your knowledge accurate? If it’s not, then might you possibly be wrong?
What’s the practical difference between Him decreeing from the foundation of the earth and Him prophesying from 2000 years ago? This seems like nitpicking. If decreeing is forbidden, why is prophesying allowed?
I think this is intended to answer my immediately previous question. But it doesn’t get you out of the quandary. God knew what He was creating; if it was really going to be such a horrible situation as you’re describing (keep in mind — we both believe in the same situation!), wouldn’t the loving thing to do be NOT creating at all? Do you really think God’s wincing at the horror of what He’s done?
And if God worked the way you say, how come He doesn’t work all things together for everyone’s good, instead of only for those who are “called according to His purpose”?
I don’t know or have an answer for how hell shows the love of God. The Bible doesn’t make it seem like a place where there’s any revelation of love. Given that, I hesitate to join your declaration that…
Okay, Wm, now it sounds like you are trying to down play the horror of hell in order to make what God has decreed for many people to be less terrible.
I only know what the Bible says about hell. Jesus spoke of it as a place to be avoided at all costs. Why then does He decree that some have to go there with no choice given? He spoke of it as a place where the worm never dies and the fire is never quenched. Sounds horrible beyond belief to me. In Revelation it is referred to as the Lake of Fire that was created for the devil and his angels.
Maybe you don’t think a place to be avoided at all costs and a lake of fire where the fire is never quenced and the worm never dies as a not so terrible place to go. If you do, you certainly have a very different idea of what is terrible and what is not than I do and than most of the Christian population of the world have as far as I can tell.
Two side points:
But you are disputing it — that’s my point. Your questions are the same disputes that Paul thought he had to deal with in Romans 9. You can talk about harmonizing and bringing concordance between passages, but you can’t do that at the expense of each of the passage’s actual, explicit meaning.
Yes, I know you claim that my arguments contradict the implied meaning of “God is love”. My answer is that this is only an _implied_ meaning, and it’s an implication stretched out into infinity; hardly a reliable place for our minds to work. Your arguments _directly_ contradict Romans 9, and they do so by your own admission in the same terms Romans 9 uses.
And yet — once again — you agree that this is what God actually did, and does, and will do.
Read that again. He’s speaking to “you who persecuted the prophets”, and he says that He wished to gather “your children”, not “you”. He doesn’t say that He wished to gather those who persecuted the prophets, but rather those who were misled by those who persecuted the prophets.
And they certainly did have a choice in the matter!
-Wm
“And they certainly did have a choice in the matter!” That is what I say, but Calvinism says they don’t as they are only doing what God said they had to do.
And there are lots of things said in the Bible that have an actual, explicit meaning that if not understood in the totality of the Biblical teaching can be very misunderstood and misapplied.
Re Tanksley’s post 225
“Man . . . MUST choose to love God”
Ahhh, true, but according to TULIP Calvinism humans (I like to be explicitly inclusive of women where possible) can only choose to love God if God first regenerates them. A regeneration never discussed in the Bible, but argued by Calvinists to be true because it’s the only way they can make sense of their doctrine.
Bottom line is that under Calvinism we have God demanding that humans do something (love Him) that they are utterly incapable of doing because He ordained that they would be born totally depraved, and Jesus following after the levite and priest kicking them to the curb for failing to do so (i.e., love God). Absolutely masterful.
Calvinism’s way out of this perverse love by God (I love you so much that I’ll ordain you’re birth into sin, ordain that you would commit your own sins to boot, and then toss you into hell for eternity) is to postulate that God must exhibit His attribute of wrath. Kinda ignores the fact that before the creation there was no wrath nor judgment but only love, the love between the persons of the triune God. “So,” says the Triune God, “what’s lacking in all this lovey dovey that we have going on here in eternity? Oh yeah, wrath and judgment. Let’s get it on with some ‘o that good stuff. Let’s make humans with souls and damn them to depravity and eternal hell. Hmm, but we can’t forget the lovey dovey part, so let’s keep a few of them around here too”.
And that leads to my favourite hymn, “Amazing grace, how sweet the sound, that damned a wretch like him (not me, I’m going up). He once was lost and now still is, was blind, and now, he’s blind. . . . When he’s been there 10 billion years, bright shining in the flames, he’s no less time to scream in pain than when he’d first begun.” Yes, the damnation of souls, according to Calvin and his followers, is one of the best ideas that God ever had (i.e., best idea for showing His glory and wrath). As Tanksley states, “God created hell as well as heaven, and it’s a good thing.”
Those Calvinists sure are wonderful, turning lemons into lemonade. Kinda gives a Martha Stewart flavor to salvation.
Re posts 74 – 86 on 1 John 4:8
Like Cherylu, I fail to see how Tanksley’s answers were responsivel to her point. Her point, which I agree with, is that love for each other is grounded in who God is. Who is God? Love.
But I keep forgetting the Calvinist response. If a human walks along the road after the levite and priest he should, like the good Samaritan show love and bind up his wounds. That’s love for us puny humans. But if Jesus walks along the road and sees him, and decides not elect him to the binding up of his wounds, then He can show love and boot him into the ditch. That’s love for the majestic God of 1 John 4:8.
The difficulty for TULIP Calvinism is that is locates the eternal damnation of people in God Himself and calls that decision…
Wm,
Would you like some examples of a few other Scriptures that seem to have “a literal, explicit meaning” that if not understood in context with the rest of Scripture or understood as an illustration, etc. would lead people into some very preposterous or erroneous theologies?
How about this one for starters? It is, by the way, one of the ones that I spoke of when I said that Jesus told us hell is to be avoided at all costs. Here it is:
“If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.” Mt 5:29
I don’t think too many people probably think He actually means to pluck out your physical eye there, do you? But as I understant it, some have taken it very literally.
What about this one: “Anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.” Luke 14:26
If a person took that one by itself by it’s explicit, literal meaning without looking at the rest of Scripture, wouldn’t one think they were to, “to hate, pursue with hatred, detest”, (from Thayer’s), everyone in his immediate family?
Or here is a goody: “So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.” John 6:53
And then there are all of the verses that state very plainly that if you believe in Jesus you will be saved. Because of them, many people absolutely insist that repentance is not necessary for salvation. While of course the Bible states in other places very plainly it is.
See why I say you have to take these verses in Romans 9 in context with the whole Bible and harmonize them with the rest of the Bible? If that isn’t done with all teachings in the Word, we can get way off base very quickly.
Re Cherylu’s post 233 and Interpretation
My posts above are in no sense intended to be a mocking caricature of Calvinism, but rather a pointing out of the real nature and implications of TULIP Calvinism. Like Cherylu, I find that Calvinism puts the Bible through some incredible contortions when dealing with such scriptures as 1 John 4:8, John 3:16, etc. Many of their interpretations are ones that are not held by hundreds of millions of Christians, and are ad hoc interpretations driven by the need to preserve a theological system.
Cherylu in #233 makes some very good points, to which I would add the following:
Calvinists point out that all humans “are dead in [their] trespasses & sins.” Eph. 2:1. But, if we follow the same route of interpretation, then what about Romans 6, where it says that “in the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus.” If being dead in sin means one can’t respond to God then does being dead to sin mean that the Christian cannot respond to sin?
The beloved apostle writes in John 6:44, “no one can come to me unless the Father who sent Me draws him” (a fave verse of Calvinism). He also uses that same in John 12:32, “But I, when I am lifted up from the earth will draw all men unto myself.” If draw is the same word, and God is both omnipotent and doing the drawing, how does Calvinism answer the obvious question: why are not all humans saved?
Even more problematic is the historical and current misinterpretation of Romans by Calvinists. Calvinists ignore the relevance of the first chapter to Paul’s overall argument, and go completely off the rails by the time they reach chp. 9. Calvinists do not provide an adequate grounding for their belief that Paul discusses individual salvation and election. In the historical context of Paul, he continual does battle with Jews and Jewish christians who cannot accept gentiles as equal brothers and who cannot believe that God really has divorced them as an unfaithful nation.
Paul also show’s that God has not lost control over salvation-history because of the continued disobedience and unfaithfulness of Israel. He is not thrown back onto some contingency plan, a Plan B as it were. Paul argues that gentiles truly have been grafted into the vine, into the one people of God. Nevertheless, gentiles cannot lord it over the Jews and their failing. If we stand back a bit to get perspective, we can note Romans 9 contains one the New Testatment’s many summaries of the history of God’s interaction with the nation of Israel. Paul begins with Abraham, continues with Rebekah, Isaac and Jacob, then brings up Moses and the exodus, and finishes with the prophets. He traces the promise through partial fulfilment, the failure of Israel, and its predicted (and fulfilled) exile and restoration.
Through all of this, the culmination of God’s plan in the Messiah was always envisaged by God. Paul does not talk about salvation in a vacuum…
# John,
And I would like to add one more point to what you said here: “Calvinists point out that all humans “are dead in [their] trespasses & sins.” Eph. 2:1. But, if we follow the same route of interpretation, then what about Romans 6, where it says that “in the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus.” If being dead in sin means one can’t respond to God then does being dead to sin mean that the Christian cannot respond to sin?”
What about this verse then: “He made Him who knew no sin {to be} sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” II Cor 5:21
This verse plainly says that we have been made the righteousness of God in Him, (present tense). Now we know that the righteousness of God can’t sin. So following the Calvinist rule of interpretation, if we can not respond to God in any way while we are dead, does it not then follow also that we can not respond to sin, i.e. sin, while we are the righteousness of God?
I don’t blame you; I felt the same way. Then I read this comment (of yours) and I saw what I’d missed before. Sorry; I didn’t get what you were saying, although you were clear. I believe the waste of time on this one issue was my fault.
Yes. Calvinism also says that we had to get our desires from somewhere: and since we have a beginning, our desires must be formed by either heredity, environment, or miracle.
Arminianism says they’re formed by a self-working miracle, out of God’s control. Calvinism says they’re formed by God.
You keep using this argument; it’s a distraction, not the core. We physically CAN change our desires anytime we want. The trick is that because they’re our core desires, we don’t want that. But again, this is a distraction: the real meat of your argument is the charge that Calvinism makes God an evil robot master (my words, not yours; you’re more polite than that).
Exactly; because without desires, we couldn’t choose our desires, because we would have no motive to choose one set of desires over another. Could God allow us to choose our core desires without choosing anything for us? Wouldn’t the result be that our desires were whatever random chance threw in our vicinity?
I don’t see any Biblical cause to say God decreed our fall from eternity past. I think if Adam hadn’t fallen, God would have provided a glorious salvation. I respect people who do believe that, but it’s philosophical, not Biblical. If we hadn’t fallen, we wouldn’t have depraved natures.
No. He loves us in a more amazing way: while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. This is what the Bible says. Not everything God does is an expression of love towards every person. Jacob: Love, Esau: Hate.
-Wm
The reason we don’t change our desires isn’t that they’re stuck that way. The reason is that we can’t possibly want different desires than we actually have. “Not wanting to change desires” is not a desire; it’s the absence of a desire. If we ever had a desire to change desires that desire would be gone as soon as we took action, because our first action would be to change our desires (including the desire for change).
If someone can show me that in the Bible, I’ll believe.
Yes. And yet none of the Reformed confessions followed Calvin in this, although many followed him in almost everything else. (Calvin was being philosophical here rather than exegetical.)
This I agree with, because the Bible does clearly say that nothing happens apart from the will of God. There are no accidents; it’s all providence. The difference between the quotes is that one assigns the fall to God’s decree before time, and the other simply says that God willed it when it happened (and possibly before).
This isn’t relevant; no Christian system provides sufficient insight into the mind of God or man to determine salvation. If there were such a thing, it’s certain that we’d use it to become lazy. What the doctrine of Perseverance does give is the certainty that if we know we believed in Christ, and He did in the past change us, and we do now experience ongoing conviction and desire, that God will certainly continue that same work in us.
We all go through dry spells; but if in those dry spells we wish they weren’t dry and wish we could want Christ… Well, C.S. Lewis’ “Surprised by Joy” and “Pilgrim’s Regress” tell it well; those dry times are sometimes the clearest and most certain ways to see the desire for Christ, because there the desire exists unhindered by its satisfaction.
If during the dry spells you don’t wish you could want Christ, THEN you should commit yourself to fervent, concerned prayer.
If you don’t… Well, then you have GOOD reason to doubt your salvation.
-Wm
Re Tanksley’s post 236
Tanksley states, “Arminianism says they [our desires] are formed by a self-working miracle”. I’m not sure what is meant by that; Arminians would certainly not describe it like that. WmT, could you expand on that, please?
Tanksley states, “We physically CAN change our desires anytime we want.” It is not clear what is meant by “can”, or why physicality is at all relevant. “We”, being mere humans, cannot change what God has ordained, including desires. Furthermore, in relation to salvation, Calvinism teaches that we have no desire, cannot have any desire, for God until after he first regenerates us, after which we can then respond to Him with the faith that He gives us.
Tanksley writes, “Wouldn’t the result be that our desires were whatever random chance thew in our vicinity?” The answer is, of course, “no”. The question as posed presents the fallacy of the excluded middle, that is, it presents two alternatives as if they were the only two, when in fact they are not and there are multiple options.
Tanksley writes, “I don’t see any Biblical cause to say God decreed our fall from eternity past.” However, Tanksley believes that God ordains even the fall of a sparrow and the number of hairs on our heads. In the Calvinist view, God ordains everything, which as a side effect provides the grounds for why He knows what will happen. Tanksley is simply being inconsistent here, apparently to avoid the implications of his belief system.
Tanksley writes, “Not everything God does is an expression of love towards every person. Jacob: Love, Esau: Hate.” I see that Tanksley admits that Jesus, being a good Calvinist, would boot the injured man into the ditch on account of his not being elect; at least the samaritan won’t be bothered with finding anyone on the road. Anyway, that would be why Calvinists have problems with John 3:16 (for God so loved the world . . .) and similar verses. Unlike other faith traditions Calvinists have to go through exegetical contortions and engage in eisegesis (reading their meanings into a verse) to make these verses fit their system.
As Tanksley states, “God created hell as well as heaven, and it’s a good thing.”
Going back to Romans, the commonly accepted interpretation of Romans 9, among current scholars, is that it is referring to election in a corporate sense and that the various persons are representatives / literary stand-ins for the nations that descended from them. Calvinists still hold out against this view, for obvious reasons, or argue that the chapter is both corporate and individual in relation to election and predestination.
regards,
#John
John, you got really needlessly snarky in that message. I can only see one paragraph that I can reply to with charity, so here goes.
Pardon, but the regeneration is thoroughly discussed in the Bible. It’s referred to as the second birth, bringing alive, release from slavery to sin, drawing by the Father…
I totally understand if you’d like to dispute Calvinism’s claim that those things _mean_ regeneration, or that they precede faith. That would be a good discussion. But you can’t legitimately simply _deny_ that regeneration is present in the Bible.
-Wm
William,
I will have to say that a good share of your post 236 left my head spinning and wondering what you really meant by that.
However the statement that we can change our desires any time we want to makes no sence at all to me in view of the Calvinist position that we can do only what God has decreed that we will do. Therefore, if He has decreed that we have one set of desires, how can we then change them? This argument is not just a distraction. I honestly don’t see how this can be. How in the world can we change what God has decreed we will be? And if we could change them, then there would be no reason at all to think of God as, to use your words, “an evil robot master”.
This is what I love — hermeneutics of the Bible. Let’s go. we’ve both already exegeted 1 John 4:8, so I suppose I need to respond to your analysis first.
My main complaint with your exegesis of 1 Jon 4:8 is that it entirely skips establishing context, and instead immediately applies the raw paragraph without any context to a philosophical problem. In short, it’s not an exegesis in any way; neither is it eisegesis. It’s best described as prooftexting, in which you take a string of words that appear to say what you want, define the words according to your wants, and declare the case closed. The actual meaning of 1 joh 3:8 is seen in context: God’s love inspires and causes love towards the brethren. This passage doesn’t tell us any limits on God’s love, but it certainly can’t tell us that God’s love is displayed to those not of the brethren.
Now, John 3:16. “God so loved the world, that he gave…” This translation is a little misleading; other versions say “This is the way God loved the world…” The Greek uses the word we read as “so”, but it doesn’t have the side meaning of “very, very much” that it does in English, so using it is misleading. Okay, HOW did God love the world? The answer isn’t that He saved everyone in the world; the answer is that He saved SOME, the ones who believed on Jesus. So does “the world” mean “everyone” here? NO.
Breaktime. I’ve got some new baby doodies (I mean duties) to do.
-Wm
William,
Two things, I gave you quite a list of verses in the other thread where we discussed some of these things that spoke to me very clearly that regeneration comes after faith. Actually, it was brought up twice. The first time you simply dismissed the verses I gave you. Later, when you asked for verses again, I gave you a longer list. As far as I remember, you never responded to any of them. Can’t say that I would particularly like to go there again. Maybe John will though.
And secondly, you have stated, I believe, that our actions all come out of our core desires which you say God gave to us. If that is the case, how do you make sense of the discussion in Ezekiel 33 where God speaks of people turning from their wicked ways to do what is right and conversely, people turning from their right ways to do wickedness? It seems to me that Scriptures like those say that people can and do make choices different than their “core desires” given them by God. Or are these folks somehow given two totally opposing sets of core desires? Or are they becoming regenerated and then “unregenerated”? Regeneration and salvation would be, I assume, a very Calvinistic reason for them turning away from eveil to do right. However Calvinism doesn’t allow for any form of becoming “unregenerated”. So how do you deal with those verses?
“Yes. Calvinism also says that we had to get our desires from somewhere: and since we have a beginning, our desires must be formed by either heredity, environment, or miracle.”
I think this is an important point.
If you accept creation ex nihilo, there are some logical conclusions to be drawn. And I don’t think Arminians necessarily always draw them.
If you believe in an absolute creation, how do you avoid Calvinist conclusions about free will?
Of course, I’ve got my own entirely different set of parameters from my religion that pretty-much change the entire question. But I don’t want to sidetrack the conversation further by bringing them up (unless y’all think a common enemy might help promote a bit of Calvinist-Arminian unity…).
William,
Nobody said that John 3:16 says that God saved the whole world. What it does say is that he LOVED the world. Therefore He gave Jesus so that anyone that believes could be saved. So I don’t think your argument makes sense.
And again, on the I John passage. Yes, the context is in a discussion of love of the brothers. However, there is still the statement there that God is love. To use your argument from above, the “explicit, literal meaning” of God is love is, duh—God is love! Unless you can prove from somewhere else in the Bible that when God says He is love He doesn’t mean just that, I am afraid I can’t buy it. And if His characteristic is Love, I can’t buy that He doesn’t love the whole world.
As a matter of fact, here is a series of verses that seems to me to show that God does indeed love the whole world.
First:
Romans 5:8 “But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” Christ dying for us shows His love for us. We will all agree with that.
Next:
I John 2:2 “and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for {those of} the whole world.” Here it says that His death was effective for the whole world.
And again:
I TImothy 4:10 “For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe” This verse seems to me to be very explicit that He is the Savior of all men. Particularly those that believe.
So if he died for the whole world and is the Savior of all men, and if His death shows His love for us, how can you possibly say that He does not love all men??
(Incidentally, I believe those last two verses very strongly contradict the “Limited Atonement” aspect of Calvinism also.)
Having reread my post 238, I fail to see that it is at all snarky, but if it came across that way I apologize.
Matters in post 238 unaddressed by Tanksley stand.
In respect of “regeneration”, given that regeneration is undeniably discussed in the New Testament and is a doctrine accepted by all Christians, that I wrote “a regeneration” indicating that there was more than one kind of regeneration, that I was specifically referring to the timing of regeneration prior to the exercise of faith, that the doctrine of regeneration prior to the exercise of faith is a peculiarly Calvinistic doctrine not held by the other 1 billion plus Christians in this world, it is obvious that I was referring to the Calvinist doctrine of regeneration before faith.
Tanksley’s exegesis of 1 John 4:8 is incorrect. 1 John 4:7 – 10 is a discrete unit within John’s large structure. It begins with “dear friends”, as does the next unit that begins in verse 11. It continues the theme of love from earlier sections and reemphasizes it.
The word “because” also appears in the Greek, and is causal, giving the reason why the readers, who are believers, ought to love one another. The reason they are to love each other is because love comes from God and indeed has its source in God. John then uses “and” to introduce a second concept, paternity: everyone who loves is fathered by God and knows God. That is, like father like son / daughter.
In the clause “God is love” has a subject “God” and a predicate “is love”. The noun “love” is grammatically a predicate noun. In the Greek text the noun “love” does not have an article (i.e., no “the”) and so is described by the grammatical term anarthrous. Nouns that are in Greek anarthrous (without an article) are generally translated in English with the indefinite article (“a, an”). However, some anarthrous nouns are qualitative and are often translated without an article. Thus, “God is love” not “God is a love”.
There are two other places in the apostle John’s writings where he uses a similar grammatical structure to tell us about God: 1 John 1:5 “God is light” and John 4:24 “God is Spirit”. The anarthrous predicate (“is love”, “is light”, “is S/spirit”) suggests a qualitative force, not a mere abstraction, that is, it gives a quality of God’s character. C. H. Dodd explained the difference between saying “God is love” and merely “God loves” this way:
“The latter statement might stand alongside other statements, such as ‘God creates,’ ‘God rules,’ ‘God judges’; that is to say, it means that love is one of His activities. But to say ‘God is love’ implies that all His activity is loving activity. If He creates, He creates in love; if He rules, He rules in love; if He judges, He judges in love. All that He does is the expression of His nature, which is—to love. The theological consequences of this principle are…
#John,
Thank you for that explanation of the “God is love” passage. I have heard the same thing, but never seen it so fully explained before.
William mentioned the, “Jacob I loved, Esua I hated”, verse. What are your thoughts on the use of the word hated there? I have been meaning to challenge William to take another look at that verse but haven’t gotten that far.
It is obvious from other Scripture that the word “hate” is sometimes used as hyperbole. One instance is the verse I quoted above that speaks of having to “hate” our father and mother. Another is in the Old Testament where is says Jacob hated Leah–right after it says that he loved Rachel more!
Indeed, and I didn’t dismiss them — rather, I exegeted one of them, and you responded by saying that you didn’t have enough time to interact with my exegesis, but instead you provided another bushel of verses for me to consider.
The problem is twofold.
First, I can’t possibly fairly consider that many verses — and please consider this as a plea to both of you to slow down a bit. It’s just not humanly possible for one man to keep up with two people, both of whom are throwing out admittedly hard verses _fast_.
Second, please don’t assume that because you’ve cited or quoted a verse you understand it. Not only is that unfair to me because it makes you do less work than me :-), it’s also not exegesis; it’s just assumption.
One side point: John, I’m impressed by your study of 1 John 4:8; that’s some good work to do off the top of your head! I’ll respond when I have some time; that’s too well done to ever be ignored. The nice part is that I agree with the entire thing; the sad part is that I believe it doesn’t address the point of contention at all (which I think is appropriate, because 1John doesn’t there address the point of contention).
-Wm
William,
Regarding the “bushel” of verses I gave you. Unless you can prove to me by other Bible verses that you can give me that I don’t understand them, I will stick with my understanding! Which, by the way is, as John mentioned above, the way billions of other Christians have understood them too.
What other reasons do Calvinists have to assert that regeneration has to come before faith except the verse that states we are dead in sin? As you know, we don’t think that Calvinists understand that one correctly!
So when we read a bunch of verses that speak of faith before regeneration–what else are we supposed to think?
William,
I need to ask you a question here. You feel free to speak of the “explicit, literal meaning” of a verse. And yet when someone else, like me for instance, speaks of the meaning of a verse or verses, you tell me that I may not necessarily know what they mean and that to think that I do is just assumption. Isn’t that an incredible double standard? I’m sorry, but that says to me that you don’t think much of my understanding or reasoning powers at all. And that you and your Calvinistic understanding are obviously far superior.
I guess maybe you need to quit speaking of verses and assuming you understand them and expecting the rest of us to change our beliefs because of it!
Re Tanksley’s post 47
While 5 verses is still significant (1 John 4:8, John 3:16, Romans 5:8, 1 John 2:2, and 1 Timothy 4:10), it’s not a bushel. Moreover, they come up frequently in discussions of TULIP and Calvinists have several ready-made answers, though I know you don’t just want to parrot what’s out there. I haven’t added verses to the list, but responded to the discussion of interpretation of 1 John 4:8 that you and Cherylu were having. I can understand your desire not to be overwhelmed with verses and so appear to be conceding the argument simply because you cannot humanly respond to everything. You’re a good fellow for responding as much as you do, which provides an enlightening discussion for all the viewers and lurkers.
My discussion of 1 John 4:8 in my post 245 directly addresses your contention that we are to understand “God is love” in a limited fashion, along the line of “God shows brotherly love to those whom He has saved”. I have shown, to the contrary that “God is love” is an independent proposition about God’s essential nature that is used as the basis for John’s argument about how brothers in Christ are to treat each other. There is nothing in the passage that limits thge qualitative description of God’s nature as “love”.
Regards,
#John