Category: Soteriology

I Get By With A Little Help From My Friends; Mueller & Chambers On The Inconsistency Of Arminianism

“Arminianism, like the Molinist theology on which it drew, is little more than the recrudescence of the late medieval semi-Pelagianism against which the Reformers struggled. Its tenets are inimical to the Pauline and Augustinian foundation of Reformed Protestantism.

In the Arminian system, the God who antecedently wills the salvation of all knowingly provides a pattern of salvation that is suitable only to the salvation of some. This doctrinal juxtaposition of an antecedent, and never effectuated, divine will to save all and a consequent, effectuated, divine will to save some on the foreknown condition of their acceptance of faith, reflects the problem of scientia media. The foreknowledge of God, in the Arminian view, consists in part in a knowledge of contingent events that lie outside of God’s willing and, in the case of the divine foreknowledge, of the rejection of grace by some, of contingent events that not only thwart the antecedent divine will to save all, but also are capable of thwarting it because of the divinely foreknown resistibility of the gift of grace. In other words, the Arminian God is locked into the inconsistency of genuinely willing to save all people while at the same time binding himself to a plan of salvation that he foreknows with certainty cannot effectuate his will. This divine inability results from the necessity of those events that lie within the divine foreknowledge but outside of the divine willing remaining outside of the effective will of God. Arminian theology posits the ultimate contradiction that God’s antecedent will genuinely wills what he foreknows cannot come to pass and that his consequent will effects something other than his ultimate intention. The Arminian God, in short, is either ineffectual or self-contradictory. Reformed doctrine on the other hand, respects the ultimate mystery of the infinite will of God, affirms the sovereignty and efficacy of God, and teaches the soteriological consistency of the divine intention and will with its effects.

Richard A Muller

Grace, Election, and Contingent Choice:
Arminius’s Gambit and the Reformed Response.

Philosophical and Theological Problems with Arminianism in all its various forms.

“1. Free will theology absolutizes the will of man and thereby reduces god to ontological equality with man. The knowledge of god is bound to the temporal actions of men. God cannot know the future acts and actions of men because those actions, products of a libertarian volition, do not yet exist in time. Thus God cannot know the future.

2. Foreknowledge being impossible, God’s knowledge is contingent on future potentials. God must learn from actions of men that occur outside of His mind and independent of His will. God cannot know all things, His knowledge being dependent on the arbitrary and indeterminate choices of the libertarian will of man. Thus god is not omniscient.

3. God then is not sovereign in all spheres and therefore not sovereign at all as sovereignty is understood in the classical Christian sense. God is limited and no longer all powerful. This is not the Christian God who declares the end from the beginning or who works all things after the counsel of His will. This is a god who learns and reacts to events that occur in a creation that has an existence independent of Himself. This God is not omnipotent.

4. Since there are conditions that occur outside of Himself, conditions which of necessity cannot be known in advance, events which He must learn as they occur, God must react and change to adapt to these circumstances. This God is not immutable.

5. In order to keep creation moving towards his desired end, he must of necessity intercede at times and violate the indeterminate will of man. But this is the very will that is said to be inviolable in the soteriological act. This god is compromised and inconsistent. This god is arbitrary and capricious. This god is confused and contradictory.

6. This god, it is said, has died for all men for all time, knowing full well that His plan of salvation will not save all men. So while some men decry the determinate God of Calvinism, they are more than willing to accept a god who knows the future infallibly, knows his plan will be ineffective for the majority of mankind and institutes this plan anyway knowing full well that it’s result will be the death of most who have ever lived.

7. Free will adherents reject a God who determines all things. But they are willing to accept a god who knows all things and chooses to do nothing about them. This is, so they say, because the will of man is free. God knows full well that terrorists will fly a jet into the WTC and chooses to do nothing. He is capable of doing something but values the libertarian will of men above the eternal destiny of all those in the buildings and so chooses, by his refusal to intercede, to consign most of those inhabitants to eternal death. If I observe a crime and have the ability to do something to prevent it or know in advance of it’s occurrence and fail to notify the proper authorities I am as guilty as those that perpetrated the crime. This god is guilty of complicity. He is an accessory before the fact.

8. In the case of open theism, god didn’t know what he was doing or what He would get by doing it (sin, evil, murders, war, untold human suffering on a massive scale) yet was willing to take that chance. This is the god who risks, but exactly who and what were affected by this risk? To add to the conundrum god could not know if there was anything he would be able to do to correct the mess he created. And the open theist suggests that the god of Calvinism is cold hearted and despotic?

9. This god potentially died for no one. The atonement is universal in scope. God has not done anything more for one person than He has done for any other person and the one thing he has not done for those who are lost is to save them. Salvation is for everyone in general, but for no one in particular. This god is dependent and ineffective.

10. Libertarians tacitly reject total depravity. Man is not dead in sin but merely sick. He is inclined to do evil but is not in fact evil. Salvation is a potential that must be appropriated by the individual. Man cannot be wholly dead in sin and make this choice. The potential for good must be present. Man must overcome the inclination to reject God in order to accept the offer of the Gospel. Unfortunately, the Gospel itself, while evidently powerful enough to save those who choose to accept it, is impotent to convert the hearts of most of mankind. Free will theology suffers from its own type of particularism, but it’s an arbitrary particularism dependent on the condition of the individual. Salvation is “available” only for the ethically advantaged.

11. No wonder then that the evangel is often reduced to begging and pleading. God is not going to do anything but offer a potential. MAN is the decisive factor. Man is the determinative agent. We must convince man to make a positive decision for Christ. Better salespersons are more effective evangelists. Solus Christos is lost as salvation is synergistic. Arminianism stands on the same epistemological ground as atheism.”

Mark Chambers

Doug Wilson on How the White Romans Killed Jesus

“But if for some reason you are looking for the instrumental cause, the Romans were the ones who killed Him. To be more specific, white Romans were the culprits (Mark 15:15).”

Rev. Doug Wilson 
Pope of the CREC

*It is true that white Romans were the instrumental cause of Christ’s death.

 
*The Scripture though, lays the blame at the feet of the Jews who were the efficient cause of Christ’s death;

Acts 2:22 “Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a Man [u]attested to you by God with [v]miracles and wonders and [w]signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know— 23 this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of [x]godless men and put Him to death.

And again,

I Thessalonians 2:14 For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea, for you also endured the same sufferings at the hands of your own countrymen, even as they did from the Jews, 15 who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and [r]drove us out. [s]They are not pleasing to God, [t]but hostile to all people, 16 hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved; with the result that they always [u]reach the limit of their sins. But wrath has come upon them [v]fully.

 
* Keep in mind that the Scripture records that for the White Romans Jesus prayed; “Father forgive them for they know not what they do.” The implication here is that the Jews did know what they were doing by crucifying their Messiah.

* This looks to me like Doug Wilson is trying to lessen the responsibility that the Scripture squarely places on the Jews for crucifying their Messiah by seeking to broaden the blame so that the Jews are seen as not being any more culpable than the “White Romans for murdering Jesus, the Christ.

While it is true, and must be preached, that it was the sin of all God’s elect of all races that crucified the Lord of glory, that fact does not make it less true that the Scripture records as a matter of historical fact that the Jews are the ones who God held culpable for crucifying their Messiah.

The good news of the Gospel is that this generational sin can be forgiven of all men, inclusive of Jew and Gentile, who sue for peace with God, in faith, by agreeing with and believing God’s record that Jesus can forgive their sin — both personal and corporate. Jesus has said… “Come unto me all ye who labor and are heavy laden and I will give you rest.” This is true for both Jew and Gentile.

Now, having said that, why does Doug Wilson continue to seek to diminish the guilt and responsibility of the Jews for crucifying their Messiah — and this in the face of the Scripture’s clear testimony to the contrary?

And let’s keep in mind that there are at least some Jews who pass all this off as a matter of their stand up comedy routine;

It is interesting here that Sarah Silverman says that “many people try to pass it (the crucifixion of Christ) off on the Romans.” This is exactly what Doug Wilson is trying to do.

The Salvific Malfeasance of Egalitarianism

“Scripture presumes and defends the natural order of things. If we twist nature we’ll twist Scripture too. It’s also Satan’s major point of attack against the church today. That alone should make it (Egalitarianism) a major focus.”

Rev. Michael Spangler

Is the combat against Egalitarianism a matter of battling against a doctrine that affects salvation? Is the battle against Egalitarianism a battle waged in favor of a doctrine of the first order?

Egalitarianism is Christological heresy since if there is no distinctions among peoples as peoples the necessity for Christ to be born of the line of David, of the tribe of Judah is implicitly denied. Egalitarianism would have to say it didn’t matter what people Jesus belonged.

Egalitarianism is theological heresy because in the claim that all men are the same is the eventual inescapable outcome that man and God are likewise the same.

Egalitarianism is anthropological heresy since it denies the distinctions that God Himself makes between men and women and as between the nations.

Egalitarianism is soteriological heresy since implicit in the claim that all men are equal is the parallel claim that all men can be equally saved by other gods equal to Christ. Show me a consistent egalitarian and I’ll show you a universalist.

Allow me to posit that an Egalitarian who refuses to repent of his Egalitarianism can no more be saved than an Arian who refuses to repent of his Arianism, or can no more be saved than someone who refuse to repent of his insistence that we are not saved by Christ alone. Opposition to Egalitarianism is opposition to a teaching that, if allowed in the Church, would abominate the Church.

McAtee contra E. Michael Jones’ Description of Lutheran Theology

A Roman Catholic describes his understanding of Reformed soteriology. McAtee returns the favor.

“According to Lutheran theology, sin is not removed from the sinner through confession, penance, and a firm resolution not to sin again. Sin is ineradicable, but God in His mercy covers it with His grace as ‘snow covers shit.’ Grace does not perfect nature because nature cannot be perfected. Instead, it maintains a tension between corrupt nature and it’s redemption that Hegel would later describe with the term ‘Aufhebung,’ which is an essentially untranslatable term, meaning roughly both to exalt and maintain.”

Dr. E. Michael Jones
Hollowcaust Narrative — p. 210
Idiot Roman Catholic

Of course the flip side of this is;

“According to Roman Catholic theology, sin is removed from the sinner through confession, penance, and a firm resolution not to sin again only to find that such an arrangement is a lie since always sin comes back so that the sinner has to continue to go to confession, penance again and again and again because the Roman Catholic penitent’s resolve not to sin again is like shit that covers snow. This means that the Roman Catholic is never done with sin and that all his rigamarole is just so much play acting that has absolutely zero impact on either his sin nature or his actual sin. For the Roman Catholic sin is also ineradicable but by the legal fictions that are Rome’s sacramental system it is pretended that sin is dealt with. Grace does not perfect nature because nature is always having to return to Rome’s blasphemous sacramental system where grace is like just so much water in a leaky bathtub. Rome’s “grace” can never clean the poor supplicant because by the time the supplicant leaves the confessional booth he is more dirty than when he arrived since all that sacramental grace has leaked out of the human container.”

A Lutheran vs. A Calvinist — Note The Differences… 2008 Throwback

I originally posted this post in 2008. I could not find it in the search function of Iron Ink. Fortunately, I back up all my posts so that even if they somehow come up missing I have a copy.

In this discussion, I locked horns with a Lutheran named Rev. Paul T. McCain. In the following long conversation the differences between Lutherans and Reformed as pretty well established in the context of some heated polemics.

At the time of this debate I had no idea that Rev. Paul T. McCain was such a bigwig in the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. I have no idea why he decided to waste time debating me but …

Rev. Paul T. McCain Obituary

I am hopeful that now that Rev. McCain has entered glory he now realizes that God is and always has been from the foundations of time what would later become known as “Calvinist.”

_________
Bret writes;

Paul,
Imagine how glad I am for your response. This will clearly lay down the differences between the Faith once and forever delivered unto the saints and the mixed thing that is Lutheranism that you call Christianity.

Personally I have not completely understood those organizations that seek to make common cause between Lutherans and Calvinists. On one hand I understand the desire to re-introduce objective Christianity to an extremely subjective Evangelicalism. But in the end the irrationality of Lutheranism that you perfectly display negates whatever agreement might be found between the Reformed and the almost but not quite Reformed.
I know that you don’t like the interactive approach but that is what I am going to do here all the same so as to be just as thorough in my answer as you were with your eisegesis.
————————————————
Paul wrote,
Bret, how ironic that you accuse me of making assertions without evidence. I’ve told you, any number of times, here and elsewhere, all the evidence you want is easily found at www.bookofconcord.org The Book of Concord is easily enough available.
————————————————-
Bret
I am familiar with the book of Concord. Familiar enough to know that it doesn’t answer the questions that I have been raising and has you so unsettled that you are throwing the kitchen sink at me in you most recent post.
———————————————–
Paul,
You, on the other hand, have offered no evidence, whatsoever, to back up your claims about what Lutheranism teaches, other than your cute little rhetorical games.
————————————————-
Bret
I am sure that it makes you feel safe to dismiss my legitimate points as ‘cute little rhetorical games.’ But even that rhetorical trick doesn’t answer your jagged inconsistencies.
————————————————
Paul writes,
I for one would appreciate learning about your degrees. I would be most interested to learn of them and understand precisely your education and what background you have that give your claims to understanding Lutheranism credibility.

Please share!

————————————————-
Bret
What you think I am making my education up?
I promise you that my education is as expansive as yours and in the course of it I have read Luther, Chemnitz, Walther, Forde, Melancthon, Pieper, Scaer and other Lutherans. Of course not in the measure that I have read the greater lights of the Reformed World but still enough to profit from those Lutherans while noting their glaring inconsistencies.
————————————————-
Paul,
The only gaping holes I can see in this discussion are those in your arguments. The fundamental point is your denial of universal grace, which is a clear denial of Holy Scripture.
———————————————–
Bret
Saving Grace is not universal. If it were all would be saved since saving Grace is indefeasible. You see I don’t believe in a weak and insipid Grace that can only accomplish whatever sovereign man pleases to allow it to accomplish.
Passages where Scripture affirms that Grace is Particular.
Matthew 11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. 26 Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight. 27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.
Paul, if Grace were universal then all would know the Father. But since saving Grace is particular the only ones who know the Son are those whom God particularly reveals himself. The text even says that GOD hides these things from the wise and prudent. This text demolishes all Arminian-Lutheran special pleading.
Luke 8:10 And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.
Here Paul the reason is stated that the parable was given for a very non-universalistic reason.
John 10
25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness of me.26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. 29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand.
Here Paul those who are not the Sheep don’t receive universal Grace to understand. Earlier Jesus could say that all that the Father gives me will come to me. Obviously those who could not hear were not given to Jesus therefore they were not given universal Grace.
Romans 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. 14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. 15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. 17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. 18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. 19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? 20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? 21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? 22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
Of course Paul your universal saving grace thoroughly denies this passage and steals from God the right to be God. This passage by itself teaches that Grace is particularistic.
I have some more passages lined up for you but I will wait to unload them for when you come back with your inevitable protestations.
———————————————–
Paul,
You’ve yet to provide any evidence that would help us understand why the word “all” in the Scripture, “Christ died for all” doesn’t actually mean “all”. Why doesn’t “all” mean “all” in Titus 2:11, “The grace of God has appeared bringing salvation for all people”?
————————————————
Bret
Actually I dealt with this in an earlier thread you buried so fast that nobody (including you it seems) got a chance to look at.
Context Paul. Paul is exhorting Titus in instructions for various classes of people (older woman, younger men, bondservants). He goes on then right in verse 11 to give the theological basis for the practical advice. Because Paul refers in the immediately preceding context to these classes of men, most likely he again is thinking in terms of all categories of men (slave inclusive) and not of everyone without exception. Also it is not an unimportant feature of the passage that the emphasis in the context moves from ‘all men’ to the redeemed community (note the immediately following ‘teaching US’ and ‘WE should live.’ This all serves to give the sense that the ‘all men’ to whom grace has savingly appeared are to be defined in terms of the redeemed covenanted community.
Besides Paul if we take ‘all’ to mean the way that you want to butcher it then we have proven to much for do you really want to suggest that the Grace of God that appeared to all men in that passage appeared to the Magyars on the Russian Steppes at that time or to the Hutu’s and Tutsi’s in Africa? Again the way you want to use ‘all’ makes nonsense of the passage.
————————————————
Paul
Why doesn’t “all mean “all” in 1 Timothy 2:4: “Who desires all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth”?
————————————————
Bret
This passage follows the Titus pattern. Paul has said that prayers are to be made for all men. He then goes on to restrict that meaning to ‘Kings and those in authority.’ As Paul narrows the definition of ‘all’ down it is evident that he desires prayer for all classes or types of people. Without such a restriction some Lutheran literalist might have prayed for dead people since the word ‘all’ was not restricted by the word ‘living.’ In this context Paul says God desires all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. The context requires us to see the word ‘all’ as being restricted in the second instance just as it was in the first instance. God desires all categories of men to be saved just as he desired the believers to pray for all categories of men.
Secondly, to take this passage the way Arminians/Lutherans take it is to prove too much. If God desires all men to be saved then all men will be saved since God sits in heaven above and does whatever he pleases. Or do Lutherans teach that God sits in heaven above doing whatever he pleases except when man informs God to, ‘buzz off’ when he desires to save him?
————————————————-
Paul,
Why doesn’t “whole world” mean “whole world” as it says in 1 John 2:2: “He is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world”?
————————————————-
Bret
You keep wanting to make redemption mean redeemability. In your construction Christ does not redeem anybody but only makes him or her redeemable as long as they bring that work that the one who says ‘no’ doesn’t bring. You beggar the idea of propitiation by making it mean ‘potentially propitiated.’
John is stressing the ethnic universalism of the atonement. It is not restricted to the Jewish nation nor even to those believers he is writing to. The efficacy of the Atonement applies to people from every tribe, tongue and (denomi)nation that God has chosen and so John writes ‘for the whole world.’
And again to take it the way you do proves too much. If Jesus is the propitiation for each and every person who has ever lived then each and every person who has ever lived has been propitiated for. The Father’s wrath has been turned from them. This is something that is objectively true and can’t be undone by the subjective will of fallen men. It wouldn’t matter if they told God to, ‘get lost’ they still would be saved since the propitiation has been rendered.
————————————————
Paul writes,
Scripture forbids limiting the “kosmos” of John 3:16 to the elect, for according to verse 18 of John 3, unbelievers belong to “the world.”
————————————————-
Bret
“The whole debate as to whether the love here celebrated distributes itself to each and every man that enters into the composition of the world, or terminates on the elect alone, chosen out of the world, lies thus outside the immediate scope of the passage and does not supply any key to its interpretation. The passage was not intended to teach, and certainly does not teach, that God loves all men alike and visits each and every one alike with the same manifestations of his love. And as little was it intended to teach or does it teach that his love is confined to a few especially chosen individuals selected out of the world. What it is intended to do is to arouse in our hearts a wondering sense of the marvel and the mystery of the love of God for the sinful world-conceived, here, not quantitatively but qualitatively as, in its very distinguishing characteristic, sinful.”
 B.B. Warfield
————————————————
Paul
Is the universal grace of God for every individual? 2 Peter 3:9 says, “The Lord is not willing that any should perish.” Why doesn’t “any” mean “any”?
————————————————-
Bret
Context again Paul.
Peter writes that the Lord is longsuffering towards ‘US’. Who is the ‘US’ that Peter refers to? Obviously it is the covenant believing community. So when Peter immediately then says that “The Lord is not willing that any should perish,” it is obvious that the reference remains the believing community. God is not willing that any of His elect should perish. Hence,
John 6:39 And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the
last day.
————————————————-
Paul,
The Lord swears in Ezek. 33:11 “As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked.”
————————————————-
Bret
If a judge can have no pleasure in the exercise of the death penalty yet have even less pleasure in seeing the wicked go unpunished then God likewise can have no pleasure in the death of the wicked and yet have greater displeasure in not seeing the wicked visited for their sin and so deal eternal justice to the wicked.
God can decree both his displeasure over the death of the wicked and His pleasure at seeing His justice upheld.
You see this is what I can’t understand. Lutherans are so good in some areas on thinking at different levels but when it comes to these issues they are so one-dimensional.
————————————————-
Paul,
But how could he not have pleasure if he in eternity created some to go to hell, as Calvinism teaches. What a sadistic god Calvinism would hold forth, one who gets his jollies creating some to go to hell.
———————————————–
Bret
You are a Blasphemer.
God is the thrice compassionate and forever merciful God who does not leave the guilty unpunished and yet shows grace to a thousand generations who love him and keep his commandments.
You seem to think that all because the divine decrees are true that means man’s culpability is not true. No Calvinists worth his salt comes close to teaching such nonsense. Man goes the way that God decrees but he does so in such a way that he desires. Scripture clearly teaches that Judas was predestinated for his role and yet he sold the Savior gleefully and on his own. Scripture clearly teaches that Joseph’s brothers intended evil to their brother on their own account and yet Joseph instructs us that God had predestinated it all (Gn. 50:20). Peter holds the Jews responsible for the crucifixion (You by the hands of wicked men…) and yet he also teaches that God predestinated it all. You show no ability to think Biblically in this matter. Someday Paul you will be held accountable for that Sadistic God
comment.
————————————————-
Paul,

Scripture clearly teaches that the merit of Christ was earned, even for those who do perish eventually through unbelief. 1 Cor. 8:11, “The weak brother, “for whom Christ died” will perish.

Rom. 14:15: “Destroy not him with thy meat for whom Christ died.” Doesn’t “destroy” mean “destroy”?
————————————————-
Bret
In terms of the Romans passage vs. 4 of that same Chapter teaches,
Romans 14:4 Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
Do you really want to contend that Paul writes that God is able to make both the meat eaters and non meat eaters Stand and then turns around and teaches that one of them might not stand?
In terms of the Corinthians passage Paul does not say that the weaker brother will perish. He asks a question of the stronger brother that basically says “is this such a big issue for you that you would see the weaker perish? The admonition of the Apostle serves as the means by which the end of the weaker brother not perishing is accomplished. It is no different from Paul’s shipwreck experience where he was told on one hand that nobody would perish and then was turned around and told that if the lifeboats were employed people would perish. The promise was absolute but means were used to bring about the end.
————————————————
Paul,
2 Peter 2:1 The false teachers whom who “bring swift destruction” are “denying the Lord that bought them.”
————————————————-
Bret
Do you ever read the context?
In vs. 9 these same people are referred to as the unjust who have been reserved under punishment for the day of judgment. When did God reserve them for that end? It is past obvious that Peter is speaking of them according to their own profession. He does after all call them ‘false teachers.’
Alternately they are teachers that are living in the covenant community which is a community as a whole that has been blood bought. They are the reprobates of that community who have denied the Lord that bought the visible community of which they were objectively part. In but not of.
————————————————
Paul,
The Lord wants to convert those who are lost, Matt. 33:37: “How often would I have gathered thy children together . . and ye would not.”
————————————————-
Bret
This is the same as Stephen saying in Acts 9 that his interlocutors do always resist the Holy Spirit. Those dead in trespasses and sins always resist the external call of the Gospel. They can’t do anything else. But that doesn’t mean that the command to repent isn’t extended to those who would not. That just increases their guilt; the increase of which they were predestined for.
————————————————–
Paul
I wonder why you want to restrict the preaching and words of Jesus, “Come unto me ALL who are weary and heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Matt. 11:28).
—————————————————
Bret
All who are weary and heavy laden may come. Unfortunately those who do not receive efficacious grace do no acknowledge either their weariness nor their heavy laden-ness and are among those who do always resist the Holy Spirit as the reprobate always enthusiastically do.
————————————————————————————————
Paul
I wonder why you want to make Jesus a liar when he says that He gives his flesh for the life of the WORLD in John 6:51.
————————————————
Bret
Tell me Paul . when Caesar Augustus issued a decree that all the World should be taxed did he have in mind Peruvian Incas being taxed on their gold.
John constantly uses ‘World’ in his Gospel. The obvious end of which is to hint at the coming globalization of the Gospel to the Gentiles. Jesus is not a Jewish Savior. He is the savior of the whole World.
It was necessary for John to emphasize the exclusiveness of Jesus as the Savior. It is Jesus as Savior who provides life to the World. If the World is to have a life at all, Jesus is the one who gives it. But that doesn’t mean that each and every person who ever lives is given life.
—————————————————
Paul,
Your Calvinistic rationalism requires you to deny clear Scripture, or to define words that clearly mean what they say into something they do not.
————————————————-
Bret
Your meat axe approach proves squat. You refuse to use the analogy of faith and read the less clear in light of the more clear and as such you have one giant contradictory Lutheran mess. You turn Sola Scriptura into Sola Stupida.
Words mean what they mean given the WHOLE context of the text. Your exegetical method would take Les Miserable and conclude that Jean Val Jean was the villain because you refuse to read the text as a whole.
————————————————-
Paul,
Synergists, on the other hand, assert that we Lutherans in reality cancel universal grace because we insist SO strongly on “grace alone” and ascribe to the saved not a better, but a similar wicked conduct and equal guilt compared with the lost, and hence declares that the question, “why some are saved and not others” is question that we can not answer in this life, a question that belongs to the incomprehensible judgments and inscrutable ways of God.
—————————————————
Bret
It is only because the synergist hasn’t yet caught on to the synergistic ace up your sleeve. What you splendidly give with the right hand on the Sola’s you take with the left hand with your synergistic teaching on universal saving grace.
Why some are saved and not others is clearly taught in Scripture. It is nothing but the discriminating love of God who loves us not because we are made of better dirt but who loves us because he loves us. Unlike your god who can’t always get what he wants, the God of the Bible gets what He wants all the time.
Ephesians 1: 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: 4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: 5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, 6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. 7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; 8 Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence; 9 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: 10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: 11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: 12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. 13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, 14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.
—————————————————
Paul,
You obviously really don’t believe what the Bible says about the mystery of God’s hidden will. “How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?”( Ro 11:33-34).
————————————————–
Bret
All because we can’t know exhaustively doesn’t mean we can’t know truly. The revealed things belong to our children and us. The fact that you want to stick your head in the soteriological sand and cry ‘I can’t see the sun’ doesn’t mean that the Son isn’t shining. Pull your head out Paul.
—————————————————
Paul,
Why, what’s that? I think I hear John Calvin and his friend Bret saying, “I know the mind of the Lord! Yes, Lord, I’ve been your counselor! We will reveal your hidden will.”
———————————————————-
Bret
Why, what’s that? I think I hear Paul crying, “God is a fool who is irrational and tells us to believe both His Sovereignty and his inability to get what he desires. Don’t believe that the Word is comprehensible. Become irrational.”
Poor God, he can’t help it, he has to contend with mighty humans who can frustrate His will.
Lutheran Scripture,
“The Lord God Omnipotent reigneth (except when face to face with fallen man).
———————————————————
Paul,
Your entire argument rests on the assumption that Christian doctrine must not be taken from Scripture but must be shaped according to the requirements of a uniform “system.”
——————————————————–
Bret
No, my entire argument rests on the fact that God is a God of order. My entire argument rests on the fact that I can trust His Word to not be ignorant, stupid, contradictory or irrational.
And don’t give me any shuckin and jivin about ‘systems.’ You are just as wedded to your chaotic system as I am to my uniform system. You are just smitten with a system as the next guy. That system is called Lutheranism. And even though it is a kaka system it is still a system.
——————————————————–
Paul,
Your system trumps the clear text of Scripture every time. You’ve proven that point over and over by your own words.
—————————————————————–
Bret
I have given you scripture over and over again in this post. Deal with them.
My words have proven that God’s word is true and synergists need not apply.
————————————————————
Paul,
Calvinists, such as yourself, attack the universal grace of God and teach the particularism of saving grace.
———————————————————-
Bret
Calvinists such as myself are lock step with Luther in Bondage of the Will. More is the pity that more Lutherans aren’t.
You say you want yet another text teaching particularism?
2 Timothy 2:25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; 26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will
The text says, “If God peradventure will give them repentance Paul.” God doesn’t give that to everybody.
——————————————————-
Paul,
So, in your “system” God really doesn’t love all men, Christ does not redeem all men, the Holy Ghost does not desire to convert all men.
—————————————————————
Bret
I have a Bible that says that ‘God hates workers of iniquity.’ What does your Bible say? I have a Bible that talks about the Wrath of God resting on the unbeliever. What does your Bible say?
So, ‘no,’ the Bible doesn’t allow for a effeminate God who is hamstrung by the men he awakens to eternal life telling God, ‘up yours.’ My Bible does not allow for a God who can’t always get what He wants. My Bible doesn’t teach that my blessed Savior failed in any respect to win those for which He died.
———————————————————-
Paul,
The highest principle in Calvinistic/rationalistic theology is the “sovereignty” of God who predestines some to damnation, others to salvation.
—————————————————————
Bret
The highest principle in Lutheran/irrationalist theology is the ‘sovereignty’ of man who can spit on the grace of God. Man will ascend to the most high and decide who will receive grace and who won’t.
————————————————————————
Paul,
The Bible’s chief teaching is the grace of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.
————————————————————–
Bret
Why must you divorce sovereignty from grace? Grace by definition is sovereign. Sovereign grace.
————————————————————
Paul,
I sometimes wonder why God even bothered with Jesus in your system. He should just have saved everyone the trouble and executed his “sovereign will” and just gotten it over with.
—————————————————————-
Bret
Oh the depths of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God!
Jesus is in the Bible Paul because without the shedding of blood there is no remission of Sin.
Your comment here though is most revealing. It reveals that you really don’t believe that God’s will is sovereign. Being ‘in Christ’ is really a matter of man’s will for you. Here we see the naked pelagianism for what it is.
Obviously the final answer to that statement though is that God knew that in the enacted pactum salutis the Glory of the Triune God would be displayed to the praise of His glory and grace.
———————————————————————–
Paul,
Just as Calvinism with its Christology must resort to a philosophical axiom “finitum non capax infiniti” , so the Reformed denial of the Scriptural doctrine of universal grace is ultimately and conclusively founded on the philosophical axiom: Whatever God earnestly purposes must in every case actually occur; and since not all men are actually saved, we must conclude that the Father never did love the world, that Christ never did reconcile the world, and that the Holy Spirit never does really want to create faith in all hearers of the Word. This is Calvin’s chief argument in Institutes III, 21-24 on Predestination.
—————————————————————
Bret
More baloney.
I have given you reams of scripture that teach the particularity of Grace. Quit your carping and deal with the texts. Here is another one for you,
2 Timothy 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,
Note, Sunshine, the last four words.
——————————————————————
Paul,
Calvinism finally puts its rationalistic constructs over the Scripture and thus denies universal grace and subjects believers to nothing but doubt, always wondering if they truly are among the elect, instead of pointing them to the objective reality of Gods’ universal grace in Christ.
———————————————————————-
Bret
I point my people all the time to the Sacraments where God’s promises are found. Wrong again Pastor Paul.
——————————————————————-
Paul,
Bret, the only gaping holes here are those in your theology, a theology that leads only to the gloomy haunts of Calvin’s worldview, where the “sovereign god” of his own making trumps the loving, gracious God revealed in Christ Jesus.
—————————————————————
Bret
LOL
Meaning that God can’t be both sovereign and loving and gracious?
Well, I suppose I should expect no less of a conclusion from our resident irrationalist.
—————————————————————
Paul,
And you have the audacity to accuse Lutherans of being synergists because we maintain the Bible’s teaching on universal grace? You just don’t get it, do you? We do NOT attempt to resolve the question that so plagues the dark soul of the Calvinist, “Why some, not others.”
————————————————————————
Bret
I get it just fine. You are synergist. The Bible does not teach universal saving grace! God didn’t call Mordecai, Habib, or Mohammed. He called ABRAHAM and thus showed his particular grace.
Likewise God with Israel,
Deuteronomy 7:7 The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people: 8 But because the LORD loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the LORD brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.
God particularly chose Israel out of all the nations just as he chooses His people today from among all peoples. Particular Grace is EVERYWHERE in Scripture. You are either blind or worse if you can’t see it. Saving grace is particular.
————————————————————
Paul,
We say that all are lost ONLY because they choose to reject. We say that all are saved ONLY because of the grace of God in Christ Jesus.
—————————————————————
Bret
Rhetorical nonsense. You can’t have it both ways.
You say that Grace comes to all men. Those who are saved therefore have done something meritorious that those who aren’t saved haven’t done. They all received the same grace. The difference therefore is not in the grace received but in what is added by one that is not added by the other. Thus you deny all your precious solas. I treat your solas with more dignity and respect then you could ever dream of. Don’t worry. they are in good hands with me.
—————————————————————
Paul,
Arminians, and with them any truly synergistic Lutherans there may be, do say that God’s grace is serious, effective and sufficient, but they ADD that the gracious divine power in the means of grace does not really suffice to produce faith: human cooperation is necessary for faith to result.
————————————————————–
Bret
ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You say the same thing. Why doesn’t the unbeliever who receives the same grace as he who does believe, not believe? It is because, unlike the one who does believe, he does not co-operate with grace. How much more clear can I make this?
—————————————————————
Paul,
Some synergists say it depends on human cooperation, and the exercise of man’s free will. Another group says that the “thing in man” on which conversion depends is man’s decision to accept grace, or yielding to grace, or refraining from willful resistance. BUT both types of synergists mean the same thing: the divine operation in the means of grace does not suffice to produce faith itself.
—————————————————————
Bret
And your universal saving grace does not suffice to produce faith in the willful resistance of the unbeliever. Therefore it is co-operation, which is what the person who ends up believing, is rendering up, for without it that person would conquer God’s intent as well as the other. The same universal grace comes to both. One willfully resists. The other willfully co-operates.
—————————————————————–
Paul,
The Bible teaches that grace not only makes it possible for man to believe, giving him the power to belie, but that it creates the very act of faith. Phil. 1:29: “Unto you it is given . . to believe on Him.”
————————————————————
Bret
Why doesn’t it create the act of faith in everybody? What causes them to differ? It certainly isn’t the grace since that is the same. It is not God’s intent because according to you he wants everybody to be saved. It is not the scope of the Atonement according to you since Jesus died for everybody. It is not the wooing of the Holy Ghost since according to you he woos everybody the same. The difference is found in one place and one place only. The difference is in the one who co-operates with the universal grace and one who doesn’t. God isn’t in control of this process . fallen humans are. That is the only conclusion possible if one doesn’t have a handy dandy mystery box nearby which one can throw unavoidable conclusions in that one doesn’t like to admit.
——————————————————–
Paul
Calvinists and synergists stand at the ready with an answer to the old question, “Why some, not others. Calvinists answer it by denying universal grace. Synergists answer by denying the principle of grace alone.
———————————————————
Bret
Scripture denies universal saving Grace.
Here is another.
1 Corinthians 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; 24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: 27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; 28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: 29 That no flesh should glory in his presence. 30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: 31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.
Note here Paul that some are particularly chosen to confound those not chosen. Universal saving grace is clearly denied here. And why is it that some are in Christ Jesus and others are not? The text teaches that it is because of God that those who are foolish, weak, and despised are in Christ. God chose them particularly and not the wise and the strong.
——————————————————–
Paul,
Lutherans refuse to answer the question.
——————————————————–
Bret,
Lutherans refuse to admit that they answer the question. Or alternatively Lutherans put their fingers in their ears and shout . ‘we can not be held accountable for the clear implications of our teaching.
————————————————————
Paul,
We maintain both the gratia universalis and the sola gratia principles must be maintained side by side, without any rationalistic compromise.
—————————————————————
Bret
Yes, it is true . you are incoherent.
—————————————————
Paul,
Whoever is saved, is saved by grace alone, and not because of a lesser guilt or a better conduct over against grace; whoever is lost, is lost through his own fault, and not through a lack of the grace of God or the gracious operation of God.
————————————————–
Bret
So you keep saying . in the face of all the evidence to contrary.
“It is not of him who will nor of him who runs but of God who gives mercy.”
—————————————————
Paul,
Various attempts to resolve this problem reveal only theological immaturity. No mature theologian will indulge in such speculation.
——————————————————–
Bret
No need to speculate. It is resolved by the clear teaching of Scripture.
Romans 9:23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, 24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
———————————————————
Paul,
Romans 11:33: “How unsearchable are His judgements and His ways past finding out” of course in the Calvinist’s Bible they really shoudl pencil in, “except for us” at the end of that verse. And from the looks of it Bret has it inscribed in gold in his copy of Scripture.
————————————————–
Bret
LOL
By this reasoning we should make judgments about nothing since everything is unsearchable.
(Actually, my copy is inscribed with heavenly ink from God’s own hand)
—————————————————-
Paul,
And of course, I’m sure the good Calvinist’s Bible has scratched out the “ek merous” of 1 Cor. 13:12, “Now we know in part” instead it must read, “Now, actually, we have it all figured out.”
———————————————————–
Bret
Ad hominem . like much of your post. We don’t pretend to have it all figured
out. We just stand by the clear teaching of Scripture.
———————————————————-
Paul,
But we Lutherans choose to retain the text of Scripture and realize that in eternal life, when our understanding of God and divine things will no longer be fragmentary (1 Cor. 13:12), this obscure matter, too, will become clear to us.
——————————————————-
Bret
But it is not obscure. You want to talk about obscure things becoming clear let’s talk about the hypostatic union, or the Trinity, or the nature of the sacramental union. You see Calvinists are just further ahead. We look forward to the really tough ones being understood.
——————————————————–
Paul,
Here I stand. I can do none other. God help me. Amen.
—————————————————-
Bret
You may be standing but your position is lying in such ruins that only God can help you.
————————————————–
Paul,
Indeed, you have a different spirit.
—————————————————–
Bret
Yes . one that can think straight.