Was not interested in a debate, was only attempting to address and correct some misconceptions that abound regarding reformed theology. (which, in my opinion, were prevalent, but hopefully now understood more accurately)

In my defense, if you’ll just take 30 seconds to glance through our conversation, you will discover that I never argued in defense of a “theology”, I merely presented the scriptures and argued for them. Scripture after scripture about what men cannot do which necessitates what God must do, and Casey, that’s what makes grace all the more gracious!

Thanks for the dialog, hope you have a good Christmas season and New Years

It seems I misunderstood your position on Adam and Eve, but that merely brings another question. You say that free will takes away from the sovereignty of God, but then you admit that Adam and Eve had free will (we both agree that God knows our choices beforehand and uses them for his purposes, so that’s not the issue). On the other hand, if you are going to make a distinction between being created sinless and having free will, you’ll have to explain that so that a dummy like me can understand.

I do not believe it is impossible for man to keep the law (practically, maybe, but not theoretically). When we sin it is because of our free will. We do not become slaves to sin by birth but by choice (and yet, a single sin is an infinite offense against a holy God, and no amount of keeping the law afterwards can redeem us). God punishes us for willful disobedience, not for something we have no control over. And the gift of salvation is available to all who freely choose it.

I already told you what I believe the correct interpretation of your proof texts is. God predestines based on his foreknowledge. If that is unsatisfactory to you, then so be it, but you have not defeated me with the scriptures as you have repeatedly claimed. You sound like a broken record.

Joe, as I said before, I’m not interested in a debate (perhaps one of these days I’ll do a post on why I think they’re pointless). You’re obviously itching for one, and I’m sure there are plenty of places out there to engage in one. There’s really no point in listing a whole bunch of scriptures that you think support your view. You have yours and I have mine (starting with John 3:16 and the like but including verses like Matt. 3:1-2 which make no sense in a Calvinist context). The issue is not who can cite more verses but which interpretation makes the most sense. That is the discussion I was hoping to have.

First lets make something clear. They are not “created” that way. Mankind was created sinless. By his free choice to sin and disobey, all of his offspring inherit his sin nature. God made a covenant (a promise) to Adam, and said you disobey, you will surely die. It happened. It was God’s decree.

Why do I know this? Because eternal life was promised before the world began. Because God is said to desire that both his wrath and his mercy be demonstrated and glorified. Because Prov 16:4 says that God created all things for Himself, even the wicked for the day of evil. Because the names of those saved were written in the book of life before the world was created (Rev 17:8) It was God’s decree, for his own secret, holy, mysterious purposes. I know that’s hard to accept, but that’s what the Bible teaches. God is both the Ordainer of evil without directly being responsible for evil. That’s the clear teaching of the Bible. He’s in control of evil, and uses it for his purposes. It was obviously, in God’s mind, better to allow evil into the universe, to serve his purpose, and give him glory, that it would be without it.

It is a result of the fall that man inherits his sin nature, and thus, his spiritual inabilities. Thus, by nature and choice, all human beings are stained by sin, unable, and unwilling to return to God. That’s orthodox.

Second, man is unable to please God and unable to keep the law, yet God holds him responsible for that, right? Does this, too, make God a monster? You have never satisfactorily answered this question. In fact you’ve avoided it at all costs.

Next, yes, man is unable to repent and believe, man is unable to “come to Christ” in faith. These are not Calvinisms’ words, they are Christ’s and Paul’s words.

No man seeks God
No man can obey God.
No man can please God.
Man finds the gospel foolish, he is unable to understand it.
No man can see the kingdom unless born again.

No man can come to me unless it is given to him by the Father
All that the Father gives me, will come to me.

In other words, that’s the whole debate summed up in two statements. No man has the ability to come to Christ, but to all whom the ability is given, will come, without fail, without a doubt.

Finally, you keep forgetting a key point that the Bible labors to make clear. It’s not man’s inability that is the ultimate problem – it’s his unwillingness.

So while man is unable, he is likewise unwilling. For instance, I am unable to kill a puppy because I am unwilling to do so. My unwillingness is the very source of my inability. In like manner, coming to Christ and submitting to God, and giving up the sins we love so much, is so obnoxious to the human spirit, that he would never do it, ever, if given the opportunity.

Lets say you loved chocolate, and hated vanilla. Would you give up chocolate for some vanilla? Would you give up the thing you love so much for the thing you hate so much? No, of course not. That’s natural. In like manner, man is not willing, and thus not able, to give up the sins he loves so much for the God he hates so much.

The Bible describes fallen man as unwilling, haters of God, hostile towards God, enemies of God, finding him foolishness, children of wrath.

You however seem to want to latch onto this notion that fallen man (unregenerate man) is not really against God and hostile towards him, but rather, sitting on the fence, at some neutral point. It seems that in your view, man doesn’t hate God, but doesn’t love him either, he’s neutral, and he needs to hurry up and make his choice. Such a concept is foreign to the Bible.

The question is, since the bible is true, and it says that fallen men by nature hate God and are unwilling to submit to him, how do you get a man to drop their hatred? How can the man suddenly change his own attitude and his own heart and his own nature? He cannot.

This necessitates regeneration. The heart must be changed. The eyes that cannot see must be given sight. The ears must be given the ability to hear. The heart must be given the ability to love, when it formerly only hated. It must be given the ability to understand, when it formerly could not understand. The spirit must give life. This is what Christ said in John 6. This is what He meant when he said that the Father must grant it enable a man to come to Christ. He must be born again. This is what John said in 1 Jn 5:1.

This is all Biblical language and you know exactly which Bible verses these concepts are contained in.

Regeneration precedes faith Casey! How can you Biblically prove otherwise? You cannot. All I’m arguing for is that you are not necessarily defeated by a theological system by any name, rather, you are simply defeated by the scriptures. I’m not trying to be harsh, but you have avoided all the scriptures I’ve thus far given you. You have not replied in any meaningful way to the theological ideas the Scripture itself presents to us.

You have only instead lashed back with opinions and pejorative language such as “God is a monster!” and “That’s unfair!” and “I’m not satisfied!”, yet you give no real reason to not be satisfied with the scriptures other than “That’s the wrong interpretation”. Yet you do not provide the correct one, why? Do your questions immediately, suddenly, and magically defeat the Scriptures clear teachings on these matters? No, not at all.

If you think these scriptures are taken out of context and interpreted wrongly, then please, by all means, provide the correct interpretation here. Your opinions cannot defeat the argument – only the scriptures can. So why are you avoiding using them as your ammunition?

Yet you would agree with me that God punishes them and holds them accountable for the sins they commit! This is the very thing you are arguing against!

#2 – you misunderstand. It is not that that the elect are forced to repent and the nonelect are prevented from repenting. The issue is, as in Pharaoh’s case, the non-elect (nor the elect prior to regeneration) *have no desire to repent*. By their fallen nature, they are “haters of God”, hostile towards God, at enmity against God.

It sounds like your mistake is viewing non-regenerate fallen man as some neutral agent, sitting on the fence between good and evil, between loving God or hating God, and must choose which way to go. However, the Bible does not describe fallen man this way. There is no such thing as this third “middle, neutral ground”. All men by nature already hate God, find him foolish, and would not repent or choose Christ if given the chance.

The difference between those that repent, and those that do not, is one thing, and one thing only: Grace.

If Grace was not involved, then there would be no difference between human beings – all would continue to happily enjoy their sins, hating God, and would willingly go to hell for all eternity because they certainly would not want to live with the God they hate so much!

As far as Adam and Eve go – I never said they did not freely make the choice. Did you not read anything I said about Compatiblist free will? God works out his plan through the free actions of men

If you cannot deny this truth in the examples I gave you about Joseph’s brothers, Assyria, Judas, and Christ’s crucifixion, then why do you insist on denying it in the case of Adam and Eve?

It’s perfectly fine if you do not want to adhere to this theological view. But at least figure out what exactly your view is.

Are you Semi-Pelagian or Arminian? If neither, then you can be accused of not being orthodox, but rather, having your own version of Christianity – “Casey’s version of Biblical Christianity”. Do you know the difference between the different historical views? If not, then you need to study. The reason is because if asked to defend your view, you would need to be able to do so from scripture. Could you? Could you articulate your theology? Could you describe to someone how a man is born again if asked – and prove it from scripture? Could you describe how the entire Trinity works out salvation? Could you explain how the Father elected, the Son atoned, and the Spirit regenerates – and prove it from scripture?

Here’s the historic views:

Pelagianism – the fall did not affect anyone following Adam – all humans are born with a clean slate and can be saved by simply choosing not to sin. God’s grace is not needed. Human monergism.

Semi-Pelagianism: The fall affected all of Adam’s descendants, but only “wounded” them. There is an untouched island of righteousness that allows them toinitiate a relationship with God. God’s grace is needed, and man’s cooperation with that grace is needed. Synergism.

Arminianism: The fall utterly ruined mankind, rendering him incapable of initiating a relationship with God. The remedy is a universal re-enablement by God called “prevenient grace”. Prev. Grace is not necessarily effectual and does not always result in salvation, because grace can be resisted due to man’s free will. God’s grace is needed, and man’s cooperation with that grace is needed. Synergism.

Calvinism: Same as Arminianism insofar as the fall rendered mankind incapable of initiating a relationship with God. The remedy, however, is different. The remedy is instead regeneration, being born again. This new birth is always effectual and always results in salvation, and is only given to those whom God is pleased to give it. God’s grace alone is needed. Divine Monergism.

So Casey, I’m simply asking you to tell me which of these historical views you fall into.

1. God holds people accountable for failing to accept Christ even though they have no ability to choose him of their own volition. In fact, based on your latest comment: God created men without the ability to choose him (i.e. instilled with a sin nature), but his grace is only extended to some. Basically, God designed men to sin but then punishes them for it.

2. God commands people to repent even though he knows fully well that the elect cannot help but repent and the non-elect cannot repent.

3. God does offer salvation to all men, but only the elect are capable of accepting the gift.

4. Adam and Eve did not have free will. They sinned according to God’s plan.

These are your answers as I understand them. Rationalize them if you will with parables about potters and clay, but these answers are not satisfactory. The God I know wept over Jerusalem because the people rejected him (Luke 19:41-44). You do not weep over people rejecting you if you decreed that they would do so from the very beginning. The Calvinist interpretation makes God a sadist and a schizophrenic. If such was the case God would not be worthy of worship.

You say that all I need to do is read the text, and then you give John 6:37 as your proof text. Who is cherry-picking? I’ve already said that God has predestined. My view is that he predestines those whom he foreknows will choose him. Shall I pick up John 3:16 and tell you that you must believe as I do because either God loved the whole world or he did not? I know very well that you have your own interpretation of John 3:16, just as you know very well that I have my own interpretation of John 6:37. How we interpret these verses is based on our underlying theology.

You seem like a nice guy, Joe, but I honestly see no point in continuing this discussion with you.

By the way, in future discussions you might want to avoid ad populem arguments even if you preface them as such.

You keep saying “your interpretation is wrong”, but Casey, I did not interpret anything. The countless scriptures I’ve mentioned need no deep interpretation, but rather, a simple face reading. A simple face reading of the Bible will reveal the following truths:

1) By nature Man cannot savingly believe in Christ or the gospel
2) The remedy to this is regeneration (being born again, born of God)
3) The result of being born of God is faith in Christ

Casey, both sides of the debate (Calv and non-Calv/Arminian) agree that the Bible teaches #1. The remedy listed above in my list is the reformed view. The other “remedy” proposed by men from the other side of the debate is called “prevenient grace”, which is the idea that yes, men are fallen and lost the ability to come to God by their own power, but God responded by granting a universal enablement to every single individual that ever lived.

The problem is, by their own admission, there is no exegetical, scriptural support for prevenient grace. The entire non-reformed position stands or falls with prevenient grace. It is the foundation.

Prevenient grace seems to be more of a theological necessity in
the Arminian (or non-reformed) system than a demonstrable teaching of Scripture.

The challenge is to prove from the Bible that God’s enablement is not effectual. This would be very difficult to do, because Christ Himself declares “All that the Father gives me, will come to me” – John 6:37

*Will* come to Him. Not “might”, or “maybe” or “has a higher possibility” or “a better chance”. They will come, without a doubt, if given to the Son by the Father.

No interpretation is needed. You simply need to read the text.

You then said that God’s purpose is not to save, but rather, provide salvation. In other words, you believe that the Bible teaches “God makes men savable”, not “God saves men”. Can you back this up with scripture?

What exactly, from the Bible, would you use to prove that what God did was to merely make men savable? The Bible tells us that God quickens (regenerates) whom He will (John 3), and that the result is believing in Christ (1 Jn 5:1, John 6)

The Bible tells us that those the Father gave to the son, Christ died for, and those died for will, without a doubt, receive eternal life (John 6, John 10, John 17, Hebrews, Romans 8, Eph 5)

The Bible tells us that God elects, and His choice results in the final glorification of those elected (Rom 8, 2nd Thess 2:13, Acts 13:48, Eph 1, 1st and 2nd Peter, etc)

John 17 and Hebrews tells us that those Christ died for and mediates for are, without a doubt, eternally saved and redeemed. It is said that “Christ entered into the holy place and obtained eternal redemption”. (Heb 9:12)

It does NOT say that “Christ obtained the possibility of eternal redemption”

It is said in John 17 that Christ “does not pray for the world, but for those that the Father gave him – and the result of Christ mediation and sanctification on the cross – those same people will, without a doubt, receive eternal life. (John 17:1-2, 9, 19)

I’m not sure where you get the idea that what the Triune God did does anything less than perfectly save. God elects, the Son atones, the Spirit regenerates.

Where do you see room for failure in this truth? Where does man’s will and choice enter the picture? Salvation is monergistic, it is the work of one party alone – God. He took all the steps necessary.

As said earlier, Calvinism is simply this: Salvation is of the Lord.

To answer your question, no, I’m not a Greek scholar, but I appeal to those who are. I’m not sure what experts you speak of, but whether or not Eph 2:8-9 is speaking of salvation as the entire package, or each individual piece, it does not matter, because there is Biblical proof from several other areas of the Bible that faith and repentance are both gifts from God – they do not originate in a fallen sinner.

Also, I’m not sure what experts you appeal to, but foreknowledge in Rom 8:29 is a verb, not a noun. It is something God actively does – He decides to “know” people. It is not a mere passive acknowledgment of men and their actions. I already gave you several, several other Bible passages that shed more light on what it means for God to “know” people. Please read and consider them.

You then said: “On the other hand, according to your position, there is no difference between the elect and the non-elect other than the fact that God has chosen one and not the other. Both are equally deserving of eternal punishment. So God chooses to save some but not others. Could he not find it in his heart to save everyone?”

That’s not according to my position, that’s according to the Bible and basic Christianity 101 understanding. The difference between the saved and the lost is one thing and one thing only: a 5 letter word called GRACE.

So when you imply that the only difference between the saved and the lost is God’s choice to save some, I answer yes, that’s exactly right. And that’s in perfect accordance with Rom 9 which states that God has mercy on whom He will, and He hardens whom He will.

You then argue that God could not find it in his heart to save all men, but I must ask – is God morally obligated to do so? If God were to decide to not give mercy to a single individual but rather, let the entire race justly perish because of their sins, would that be a problem with you? I have a feeling you would say “yes”, because you are arguing for God’s obligatory role to save, or at least try to save, all men. Such a concept is foreign from the Bible and Christianity.

You then stated: “Again, if God created some people for the express purpose of subjecting them to eternal punishment (=revealing his glory???), as is apparently the position of Calvinism, then he is a monster.”

Casey, that is not the position of Calvinism, that is the position of the Holy Spirit inspired scriptures. Romans 9 tells us that God desires to show his wrath in vessels of wrath. It also tells us that God’s purpose for creating Pharaoh and raising him up as king was solely to crush him and show his power in him, for His own Glory. Prov 16:4 states that God created all things for Himself, even the wicked for the day of evil.

Putting the Calvinism debate aside, if you have trouble reading those three above-mentioned passages, then your problem is not with a theological system called by any name, rather, your problem is with the Bible itself. It is not the Reformers who wrote Prov 16:4 and Rom 9:17-22, it is God Himself.

Our Job as Christians is not to cherry pick Bible verses that appeal to us, comfort us, or that fit our preconceived idea of who we think God is. Our job is to obey, trust, and believe in the entire revelation of scripture and what it says God is. If it says God creates the wicked for His own purpose, then I unapologetically stand by it, and you should too. If it says that God raised up a man for the sole purpose of making an example out of him for His own glory, then I stand by it, and you should too. If Acts 13:48 says “those appointed to eternal life believe”, then I stand by it, and you should too.

It is folly to shrug off these hard to swallow truths by simply dismissing them as an erroneous interpretation. You know as well as I do that hardly any exegesis is required to understand these passages – their meaning is as clear as crystal.

I’m not saying that you must believe everything that I, Joe believe. I cannot argue for human authority. However, if I were to do such a thing, human authority and church history would agree with my position, not yours.

As Spurgeon said, “We (Calvinists) are backed up by antiquity”

“Is it God’s plan to save every single individual that ever lived, is living, or would live?” No, I would say it is God’s plan to give every single individual that ever lived, is living or would live an opportunity to be saved. He did not “try” to provide the means for man to be saved, he did provide the means for man to be saved.

And yet, there are certain things that our sovereign God cannot do. For example, God cannot create a rock so big that he cannot lift it. In the same way, he cannot give humans free will and take it away at the same time. If someone chooses not to believe, it is not God’s failure but theirs.

On the other hand, according to your position, there is no difference between the elect and the non-elect other than the fact that God has chosen one and not the other. Both are equally deserving of eternal punishment. So God chooses to save some but not others. Could he not find it in his heart to save everyone? Again, if God created some people for the express purpose of subjecting them to eternal punishment (=revealing his glory???), as is apparently the position of Calvinism, then he is a monster.

I do not pray for God to save friends or family members. I pray that the Holy Spirit will convict them. It is up to them whether they respond or not. If they were predestined one way or the other, what would be the point of praying?

Are you a Greek scholar? How can you make a statement that Romans 8:29 is not talking about God’s omniscience? According to the Greek interlinear, it does indeed mean “to have knowledge beforehand.” Is this how you come to your conclusions? By elevating your own ideas to the level of Scripture and then insisting that others “must believe” as you do? You can’t break down words and assign new meanings to a compound based on the comprising parts. Even if it was a legitimate practice in English, that would not make it OK in the Greek.

Salvation is a gift, faith is not. Greek scholars have already shown that “this” refers to “salvation” in Ephesians 2:8. Even John Calvin himself recognized that (see The Epistle to the Ephesians, Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1965, p. 144). Once again, why would we be commanded to believe (have faith) if faith is, in fact, a gift? Such a command would be ridiculous and, dare I say, mean-spirited.

You said “no one that believes in free will believes that mankind can thwart God’s plans”.

I agree wholeheartedly. The question is: is it God’s plan to save every single individual that ever lived, is living, or would live?

If so, then what’s stopping this from happening? Are men too sinful to be saved? No, because God saved the chief of sinners and can save to the uttermost. Is it because men hate Christ? No because all fallen men hate God, (Rom 1:30) and Paul himself hated Christ yet was converted by God’s power. Is it because men do not have spiritual eyes or ears? No, because God’s grace in regeneration grants the eyes to see and the ears to hear. Is it because God is trying to save them, but cannot? No, because God doesn’t “try” to do anything. He does not try to save – He saves!

In short, God’s grace is effectual. (hereafter called irresistible grace) God can and does draw men to Christ resulting in them coming to Christ (John 6:37). God can and does cause men to be born again (ie, regeneration) (Eph 2, 1 Pet 1:3)

In fact, you believe this. Do you know why I know this? Because I’m sure you have at some time in the past prayed to God and asked him to save your lost friends and family. If you don’t believe that God could or should irresistibly or effectual change a man’s heart and incline him to believe, then why are you praying to God? What are you asking Him to do?

If you can adhere to the Bible’s version of “free will” – hereafter called Compatiblist Freedom, then to understand reformed theology and predestination, you simply need to apply the concept to salvation itself.

Do men freely and willingly obey God and believe the Gospel to be saved? Yes
Was this God’s purpose all along? Were these men predestined for it? Yes

What about the lost? Are there verses that suggest that they are lost for a purpose? The answer is hard to swallow, but yes, there is.

Rom 9:18-24, Prov 16:4

Men are not saved or lost by accident. Constantly the NT talks about God choosing us, predestining us, appointing us to eternal life, etc.

There is simply no way to shrug off the meaning of these texts. If you’re saved, it’s because you were predestined for it. For the longest time I swept those verses under the rug, categorizing them as “things that are a mystery and not meant to be known”. I was simply fooling myself. The Bible teaches predestination boldly and without apology, but it also teaches that men are responsible for what they do or do not do. These things don’t make sense to us, but they do to God.

Both concepts are true. As Spurgeon, a Calvinist said, to think men are so free that God is not in control of their actions is near atheism. But to think that God’s control is such that men are not responsible for their actions is fatalism. There are two lines running together that the Bible teaches, and though we cannot reconcile them in our finite brains, they are both true nonetheless. We are not meant to reconcile them in our minds, but rather simply believe them.

To argue against absolute predestination does no good. You must believe it because the Bible teaches it. We must believe that yes, God ordains everything that happens, but likewise yes, men are responsible for what they do.

As far as your specific question about God predestining based on foreseen faith, hereafter called “Conditional Election”, there is simply no Biblical, exegetical basis for this concept. No where does the Bible state it, and when the Bible comes close to talking about the reasons for election (Romans 9), it in fact takes the opposite stance.

A Christians goal is to defend God’s purpose, not man’s freedoms or ideas of fairness. Romans 9 tells us that God elects unconditionally for His own purposes, because he has vessels of mercy that must be contrasted with vessels of wrath.

When Rom 8:29 and 1 Pet 1:2 talk about God’s “foreknowledge”, it is not talking about His omniscience.

Rather, God’s “knowledge” is a more personal, intimate thing. See the following verses:

Mat 7:23, John 10:14-15, 1 Co 8:3, 2 Ti 2:19, Amos 3:2, Rom 11:2

Besides, Rom 8:29 assigns the object of “know” as “Whom” – people. God knew people, not actions of the people. “Whom He did foreknow…”

Fore = before
Know = know in a personal, loving relationship

Foreknown means forelove.

Furthermore, faith is proven to be a gift from God. Therefore it would make no sense for Paul to say that God predestined people based on the gift He Himself gave them.

See these verses for proof that faith and repentance are gifts:

Eph 2:8, Php 1:29, 2nd Tim 2:25, Acts 13:48, 1 Co 12:3, Rom 8:9, 2 Ti 2:25, 2 Pet 1:1, etc.