The main two verses that Calvinist use are Eph 2:1,5 which states
And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)
The idea is that man is a corpse, unable and unwilling to respond to the gospel. Because there is no verse in the entire realm of Scripture that states man is so dead that he cannot respond, these are as close as they get. The logic is utilized that dead means dead and that a dead man can no more respond to the gospel then a physically dead man. Never mind that man can reject the gospel, a point some Calvinists skirt around. I mean, if man is so, so dead that he cannot respond, how can he reject it? It would seem that our corpse could respond in some way to the gospel after all.
Ok. Let us assume that the man is a corpse unable to do anything but be dead. Let us imagine that our dead man is a rotten, stinking corpse, unable to move himself and reach toward Christ. According to Calvinism, God gives the corpse new life and makes him willing to believe. God himself has brought new life to a once dead corpse. “Praise be to God,” the once dead corpse explains.
However, what happens when we insert the same logic into the “new life” scenario. The same man is 100% alive. He can do nothing but what God wants him to do. After all, God gave him new life and made him willing to obey the preaching of the gospel. He no longer has to worry about the dead life that once weighted him down. After all, alive is alive. Let us see what thus saith the Lord about this matter.
Romans 7
17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
Whoa Paul! What are you saying here? Do you still BATTLE the old man, that corpse that was given life? Does your corpse rear his ugly head when you attempt to do right? How can this be right? I though new life was new life! You mean the very thing that made you a corpse (sin), still dwells within you? Paul, you mean there are times when the “100% dead corpse that was given 100% new life actually wins the battle some time?
To the Calvinists out there, they may not recognize the irrational and inconsistency that apparently new life still means battle with the old life. They are willing to take dead in these verses and carry it to an extreme, but as seen it doesn’t seem to work that way with the new life. Did the new life that God supposedly gave them prior to salvation not work? Did it wear off? Why did the power that caused them to believe mysteriously go away?
Why must we still battle the old man? I thought the old man was given 100% life, to combat his 100% death.
The logic doesn’t seem to add up. “But dead means dead” Does the exact same greek word nekros used in the following verses mean the exact same thing?
Lu 9:60 Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God.
Lu 15:24 For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry.
Lu 15:32 It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.
Lu 16:30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
No doubt man is dead in sins. But nowhere does the Bible say he is so dead that he can’t respond to the gospel.
As I wrap this up, think of all the feats this corpse can do without God giving him new life.
1.Give his life for others- wait, Jesus said greater love hath no man than this….
2.Do good deeds and place his needs under those around him- wait, you mean he can actually do the second greatest commandment…
3.Obey Scripture and even bless the food.
But He cannot see his need for a Savior? Hmmmm
6 comments:
Eph 2:1,5 states
And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)
”The idea is that man is a corpse, unable and unwilling to respond to the gospel.”
We cannot *positively* respond. Spiritual deadness requires that we cannot respond in a spiritually acceptable manner to the gospel. If we could respond in a spiritually acceptable manner, we wouldn’t be spiritually dead, i.e. God would have regenerated us.
“Let us assume that the man is a corpse unable to do anything but be dead. Let us imagine that our dead man is a rotten, stinking corpse, unable to move himself and reach toward Christ. According to Calvinism, God gives the corpse new life and makes him willing to believe. God himself has brought new life to a once dead corpse. “Praise be to God,” the once dead corpse explains.
However, what happens when we insert the same logic into the “new life” scenario. The same man is 100% alive. He can do nothing but what God wants him to do.”
This is not what Calvinists believe, and is non sequitur. We are set free from bondage to sin (John 8:34-36), this does not mean we can’t still choose sin. We are not yet glorified. But being free from sin and being under its power do not necessarily lead to opposite actions. That a free man cannot choose to sin is a presupposition you have made. Adam was free from sin; he sinned. We maintain this ability to sin because we revert to how we were when Adam walked with God – not under sin’s power, but not incapable of sinning. That is what it means to be spiritually alive.
“Did the new life that God supposedly gave them prior to salvation not work? Did it wear off? Why did the power that caused them to believe mysteriously go away? Why must we still battle the old man?”
Go away? What does that mean? How could it “go away” if it’s in battle? It all depends on what you believe the life God injects into the believer is meant to accomplish. If some extremist view like you’re positing the Calvinist should believe, then no, the new life doesn’t accomplish what it was meant to do. But that’s not what the life was meant to do, at least not while we are here on earth. Sanctification is a character building process.
”No doubt man is dead in sins. But nowhere does the Bible say he is so dead that he can’t respond to the gospel.”
This is a slight of hand. Nowhere does the Calvinist say unregenerate man cannot respond. We say he cannot COME.
John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
- No man can come (total depravity)
- unless the Father draws him (effectual drawing – why effectual? Notice the second half of the sentence)
- and He, the Father, will raise up him, the drawn, at the last day (the drawn WILL be raised the last day - also preservation of the saints)
There you have it. I could add Romans 8:7-8, 3:9-12, and others, but John 6:44 is sufficient.
”As I wrap this up, think of all the feats this corpse can do with God giving him new life.
1. Give his life for others- wait, Jesus said greater love hath no man than this….
2.Do good deeds and place his needs under those around him- wait, you mean he can actually do the second greatest commandment…
3.Obey Scripture and even bless the food.
But He cannot see his need for a Savior?”
A reference and a rephrased propositional argument would help me greatly in my response, thank you.
Ryan- Your first response doesn’t jive with the whole corpse theory. Calvinism teaches man is completely dead, yet you agree he is capable of some sort of response. While we are on the topic of regeneration and Adam, how could Adam have heard the voice of God and respond, being dead in sins? He was ungenerated, was he not?
Your response about the ability to remain sinning also does not jive with some of the leaders today in Calvinism. R.C.Sproul, James White, Arthur Pink, Loraine Boettner, and Augustine would tell you from their writings that God causes man to sin.
If I read you right, you say we revert back to the way Adam was when he walked with God. That would mean we are sinless. You also say we are no longer under the power of sin. Could you explain this in detail please?
Nowhere does the Calvinist say unregenerate man cannot respond. We say he cannot COME.
Of course he cannot come. No one can unless drawn by the Father. Calvinism then spilts from non-Calvinism and teaches man cannot respond to that drawing without God giving him new life. A theory that is not backed by Scritpture.
O.K. John 6:44. famous pet verse of Calvinism. When read in context, say verses 35-65, it is plain to see that it is the ones God gives to Christ will be the ones that come to Him, not the ones that are drawn. Before the accusation is made “ Why would God draw someone He will not save?” think about the teaching that the gospel is offered to all, yet God never designed it for the reprobate, according to Calvinism. Lest some should get in a charade debate, think about it. Calvinism has caused the ‘mockeries’, not non-Calvinism.
I reworded my last statement. Look for the word in red.
Also, please explain why God holds the non-elect accountable for their sins, if He alone choose not to "regenerate" them? Is this not like me braking a horse's leg and then punishing it for not running?
”Your first response doesn’t jive with the whole corpse theory. Calvinism teaches man is completely dead, yet you agree he is capable of some sort of response.”
You're going to have to be more specific, especially with regards to this:
"Spiritual deadness requires that we cannot respond in a spiritually acceptable manner to the gospel."
Why is that wrong? I don't care what other people write, I am accountable for what I say and believe.
“While we are on the topic of regeneration and Adam, how could Adam have heard the voice of God and respond, being dead in sins? He was ungenerated, was he not?”
Before or after he sinned? Before he sinned, he didn’t need to be regenerated, because he wasn’t under sin’s power. Afterwards, he must have been regenerated before he could listen to God. Do you not agree in light of John 8:47?
"If I read you right, you say we revert back to the way Adam was when he walked with God. That would mean we are sinless."
I mean as far as our nature is concerned - we (regenerates) are morally liberated from sin, just as Adam was.
"You also say we are no longer under the power of sin. Could you explain this in detail please?"
John 8:34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. 35And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever. 36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.
What does it mean to be a servant of sin?
Romans 3:9 “…both Jews and Gentiles… are all under sin; 10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: 11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. 12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.”
To be free from servitude to sin is to be able to choose to do good, righteousness, things profitable, and understand and seek God – all things we could not do under sin’s power.
//Nowhere does the Calvinist say unregenerate man cannot respond. We say he cannot COME.//
”Of course he cannot come. No one can unless drawn by the Father. Calvinism then spilts from non-Calvinism and teaches man cannot respond to that drawing without God giving him new life. A theory that is not backed by Scritpture. O.K. John 6:44. famous pet verse of Calvinism. When read in context, say verses 35-65, it is plain to see that it is the ones God gives to Christ will be the ones that come to Him, not the ones that are drawn.”
*Makes screeching car noise* Now wait a minute. Do you not notice the parallel here:
John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and **I will raise him up at the last day.**
This is referring back to the antecedent – “him” who the Father draws. Now look at verse 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**.”
See? The one who is given is the one who will be raised the last day, just like the one who is drawn. The parallel is obvious.
”Also, please explain why God holds the non-elect accountable for their sins, if He alone choose not to "regenerate" them?”
I believe federal headship is biblical. That is, I believe that we all sinned in Adam, in that we would have done as he did – disobeyed by eating the fruit. Thus, our sin nature is imputed from Adam (much like Christ’s righteousness is imputed for being our – the Church’s – federal head), and we are responsible for all subsequent desires and actions that are sinful.
“As I wrap this up, think of all the feats this corpse can do without God giving him new life.”
1. Give his life for others- wait, Jesus said greater love hath no man than this….”
God’s standard and our standard are different. It’s Him or sin.
2. Do good deeds and place his needs under those around him- wait, you mean he can actually do the second greatest commandment…
Good before whom?
3. Obey Scripture and even bless the food.
Even Paul, who, as he says, did not break the law, was guilty before God.
Ryan, this will most likely be the last you and I go at it for this post. I may have others to deal with later. Thanks for your time and responses. To save the cut and pasting (some could get confused about who said what) I will object to your presentation as a whole.
Regeneration is a New Testament term. It is the same as salvation. Even leading Calvinist such as MacAurthur and Spurgeon would agree to this. The question to ponder is this: were the OT saints regenerated in the NT sense? Did they receive the Spirit of God at the point they believed in Him?
If total depravity be true, then God wasted His time with the nation of Israel in Isaiah 1:18- Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.
These Israelites could no more respond than a dead man, according to Calvinism. The only way they could have was if God regenerated them with Irresistible Grace. To bad no one told Paul about “T” and “I” in TULIP. He would not have wasted his time trying to convince the nation of Israel of their need for a Savior. The elect will be saved regardless and the non-elect was already damned, according to Calvinism.
It still seems that you believe in a type of sinless perfection. Salvation saves us from the penalty of sin (death & hell). But Paul still struggled with the old man, as we all do. Sure we can seek God now and attempt to not sin, but the fact remains that we will choose to still sin and we will still sin even if we do not choose too. Paul did, and we do too. No matter how holy we try to live, we still have a sin nature that is not taken away. We still have the old corpse to deal with. As I stated earlier, apparently we non-Calvinist cannot take the same logic you do about death and apply it to life.
Once again, John 6:44. No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Nowhere in the strongest passage you have even had the words unconditional, irresistible, or grace. Don’t force the Bible to say what it does not. The verse states what we all believe.
As for the last part, I don’t quite get what you said about number one. It had nothing to do with refuting the fact man can show the greatest feed of love and selflessness, even in his state of “death”.
Your response in number two is clearly answered by Luke 11:11-13
11 If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?
12 Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?
13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?
I believe that God himself said “any of you that is a Father” and “good gifts unto your children”
There is still no escaping the fact that the “corpse” apparently can still do things that even the elect are sometimes unwilling to do. I think I have shown that you can’t take the “death” and the “life” in the same way. So it at least stands to reason that the extreme Calvinists place on death is just that, an extreme.
No one is arguing that man is spiritual dead in such a manner that he cannot come to God apart from divine intervention. But the fallacy comes when theories are presented that are not backed by Scripture, but are rather contradictory to the whole of Scripture.
As stated earlier, I knew I could not address the entire issue. I will take a stab at a different approach later on. If now one has responded by mid-week, I may post any counter argument you have. I would rather it be a more in depth discussion on what you meant about the sin nature. Thanks Ryan.
I lurk on your blog every now and again. Usually, I make no attempt to respond, but there are a few things at issue here.
1. You’ve developed a straw man argument against biblical theology (some refer to it as reformed, some as “Calvinistic,”). An honest debate can’t be held with a man who decides that his opponent’s position rests on a pendulum rather than outside of the machine. If you’re going to argue against what others have posed as biblical theology, argue against their arguments rather than a light interpretation of such.
2. You speak of logic: Is your god limited to how you envision him to be? The God of the Scriptures makes Himself known to us through the Scriptures, but not exhaustively (even as the Scriptures themselves are not exhaustive). You’ve relegated his actions to what you can deduce rather than seeing Him as the covenantal God who exists beyond all you could ever hope or imagine. (I usually use the ESV, but I’ll throw it out there with your text) Romans 11:33 – “O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!”
3. Vocabulary. You want to speak on terms (or phrases, or words) that aren’t in the Scriptures, try these: Bible, Trinity, “Walk down the aisle,” sinner’s prayer, rapture, “Ask Jesus into your heart,” etc. To speak of terms that aren’t within the Scriptures is to negate the sense in which we have been created as image bearers. God did not infuse the entirety of His character into the Scriptures, but what we can understand. Even John wrote of God incarnate, “And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.” (John 21:25).
A bit of a breakdown:
This may be repetitive of the other comments, but when we speak of total depravity we speak of a soul whose desire is rebellion. At heart, we are all idolaters. And so it is with him who does not believe – not only that they cannot choose Christ, but that the person will not. There is a real distinction to be understood there – the willingness to buck against the God who has revealed Himself through all that has been made leaves all men with no excuse before Him. So, if you ask, “How can a man be responsible for a choice he is not able to make,” the answer may be found in the simplicity of the response, “Because he was not willing.”
Read these verses in context:
Luke 10:20-23
[20] Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven.
[21] In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.
[22] All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.
[23] And he turned him unto his disciples, and said privately, Blessed are the eyes which see the things that ye see:
I won’t post it all, but also John 15:1-16
Verse 16 follows, “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.”
How about Ephesians 2? Here, I’ll post just a couple, though it’s all worth reading in context:
[5] Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)
[6] And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
Talking about God’s choosing of a people from an OT standpoint isn’t safe ground either. God chose Abraham to be the father of a nation – Abraham was a liar, a thief, and a coward (so, will you attribute God’s choosing to a faithful life in that?). God chose Moses to lead his people out of Egypt – Moses was a murderer, prone to anger, and (at times) very faithless. God chose Joseph before Moses and led Joseph through some crazy junk – even though Joseph was prideful and flaunted the favor of his father. God chose Jacob over Esau, even though Jacob may have been a bit effeminate, a liar, a thief, and also a coward.
At the end of the day, what do you do with a God who displays unwarranted favor time and time again? If you want to put logic behind it, then ask yourself this, “Is my choosing of Christ a ‘good work.’” If you’re basing your place as an heir of the kingdom on an answer that you’ve formulated, deduced, and pronounced based upon your reasoning of the pro’s and con’s of having a relationship with the Everlasting I Am, then I don’t see how you can escape the idea that it isn’t a work. If it is a work, then what did Christ die for? Just to cover some of your iniquities – just to cover the things you only got partly right?
This has really sparked me because what’s at stake (as is always) is the gospel of Jesus Christ. The difference between your story and my story is that yours will revolve around this decision that you made to chose God (because of something you’ve done, essentially) whereas mine will rest in this idea that He chose me despite myself.
There are other issues that we can move to here (thinking of evangelism, of personal responsibility, of cognizant effort – all of which are important and true to what life is in a broken world), but I will ask you this: Are you comfortable finding yourself in the mystery of Christ, or do you believe that an answer is necessitated to define the infinitudes of the person of God before you can believe?
Too, you can chalk my verses at “pet verses for biblical theologians,” – I prefer to look at them as pieces of the puzzle being encompassed in the full story of God’s revelation of Himself to His people.
Twilley- What straw man would that be?
I have had numerous others throw out the Trinity card. It is funny you should too. The strongest evidence we have proving beyond all doubt is not even found in your Bible. Look for 1 John 5:7. Look in yours and look in mine. Who has the stronger proof?
I can take one verse and prove the Trinity. Calvinist cannot show one verse that clear proves any part of the TULIP. That, my friend, would be the difference. Show me just one verse that clearly states any one point.
What you said about the OT saints was true. But for you to take these and try to “prove” the “U” in TULIP is farfetched. Furthermore, for you to quote John 15:16 by no means is proof of “U”. First of all, that passages is not speaking about salvation. Second of all, does God answer every prayer you prayed? Why not? Could it be that this verse cannot be twisted to fit your theory?
“ This has really sparked me because what’s at stake (as is always) is the gospel of Jesus Christ. The difference between your story and my story is that yours will revolve around this decision that you made to chose God (because of something you’ve done, essentially) whereas mine will rest in this idea that He chose me despite myself.”
So this is what caused the lurking to turn into responding? Let’s us compare our two gospels. Mine- good news for all mankind. Yours- good news for a few. Mine- speaks of a God that is love. Yours- speaks of a God that is pleased to damn billions. Mine- supported by clear Scripture. Yours- found in books, twists Scripture. Mine- the same gospel that been preached since the birth of Christ. Yours- “discovered 1500 years ago, made famous by John Calvin.
I could go on, but you get the picture. Thanks for the response. Feel free to lurk.
Post a Comment