221 Comments
  1. Dr. Brown,

    you said you believe that God’s Sovereignty is diminshed by the Calvinist interpretation of Sovereignty. How can that be? I mean that make such a big deal about God being glorified that He does everything, even causing people to sin so that He can be glorified in their judgment. So how can you say it diminishes God’s Sovereignty? What do you mean by Sovereignty then? And how does that make God less free to do what He wants when He wants it?

  2. Hi Rob!
    No one said exegesis is not a good thing. I stated that there is an over-emphasis in the art of exegesis to the point of ignoring common sense, which is one problem I think the Calvinist has, e.g. Dr. White.

    The idea a God having “two wills”, one secret, the other revealed, and both contradicting each other is a case in point.

    As far as your experience as an “emergent Arminian”, the problem may have not been the doctrine itself (although I am not really familiar with what they believe) but with your understanding of classical Arminianism and, I respectfully state with no intent to insult, a desire for a view of God or religious belief that one can feel gives him more control or security over the uncertainties in life (although, and here is the irony, Calvinism, when really seriously considered, fail to do).

    I am making no judgement on your reasons for turning to Calvinism, just laying out something to consider.

  3. Hi Christophe! Hope you don’t mind me responding to your comment directed to Dr. Brown.

    It seems you challenged the veracity of a couple of comments he may have made:

    That “Calvinism is unbiblical” is true but limited to those places where it seeks to go beyond texts, e.g. that God has “two wills” is an obvious example, in order to validate their presuppositions.

    That “Reformed turn faith into work in order to be saved” is, by my experience talking with Calvinists, very true. Unless, as they assert, God gives you faith (my lingo: plucks it from the sky into your heart), it is a work, an attempt to take the glory away from God. With many Calvinists I have spoken with, this is the case and, although I may be wrong (but doubt it), I’m pretty sure White would say the same thing.

  4. Hey Ben, I’m wondering if MacArthur is a scholar, a real theologian. Do you know if he holds any scholarly credentials, like something in Biblical languages or something?

  5. I think that the difference between Calvinism and Arminianism can be most clearly seen in their respective views on what ultimately differentiates the saved from the lost.

    The Calvinist believes that the only thing that differentiates the saved person from the unsaved person is God’s grace. Therefore he may look upon the soul burning in hell and say” “Apart from the grace of God there goes I!”

    The Arminian cannot say that. He believes that God’s grace is given to all people equally and therefore that which ultimately differentiates the saved from the unsaved is not God’s grace, but man’s choice. Well may he look upon those who perish and say: “Apart from my choice there goes I!”

    Let the reader decide which most glorifies God and leaves no room for boasting.

  6. I don’t hold to one specific view on the subject, but the way I understand scripture is that God exercises His sovereignty through human free will. I don’t see what Calvinists do with scriptures like “he is patient, not willing that ANY should perish, but ALL come to repentance”. I’m not sure if that scripture was discussed with Dr. White or not.

    I understand that God knew exactly what would happen, and created the world in such a way that He did because He had to (in the sense that it was in line with His character to do so). Example – If God is love, He had to make objects of His love or else love would just be some idea (not a reality). Objects of God’s love would be objects in which God could manifest every characteristic of love to (i.e. patience is the first attribute of love explained in 1 Cor. 13). How could patience be a reality if there was not an object to be patient with? God is slow to anger; for this to be true there must be someone to be “slow to anger” with.

    I guess a proof text for this could be Romans 3:5 – our unrighteousness brings out God’s righteousness more clearly. Unrighteousness must exist to display God’s character. The next verse explains how God is still just in His judgment.

    This, to me, explains why God created the world knowing that man would fall.

    In Ephesians 1:4-5 – he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. in love 5 he predestined us to be adopted as his sons…
    – we were predestined to BE ADOPTED. God knew that we would have to be adopted and planned it according to His love (V.4), His pleasure (v.5), His Praise (v.6) and His grace (v.6). All of these attributes of God are seen (made a reality) in the plan of redemption.

    … Ephesians 1:13 and you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him…
    – verses 2-7 show God’s sovereignty and foreknowledge (and the purpose), and Verse 13 shows His sovereignty and foreknowledge working in time, and through free will.

    I don’t know if I’m the only one that this makes sense to. But I will always revert to Romans 11:33 – oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out!

    i guess that’s it for my “2 cents”

  7. Nelson Banuchi,

    John MacArthur has a double doctorate and is an author of so many books and commentaries that it is hard to count…

    So he has more than “something” to offer but he will not debate. He simply believes that debates do not bring a whole lot of results… Sometimes, just like recently I would agree with him.

    SDG

    Christophe

  8. Nelson Banuchi

    And other Arminains who do not understand Reformed Faith and consistently misrepresent it.

    As to your affirmations as to supposedly faith turned into work by Reformed. I do not know how could you claim such a preposterous thing when Reformed Believer knows that nothing, I repeat NOTHING comes apart from the will and grace of God.

    I would suggest to you that if anyone claims that his salvation and faith hinges on his or hers “yes” to God that gives rise to your assertion of work as well as boasting.

    There is no two wills of God. There is only our matter of conception that is trying to explain ONE will of God in a way that we can begin to relate to that will.

    I suggest you read this and go to the link provided:

    “Although the will in God is only one and most simple, by which he comprehends all things by a single and most simple act so that he sees and understands all things at one glance, yet because it is occupied differently about various objects, it thus happens that in our manner of conception, it may be apprehended as manifold (not in itself and intrinsically on the part of the act of willing, but extrinsically and objectively on the part of the things willed).”

    Francis Turretin

    Source: http://www.monergism.com/TwoWillsTurretin.html

    Thank you for your time spend there.

    SDG

    Christophe

  9. Steve,

    Thanks. Whatever he is, he is a sinner in a desperate need of mercy and grace just like all of us. May it be shown to him according to Lord’s will.

    “all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing,
    and he does according to his will among the host of heaven
    and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, “What have you done?”

    Daniel 4:35 ESV

    SDG

    Christophe

  10. That’s is really interesting. I did not know what a calviness was until now. I hear people say all the time that everyone will not be saved. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t preach the gospel to every creature but to the Jew first does it?

    I will continued to preach the gospel no matter what I think it says because in some countries our brothers and sisters are being killed for the gospel sake. Maybe a calviness might think well maybe they are preaching to the unregenerate ones thats why they are being killed.

  11. Going on the lines of debating a Cessationist, how about having a guest on the radio who turned from being a cessationist to now believing the spiritual gifts are for today. I think Jack Deere would be a good pick. For those who do not know, he used to be a professor at Dallas Theological Seminary.

  12. I’m still undecided as to which of the Cessationist or Continuationalist views are more Scriptural. Though I very much respect Dr. MacArthur, I agree that his arguments in favour of Cessationism are pretty weak (especially his argument from 1 Cor. 13:10-11). The best argument I’ve ever heard in favour of Cessationism is the so-called “cascade argument” made by Dr. Sam Waldron in his book “To Be Continued?” It would be great if Dr. Brown could debate Dr. Waldron on this topic!

  13. Ben2, have you read my book Israel’s Divine Healer? The implications of that study are quite damning for cessationism. How about Jon Ruthven’s On the Cessation of the Charismata? I’d recommend that as well.

    To be perfectly candid (and NOT to get into the whole discussion here and now), I see the debate between Calvinism and Arminianism to be a very intense, scriptural debate with both sides able to marshal many verses and concepts to back their views (although ultimatlely, I reject Calvinism). I see no scriptural support of any kind for cessationism. Zero. Seriously. Just to put my cards on the table! I will, however, check out the Waldron book you mentioned and will look at with interest.

  14. Christophe you said, “Nelson. And other Arminains who do not understand Reformed Faith and consistently misrepresent it.”

    Would you be so kind as to show me exactly where on these blogs rearding Calvinism I have misrepresented it. Thank you.

  15. Christophe, you misunderstoo when it was said, that “faith turned into work by Reformed.”

    That is not how the Calvinist define faith, that is how Calvinist assert others (particularly Arminians) are making faith out to be when they suggest that man has a part in salvation.

    As far as the “two wills” theory, that is something White asserted. You need to go on his blog and tell him he is wrong to sa God has “two wills”. In any case, the idea that God desires all men to be saved and yet decrees only a certain number will actually be saved is, for all intents and purposes, ludicrous; if that’s the case, no one can tell what God really desires even if it’s written in the Bible.

  16. The last point raised about Judas could be examined more if there had been more time. One way to look at predestination as was the final topic of the show, (and Dr. Brown hinted at this with the football analogy) is to understand the way that prophecy works. Prophecy while being in many cases the declared word of God to people is often precognition: Knowing what is going to happen. Because God in his infinite knowledge and omniscience saw our lives played out and knew that his work of grace would be received by our choice to love him, he therefore choose us before the foundations of the earth, Eph. 1:4. Imagine this, as the God-head looks down the halls of possible history in pondering the creation of the world, the Lord saw that in creating the angels, Lucifer would be filled w/ pride and rebel, he saw the fall of man, the law given to the Hebrews, all the prophets, and the redemptive work of Christ that would be necessary. And in totality, from his perfect wisdom, he saw the final outcome you and me and the “elect” in Christ (who choose because they were given the faith to choose and responded at the calling of the Spirit) and saw that he would get the most glory from the whole thing. So he created, we fell, and because he saw us choose Him in the end, we were therefore chosen by God. His desire is that ALL might be saved and NONE should perish. Therefore, Judas in point, played out his role in history before it was prophecied and God saw that and then revealed in his word because that is how it was to happen. But in fact, we know that we can move the heart of God by faith. Which is what the whole message of redemption is. By our sin nature, WE ALL DESERVE DEATH, by adam all fell. But God’s gift of faith is offered to us and if we respond, then that changes our future destination. E.g., God was going to destroy the nation of Israel because of their idolatry and evil, Moses PLEADS with God that his anger not burn against them, and God CHANGED his mind. If Moses had not responded to God placing that opportunity of faith before him, that event would have occured. Jonah proclaimed the word of Gof to Neniveh and they repented and believed that which was unseen (that God might spare them). God’s word was: “Forty more days and Nineveh WILL BE overturned.”…but “When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he had compassion and did not bring upon them the destruction he had threatened.”. Another example, Jesus’s first miracle when Mary comes to Jesus and gives him a problem. It was not yet “his time” but her faith was evident in that she told the servents to “do whatever he tells you”. There was some obvious shift by which it became his time and he performed his first miracle. Please someone expand on this, I just wanted to get this down while it was still on my heart. I’ll be watching this post.

  17. “As far as the “two wills” theory, that is something White asserted. You need to go on his blog and tell him he is wrong to sa God has “two wills”. In any case, the idea that God desires all men to be saved and yet decrees only a certain number will actually be saved is, for all intents and purposes, ludicrous; if that’s the case, no one can tell what God really desires even if it’s written in the Bible.”

    Dear Nelson,

    As I said before there is no “two wills” of God. Dr.White said that but he said it for the purposes of explaining and conceptualizing the complexity of GOD and His will. You have heard Dr.Brown stating many, many times that GOD is complex in His unity and that is very true. It that is true then what makes you or Dr. Brown think that GOD’s will is NOT also COMPLEX?

    Have you read Francis Turretin? Have you went on the link that I provided? If not I would like to encourage you to do so.
    I know that this is not an easy concept to perceive but so is Triune nature of GOD – ONE BEING of three co equal persons in perfect harmony, unity through all of the eternity.

    When Dr. White speaks about “two wills” its like speaking of sunrise sun and sunset sun. They look different, they are happen the opposite side of the sky, they find and the leave the hemisphere in very much different conditions they make all life to adjust to them yet they are caused by ONE and the SAME STAR – SUN.

    So Dr.White can speak about sunrise and all of the different conditions surrounding it and and what it causes as well speak about sunset and all of the conditions surrounding it and what is causes and yet STILL speak about the SAME SUN.

    And so it is with the will of GOD. His will is COMPLEX as His nature is COMPLEX. Please read this again, and again if necessary but I believe this argument is BIBLICAL and helps to understand in a consistent manner all of those passages that otherwise we find difficult or ambiguous as some Arminian confessed on this forum prior.

    If you spend time with Scripture reviewing Turretin’s argument you will find that there is nothing “ludicrous” about GOD who calls all to salvation yet same GOD effecting that for some based on His good will and pleasure.

    “May the will be properly distinguished into the will of decree and of precept, good purpose (eudokias) and good pleasure (euarestias), signified, secret and revealed? We affirm.

    I. Although the will in God is only one and most simple, by which he comprehends all things by a single and most simple act so that he sees and understands all things at one glance, yet because it is occupied differently about various objects, it thus happens that in our manner of conception, it may be apprehended as manifold (not in itself and intrinsically on the part of the act of willing, but extrinsically and objectively on the part of the things willed).

    II. Hence have arisen various distinctions of the will of God. The first and principal distinction is that of the decretive and preceptive will. The former means that which God wills to do or permit himself; the latter what he wills that we should do. The former relates to the futurition and the event of things and is the rule of God’s external acts; the latter is concerned with precepts and promises and is the rule of our action. The former cannot be resisted and is always fulfilled: “Who hath resisted his will?” (Rom. 9:19). The latter is often violated by men: “How often would I have gathered you together, and ye would not (Mt. 23:37).

    III. As there are various passages of Scripture in which the will of God is taken either for the decree (Rom. 9:19; Eph. 1:ll) or for the precept (Ps. 143:10; Rom. 12:2), so there are also some in which both wills of God are signified at the same time (i.e., Jn. 6:38, where Christ says, “I came down to do the will of him that sent me” [i.e., to fulfil the things decreed by God and to obey the command of the Father]). And when we say in the Lord’s Prayer, “Thy will be done,” we ask that our lives may correspond to his precepts and his decrees be fulfilled.”

    Francis Turretin

    More: http://www.monergism.com/TwoWillsTurretin.html

    SDG

    Christophe

  18. Nelson Banuchi,

    John MacArthur has a doctorate from Talbot School of Theology I believe in Biblical Ministry and honoris causa doctorate from Grace Graduate School.

    Christophe

  19. Dr. Brown,

    Not to get off topic (well sorta), but you’re right-on with the cessationist nonsense. Not sure if you caught my previous post, but I’ve read/heard quite a bit from the cessationist side and have been completely unmoved by any of it. Would White be willing to debate you on that subject? He’s debated the issue of tongues before, but his opponent held a view that kind-of went to far in the other direction (i.e. unless someone speaks in tongues it’s evidence that they’re not even saved), and it wasn’t considering the apostolic/revelatory gifts as a whole. And considering that Dr. White hasn’t debated/written on the issue of cessationism for decades as he has Calvinism, that would be a very interesting exchange indeed (see above note on “mopping the floor”).

    Something else that we should all consider is that the cessationist debate has much more immediate/practical implications for us as individuals and for the church as a whole. If we recognize/discover that the gifts are for today then that certainly will have a greater effect than if we discovered that God has decretively willed that they have ceased, but prescriptively commanded us to operate in them 🙂 (my cheap way of bringing it back to topic at hand 🙂

  20. John,

    I haven’t caught all the posts here these days, so I did miss yours. Thanks for this additional one.

    I’ve actually suggested to Dr. White on a few occasions that we debate cessationism, but if he’s not inclined to, I’m sure I could find someone else willing to.

    As for your attempt to bring things back on topic — 🙂

  21. Ben2’s point about the two wills on each side is a great one. Arminians say God desires all to be saved but He wants it to be a free choice. He could orchestrate things where all are saved but He doesn’t.

    In regards to why Calvinists believe the Arminian view makes faith a work, please consider the following scenario. Two brothers, both get exposed to the gospel, only one accepts. If you are an Arminian, wouldn’t you have to say that one is either smarter or morally superior in some way.

    If faith doesn’t rise to the level of a work, it least is a cause for boasting.

    However, if faith is a gift solely from God, all glory goes to God. Not saying that Arminians don’t give glory to God for their salvation.

    I think most Arminians pray and worship inconsistently with their Arminianism. I would assume most Arminians believe Calvinists evangelize inconsistently with their Calvinism.

  22. “I think most Arminians pray and worship inconsistently with their Arminianism. I would assume most Arminians believe Calvinists evangelize inconsistently with their Calvinism.”

    Geoff,

    DITTO.

    SDG

    Christophe

  23. I would have to disagree with the Armenian analogy of the last point. I am like Dr. Brown: here are MY beliefs from the word of God, categorize may where you may. But If two people hear the gospel, and only one is GIVEN faith, then you cannot say that they both had an equal calling to be saved at that time. Just because someone hears the message preached at that time, it may not be time for them to come to Christ at that time. God’s will is that ALL might be saved. And if both brothers are to be the elected few, and one responds later, how can you say that the other brother had some earthly advantage. We have to regard each other outside of earthly consideration, via 2 Cor. (ministry of reconciliation). Basically, Paul sais, “we once regarded Jesus in this way, but no longer,” Jews considered him at least a teacher, and at best a prophet to gentiles, but spiritually we look at Christ as deity. In the same way, it is not just our decision to respond the first time, but the unity of faith from God and our response to that faith. I believe someone may hear the truth their whole lives, and receive at least one opportunity of faith. And at that point, they must decide. Faith must married to works, you can’t have works removed from faith, and faith without works is DEAD. Therefore, we all give glory to God for his salvation which he accomplished on the cross, and we remember that we once were lost but now are found. We don’t say, “Thankyou Jesus that I choose to believe in you because I have a high IQ.” But anyways.

  24. Geoff,

    Yes, I can’t agree for a split second with your analogy either, and to be honest, I’ve not yet met someone who took credit for their salvation. Plus, your analogy would then vitiate Paul’s whole point about if salvation is by faith, then it’s by grace.

    You then state, “I think most Arminians pray and worship inconsistently with their Arminianism. I would assume most Arminians believe Calvinists evangelize inconsistently with their Calvinism.”

    That very statement (on the first point) proves me to that you genuinely don’t understand in the least what we actually believe, otherwise you could never had said that. I bow down before a sovereign God who does what He pleases in heaven and on the earth 24-7. I assume you bow down to the same God?

    One of my principles in doing apologetics and debates is that before you can respond to someone, you need to adequately understand them to the point that you can repeat their beliefs back to them in different words, to their satisfaction. I’d encourage you to understand our views better first, then your interaction will be more fruitful. And feel free to help those who differ with you understand your views better.

  25. Dr. Brown, I believe I am accurately understanding the other side esp. since I was on the other side. When Arminians pray for someone’s salvation, they don’t pray “please bring this person to faith but in such a way where their free will is not violated.”

    That’s not an insult to Arminians but a complement.

    Now, there’s a question you need to flesh out with Dr. White in debate. You believe God is sovereign. You were constantly affirming that it was God’s ardent desire to have all come to Messiah. You were also not keen on the idea that God could have two wills.

    Obviously, God doesn’t give everyone a Damascus Road experience like He did for Paul. He could arrange all circumstances where everyone came to faith but He doesn’t.

    Wouldn’t you have to also affirm two desires in God as well?

  26. Geoff, first, there’s no inconsistency in the the theology and the praying, and in fact, I’m fine with praying biblical prayers verbatim. Both my theology and my praxis come from that same source. Also, the Word tells us at the end of Ezekiel 22 that God would have intervened had someone prayed but no intercessor was found. So, I pray for God to save people knowing that He will respond to those prayers according to what is in harmony with His best intentions and in accordance with the principles He has laid out. And I also know that if I don’t pray or if others don’t pray, certain things might not happen. That’s simply the way the Sovereign Lord set things up.

    As for Saul’s experience, who said that his response was sealed and irresistible? And how do you know that God didn’t move the way He did because He saw something truly seeking in Saul’s heart? It’s also very probable that Saul was especially targeted for prayer by the early believers, in accordance with Yeshua’s exhortation to pray for the persecutors, hence he would have been singled out for divine intervention.

    Also, the entire nation of Israel coming out of Egypt saw the greatest demonstration of God’s power that any generation ever saw, yet most of that generation rejected the Lord. I know people who had supernatural encounters with God that floored them, then they hardened their hearts and turned away.

    One God, one will, just as the Word teaches.

    That being said, I’m still not convinced you’re accurately understanding the other side, even though you were “there.” Perhaps you’re projecting how you felt while “there” rather than asking if I see things the same way you did? Do you think that might be possible?

  27. Dr. Brown,

    My comment to you is not directed or a reply to the comments here.

    I am just wondering if you studied the Lutheran Confessions when you left Calvinism. I say this for after being a Pentecostal for many years I parked my tent in Calvinism for 4 years, only then when I compared the Lutheran Confessions have I discovered that it is compatible with how I understand Scripture’s teaching on justification, faith, repentance, predestination, above all the Sacraments etc.

    LPC

  28. Hey folks,

    I just came across this post by a Calvinist in another forum and it illustrates the point we’ve been making about Calvinists claiming that faith is some kind of a work (here, he puts it in the context of “boasting”). The individual posting had listened to the debates and felt that I had “cognitive dissonance” in certain aspects of my theology, expressly stating:

    ***** “boasting” – If one’s salvation is (at least) partly (no matter how small a part) due to your knowledge/spirituality/whatever which makes you choose with your “free will” what someone else doesn’t, there is room for boasting. “But the Bible says we are not to boast, so that’s why we don’t boast”. He makes it sound like it’s a matter of manners, or propriety, or not offending others, when in fact the Bible’s reason for not boasting is because there is no basis for boasting.****

    So, according to this position — which, again, I’ve heard time and again from Calvinists — if we receive God’s gift by faith, then somehow we have something to boast about, since this was a choice we made. What an unbiblical concept! Not only does it make faith into some kind of meritorious act, but it makes the act of receiving God’s gift into some kind of meritorious act.

    Please, someone, show me one verse in the Bible that explicitly states that if we believe God, we have something to boast about, or if we repent, we have something to boast about, or if we say yest to God, we have something to boast about. To the contrary, these are the very things that draw God’s praise!

  29. Dr. Brown, I agree with you that there is no boasting in simply receiving the gift of salvation. The reason why the Arminian has a reason for boasting comes to light when we ask the question why one person was saved and the other person was not.

    As I mentioned in an earlier post, Calvinists affirm that the only difference between the saved and the unsaved is God’s grace. Arminians cannot affirm this since they believe that God’s grace is given to everyone equally and therefore the reason why one person is saved and another is not has nothing to do with God’s grace and everything to do with man’s decision. The Calvinist can look at the soul who perished and affirm: “But for the grace of God there goes I!” The Arminian cannot say this and might well look on the one who has perished and say: “But for my choice there goes I!”

    If Arminianism is correct one cannot escape the conclusion that the saved person must have been just a little less hardened (or a little more intelligent) than the unsaved person since he was willing to accept God’s offer of salvation while the other refused. Spurgeon summarized it succinctly in his sermon called “Free Will – A Slave” when he gave an example of how consistent Arminians aught to pray in the light of this:

    “Lord, I thank thee I am not like those poor presumptuous Calvinists. Lord, I was born with a glorious free-will; I was born with power by which I can turn to thee of myself; I have improved my grace. If everybody had done the same with their grace that I have, they might all have been saved. Lord, I know thou dost not make us willing if we are not willing ourselves. Thou givest grace to everybody; some do not improve it, but I do. There are many that will go to hell as much bought with the blood of Christ as I was; they had as much of the Holy Ghost given to them; they had as good a chance, and were as much blessed as I am. It was not thy grace that made us to differ; I know it did a great deal, still I turned the point; I made use of what was given me, and others did not—that is the difference between me and them.”

    S.D.G.

  30. Dr. Brown,

    I would love to get your thoughts from my 2 questions asked on the first page of comments (post 35).

    Blessings in Christ,

    Lee

  31. Dr. Brown,

    Doesn’t something generally go unrecognized in all these debates? It is that Calvinists and non-Calvinists do not share the same meaning of words. “Sovereign” is but one example. Other examples include “faith,” “work,” “grace,” ” free will,” “saved,” “predicative,” (etc.) and, yes, even the words “man” and “God.” For if the Calvinist claims the Arminian makes “faith” a “work,” then what does the Calvinist mean by “faith”? Answer: “God predicating,” nothing more. And so “man” becomes an empty term.

    So then, in the statement:

    “For by grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of worls, lest any man should boast”

    the words “ye,” “yourselves” and “man” are empty terms. And since empty terms cannot predicate “faith” (nor anything else), the Calvinist confession is that One Will alone is manifesting its predication, and there is nothing besides (including an object of the predication). But, objects one, “Predication demands an object for the subject.” Exactly. And so “predicating” becomes a meaningless term as well.

    In the end, there is only “God,” for the Calvinist, i.e., a God who is beyond language because language has failed him. In short, Calvinism is a denial of language altogether. The trick is simple but effective: Calvinism merely appears to have meaning because of its use of pschycological association to the real meaning of the vocal sounds and written symbols of words.

  32. @ Dr. Brown: “Please, someone, show me one verse in the Bible that explicitly states that if we believe God, we have something to boast about, or if we repent, we have something to boast about, or if we say yest to God, we have something to boast about.”

    Of course we won’t find such a verse because the reason people believe God and repent is because God grants it to them, which removes all grounds for boasting on our part. But if believing God and repenting is something we do by our own free will, THEN we should expect to find such a verse since we WOULD have something to boast about.

  33. One Calvinist states: “I will tell you exactly when faith in Christ is a work (that is, a work OF MAN). Exercising faith in Christ is made to be a work when it is taught to be something which is left up to man to exercise or not and the determinant cause of his faith finally rests with him.”

    Calvinists say that if you *voluntarily* believed, then you *can* boast of your volunteerism. Romans 3:27, however, points out something that refutes that idea, which is that when you believe, you *can’t* boast. In other words, whether you believe voluntarily or involuntarily, it makes no difference, since the “law of faith” excludes all boasting under all circumstances, especially since faith is not about trusting in yourself, but about trusting in someone else, namely, God. But to a Calvinist, only a “law of irresistibility” can successfully mitigate against boasting. Why? Because the Calvinist conclusion is more philosophical than biblical.

  34. Quoting the second caller, “Mo”:

    “Is the unregenerate man ‘dead’? Has he been wounded? … The sinner is ‘dead’ in trespasses and sins. Now what can a ‘dead mean’ do? Can a dead man believe? Can a dead man repent? Can a dead man come? No! He’s dead; he’s absolutely dead. When men are born, they are naturally and spiritually dead in trespasses and sins, and they cannot come to Christ. No man can come to Me, except the Father which has sent Me, draw him, and that’s Scripture, that’s not a creed. That’s Scripture. All that the Father gives Me, John 6:37, all that the Father gives Me, they’re going to come to Me; nobody else is going to come, because it takes the work of the Holy Spirit to regenerate, to give life, before a man can believe and repent, a dead man cannot do anything.”

    Nevertheless, although it is a Scripture verse, namely John 6:37 and John 6:44, it is cited acontextually as a simple proof-text, built upon the concept of spiritual deadness at Ephesians 2:1, which is also cited acontextually. Therefore, the whole thing might as well be a creed. Looking at Ephesians 2:1, where does it ever ask the question: “What can a dead man do?” Looking at John 6:44, where does it ever say that the Holy Spirit must regenerate? The Calvinist superimposes his own creeds upon Scripture, in order to declare it Scripture. Here is what Ephesians 2:11-13 actually does say about deadness: “Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called ‘Uncircumcision’ by the so-called ‘Circumcision,’ which is performed in the flesh by human hands–remember that you were at that time *separate* from Christ, *excluded* from the commonwealth of Israel, and *strangers* to the covenants of promise, having *no hope* and *without God* in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were *far off* have been brought *near* by the blood of Christ.” The contextual concept of deadness, according to Ephesians 2:1-13, is not an inability to receive God’s gift to return to Him, but separation from Him, in terms of being in a state of condemnation, brought about by sin. In fact, if we really do want to look at the question of “what can a dead man do,” although this is not addressed at Ephesians 2:1, it can be found in the parable of the Prodigal Son, whom his father called “dead” and now alive: “‘Quickly bring out the best robe and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand and sandals on his feet; and bring the fattened calf, kill it, and let us eat and celebrate; for this son of mine was dead and has come to life again; he was lost and has been found.’ And they began to celebrate.” (Luke 15:22-24) Once again, we see deadness in terms of separation from God, rather than an inability to receive His gift to return to Him.

  35. Ben2 and Sam,

    Do you not see how you state what you want to prove? Romans 4 makes plain that if salvation is by our WORKS as opposed to by FAITH, then there is grounds for boasting. If it is by FAITH, then it is by GRACE. THERE IS NO ROOM FOR BOASTING IN ARMINIANISM. The idea that there is is a figment of the Calvinistic imagination.

    Sam said: “Of course we won’t find such a verse because the reason people believe God and repent is because God grants it to them, which removes all grounds for boasting on our part. But if believing God and repenting is something we do by our own free will, THEN we should expect to find such a verse since we WOULD have something to boast about.”

    Sam, I mean you no insult, but this is one the most remarkable cases of circular reasoning and of stating what you want to prove that I have ever seen. The Bible EXPLICITLY teaches the opposite of what you affirm (as I just stated), and since you can’t find your doctrine taught, you say, “Well that proves my point and explains why the Bible never needs to mention it.” Do you not see this?

    Richard’s comments are also quite correct and scriptural in terms of the deadness issue, which covers the other, related issues.

    This last, short interchange demonstrates one of the biggest points I have been trying to make and shows how one group is simply following the scriptural testimony about choosing life vs. death, in response to the divine command (nothing to boast when you receive God’s gift!), while the other group has to impose a theological system on the texts that at times violates there explicit meaning.

    If I were on the radio now, I would say, “Wow!”

  36. More evidence for the different ways in which Scripture speaks about the will of God:

    Ezekiel 33:11 states unambiguously that God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked but would rather that they turn from their sins and live. Yet, in Matthew 11:21-24, the Lord Jesus states just as unambiguously that it was in God’s power to bring the inhabitants of Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom to repentance but that He didn’t do so.

    I affirm with Ezekiel that God truly had no pleasure in the destruction of Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom and sincerely desired that they should repent and live (God’s will of disposition), but propose that God had an even greater desire than the salvation of these cities (i.e. to “show his wrath and to make known his power… in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy” – Romans 9:22-23) and therefore didn’t bring it to pass even though he was clearly able to do so (God’s decretive will).

    How do Arminians reconcile these seemingly contradictory passages?

  37. Dr. Brown, I agree that Romans 4 teaches that the law of faith excludes boasting IN OUR WORKS since our righteousness is not our own, but Christ’s (received through faith, not earned).

    Romans 4 is not, however, the only place where Paul mentions boasting. Ephesians 2:8-9 makes it clear that we cannot boast on any other grounds either since salvation (the entire package including faith) is by grace alone – a gift from God. Though the Arminian affirms that he cannot boast in his works he still has grounds for boasting in his decision since the one thing he simply CANNOT say is that it is God’s grace alone that differentiates the saved from the unsaved (since God’s grace is given equally to all according to Arminian teaching).

    S.D.G.

  38. Ben2,

    First, Romans 4 proves the point I was making, and your comments do not refute that at all.

    Second, Ephesians 2 does not teach that faith is a gift (the grammar doesn’t agree, as I’m sure you know, and as most commentators state), but that salvation is a gift, received by faith — thus there is no room for boasting. You really miss the whole point of what Paul teaches in Romans 4 and what Jesus teaches in John 6 (re: faith vs. works).

    I repeat: Nowhere in the Bible it is taught that receiving a gift is a grounds for boasting, and, in fact, there are scores of passages that teach the opposite. Perhaps the prodigal son should have boasted because he came to his senses and received his father’s unmerited love! Perhaps Abram should have boasted when he first believed God! Perhaps I should have boasted when I received His grace and believed Him to save me!

    To be candid, it’s a bit frustrating to deal with circular arguments like yours, and until you see — as I’ll state, hopefully for the last time — that you are asserting what you want to prove, using your logic even when you have to reinterpret the Word, you’ll be unable to have a meaningful dialog.

    Your argument is analogous to the man who stands on the street corner clapping his hands, and when asked why says, “I’m keeping the elephants away.” To which someone says, “But there are no elephants for 100 miles in any direction!” To which he replies, “See, it’s working!”

    My entire boast in the Lord, and in Him alone (1 Cor 1:25-30), and in more than 38 years of walking with Him, it is never once occurred to me (not for a split second of a single thought) that I had any grounds for boasting as to my salvation, nor have I ever met a single believer who “boasted” that they received God’s gift of grace.

    Sadly, the more posts I read, the more I realize how an entirely false construct is being made by some (many?) Calvinists, one that deeply misunderstands and at times misrepresents non-Calvinist views, and one that adds things to the Word that God never intended to be added (and I don’t mean in a damning way, obviously, but in a way of reading a system into Scripture that simply isn’t there).

    More sadly, for many years now, many of the Calvinists I’ve met (I’m not accusing you of this) have been inflated with pride over their Calvinism, over their alleged “Orthodoxy,” over alone having the “doctrines of grace,” indeed, having “the gospel” as over against those who are not Calvinists. And so, this system of belief which is supposed to undercut all pride and boasting so often results in the opposite.

    I could just as well argue that your system is the very grounds for boasting, since somehow God chose you and not someone else, for His sovereign reason alone. But if I said this, it would be the exact opposite of what you believe (in terms of a grounds for boasting) and would prove that I didn’t understand your views. Well, this is exactly the same thing of your imposing your understanding on my views. You’re missing the point entirely.

    One last point: God is relational, and He wants us to choose life and salvation and HIM volitionally, enabled by His grace to do so. This is what He desires, this is what the Word teaches from beginning to end, and this is what I affirm.

  39. @Dr. Brown: “Sam, I mean you no insult, but this is one the most remarkable cases of circular reasoning and of stating what you want to prove that I have ever seen. The Bible EXPLICITLY teaches the opposite of what you affirm (as I just stated), and since you can’t find your doctrine taught, you say, “Well that proves my point and explains why the Bible never needs to mention it.” Do you not see this?”

    No, I don’t. I did not say that since I can’t find my doctrine taught, that proves my point and explains why the Bible never needs to mention it. I can’t imagine how you got that from what I said. Let me try to explain myself a little more clearly.

    You asked for Calvinists to give you a scripture quote saying that if we believe or repent, then we have something to boast about, as if that’s what we would need to prove our point of view. But finding such a verse would not prove the Calvinist point of view. On the contrary, it would DISPROVE the Calvinist view. If Calvinism is true, then we should not expect to find such a verse since it would be inconsistent with Calvinism. Why, then, do you require Calvinists to find such a verse in order to prove their point of view? It makes no sense. If we found such a verse, it would DISPROVE our point of view. In our point of view, both our repentence and our faith are given to us by God, leaving no room for boasting on our parts.

    Ben2 raises some very good points. If two people hear the gospel, one person repents, and the other doesn’t, what is the difference in your view? How do you account for why one person repents, but the other doesn’t, without giving the one person something to boast about?

  40. Sam, once again, you proved my point. The Word does not support your point, which, you claim, proves your point, because if it addressed the issue, that would disprove your point. Again, I can only say “Wow.” And I repeat: The Bible DOES address the point but says the opposite of what you believe. (I’ll not belabor the point again.)

    Here’s the bottom line: If you simply said, “Look, I believe that what the Bible teaches about predestination and calling is clear and therefore I hold to unconditional election,” I would respectfully differ with your interpretation but would fully understand why you would hold to it, as I once did as well. But when you make false assumptions about someone else’s belief then ignore clear biblical teaching that refutes your view — namely, this false construct about grounds for boasting — then there’s really nothing to talk about.

    I might just as well as say this to you, “Your view makes God into a monster, and the proof of my point is that nowhere does the Bible address the idea that He is not a monster, therefore I’m right and you’re wrong.”

    I’m really not trying to win an argument here, just trying to help you see that all this talk about a grounds for non-Calvinistic boasting is both a false construct, a false reading of someone else’s beliefs, and a misreading of the Word.

    Since the matter is so utterly perspicuous to me, and since you seem not to see these points at all, let’s just drop it for now, OK? I don’t think going around in circles will be helpful.

    I will, however, answer your last question one last time: If a person earned their salvation through their own good works, then they could boast about it. But when they accept a gift totally undeserved, they have no grounds for boasting. That is what the NT clearly affirms, so your argument is not with me but with Scripture.

  41. Dr. Brown, after reading your last post to Ben2, I wonder if maybe there is some misunderstanding going on. I especially got that feeling when I read these words:

    “My entire boast in the Lord, and in Him alone (1 Cor 1:25-30), and in more than 38 years of walking with Him, it is never once occurred to me (not for a split second of a single thought) that I had any grounds for boasting as to my salvation, nor have I ever met a single believer who “boasted” that they received God’s gift of grace.”

    Nobody is claiming that non-Calvinists boast about their choice to repent or receive God’s gift, or that they see any reason to. What we arguing is that if your position is true, then you would have grounds for boasting. Having grounds for boasting follows from your point of view. We don’t claim that non-Calvinists are consistent, after all. This is the argument in a nutshell.

    1. If we choose to embrace the gospel by an act of our own free will (in the libertarian sense), then we have grounds for boasting.
    2. We do not have grounds for boasting.
    3. Therefore, we do not choose to embrace the gospel by an act of our own free will (in the libertarian sense).

    You see, we are making a reductio ad absurdum argument against your point of view by taking it to its logical conclusion. The fact that you don’t take it to its logical conclusion shows an inconsistency on your part. I get the impression that you think we are saying faith and repentance actually do give us grounds for boasting, and perhaps that’s why you’re pressing us to find a verse that says so. But that is not what we are saying. In fact, we’re saying just the opposite.

  42. Dr. Brown, your most recent post to me confirms that you really are having a misunderstanding about what I am saying. And maybe I’m having a misunderstanding about what you are saying. But I don’t know how to be any more clear than I’ve already been. So I’ll drop the subject, and if you’re so inclined, you can go back and read my posts more carefully.

  43. “More sadly, for many years now, many of the Calvinists I’ve met (I’m not accusing you of this) have been inflated with pride over their Calvinism, over their alleged “Orthodoxy,” over alone having the “doctrines of grace,” indeed, having “the gospel” as over against those who are not Calvinists. And so, this system of belief which is supposed to undercut all pride and boasting so often results in the opposite.”

    Dr.Brown,

    You keep on repeating this opinion as that in itself would have any bearing WHATSOEVER on biblical theology of Reformed Faith. Sorry but this is just painting with 12 inch brush on a A4 sheet of paper.
    You have to ask yourself why do you keep on repeating this? You don’t hear constantly from Calvinists about proud Arminians are you? You don’t because Calvinists are interested in duscussing the Scripture, the arguments, the historical facts and not PERSONAL application of belief in one’s personal life.

    Do you presume that there is no prideful and arrogant Arminians? There is plenty of them and they walk around repeating to everyone: “my ministry”, “my approach” , “my gifts” , “my perception” taking their decisiveness to the next level all of that because deep inside they hold on to that belief that their decision for Christ was a crucial part of their salvation.

    I know you do discuss Scripture and arguments based on it but you also tend to mix it with your personal reception of personal application of faith in the lives of others. Poor application of the truth does not invalidate the truth so please stay solely on the Scripture and do not mix it with people and their poor or excellent application of faith in their lives.

    Regards,

    SDG

    Christophe

Comments are closed.