Author: Bob

Although having grown up in Tucson, AZ, I’m an upper Midwestern guy at heart having spent most of my adult life in Minnesota. I've entered the "Buick stage" of life and retired to Florida. This blog is an attempt to explain the deconstruction of my Christian faith and better understand what I perceive as the discordant aspects of Christianity. Things which make life more enjoyable include rough-housing with the grandkids, strong black coffee, charcoal grilling, cutting wood on a table saw, playing chess, a good orthopedic surgeon and an occasional IPA. Please feel free to poke around and comment as you wish. I welcome cordial discussion and the insights of others with a different perspective and understanding.

TULIP Logic versus a Calvinist’s Statement – Part 2

Dear Timothy,

I wasn’t able to make the formatting work in a comment on a previous post and so I just started “part 2” of this discussion as a new post. I’ve looked over and thought about some of the things you said in your first response related to my TULIP Logic versus a Calvinist’s Statement post from 11/05/09. Allow me to toss back my $0.02 worth and I’d welcome any response(s) you may have. The brackets I placed in your statements were for my readability to better understand what you were saying. I’ve tried to maintain the accuracy of your statements – it wasn’t my intention to alter or change anything you said.

Below is a table containing your statements and my response. I don’t know if this is the best way to compare and contrast our respective thoughts, beliefs, and opinions – but it seems like a reasonable start.

Timothy’s Statement	Bob’s Response
Why [does] everyone who opposes God as Word implicitly say that God and Lucifer have the same language?	The term “will-neutral” is new to me. God is God and He is sovereign and whatever He speaks happens. I’m not sure exactly what you mean by “defending God’s word as something that is “will-neutral holy information”. The Bible talks about the Word becoming flesh (John 1:1-2) – It is my understanding that John’s Gospel is showing that Jesus is both God and man in one person. With regard to “will-neutral holy information,” I believe that the words in Bible are from God and contain everything we need to know and understand about the nature and character of God in addition to a plethora of (quite frankly) very practical things such as how we can be saved and how God wants us to live. Still, I sense I’m missing your main point so please clarify.This may go back to my earlier thoughts where I guess I may need to better understand exactly what you mean by “God as Word”. Doesn’t John 1, makes clear that the Word became flesh (Jesus)? Even so, your statement intrigues me but, again, I’m not exactly sure just what you mean by “God and Lucifer have the same language”.
Why [do] all who oppose Calvinism portray themselves to be overtly siding with the damned?	First of all, I don’t oppose Calvinism. I admit to being confused by Calvinistic thoughts and my own study leads me to think that Calvinistic thought is in error with the desire of God that no one should perish (John 3:16 and 1 Pet 3:9). I admit to not understanding the nature, character and love of God as portended by Calvinistic thought. So far, my own study of verses used in support of Calvinism has led me to a different conclusion.I find it interesting that you believe my questioning of Calvinism is “siding with the damned”. Perhaps from your perspective, that makes sense. Phil 3:15 says – And if on some point [I] think differently, that too God will make clear to [me]. Well, to date, God hasn’t made it clear to me that the teachings of Calvinism are the truth. That said, I am conflicted because, quite frankly, there do appear to be a number of scripture references in which I can draw no other conclusion than that Calvinism is the truth. However, there are just as many, if not more, scripture references that (to me, anyway) poke a stick in the eye of Calvinism. That begs a question; how is it, Timothy, that you can ever have complete assurance of salvation? Perhaps you are not part of the elect. Perhaps you came to a logical conclusion that Jesus is who he said he is. Perhaps you desired eternal life and prayed a prayer of salvation and maybe even had “feelings” to support and justify your newfound faith. But you have no proof of your salvation. Where in scripture do you see your name written and confirmed that yes, Timothy, is saved?
Playing the dissembling part to supposedly heroically defend the damned and give them ‘a chance’ to be saved is not at all the same as loving a sinner who is elect and knows nothing about election or predestination and is still very much a sinner.	Have you ever shared your faith with an unbeliever? I mean, honestly, why would you? As I see it, you have no way of offering someone the love and hope of Christ. You can demonstrate through your life all that God has (and is) doing through your life and perhaps instill with that unbeliever a desire to learn more. And yet, if (using my favorite phrase) that poor schlep isn’t elect then you’re just wasting your time. And yet, aren’t we, as believers, to be the salt of the earth – the hope and light to a fallen world?
There is no actual and non-metaphorical new birth in Arminianism. So you have to fake it and claim behavioral changes as evidence of new creatureness.	Your statement is confusing to me. If I re-write it without the double negative, it says – there is a metaphorical new birth in Arminianism. I take this to mean that if one isn’t a Calvinist, then they can’t be a Christian for it is only Calvinists that can be saved because God chooses his elect – the Calvinists, naturally.This is exactly the kind of logic and thought process that brought about a three-year period in which I had completely lost my assurance of salvation.
Free will denies that heaven and [hell] will be filled with two different creatures.[It is a free will lie to say] heaven will be filled with those who supposedly earned [their way into heaven].	To the first part, you’re saying that I believe there is no distinction between those in heaven and those in hell.Quite the contrary – I firmly believe that those in heaven will be there because they have accepted Christ’s substitution for their own sin. Those in hell will not have been washed clean by the blood of Christ and therefore they will have to experience the consequences of their own sin. So, by definition then, I believe heaven and hell will be populated by two different ‘creatures’; those who have new life in Christ (heaven) and the lost (hell). To your second point, God is the giver of the gift of salvation. Is He any less God if I choose to accept or reject his free gift? I don’t think so. Does the Holy Spirit not move in the souls of people and otherwise convict them of their need for a savior? I think it does. I do not understand the Calvinist contention that it’s a ‘works-based’ faith to accept the leadings and promptings of God and come to a point of accepting his offer of forgiveness and salvation.
You tear the Bible in shreds before you ever begin to read it. Then [you] read it to make fun of it with philosophical lies that don’t even make sense when examined even slightly.	In my own mind, I find Calvinistic thought to be illogical based upon the nature of God as expressed in and through the life of Jesus. Jesus is, after all, God. Nowhere in scripture do I find Jesus identifying or otherwise making distinctions as to elect versus non-elect. Jesus does make distinctions between believers versus non-believers Please, I truly would welcome feedback sprinkled with generous amounts of scripture to show the error in my thinking.
Keep [telling] the lies of [sinners] and defend the damned as if you really thought you were one of them [which is] a thing you have no actual say over at all.	To me, this comes across as a rather judgmental statement on your part. I’m not sure if you’re saying that I’m part of the elect or part of the damned because I’m not elect. Maybe I am elect and I just don’t know it. Maybe I am not now part of the elect but God will make me part of the elect later?What I do know is this: I believe that Jesus is who He says he is and that I have asked Him to come into my life and I accept, through faith, that His sacrifice on the cross will atone for my sins when I stand before God on judgment day. Am I a Christian?
Free will [people] automatically side with the damned. In Arminian theology, the righteous are the enemy.	If you mean that I side with the damned because I come alongside a hurting soul and try to give him hope in Christ – yeah, guilty as charged. I feel an obligation to reach out to the unsaved. I never have understood what the great commission (Matt 28: 19-20) means to a Calvinist. Why would a Calvinist waste time, talent and treasure to reach an unbeliever? Calvinists have no way of knowing whether someone is elect or not. Further, as I see it, any outreach a Calvinist does is pointless. If that person is elect, God will save him. If that person is not elect, then the Calvinist is wasting their time because there’s nothing that can be done to change that the poor schlep isn’t elect. Is this Christian thinking?This is the thought process that drew me into Thomas Schriener’s comment, “God’s wrath and judgment are personally directed against sinners who have failed to praise, honor and thank him.” Sorry to be repetitive and perhaps daft, but Calvinist thought simply makes no sense to me.
Proverbs 17:15 says; He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the LORD.	Are you saying that Calvinists are the just ones while non-Calvinists are the wicked ones. Further, if my understanding and studying of Calvinism leads me to a non-Calvinist conclusion, then I am an abomination to the Lord? Is that what you believe?

I didn’t intend for this post to get as long as it did. However, as I look back on this, we seem to be dancing around a central disagreement with regard to the concept of election. As I said in my post, the U in TULIP appears to be the bedrock of Calvinist belief. Right now, I’ve reached a different conclusion based on my own understanding and study.

Here’s a simple overview of what I believe election to be and how it came about:

In the beginning, God created Adam and Eve. Were they “elect”?

After the flood, those on the Noah’s arc dispersed and various nations formed. For His own reasons, God chose the descendants of Abraham (the Israelites) to be “the elect”. If nothing else, this is corporate election.

Through Israel (God’s elect), all nations would eventually hear and respond to the salvation of God and could thereby become “elect” by following the law.

Prophesy was fulfilled when Jesus came and preached to the Jews (the “old” elect) and the Gentiles (the “new” elect) alike about new life in Christ.

So, what does this mean or prove? Well, Calvinists claim that one not yet saved can be an elect person – it’s just that God hasn’t brought that person to a point of salvation. However, what I see is that it is the believers – those who have, by faith, trusted Christ for their salvation that are the elect. Therefore, a person doesn’t become “elect” until he is a believer. As such, being elect is not future oriented wherein a person will believe because God has elected him. Rather, becoming elect occurs the moment a person believes. Clearly God wants none to perish. But it’s obvious that not all are or will be saved and so there seems to be an element wherein individuals are able to accept or reject God’s free gift of salvation. In conclusion, an elect person is a Christian.

Sincerely,

Bob

TULIP Logic vs a Calvinist’s Statement

Have you ever applied TULIP logic to a statement made by a Calvinist? Thomas Schreiner, who contributes a Calvinist view on atonement in the book, The Nature of the Atonement states on pg 80, “God’s wrath and judgment are personally directed against sinners who have failed to praise, honor and thank him.” My first thought was, “Well, for crying out loud, the poor schlep isn’t part of the elect and so, of course, because God has so determined, the poor schlep’s sins aren’t forgiven and therefore the poor schlep will experience God’s wrath and judgment.” Then I wondered how the poor schlep would fair when this same thinking was applied to all five (TULIP) tenants of Calvinism.

As to total depravity wherein people are morally unable to choose to follow God because of their own natures – God’s wrath and judgment are personally directed against a poor schlep who failed to praise, honor and thank Him because the poor schlep isn’t part of the elect and therefore the poor schlep can’t choose to follow God.

As to unconditional election wherein it’s God’s choice from the beginning of time to save only those God intends to save – God’s wrath and judgment are personally directed against a poor schlep whom God chooses not to elect and therefore the poor schlep is ‘toast’.

As to limited atonement wherein Christ’s death atones for only for the sins of the elect – God’s wrath and judgment are personally directed against a poor schlep who failed to praise, honor and thank Him because the poor schlep isn’t one of the elected and therefore Christ’s death doesn’t atone for the poor schlep’s sins.

As to irresistible grace wherein the Holy Spirit overcomes all resistance and makes His influence irresistible in order to save someone – God’s wrath and judgment are personally directed against a poor schlep who failed to praise, honor and thank Him because the poor schlep isn’t elected and therefore the Holy Spirit didn’t overcome the poor schlep’s resistance.

As to perseverance of the saints wherein the elect will continue in their faith unless they fall away (which means they never had true faith) – God’s wrath and judgment are personally directed against a poor schlep who failed to praise, honor and thank Him because the poor schlep wasn’t elected and therefore didn’t have true faith.

Some may think I have some sort of OCD – oppositional Calvinistic disorder. Perhaps I do – but only because I seem to come to a different conclusion when I read scriptures in support of Calvinism. And from this little exercise, it seems evident that the most fundamental tenant of Calvinism is the concept of unconditional election. So far as I understand, if there’s error within the ‘U’ of TULIP, then there’s simply no way that Calvinist can justify their beliefs. I was recently made aware of a TULIP defense (if that’s the right term) by John Piper which I plan to delve into.

Why Be a Calvinist?

A good and dear friend who writes on matters of faith and religion for the Louisville Examiner recently posted an article: Why Be a Calvinist? I’ve known Mike for quite a while now we’ve had many really good and deep discussions related to faith-related issues that I struggle with including Calvinism, the will of God, open theism, etc. Even though I may have profound disagreements with Mike, I have immense respect for him and I invite readers of this blog to visit his site at:

http://www.examiner.com/x-13763-Louisville-Evangelical-Examiner~y2009m11d4-Why-believe-in-Calvinism?#comments

Two-Point Calvinism – Is That an Acceptable Alternative?

Towards the end of a recent sermon, barriers to Bible study including “I don’t know how” and “I’m not motivated” were mentioned. In my own journey, a struggle with Bible study is related to opposing perspectives where both sides of an argument reference and use the same scriptures in defending their arguments. What is one, who admittedly struggles with the general concepts of Calvinism, to believe when PhD theologians (if that’s the correct term) such as John Piper and Greg Boyd can’t agree on the Apostle Paul’s teaching in Romans 9? Focusing less on a theological “system” such as Calvinism or any theological model that attempts to organize biblical data may be the best approach. However, it’s my observation that variability in scriptural interpretation comes about, in part, because believers have a “hypothesis” based upon their “belief system”. That said, the debate regarding Calvinism is troubling because 1) there appear to be good arguments for and against Calvinism and 2) one’s perception of who God is can be significantly altered by an affinity (or lack thereof) to Calvinist thought. Honestly, do believers get to choose (pun intended) who’s right – and conversely, who’s wrong? It may seem like a silly thing and perhaps it is. However, the impact of Calvinistic thought has been real in my relationship to God over the last three years. Perhaps I’m ignorant of facts. Perhaps all too often data is usurped by dogma. Perhaps there is a sense of mystery in a spiritual relationship. Perhaps mystery leads to a theological tension.

Is there such a thing as a “two-point” Calvinist? For instance, are there Calvinists who adhere only to (T) total depravity and (P) perseverance of the saints? I’ve always thought that Calvinism rises or falls collectively on all five points (TULIP). What if ditching the whole notion of election, and perhaps a couple of other Calvinist tenants as well, eliminates my sense of theological tension?

Hey Colleen! Guess what?

I’m a Calvinist now! Praise God!

Albeit, I’ll just admit to being a two-point Calvinist. Somehow, that expressed sentiment seems hollow because it lacks the totality of Calvinistic thought. There are five points within the Calvinist “system” or “theological model”. In addition, I suspect my dear friend is not rejoicing over any two-point Calvinist conversion I may proclaim.

So, back to where I started – as an open theist. For reasons I don’t fully understand, I am more comfortable with the general concepts of open theism than I am with Calvinism. I just don’t know whether open theism is right. Then, too, I don’t know if Calvinism is right either. The theological tension continues.

God’s Will and the Life of a Beauty Queen

I recently saw an on-line story (noted below) about Carrie Prejean – the former beauty pageant contestant who some think lost the Miss America contest because of her answer to a question regarding same-sex marriage. Ms. Prejean is quoted as saying, “God chose me for that moment because he knew that not only would I be the one to stand up for Him and for the truth, but because He knew I was strong enough to get through all the junk that I’ve been through.”

God “chose” her because she would be “strong enough” Uh, not so fast, please. First, Ms. Prejean’s answer that evening was a credit to her character and a testament to the values she holds dear. Given that she was one of the contest’s finalists and the Miss America title potentially moments away, Ms. Prejean chose to proclaim God’s truth. That said, I’m hard-pressed to believe that Ms Prejean’s situation is any different from anyone else being challenged on a point of morality. The circumstances of a beauty contest certainly provided more notoriety because of the setting and who was asking the question. However, all believers will have tribulations at various times in their lives. It’s a promise that Jesus gave in John 16:33.

Has God placed particular people in particular positions at particular times for His end-results? The Apostle Paul, of course, had his Damascus Road experience. And Jesus chose those whom He wanted as His disciples. That said, from my reading and understanding of the New Testament, it is only rarely that God chose certain people for certain tasks. Furthermore, in my opinion, those instances only occurred during the early formation of the Church.

Did God call Carrie Prejean to be a beauty pageant contestant? I don’t think so. If anything, all believers are called to holy living and to being a living sacrifice (Rom 12:1-21). The NIV Topical Bible states: “[A]fter citing general principles for the Christian life, Paul gives practical guidelines on several specific issues; using properly God’s gifts to us, living a life of love, respecting human governments and using our Christian freedom compassionately and lovingly in disputable matters. These issues remain vital in our lives today.” The challenges that confront God’s standards and His desire for our lives are all around us. We have a choice to make each time we’re confronted with something at odds to God’s stated will for our lives.

This is God’s will for everyone: to be willing to exchange that which is temporal for that which is eternal.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/09/miss-california-wows-conservatives.html

God is large and in charge

A blog was set up on our church’s web site to allow for comments on the pastor’s summer sermon series. There was one comment (which I’ve edited below for brevity) related to the will of God entitled “God is large and in charge” that I found interesting:

I look back and reflect on a time when God was real, present and in control of my life. I must have fought with God every step of the way. However, God began showing me that He had gifted me for a purpose and began the slow and painful process of changing my definition of success, and my trusting in Him alone for my security and well-being.

During this time, God was present in every way I could have imagined. He spoke to me through the Spirit (that still small voice), through other people, through the Word and even through the radio. Everywhere I turned, I had confirmations regarding a life’s direction. Everything from Bible verses reminding me God has plans to prosper and not to harm me (Jeremiah 29:11) and that God works all things for the good of those that love Him and are called according to His purpose (Romans 8:28) to radio songs about surrendering my life completely to God.

I kept a journal of all the confirmations I sensed God throwing my way just so I could be sure and convinced that this was from God. It’s almost comical the steps God used to get my attention. It’s also incredibly encouraging to look back and realize God was there and really did have my best interests at heart. I’ve never been happier in my life. And, to top it off, God has met all of our financial needs and even most of our wants.

I posted the following comment:

Your story of God’s leading is interesting. However, the overriding perception seems to be that you’re trusting God based not only on the feelings you’ve experienced but also on the outcome. Ultimately, you felt that this direction was the right thing to do and the outcome of that decision – being that you’ve never been happier and aren’t lacking for anything has validated that decision. Who am I to say that you’re not right? Maybe God did lead you. Still, I find it troubling that Christian cultists, or non-Christians for that matter, could use the same logic and draw the same conclusions based on their similar experiences. This (for me) begs the questions, does God lead non-believers in the same way as you believe He has led you? Perhaps that’s a question for another time. Still, how is it that Christians today lay claim to God prospering them today based on Jer 29:11? This is indeed what scripture says. However, is this what scripture teaches? The reference in Jeremiah is a historical event – God gave a promise to those whom Nebuchadnezzar had exiled from Jerusalem to Babylon. Furthermore, there was a seventy-year period from when the promise was given to the promise’s eventual fulfillment. It’s a little disconcerting to apply similar logic regarding Matt 27:5 – where Judas hanged himself. In addition, I don’t think the Rom 8:28 reference supports your contention that God “willed” you into a specific direction as I don’t see the verse saying that God directs everything.

Lo and behold, a reply from the original poster:

When I look back and see God’s hand in my life, I see two separate issues here – one related to His promise of provision, and the other related to a vocational direction. Both were equally mind-blowing and joyful to me.

While I certainly had financial fears about this vocation, that doesn’t mean that God’s financial provision since then is proof that taking this job was God’s will. Rather, during this call, I was forced to confront the issue of whether or not I really believed I could trust God for my financial provision. I was stepping onto new spiritual turf because of my upbringing and the resulting philosophies I carried with me about self-reliance and even definitions for success. I placed my trust in God and gave up my illusions of control and still we have lacked for nothing. This is proof of God’s faithfulness and provision and that we can trust him – not proof that this vocation was God’s Will. Indeed, through prayer, scriptures, listening to the Holy Spirit and through council from trusted Christian friends I was sure of God’s will before I took the leap. A “last act of desperation” I wrote of was more about my own insecurities and hoping that if it wasn’t what God wanted then He would close that door. I knew I was called but I was afraid and reluctant to take what I felt was such a big risk with my life.

The references to Romans 8:28 and Jeremiah 29:11 were of course written in different cultures and different audiences and situations. However, I believe the same words of God are relevant to us today. These scriptures are promises that God will provide for His people and will work all things for good. Those scriptures God called to mind as I was considering whether I could really trust Him and step into the relative unknown I was facing gave me comfort that although I didn’t know the how or the when – everything would work out if I would continue to seek God in all things. Thankfully, it didn’t take seventy years to see that God would provide for me. To me those scriptures are not guarantees that we will see the results with our own eyes or that the “plans for good” are even how we would define goodness in terms of our own desired outcomes. Rather, they’re a call to trust God, in all things, without necessarily knowing what His plan will look like. For me, it took a transition into the unknowns of a vocation to grapple with these scriptures in ways that I hadn’t before. The result of learning to trust God in this way is that we have had our faith encouraged and we never been happier.

Assurance of Salvation, It’s Not About Feelings

So, what has brought me to a point of saying I now have assurance of salvation? It’s no secret that sufficient arguments by well-intentioned Calvinist friends caused me to wonder if God does indeed predetermine from the beginning of time who’ll be saved and conversely who will be damned. If that is true, I wondered, how does one have any assurance of salvation? Calvinists would tell me that if one prays to accept Christ as their savior, then it’s only because God had chosen them and given them the ability to become a Christian. My own experience was that I had come to a logical conclusion that Jesus is who he claims to be which then caused me to wonder if it was possible for someone to pray for Christ’s forgiveness and not receive it because God had not pre-ordained that person for salvation.

A good friend and ardent Calvinist wrote:

We must feel love for God, we must feel passion for God, and we must feel excitement when we consider our relationship with God. To not feel these things is a tremendous offense to the living God who deserves all such affections. What a tragedy it is that Christians have lost this all-important truth in Christianity. Without this truth, how are we to know whether or not we are Christians? Because we said a prayer? Because we signed a card? We often say that intellectual belief is not enough. We will even say that living a moral life is not enough. But what’s left after intelligence and behavior? Feelings! You will know that you are a Christian when you have genuine feelings of love for God (1 Cor. 16:22). If you do not have genuine feelings of love for God, then you cannot know whether or not you are truly a Christian. (emphasis mine)

http://www.examiner.com/x-13763-Louisville-Evangelical-Examiner~y2009m7d3-The-Christians-duty-to-feel

So, I’m supposed to depend on feelings to categorically state my assurance of salvation? Really? As best I understand them, feelings are nothing more than a response to some external stimuli or thought. And, our feelings can’t distinguish real from imaginary stimuli. Consider, for instance, who hasn’t been scared out of their wits in a movie theater? Was there a real threat? No, it was an imaginary threat! But if I use the logic above as to feelings being the predetermining aspect forthe validity of one’s faith, then doesn’t it stand to reason that Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, or any other group claiming a knowledge of Christ for that matter should be able to justify themselves before God? On the other hand, shouldn’t one’s faith be based upon the belief of who Jesus says he is and not on some feeling?

A recent sermon I heard referenced Rom 10:10, which in the NIV says, “For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.” A couple of things immediately jumped out at me:

First, there is nothing in the statement that it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved to imply that God elects someone before they’re able to blurt out, “God save me, sinner that I am” (or something to that effect).

Second, being the “logician” that I am, I freely admit to being “retentive” regarding definitions. I didn’t actually know what “your heart” meant. I have always thought that scriptural or human references to the “heart” related to miscellaneous thoughts and feelings – primarily from an emotional perspective. However, Prov 4:23 in the NIV says, “Above all else, guard your heart, for it is the wellspring of life.” The NIV Topical Bible says the following about the heart:

The heart is the seat of the intellect, the emotions and the will.
God knows the inner core, the heart, of every person, and examines it to see its true devotion.
Without God’s grace, the human heart is wicked and produces all sorts of evil actions. But the believer’s heart, softened, recreated and purified by God, produces good fruit and a life of obedience to God’s will.”

Couple that with Prov 16:22a which says, “Understanding is a fountain of life to those who have it” and I conclude that God knows the inner core of my being – my heart – which is another way of saying God knows all there is to know about my intellect, emotion and will. God has examined those aspects of my being to see if I have true devotion. And I can’t help but conclude that my sense of logic, knowledge and understanding of truth is a source of abundant and continual supply for me. Truly, there’s no better truth than John 3:16, “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son and whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

In conclusion, I was confused by Calvinistic thought; because I haven’t experienced the “feelings” Calvinists seem to think are required to have assurance of salvation. I stumbled because of misunderstood definitions and misplaced applications of scripture as it relates to Calvinistic thought. I sense I’ve now “turned a corner” in this newfound assurance of my Christian faith. In reality, I never lost the salvation I’ve known for years. I lacked grounded definitions and a sufficient foundation of knowledge to explain my faith. If I’ve learned anything through this it’s that there comes a time when one has to accept or reject what the Bible says about Jesus. To that end, I believe what the Bible says about Jesus and I believe what the Bible says in Rom 10:10. If one confesses with their mouth and believes in their heart, they’re saved. I have confessed. I believe (in my heart!) that I am justified. I am saved! Thank-you, Lord.

The date, August 23rd, 2009 is noted in my Bible

I can now say with conviction that I am a Christian – fully assured of eternal salvation. I’ll post later as to how I came to this conclusion. No doubt, some will say something to the effect of, “Well, ‘bout time!” For now, however, let me just say that I am grateful to those who have in their own gentle ways (or otherwise, too) challenged my “faith hypothesizes” and gave me the space and the freedom to ask questions and vent frustrations. Thank-you for not giving up on me.

Responding to Calvinist Arguments of Sam Storms (IV)

This is my fourth post in response to an essay written by Sam storms of Enjoying God Ministries http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/article/faith-and-repentance/. As noted before, this article was sent to me by my dear Calvinist friend Colleen who believes that God chooses certain individuals for salvation and also gives them the grace to accept salvation and the faith to believe.

Eph 2:8-9

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith – and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God; not by works, so that no one should boast.

Mr. Storms puts forth an argument that because of word gender, the gift referred to in this passage can’t be faith or grace but is instead, “salvation in its totalality, a salvation that flows out of God’s grace and becomes ours through faith.” I emphatically agree – By His grace, God’s free gift to us is salvation which we obtain through faith. Amen, brother – sing it!

However, Mr. Storms derives the following statements from this passage:

Salvation is a gift of God to his elect
Faith is as much a gift as any and every other aspect of salvation

Because I lack Greek knowledge and the structure of language, I feel at a disadvantage. To that end, it is somewhat difficult and awkward to respond. However, as I look at various translations (KJ, NASB, NIV, ESV, etc), it is apparent that none of them draw out these Calvinistic thoughts. Why didn’t any of these Bible translators include the Calvinism? Could it be that these Bible translators didn’t see the Calvinism inherent within the passage?

The NIV punctuation breaks Eph 2:8-9 into six segments. I don’t know if that’s significant or not, but it’s an easy way to look at these verses.

For it is by grace you have been saved. This is a demonstrative statement without ambiguity. We are saved by grace. The author doesn’t say we are saved by grace AND faith.
Through faith. My trusty Webster’s Dictionary tells me that the word “through” is not only a preposition, it is also a “function word” used to indicate any number of things such as movement, time, means, completion, exhaustion, as well as to indicate acceptance or approval. Could it be that God’s “approved way” of us receiving His grace (the free gift of salvation) is through faith? There’s no indication here that God gives faith to some and withholds faith from others. The best definition of the word ‘faith’ that I know of comes from Heb 11:1 which says, “ Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.”
And this not from yourselves. Notice that the author uses the singular word “this” and not the plural word “these”. I believe that the author is referring only to grace here.
It is the gift of God. Again, notice that the author uses the singular word “it” and not the plural word “they”. This would again seem to indicate that only one thought – in this case, grace, is being referenced.
Not by works. Self-explanatory – good deeds won’t cut it.
So that no one can boast. Self-explanatory so shut-up about how nifty you think you are.

In conclusion, Eph 2:8-9 does not appear to support Calvinist thought that God chooses (elects) some for salvation. These verses don’t support the notion that faith is a gift of God given to some and not given to others. Rather – what seems self-evident from a simple reading of the passage is:

We’re saved by grace.

We’re saved by grace through faith.

Put another way, we’re saved by grace through being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

Does 2 Peter 1:1 Support Calvinism Afterall?

This is my third response to a Sam Stones essay, Faith and Repentance (http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/article/faith-and-repentance/). Mr Storms claims that the phrase “have received” is more accurately interpreted as “to obtain by lot”. Lacking any Greek knowledge and seeking clarity on this subject, I asked Pete Parker, a pastor and friend at Woodcrest Church in Eagan MN, to apply some of his Greek knowledge and understanding. With Pete’s permission, here’s an abridged email exchange:

Dear Pete,

I hope that you can help with a Greek question I have on 2 Pet 1:1 which reads: “Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ.”

My question pertains to whether the phrase “have received” is more accurately translated “to obtain by lot”. Does the difficulty of translating Greek to English leave the English reader lacking the true meaning of what the author intended? A Calvinist friend claims this verse actually helps to justify and strengthen Calvinist belief in election wherein salvation is because of Him who calls (Rom 9:11). However, you being a Calvinist, I’m guessing you already know that!

Thanks,

Bob

Dear Bob,

I did a little study this morning and I would have to agree that most references I’ve checked would render the phrase, “have received a faith” to be best translated, “to receive by lot or divine will.” (Luke 1:9; John 19:24; Acts 1:17). Lot casting was a way in which God could providentially control earthly circumstances to reveal His will. To receive by lot or divine will seems to infer:

Something not attained by personal effort.
Something not attained by personal skill.
Something not attained by personal worthiness.
Something that came purely from God.

As you can imagine, Calvinists really like this verse!

While the majority of the “language experts” agree that the Greek phrase is best rendered “to receive by lot or divine will”, I also tend to trust the various translators – who interestingly enough don’t use the phrase “receive by lot or divine will” in any translations. Perhaps that phrase doesn’t convey the main point of the verse – Peter wanting his readers to know that their faith was as precious as his was.

I also wonder if the use of this Greek verb primarily emphasizes that this precious faith is a “free gift” from God that we cannot earn more than secondarily emphasizing that God gives it out by divine will. Perhaps it’s best to interpret the whole “casting of lots” idea as a visual way to determine God’s will on a subject. I sense God allowed the practice of casting lots to show the people His will on a subject in that it wasn’t the luck of the draw but God who controlled how the draw turned out.

Pete

Dear Pete,

I appreciate your time and effort. Yes, no doubt Calvinists really like 2 Pet 1:1 and those I meet on the “battlefield” (actually, we write on each other’s blogs) occasionally bring up Greek or Hebrew words and interpretation. Of course, I’m at a distinct disadvantage here. Nevertheless, I maintain that one literally has to “have faith” in whatever translation they’re using (KJ, RSV, NASB, NIV, ESV, etc) and believe that those translators had a solid understanding of vocabulary, nuance of the language and customs of the day to adequately translate our modern Bible versions.

Your finding that “have received a faith” is best translated “to receive by lot or divine will” is, well, troubling to one with open theistic tendencies. Sam Storms uses the same references you noted. Still, I find it difficult to believe that those references support the notion that 1 Pet 1:1 is best interpreted “to receive by lot or divine will”. I guess I don’t see the connection between receiving by lot or divine will and:

High Priests use Tarot cards (I just made that up) to determine who sits in the “big chair” (Luke 1:9).
“Rolling dice” to determine whether Matthais or Barnabus would replace Judas as an apostle (Acts 1:17).
Guards “flip a coin” to determine who gets Jesus’ clothes after He was crucified (John 19:24).

I don’t doubt that those things happened – they’re recorded events in the Bible after all. However, I don’t interpret those things as God actually applying His will in those events – well, except for Jesus’ clothing as that was the fulfillment of prophesy. Anyway, I’ve always thought God wanted none to perish and all to come to repentance – if only I could actually find a verse to support that concept! Well, must tarry forth. Thanks, again, Pete. I appreciate your time and efforts.

Sincerely,

Bob