Theology Unplugged: An Invitation to Calvinism, Part 3

Thanks

Regarding your comment # 48 Harley, I truly don’t have time or energy at this time to go into all of those other questions. If you have read this blog for long, you will know I have discussed the issues surrounding the Calvinism/Arminian debate for what seems like an almost endless amount of time already. And just so you are aware, I really can’t call myself either a Calvinist or an Arminian since I see Scriptures supporting both sides of the issue. I am somewhere in between I guess but leaning much more to the Arminian side.

I will say I do not believe in limited atonement and I do not believe grace is irresistible.

But the one issue that I have never seen discussed before is this issue of regeneation before faith. I have seen it stated as a Calvinist belief but have never understood it as I see faith coming before regeneration in the Bible. That is what I have been trying to get answers for. And so far, I don’t think I understand any better then I did before!

Hey, glad to see my directions actually made sense!

Cheryl,

This is the reason for the questions: I want you to think about this, which is called the double payment theory of the Atonement: If the Cross is actually about Jesus substituting in the place of sinners and bearing the wrath of God that that sin deserves, then why does anyone end up in hell, if that atonement was made for everybody?

Cheryl,
This was the first time that I’ve read the comments or responded.

Harley,

I knew I hadn’t seen you commenting for long here. Didn’t know if you had been reading before that or not.

In answer to your last question I would simply say that if someone doesn’t accept the payment that Jesus made, it won’t do them any good. I believe God gave people the choice to choose or reject His offer of salvation in Jesus.

I have to go now. I was working on a big project this a.m. and didn’t even get it half done. Have a mess.

if Jesus died for you on the Cross and has borne your sin and guilt and borne the punishment that that sin deserves, then God cannot punish that sin a second time because justice has already been met. For God to punish His Son as your substitute and then take you and at the end of time send you to hell for punishment would be the height of injustice.

Cherylu,

Don’t buy Harley’s reasoning for a minute. It has been debunked many times and in multiple ways. But here are some articles that address it succinctly and compellingly:

http://evangelicalarminians.org/henshaw.Provisional-Atonement-Part-1.Dealing-With-John-Owens-Arminian-Dilemma

http://evangelicalarminians.org/henshaw.Provisional-Atonement-Part-2.Provision-is-Consistent-With-Foreknowledge

This one addresses how unlimited atonement is the only view that accords with the universal offer of the gospel:

http://evangelicalarminians.org/henshaw.Provisional-Atonement-Part-3.The-Integrity-and-Justice-of-God-in-the-Gospel-Offer.

Harley,
If we are going to have a discussion, you need to answer some questions too. I posted 10 questions to clarify some details about your view of regeneration on page 1 of this thread, #48 &49. You didn’t answer any. These are important questions.

I’ve tried to answer at least one question and then ask a short question or two.

I asked, “Were men temples of God in the OT?” and “Were men indwelt by the Father and the Son in the OT?” You said that men were not indwelt by the Father in the NT, and I put forth the case that they were in #39-41. You didn’t acknowledge or rebut my response. This is an important Biblical issue.

You asked, “How does the will get left out of the corruption of sin?” I asked what Scriptures do you use to establish that the will of man was impaired by the corruption of sin? This is a very important question. Please don’t skip it.

Your last question to me: “Do you believe that Jesus is God?”
My answer: Yes!

Thank you Arminian.

That last article was particulary powerful.

Harley,

Did you read it? (Have to run again. Still have a mess I am tripping over here.)

Arminian
So,“If all rejected that blood it would be truly tragic but neither God’s love nor His grace would have failed as a result.” Really? God, according to your view, would foreknow that no one would accept the sacrifice of the Son and still send Him to suffer and die the humiliating death on the Cross and be a substitution for no one? Surely, you are kidding. What kind of love is that, to brutalize your precious son for NOTHING?
In the 1 John verse, as in several others, the “us, we, you” are believers. Whoever believes on Christ is saved, period. They are the elect and by believing they prove it.
You claim several times that the Calvinists twist Scripture and yet you have no problem twisting “those whom He foreknew” into “those whom He foreknew that would believe.”
The plain meaning of words need to be kept – words like election, choose, chosen, redeemed, bought, etc. The person who is doing the electing, choosing, etc. is the cause of…

the action, not the other way around. If you are a slave, you have no rights. You are controlled by your master. If someone buys you, then you become their property.
This is a debate that no one wins. You have your mind made up and I have mine. Salvation is of the Lord.
Grace and Peace
Harley

Oh, and by the way, I was a strong believer in your system when I first was converted. However, the more I read my Bible, I became convinced that I loved God because He FIRST loved me.

Harley,

I just keep popping in and out for a few minutes here today. Am still dealing with my mess. If I don’t get it done pretty soon my hubby or I may need the services of a Dr. to get a broken bone set when we fall over something!

But I just wanted to say that we all love Him because He first loved us. No matter how you look at it, His death and resurrection proves His love for me and for you and causes us to love Him. Don’t see any difference there between Arminian and Calvinism myself.

Cheryl,
no difference there – when I made a comment I didn’t know this had all gone on before! What a stupid I am.:)
Don’t think I’ll be posting much from now on – maybe one and done.
Grace
Harley

Melani,
Sorry,
No men were not indwelt by the Son or the Father in the OT.
Men in the NT are indwelt by the Holy Spirit which proceeds from the Father and the Son; the Spirit of Christ is the Holy Spirit. Technically, then, because God is Trinity in one sense He does. That I will have to look into.
As far as the will goes, I will default to Paul in Romans 7:15: “15 For I do not understand what I am doing, b because I do not practice what I want to do, c but I do what I hate. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree with the law that it is good. 17 So now I am no longer the one doing it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my flesh. d For the desire to do what is good is with me, but there is no ability to do it. 19 For I do not do the good that I want to do, but I practice the evil that I do not want to do. 20 Now if I do what I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but it is the sin that lives in me.” Paul wills…

Harley,

There is no way you could of known we had all discussed this a bunch in the past unless you had been reading here for the past umpteen years. No need to call yourself studpid for that!

Cheryl,
with a topic like this, I really should have. Although I must say that I am surprised by the number of non-Calvinists who are here.
My wife and I went round and round about these issues after I became a Reformed person. I should have applied the lesson I learned at that time to here-speak once, shut up and let God do whatever He wants.:))

Harley,

There are usually more Calvinists taking part in the discussions here then there have been this time. The “usuals” have been absent so you were kind of left to go it alone.

Just a couple of more quick thougts Harley. For whatever it is worth, you brought up some angles of things I don’t know if anyone had ever discussed here or not. (And I still don’t have time to go into the “bigger Picture” here!) But I just wanted you to know it wasn’t all the same ground as covered before that you brought up.

And it wasn’t all the same people talking on the non Calvinist side either. Others that have been very active in discussions from the other side in the past were also absent . And there was at least one fairly new voice to the blog on the non Calvinist side too.

All that to say, please don’t feel bad about it.

Cheryl,
Unfortunately for me it is like waving a large piece of red meat in the face of a hungry lion. I see it as denying God His due glory and truly glorifying Him is our chief end. The view of man as having a will unaffected by sin can not be supported in my opinion (humble, huh?). It is the view that is also held by the Roman Catholic Church, which was fought against by the Reformers. It also reminds me too much of Open Theism as propounded by Clark Pinnock. See, I read non-Reformed books too:)
There is an excellent book written by Peter Martyr Vermigli called Predestination and Justification which I highly recommend (Amazon). He was a RC priest turned Reformer from Italy and taught at Cambridge.
Well, gotta go watch Fringe – I’ll check in tomorrow. Is the first step to recovery, admitting you’re addicted? ha-ha
Grace
Harley

Harvey,

“I became convinced that I loved God because He FIRST loved me.”

Every Classical Arminian will agree with this statement. I really thing you might have a strawman understanding of Arminianism.

“The view of man as having a will unaffected by sin can not be supported in my opinion”

No theologically astute Christian, Arminian, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or otherwise believes this. Only liberals, some in the Emergent Church, and those uneducated in Christian History and Doctrine are going to go along with this ultimately Pelagian view of man. A couple good reads

http://rogereolson.com/2011/01/24/arminian-theology-is-evangelical-theology-long/

http://rogereolson.com/2011/01/19/a-thought-experiment-about-cooperative-effort/

Harley,
Thank you for your response. It is interesting how some people want to amplify the Trinity when they have the angry Father taking out His wrath on His Son, but, like you, they seem to want to ignore the Biblical detail when it is inconvenient to their doctrinal system. Consider Christ’s words, “…that they may all be one; even as Thou, Father are in Me, and I in Thee, that they may be in US. Or Paul going back and forth between Father and Son. “…the Spirit of God dwell in you. If any man have not the Spirit of Christ…And if Christ be in you….if the Spirit of Him who raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you…He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken you mortal bodies by His Spirit that dwelleth in you.” (Romans 8:9-11). Then there is the emphasis on both the Father and the Son by John given in the other post. CONT…

There is a verse that I do not believe is adequately translated. The common translation says, “They that are in the flesh cannot please God” (Rom. 8:8). The word “please” in this verse is not the same word used in Heb. 11:6 –“Without faith it is impossible to please God”. A ‘word for word’ translation says, “But in flesh to exist God agreeable not to be possible”. Why won’t God agree to live in a body of human flesh? Our flesh has been defiled by sin. We are a dirty vessel. You see when the Father was in Christ; Paul specifies it was the likeness of human flesh (Rom. 8:3). Jesus was the only spotless, undefiled, Holy One that God would dwell in before the cross. Before God comes to dwell in us, there is the detail of what Christ does to our flesh, as we are brought into the body of Christ. As Jesus baptizes us we are baptized into the likeness of His death the flesh with its passions and lusts is crucified (Gal.5:24). We are crucified that the body of sin might
CONT…

be destroyed (Rom. 6:6). And then Christ circumcises us to remove the body of flesh (Col. 2:11). The flesh where sin dwelt is crucified and circumcised. God would not dwell in a defiled vessel. Our inner man (heart and conscience) is cleansed and purified (Heb. 9:14, Acts 9:15) before our hearts are indwelt by the Godhead. Our defiled covering was removed and we are “clothed with Christ” in baptism (Gal. 3:27).

You see, Paul tells us that Jesus Christ “condemned sin in the flesh” (Rom. 8:3)– He gave sin in the flesh a death sentence, and he carries it out when He baptizes us!

Melani,
“Word for word” translations of Greek are useless for determining what the verse means because the syntax is different. In other words the order of the nouns and verbs, the usage of adverbs and pronouns, all that kind of stuff is different then English. As a result in order to make sense of the Greek and properly translate it you have to rearrange the words according to numerous grammatical rules. Word for word won’t do and doesn’t prove anything.

Micheal,
I wasn’t trying to prove anything with that verse.
But the message of the Bible is that we all come into this world separated (alienated) from God. There is no union with God. Men and women of the OT were not put in union with God in their lifetime. The work of Christ made it possible for us to be indwelt by, and made “one” with the Father and the Son. Men and women are now “temples of God”. The sacrifices and the holy anointing oil that was given to prepare the tabernacle and the temple forshadowed the work of Christ to prepare us to become a temple of God.

We are all baptized into Christ’s death where we are reconciled to God (Rom. 6:3; 5:10). Reconciliation, justification, righteousness all come before eternal life (Christ in us) (Rom. 5:10; 16, 19, 21).

Harley,

I think you did a good job for being on your own. Don’t feel discouraged. You just needed to clarify some things, but the more you discuss the topic, the more refined your understanding and communication of the points will be (and perhaps that’s the real point of it). In any case, we’ve discussed it before, we discuss it now, and my Spidey sense is tingling and telling me that we’ll discuss it again in the near future. 🙂 God bless.

Michael T, post #23
I do not think we are talking about a will being unaffected by sin, rather, whether a man has a “bound will”. According to Reformed Founding Documents, only regeneration will free the “bound will” and give a man the ability to make God-ward choices, including a choice of faith. Put this tradition to the test:

Do you believe all OT believers had Jesus Christ dwelling in their hearts (Eph. 3:17), giving them eternal life (1John 5:11, 12)? Could any man say, as Christ said, “the Father is in Me, I am in the Father, and the Father and I are one”?

On page 2 post #31 are a series of quotes by John Piper clearly stating that there was no regeneration for men before the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. Do you agree or disagree with him?

According to Reformed Founding Documents, only regeneration will free the “bound will” and give a man the ability to make God-ward choices. If no man was regenerated (indwelt by Jesus Christ to receive CONT…

eternal life) before the resurrection of Jesus Christ, can you tell me how the “bound will” of OT believers was manifested? Scripture please. Obviously the testimony of the Scriptures (Heb.11) tells us that these men had faith and did things that pleased God, even though they were not yet saved by regeneration (having Jeus Christ come dwell in their hearts to give them eternal life).

What Scriptures do you use to establish man’s ‘will’ was “bound” by the fall? (A “bound will” from a Reformed perspective, in my understanding, means never being able to chose to do anything that would please God, especially, having no ability to even to choose to believe in God as in Heb. 11:6).

Harley, Michael, and others,
My apologies.
I can see that I did not use a good choice of words in addressing the issue of the will. When Harley asked, “How did the will get left out of the corruption of sin?” I asked him to show me where the Bible demonstrated that our ‘will’ was ‘impaired by sin. I concur that our will has been corrupted/impaired, and the passage in Romans 7:15-20 does show our struggle to always choose the good that we desire to do, even after we are regenerated. That was a great choice of verses Harley! Our great hope is that time in the future when none of us will have this struggle with our ‘will’ for the rest of eternity. We will not sin!

So my desire is really to test the tradition of the “bound will” that can only be set free by regeneration under the Reformed system of theology. In the Arminian system, it takes some prevenient grace. The “bound will” is an essential foundational tenet to the Reformed system. Hence the above questions.

“because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able [to do so];”

Melani,

I’m sorry, I haven’t been following much of the discussion, but did you deal with this verse? Are you saying that there are unregenerate people who set their minds on the spirit, or are you saying that everyone, including those who have a mind set on the flesh, can obey Christ’s command to believe in Him?

Also, in what way is man a slave to sin? Can he still do good anyway? What does this verse mean? “For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness.”

Michael T.,
Thanks. I am finding that what I can express in person does not come across well when written. I tend to be somewhat sarcastic (God isn’t finished with me yet) and have a dry sense of humor, neither of which comes across well here.
I know that everyone loves God because He loved us first. My point is that God is the first cause, to put in Aristotelian language, which most Christians believe but then the Arminian turns the language on its head and makes man the author of his own salvation. I know, I know, they say He gives prevenient grace which makes Him first again. But in Scripture God is always the potter and we are the clay -Is 45:9; Jer 18:5ff and of course Rom 9:21. I have never seen prevenient grace in Scripture.
Oh, by the way, “Harvey”-Davidson makes lousy motorcycles, but Harley makes great ones:)
Grace

Melani,
The Scripture that comes to mind is Rom 8:1-8 I just now saw that Hodge beat me to it. As Gilda Radner’s church lady would say, “Never mind”

Hodge,

I am not Melani (obviously!). But I think the thrust of her question is this: In the OT, the Spirit didn’t indwell people like he does in the NT. Therefore people were not regenerated/born again as we now are in the NT. (Please correct me if I am misrepresenting you here Melani.)

However, those OT folks exercised faith towards and in God all of the time. How do you guys explain that when you say that people have to be regenerated before they can have faith?

I realize, Hodge, that you seem to have a different take on that then a lot of Calvinists if I understood what you said a day or two ago correctly. But this is the subject both Melani and I have been talking about as neither one of us see regeneration before faith in the Bible. Rather we see regeneration, new life, coming through faith.

Cheryl,

I think the problem is that Melani and yourself seem to confuse “through” faith with “after faith,” which was my original objection to the use of texts that were being marshaled to support this view.
The NT never presents the Spirit’s regenerative work in the NT believer’s life as something new. Does not David pray to God to “take not Thy Holy Spirit from me”? Even though this originally may have been meant to refer to God’s presence, we now know that God’s presence is through the HS. They had the Holy Spirit and He worked in their lives in the same way that He works in ours with perhaps the one exception that He is given to the Apostles in the NT in order to bring them into all truth concerning the gospel and Christ (i.e., the “new” part).
What Melani seems to be doing is taking a theology that believes the HS is someone new on the scene, and not involved in the lives of OT believers. This is clearly not the Scriptures tell us, as one of the points of

Stephen’s sermon in Acts is that the wicked of the community have always been resisting the HS. Hence, the righteous did not and had the Spirit of God. Melani’s presupp then is false.
Hence, the faith that they had then and that we have now is the one faith that saves and is given by God, as Eph 2:8-9 states.

Hodge,

The Holy Spirit working with a person in the OT and indwelling a person in the NT are two totally different concepts in my understanding.

Harley,
“then the Arminian turns the language on its head and makes man the author of his own salvation.”

Did you read the articles I linked?? I’m not sure how you could say this if you had.

“The Holy Spirit working with a person in the OT and indwelling a person in the NT are two totally different concepts in my understanding.”

Actually, the HS working with a person and indwelling them are two different concepts altogether. My point is that there is nothing to suggest that the OT believers were not indwelt by the HS, and there is everything to suggest that their faith had to be given them in the same way that our faith is given to us. The radical distinction that dispensationalists sometimes make is unwarranted. It has this idea within it that OT believers can lose their salvation because the HS did not indwell and seal them, but NT believers can’t. I would say neither can because both are indwelt and sealed. OT believers have their object of faith in the same thing we do. They just have less understanding of the object of their faith. They were saved in the same way that we are saved now. That’s precisely why the NT writers feel at leisure to use them as examples.

Hodge (re #37)
There was no regeneration in the OT. John Piper makes this same declaration (see page 2 #31). No man was placed “in Christ” or made “one” with Him before the day of Pentecost (see page 2 #39-41),. Eternal life is “in Christ (1John 5:11), and only those who have the Son have the life (5:12). Men are made alive with Jesus Christ (Eph. 2:5), Jesus Christ is our life (Col. 1:4) and outside of the life in the flesh, there is no other kind of life for men to possess other than the life they receive when Jesus Christ comes to dwell in their hearts. The Scripture is clear, it is the 2nd person of the Trinity that gives life to us, just as the Father dwelling in Jesus gave that life to Him (John 1:4). When Jesus told Nicodemus about the new birth, He said that He had to be lifted up so that whoever would believe in Him would receive eternal life (John 3). There was no new life/eternal life given in regeneration before the cross. No OT believer was indwelt by the Messiah

CONT… (Hodge,)
Where in the Scriptures do you find another “kind of life” other than eternal life given by God to men? You must have another “kind of life” to get regeneration in the OT. Just to hold to Reformed Doctrine you must have “another kind of life” , for the founding documents teach that men is given “new life” in regeneration to enable him to believe, and sometime after believing he receives eternal life.

Only erroneous doctrinal presuppositions lead people to logically conclude there had to be regeneration in the OT.

Hodge,

Let’s lay aside for a minute the idea of regeneration (or not) in the OT.

You have made this statement several times now: I think the problem is that Melani and yourself seem to confuse “through” faith with “after faith,” which was my original objection to the use of texts that were being marshaled to support this view.

Does not receiving regeneration “through” faith assume that faith has to be there to receive it? And yet the reformed position that we have been questioning says that a person has to be regenerated first in order to receive the gift of faith.

How can you receive regeneration through faith if you have to have regeneration before you can receive faith? That is a logical impossibility as far as I can tell.

“What Melani seems to be doing is taking a theology that believes the HS is someone new on the scene, and not involved in the lives of OT believers.” (Hodge #41)
Actually, I do believe that the Holy Spirit was involved in the lives of OT believers. He was intimately involved in communicating God’s truth to men throughout the OT Scriptures and more. Since the cross, I believe that God is involved in the lives of men who have not yet been regenerated. The Spirit indwells the life of the “seed sowers”. The Seed is the Word of God sown in the hearts of men. It is supernatural, it does the work that God sent it to do (Is. 55). Jesus says that the devil steals the seed so that a person will not believe to be saved (Luke 8:12). The sown seed does not bring forth the fruit the day it is planted. There are those that water. The Holy Spirit convicts men of sin, righteousness and the judgment. God has given a multitude of witnesses: believers, creation, the love of the church… Once the Word is planted, we are told that God brings forth the increase. His word works (Heb. 4:12). Sometimes there needs to be more evidence given, for faith is the evidence of things not seen. And sometimes men are needing to give the reasons for the hope that is within them (1Pet. 3:15), for faith is the substance of things hoped for. Then comes the harvest. When somebody comes to the point of placing their trust into Jesus Christ, then Jesus the High Priest baptizes that individual into His Body, into His death. This death is the point of reconciling a man to God (Rom. 5:10), breaking the slavery of sin (Rom. 6:1-6), and severing his jurisdiction to the Law so that he can be joined to Christ (Rom. 7:1-6)….He is given new life when Jesus comes to dwell in Him. THIS IS REGENERATION. And He is raised and seated with Christ in the heavenly (Eph. 2:6). This is the work of God that saves us. We are saved by regeneration (Tit.3:5), we are saved by His life (Rom. 5:10); and when we are made alive with Jesus Christ we have been saved (Eph. 2:5). So God is at work in the life of an unbeliever, and the devil tries to keep men from believing to be saved. I know we all agree that we place our trust in Jesus Christ before we are saved!

Michael T.
Yes, I have read them, twice actually. “the regeneration of which the Dutch theologian here spoke is not complete regeneration but a partial regeneration in which the bondage of the will to sin is released so that the sinner can for the first time respond freely God’s offer of mercy in Jesus Christ.” Here is my point – regeneration is the work of God through which one is made spiritually alive, correct? How are we in any way “partially” alive?
And say the person decides not to submit to Christ, then does he walk around the rest of his life “partially” alive (spiritually)? Arminius and his followers remain antagonistic to the unconditional election and limited (I prefer particular redemption or definite) atonement of Calvinism.
I would not, however, say they were not evangelical Christians.

Cherylu,
That was a great point. There seems to be a dance around the issue, placing faith before regeneration chronologically, faith after regeneration logically etc… This is a place of tension between the Word of God and Reformed Doctrine. That is why we need to keep pointing out the truth that there was no Biblical regeneration prior to the resurrection. Historically, was there faith before regeneration? Yes, for thousands of years men had faith without being regenerated. What they did not have was the redemption, salvation, and eternal life/regeneration that Jesus came to give. The cross was integral to the giving of the gifts as John Piper has come to see. This is evidenced by His quotes listed on pg. 2 # 31.

Melani,

I don’t want to change the subject here at all, but I am not sure I understand one of the points you seem to be making. I agree that people in the OT didn’t have the Spirit indwelling them as we do and so were not regenerated or born again as we are (that is the way I read the Bible and have been taught all of my life). What I am not clear about is that it seems you are saying that those people did not have eternal life. I don’t know if I am misunderstanding you here or not. Do you believe that everyone that lived prior to Jesus death and resurrection was eternally lost even if they had faith in God? People like David, Moses, Joshua, Elijah for example? I’m just not sure of what you are saying here. Can you please clarify what you mean?

“Does not receiving regeneration “through” faith assume that faith has to be there to receive it? And yet the reformed position that we have been questioning says that a person has to be regenerated first in order to receive the gift of faith.”

No, that’s the point I was trying to make, and that Melani missed as well. I’m not trying to make it chronologically posterior and logically prior. I’m saying that it’s at the same time chronologically, but must precede logically. It’s like this. At what point did the blind man see? When God repaired his eyes or when he looked through them? It’s a ridiculous question because it happened at the same time. The work of God in repairing, however, had to logically precede it, even though it was instantly the same moment. We can go on like this all day. When did you know you experience eating the cake? When you put it on your taste buds or when you tasted it? The divine act of giving us faith is the act where He is bringing us to life.

Melani.

I honestly feel like I’m talking to a JW when I speak to you. I don’t need a half a million verses and comments when we’re discussing a single point. I would agree with most of what you said above, except that you interpret it somehow to mean that OT believers weren’t regenerate. So let’s discuss that point. The rest is irrelevant if we both can agree on it. It’s also easier to talk to someone, as opposed to be talked at by them, when they don’t barrage you every time with five long posts at a time. There’s no need for it, and begins to look like a form of sophistry and posturing via volume of information; and thus, disingenuous.