Tag: Calvinism

Calvinist Tag-Team Continues the Pummeling of a Poor Schlep

To my Calvinist brethren Charles & Timothy,

My delay in responding to the comments each of you has posted (here) and (here) is regrettable.  I apologize for not having made the time to address your thoughtful arguments in a timelier manner.  In addition, I should have done better in helping readers identify who made particular arguments and referenced specific scriptures.  I didn’t – and frankly, that’s laziness on my part.  No offense intended.

Given the length of our posts, it seemed best to respond to specific scriptural references used in your arguments.  If nothing else, I’m sure we’ll all agree that our respective arguments are pointless if we can’t back them up with scripture.  However, I didn’t respond to everything that was tossed my way.  Except for those passages referring to God’s word (which again, Timothy, I regret that I am still struggling to understand), I found our greater disagreements contained herein.  Please feel free to respond on anything here or reiterate some point that I have not addressed in this post.  I welcome your input and appreciate the time and effort you’ve both expended in responding to my musings.

Scripture references from Charles & Timothy Bob’s $0.02 worth
1 Peter 1:23

For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God.

 This portion of 1st Peter appears related to redemption:

(vs 18-19) We’re redeemed with the blood of Christ

(vs 20-21) Christ was destined to be our Savior

(vs 22) What happens in the believer’s heart

(vs 23) You’ve been born again (i.e. given new life) through Jesus

Might the reference to not being born again by “perishable seed” relate to Adam while “the word of God” is a reference to Christ?  Still, I don’t see how this verse supports Calvinism.  If God does not show partiality (Rom 2:11, Acts 10:34-35) and has universal love for all (2 Pet 3:9), does it not then appear that God desires all to come to repentance?  The fact that not all come to repentance would, at least to me, seem to indicate that there just might be some self-determinism as to whether or not an individual accepts God’s free gift of salvation.
James 1:18

He chose to give us birth through the word of truth that we might be a kind of first fruits of all he created.

 The first thing I notice is that the word ‘word’ isn’t capitalized as it is in John 1:1 and that the passage seems to be talking about trials, tribulations and temptations:

(vs 2) Consider it joy when you face trials

(vs 3) Testing your faith develops perseverance

(vs 5) If you lack wisdom, ask God for it

(vs 12) Blessed is the man who perseveres under trial

(vs 13) God doesn’t tempt anyone

(vs 16) Don’t be deceived

(vs 17) Every good and perfect gift is from above

Verse 18 then, seems to be the rationale as to why we can persevere when tempted – because [God decided] to give us [new life] through [Christ] that we might [acknowledge all] he created.
1 Corinthians 4:15

Even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.

 Paul refers to himself as [the new believer’s father] through the gospel.  I’m not sure what Paul is saying here. Still, I don’t see that there’s an inclination for a Calvinist interpretation.

Jesus became our “heavenly father” (that is, we became a child of God).  A person doesn’t become a father (parent) until their child is born.  That implies at one time the person wasn’t a parent.  Is that the same with God – He doesn’t become “our parent” (and conversely we don’t become His child) until we believe by faith?  Then, for God to be our heavenly father, we have to decide.
1 Corinthians 2:14

The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

 The verse says that spiritual matters are foolishness to the non-believer because those spiritual matters are spiritually discerned.  The verse does not say that one without spiritual discernment is not able to come to a point of understanding i.e. becoming a Christian and thereby acquire spiritual discernment (wisdom).  On that thought, don’t non-believers derive benefit from the book of Proverbs just as believers do?
Revelation 17:8

The beast, which you saw, once was, now is not, and will come up out of the Abyss and go to his destruction. The inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the creation of the world will be astonished when they see the beast, because he once was, now is not, and yet will come.

 There’s no indication that names were written in the book at the beginning of time.  I suggest that names are continually being added whenever someone becomes a new believer.  It’s interesting that angels rejoice when a sinner repents (Luke 15:10) and in my mind, this seems to support the continual addition of new believers (whose names were not previously written in the book of life) over time.
Luke 10:20

However, do not rejoice that the spirits submit to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.”

 There’s no indication as to when these names were added to the book of life.  See above.
Romans 9:18-24

(vs 18) Therefore, God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

(vs 21-21) Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

 Romans 9 is a difficult passage for those disagreeing with unconditional election – unless they incorporate Paul’s summary (9:30-33.  Paraphrased, those last verses in Romans 9 state:

  • Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it – by faith.  However, Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained [righteousness] because they pursued [righteousness] not by faith but by works.

I would certainly agree that Romans 9 teaches God’s sovereignty and even the election of nations – as witnessed by Israel in the Old Testament.  In addition, if I read the references in my NIV Topical Bible (Ex 3:19-20, 4:21-23, 5:1-2 and 9:22-28) it seems to be that God may indeed harden an individual.  However, the hardening appears to occur only after an individual has shown repeated belligerence towards God and a rejection of His redemption.  Perhaps this is what constitutes the “sin against the Holy Spirit” – the unpardonable sin?

Finally, I’m sympathetic to arguments made that the “lump” of clay referenced in verse 21 refers to the nation of Israel wherein God has the right to split Israel into two vessels – unbelieving Israel (a vessel of wrath) and believing Israel (along with the believing Gentiles, is a vessel of mercy).
Proverbs 16:4

The LORD works out everything for his own ends – even the wicked for a day of disaster.

 Do Calvinist really believe that God intentionally creates wicked people just to damn them?  I’ve heard the question put this way; does God punish people for producing the very acts He created them to have?  Does God make people evil or wicked and then hold them responsible?

What about scriptures teaches that God doesn’t willingly afflict or damn anyone (1 Tim 2:4, 2 Pet 3:9)?  If that is true, there has to be some other interpretation for this verse and I submit that Prov 16:4 has to do with God bringing about those consequences the wicked have earned – that is, eventually the wicked reap what they sow and have to answer for their wickedness.
Job 23:13-15

But he stands alone, and who can oppose him? He does whatever he pleases. He carries out his decree against me, and many such plans he still has in store.  That is why I am terrified before him; when I think of all this, I fear him.

 God is sovereign – that’s a given.  Wasn’t God’s gift of salvation intended to atone for all sins?  Please tell me, what sins, or whose sins haven’t been covered by Jesus’ death on the cross?  For me, the question lends validity to the thought that, (of one’s own volition) some believe and some don’t believe.  Because Jesus’ sacrifice covers all sins and because God intended salvation for all (John 3:16, 2 Pet 3:9), it stands to reason that the decision and the corresponding responsibility to accept or reject God’s free gift falls on individuals and not on God predetermining who will and conversely who will not be saved.
John 8:47

He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.”

 Whether sympathetic to or antithetical towards the unconditional election, the simple truth is that one isn’t saved (or otherwise become a child of God and therefore belong to God) until such time as by faith a person accepts Christ’s atonement for their sin.  In this situation, Jesus was speaking to non-believers.
John 15:16

You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit – fruit that will last. Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name.

 This verse, frankly, makes me scratch my head regarding unconditional election.  Still, how is this verse rectified with John 3:16 and 1 Pet 3:9?  Could it be that Jesus is only talking to His disciples here?  And, as I have stated earlier, I don’t doubt that God has elected certain people during the formation of the early church i.e. Paul having his Damascus Road experience.  This verse follows the vine and the branches parable.  Jesus wants us to bear fruit.  As to this verse, I can only surmise that the author may have indeed been elected and wrote down exactly what Jesus said.  The question for me then becomes, is unconditional election “normative” for everyone or only for those very few listed above?
Matthew 22:14

For many are invited, but few are chosen.

 Jesus is talking about his second coming in Matt 24.  When Jesus uses the word ‘elect’ (verses 22, 24, 31), it appears that Jesus is speaking about people who already believe.  Could it be, then, that a person doesn’t become “elect” until he is a believer?  That is, becoming elect occurs the moment a person believes.  Put another way, an elect person is a (here and now) Christian and not someone who is appointed to become a Christian.  The Bible makes it clear that God doesn’t want anyone to perish (1 Pet 3:9).  Clearly, however, not everyone responds to the gospel.  Doesn’t everyone then have the capacity to become “elect”?  To summarize, no one is “elected” until they believe because it is the believers who are the elect.

So then, does this definition of the elect being believers work on a couple of verses I find troublesome?  For instance:

Acts 13:48 When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and all who were appointed (emphasis mine) honored the word of the Lord; and for eternal life believed.

2 Thess 2:13 But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved (emphasis mine) through the sanctifying word of the Spirit and through belief in the truth.

Hmmm – my $0.02 worth of analytical thought doesn’t appear to hold water very well.  Then again, as I stated before, perhaps there were various individuals at the formation of the early Christian Church i.e. Paul, the disciples and the apostles who were predetermined by God to be Christians?  Nevertheless, the context of Matt 22 doesn’t appear (to me) to support the concept of unconditional election.
John 10: 26

But you do not believe because you are not my sheep.

Jesus says that the reason they do not hear is because they do not belong to God…if they did belong to God (if He were their Father/if they were “born again/born from above”), then they would hear Him.

You don’t become one of Jesus’ sheep because you believe. You believe because you are a sheep.

 Your metaphor of birth works well for those of us in the physical realm but I think the analogy breaks down quickly when we begin talking of a spiritual birth.  Nicodemus was confused between spiritual birth and physical birth.  It’s interesting that Jesus didn’t say to ‘Nick’, “Dude, you’re elect so rejoice that you’re going to believe in me by faith for your salvation.”  Quite the contrary, Jesus had to make the distinction to ‘Nick” regarding physical and spiritual birth and there’s no apparent teaching about unconditional election here.
Your strange definition of grace requires that God is obligated to extend it to everyone – i.e. you are “justifying the wicked.” I don’t think that God is “obligated” to extend grace to everyone.  But so far as I can determine, the clear teaching of the Bible is that God so loved [everyone] that He sent Himself to atone for our sin.

My “strange” definition of grace comes from the NIV Topical Bible, which states, “Grace is God’s life-transforming gift of his favor to those who do not deserve it. The gift of salvation and forgiveness of sins is available for all who through faith accept his grace revealed in Jesus Christ, but so many miss the gift because they rely on themselves and try to earn grace by keeping the law.”

I’m sure we agree that:

  • Everyone is born with a sin nature.
  • No one can earn their way into heaven.
  • It is only because of God’s grace that the wicked can be justified when they repent of their sin.
Advertisement

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.

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

Responding to Calvinist Arguments of Sam Storms (II)

This is my second post in response to an essay entitled Faith and Repentance written by Sam storms of Enjoying God Ministries: http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/article/faith-and-repentance/.  This article was sent to me by my dear friend and ardent Calvinist Colleen in support of her contention that God chooses certain individuals for salvation and also gives them the grace to accept salvation and the faith to believe.

Mr. Storms references 2 Pet 1:1 as another verse that speaks to the issue of faith as a gift of God.  The verse 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.”

Mr. Storms states that the Greek word translated “have received” is related to a verb that means “to obtain by lot” and states, “Thus, faith is removed from the realm of human free will and placed in its proper perspective as having originated in the sovereign and altogether gracious will of God. For it is not by chance or the luck of the draw that some come to saving faith, but by virtue of the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ.”

That got me to thinking – how do various versions of the Bible prior to the ESV and NIV translate 2 Peter 1:1?

  • KJ (1611) Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:
  • ASV (1901) Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:
  • RSV (1952) Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours in the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:
  • NASB (1971) 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:
  • NIV (1978) Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:
  • ESV (2001) Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:

That then begs the question, what is the definition of the word “obtain’?  For that, I look to my trusty Webster Dictionary which says:

  • To hold on to
  • To gain or attain usually by planned action or effort

And, what does my trusty Webster Dictionary say is the meaning of the word “received”?

  • To come into possession of
  • To acquire

One obtaining salvation by accepting Christ as their savior appears to be another way to say that as soon as you accept Christ as your savior, you have received salvation.  It seems reasonable, then, to conclude that the original Greek probably does support both “have received” and “have obtained” as there doesn’t appear to be a significant difference between the applications of these words.

Regrettably for Mr. Storms’ argument, there is no implication with this verse that it is God who is doing the “bidding” (pun intended because I was looking for something involving gambling) and determining who will be saved and who will be damned.  So, what then is the reason to believe that 2 Peter 1:1 means anything other than the Gentiles had received the same faith as the apostles?  What am I missing?  More importantly, what are Greek scholars and Bible translators missing for surely, if Mr. Storms is correct, the NIV he quoted from (or any other version for that matter) would have been written to include this Calvinist concept.

I can’t help but conclude that Mr. Storms is guilty of twisting the clear intent of this verse to better support Calvinism.  Mr Storms, there’s no reason to alter, add to, or otherwise interpose the meaning of this verse.  If you wish, I’d be happy to provide you with verses I find troublesome for Calvinistic interpretation.  2 Peter 1:1, however, does not appear to be a verse supporting Calvinistic arguments.

Who Are the Elect, Anyway?

I’ve always found it fascinating to be using the same words, sharing common thoughts and themes, say, with Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses only to realize, for instance, who they believe Jesus to be is radically different from who I believe Jesus to be.  It often comes down to word definitions.  This got me to thinking – there certainly are significant theological differences between Calvinists and Arminians.  However, could a part of that division come down to word definitions?  In this case, what does the term “elect” mean” and who constitutes the “elect”?

The issue of “definitional differences” (that sure sounds philosophical!) occurred to me when I was looking up verses with which to flog Colleen in a previous post.  I stumbled across the topic of “Nations” in my NIV Topical Bible.  It states:

  • After the flood, humanity divided into various nations; God is King over all of them.  He picked out one of them, the descendants of Abraham, as his chosen nation.  The inhabitants of this nation became known as Israelites and later as Jews.  God commanded them to remain separate from other nations, especially by avoiding mixed marriages.  From the perspective of the Bible, humanity came to be divided between the Jew and the Gentile or between Jew and Greek.
  • God’s intention was never to reserve his promised blessing only for one nation but to make it available for all nations.  Already to Abraham he promised that in him all the nations of the earth would be blessed.  The prophets looked ahead to a time in which all nations would hear and respond to the salvation of God.  This was fulfilled when the gospel was preached to Jew and Gentile alike and the church was formed as the worldwide body of Jesus Christ.

So, the thought process of my feeble little mind goes like this:

  • In the beginning, God created Adam and Eve.  Were they the first people to be considered “the elect”?
  • After the flood, those on the arc dispersed and various nations were formed.  God chose the descendants of Abraham (the Israelites) to be “the elect”.
  • Through Israel (God’s elect), all nations would eventually hear and respond to the salvation of God and thereby become “the elect”.
  • Prophesy was fulfilled when Jesus came and preached to the Jews (the “old” elect) and the Gentiles (the “new” elect) alike.

So, what does this mean or prove?  In and of itself, I suppose, nothing.  Calvinists claim that one not yet saved can be an elected person – it’s just that God hasn’t yet brought that person to a point of salvation.  However, as I re-read verses Calvinists often quote to prove the concept of election, what I’m beginning to see is that it is the believers – those who have, by faith, trusted Christ for their salvation that are the elect.  Well, duh!  I can see my Calvinist friends thinking, “Well, what did you expect?  Who did you think the elect were – non-believers?”  THAT’S JUST IT!  THE ELECT ARE THE BELIEVERS.

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.  Put another way, an elect person is a Christian.

As I read, for instance, Matt 24 where Jesus is talking about His second coming, it seems apparent that when Jesus uses the word ‘elect’ (verses 22, 24, 31) he is speaking about those who are already believers.

In conclusion, because God doesn’t want anyone to perish (1 Pet 3:9), everyone is called.  But clearly, not everyone responds.  And because everyone is called, everyone has the capacity to become “elect”.  But no one is “elected” until they believe.  So, who are the elect, anyway?  The elect are those who already believe.

Well then – let’s put this definition to the test.  I maintain that if some theory is true, it works in all situations i.e. if A=B and B=C, then A=C.  So, does this new definition (of who are the elect) work on a couple of verses I find troublesome?  For instance:

  • Acts 13:48 When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed.
  • 2 Thess 2:13 But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying word of the Spirit and through belief in the truth.

Hmmm.  Perhaps it’s back to the drawing board.  I don’t quite understand it, but I sense that I’m onto something when it comes to the definition of “the elect”.  To that end, any thoughts or comments from readers would be appreciated.

Responding to a Calvinist’s Perspective on My Sheep

Dear Colleen,

In a previous response, you referenced Jn 10:27, which in the NIV says:

  • My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.

As related to this verse, you indicated that faith is simple from the perspective that all we have to do is listen to His voice and follow Him.  Of course, according to Calvin, only the elect can hear His voice.  However, as I read and study Calvinist thought and perspective, it leads (for me, anyway) to all kinds of faith issues and theological problems – not the least of which is how God can love all as per Jn 3:16 and 1Pet 3:9 while predestining the vast majority of people to hell?  I’ve taken some liberty and altered the wording of Jn 10:25-28 from a Calvinist perspective.  It comes across harsher than I might wish.  However, it is what it is and I think I’ve accurately captured the Reformed concepts of election within this passage.

  • Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe because God has not granted you eyes to see and ears to hear.  Therefore, because of God’s sovereign election, you do not believe and are therefore eternally doomed.  The miracles I do in my Father’s name speak for me.  But let me repeat – you do not believe because God has already pre-determined from the foundation of the heaven and earth that you’re going straight to hell the moment you die.  I’ve already determined who my sheep are.  They listen to my voice.  I know them, and they follow me.  I give those lucky chosen few eternal life and they shall never perish.  No one can snatch them out of my hand.  You non-believers, on the other hand, who are not part of the elect because I don’t want to share eternity with you, are therefore not my sheep, and you folks, even though you didn’t have a choice in the matter, are eternally screwed!  Well, enjoy Hell because you folks get to experience my perfect wrath.  You’ve been created for the express purpose of Me sending you to Hell.”

Regarding sovereign grace and election per Jn 10:27 (or the passage for that matter), I don’t see that God unilaterally decided who would be his sheep.  Jesus doesn’t suggest that who were the believers and who were the non-believers was already decided before any of these people were born.  Could it be that Jesus, when He spoke these words, was actually talking to the Romans and Pharisees and whoever else was within earshot?  The author implies nothing other than some of the people immediately around Him were His sheep (believers) while others (i.e. Romans, Pharisees, non-believers, etc.) were not His sheep and therefore didn’t believe.

I welcome your comments.

Responding to a Calvinist’s Perspective on Faith

Dear Colleen,

Your response to my post on the simplicity of believing as outlined by the Apostle’s Creed went in a direction I didn’t expect and so I’ve created a new post.

First of all – we need a definition for faith and the best definition of faith (that I know of) comes from Heb 11:1, which in the NIV says:

  • Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

Christian faith makes intrinsic sense (to me, at least) when boiled down to the simplicity of believing per the Apostle’s Creed.  However, you surprised me stating that God is the giver of faith in the same way that God predetermines who’ll be saved (and conversely – who will not be saved).  Perhaps from a Calvinist perspective that makes sense.  In your response you stated that faith is a gift of God according to Eph 2:8-9 and that (I’m quoting you here) “the scriptures tell us that we must be asking God for that faith because it is His gift to give.”  Really?  The NIV reads:

  • 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 can boast.

That the English punctuation breaks Eph 2:8-9 into six “pieces” may or may not be significant.  Nevertheless, it’s an easy way to dissect these verses and so here’s my $0.02 worth as to why I disagree with your premise that God withholds faith from some while giving it to others:

  • 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.
  • 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.

You’ll probably chastise me for re-ordering Eph 2:8-9.  However,  it makes my point – the author isn’t saying we must ask God for faith and that God may (or may not) give that person faith.

  • Through faith, you have been saved by God’s gift of grace.  You didn’t earn God’s grace.  Grace is God’s gift so don’t even bother boasting about your good deeds and actions.

With all due respect, Colleen, I think you’re making Eph 2:8-9 say something other than what it is saying.  These two verses state – we’re saved by grace.  Period.  From Eph 2:8-9 I don’t see that faith is a gift of God given to some and not given to others.  Rather, we’re saved by grace.   We’re saved by grace through faith.  We’re saved by grace through being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

Well, there’s more I could add but this seems to be a good place to stop.

Take care, my friend.  I welcome and await your response.