One of the most important observation to be made at this point is this, in all we have so far witnessed in this man's attack is that he has misrepresented not only the reformed position in many areas, he has also misrepresented the text of scriptures on both the passage which teach the grace doctrines, but also many other text that have relation to the issues at hand. One example to be noted is Romans 1 :18-20.
Now we are going to be treated to the same kind of problems, when he turn his attention to several theological works by Reformed authorities, such as the following John Calvin, R C Sproul.
John Calvin's statements are the first ones that we shall give some clarification to:
1) "The devil, and the whole train of the ungodly, are in all directions, held in by the hand of God as with a bridle, so that they can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived, nor how much soever they may have planned, move a single finger to perpetrate, unless in so far as he permits, nay unless in so far as he commands, that they are not only bound by his fetters but are even forced to do him service"
(John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 17, Paragraph 11)
So according to Calvinist teachers and even John Calvin himself, we have no free will. God has orchestrated everything. There is no free will or choices on our part.It would be important at this point to consider what exactly the concept of "free-will" actually is and not what it is commonly thought to be. The actual teaching is as follows: People who are self governed, self lawed and self determined, having no out side inclination nor inward inclinations that drive the choice we face.
Now what is free-will commonly seen as: the ability to choose between two possibilities. The problem is with this can be asked in the following way: what is the WILL free from and unto? Understandably, the bible denies such a concept even being true as it tells us over and over that man is sinner, bound by his/her sin nature; they can only act in conformity to that nature, a corrupt nature leads to a corrupt life.
Lets consider what John Calvin actually states in this section :
How comes it, I ask, that their confidence never fails, but just that while the world apparently revolves at random, they know that God is every where at work, and feel assured that his work will be their safety? When assailed by the devil and wicked men, were they not confirmed by remembering and meditating on Providence, they should, of necessity, forthwith despond. But when they call to mind that the devil, and the whole train of the ungodly, are, in all directions, held in by the hand of God as with a bridle, so that they can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived, nor how much soever they may have planned, move a single finger to perpetrate, unless in so far as he permits, nay, unless in so far as he commands; that they are not only bound by his fetters, but are even forced to do him service,—when the godly think of all these things they have ample sources of consolation. For, as it belongs to the lord to arm the fury of such foes and turn and destine it at pleasure, so it is his also to determine the measure and the end, so as to prevent them from breaking loose and wantoning as they list. Supported by this conviction,
The basic point in this statement is the fact that all that happens in this world in regards to the saints; it is all apart of greater purpose and glory, nothing which will happen is out of God sovereign control. In other words, mans will is and has always been determined and led by the decree of God which undeniably comes into play. The saints, the reprobate sinner, the devil are all under his control and can only do what God has decreed.
2) "Many professing a desire to defend the Deity from an individual charge admit the doctrine of
election, but deny that any one is reprobated. This they do ignorantly and childishly, since there could be no election without its opposite, reprobation."
(John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 1)
I am meeting Calvinists who tell me that God elects certain people to go to heaven, but it is man’s choice to go to hell. Well John Calvin calls you childish and ignorant if you hold that position. You can’t have one without the other.Well if such a comment reveals anything, it possibly is this: this person does not understand what he is hear from the Calvinists he meets has said to him. Let just point out what it is that is being said. First, God has chosen a people in Christ unto salvation and eternal life; while he has passed over others to be justly dealt with in accords to the life of sin that they choose to live.
Now we need to understand this person has not read the section of the Institutes of the Christian religion. this person has missed the fact that John Calvin is saying what I said above about the reprobate sinner
The human mind, when it hears this doctrine, cannot restrainWhat must be said here is that this person whole attack has been based upon what he feels is the correct understanding, the bible has no been handle correctly in determining the truth of the matter. Feeling and emotion do not count in the long rune, what does the scripture speak too; even more important to consider is this: why does this man ignore particular passages and favour a unrealistic interpretation based on some human view point and not God's point.
its petulance, but boils and rages as if aroused by the sound of a
trumpet. Many professing a desire to defend the Deity from an
invidious charge admit the doctrine of election, but deny that any
one is reprobated, (Bernard. in Die Ascensionis, Serm. 2.) This they
do ignorantly and childishly since there could be no election
without its opposite reprobation. God is said to set apart those
whom he adopts for salvation. It were most absurd to say, that he
admits others fortuitously, or that they by their industry acquire
what election alone confers on a few. Those, therefore, whom God
passes by he reprobates, and that for no other cause but because he
is pleased to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines
to his children. Nor is it possible to tolerate the petulance of
men, in refusing to be restrained by the word of God, in regard to
his incomprehensible counsel, which even angels adore. We have
already been told that hardening is not less under the immediate
hand of God than mercy.
What does John 6:37-45, Romans 8:28-30-9:1-24, Ephesians 1:3-11 all consistently speak too and why does he ignore such texts.
3) "…individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death, and are to glorify him by their destruction."
(John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 6)
What a statement that is from John Calvin! Did he never read Ezekiel 33:11 which says, "Say unto them,As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?" God does not want wicked people to die and go to hell. That is why He provided a way out for all people through the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ!Notice that this objection to what John Calvin rightly said is the case with all human beings, in regards to the nature of man from birth and being spiritual dead in sin from the birth. under the term "doomed from the womb" By countering it with a single scripture; much like the other positions that Calvin taught from scriptures.
Lets consider what John Calvin has to say on this matter:
First, all must admit what Solomon says,
"The Lord has made all things for himself; yea, even the wicked for
the day of evil," (Prov. 16: 4.) Now, since the arrangement of all
things is in the hand of God, since to him belongs the disposal of
life and death, he arranges all things by his sovereign counsel, in
such a way that individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb
to certain death, and are to glorify him by their destruction.
We should take note the comment being made is based upon Proverbs 16:4; which as the whole context is speaking to God's predestinarian acts. This also can be seen in other passages such as Psalms 53 which is David declaration of his sinfulness from the womb. Every single human being is born with sinful nature that is depraved; this is why Calvin made this comment about the reprobate.
Let us now consider the passage in Ezekiel 33 :11:
And you, son of man, say to the house of Israel, Thus have you said: ‘Surely our transgressions and our sins are upon us, and we rot away because of them. How then can we live?’ Say to them, As I live, declares the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways, for why will you die, O house of Israel?
The first issue in this understanding is that this is not universal in scope is assumed by the writer. However, when we read the context it is the Israelite that are addressed, the chosen of God: whom had on multiple occasions gone astray worshipping false gods, acting indecently in the sight of God; this is a passage of a plea for repentance of these individual Israelites as a collective group.
For this writer to utilise this passage in such a manner is to rob the text of it true meaning and import a foreign concept that it never even taught by the passage. To make this point even clearer we have these words "and you son of man, say to the house of Israel
4) "...salvation is freely offered to some while others are barred from access to it."
(John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 21, Paragraph 5)
Can you even imagine the God of the Bible barring access to people from finding Him? He died for the sins of the world and whosoever will come. John Calvin was a false teacher. The question is: Is he still a false teacher? That would depend upon whether you believe his teachings or not.
The above statement is hard to track down as in the section it is from has two nearly identical statements, so it is not identified straight off. On top of this, we have another problem neither of these statement are worded the way the writer has put it. In stead of having a God who is in complete control of all things, including whom will by saved by grace (note, no one is deserving of grace). We have a god that will only act in accordance to man's whims.
Lets consider the two sections that it may have been,
The predestination by which God adopts some to the hope of
life, and adjudges others to eternal death, no man who would be
thought pious ventures simply to deny; but it is greatly caviled at,
especially by those who make prescience its cause. We, indeed,
ascribe both prescience and predestination to God; but we say, that
it is absurd to make the latter subordinate to the former, (see
chap. 22 sec. 1.)
Or it could have been this one,
All are not created on equal terms, but some areThese are the two statement that it could have been: and they are both totally biblical. God chose people in Christ: it was not every single person but those whom the father determine from all eternity. The writer has no ground to stand upon with his idea of universal salvation idealism, there is not one scripture that supports the idea without twisting scripture to fit a false belief. We must allow the bible to teach it's own truth only.
preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and,
accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these
ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death.
This God has testified, not only in the case of single individuals;
he has also given a specimen of it in the whole posterity of
Abraham, to make it plain that the future condition of each nation
lives entirely at his disposal: "When the Most High divided to the
nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he
set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children
of Israel. For the Lord's portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of
his inheritance," (Deut. 32: 8, 9.)
Before we examine these objection there is one thing which needs to stated on this issue; we should notice that in the this set of examples, it is not first hand information; in other words, it is second hand information that is being provided as proofs (taken from anti Calvinism site and George Bryson). A question needs to be asked at this point: @how does this man know these quote are accurate?
R C Sproul's statement are the second to be considered:
1) “It was certainly loving of God to predestine the salvation of His people, those the Bible calls the 'elect or chosen ones.' It is the non-elect that are the problem. If some people are not elected unto salvation then it would seem that God is not all that loving toward them. For them it seems that it would have been more loving of God not to have allowed them to be born. That may indeed be the case.”
(http://anti-calvinism.blogspot.com/2008/05/quotes.html, citing; R.C. Sproul, Chosen by God, 32.
Even Mr. Sproul knew something isn’t right here. His false view of election then makes him wonder why a loving God would create people that He purposefully damned to hell. It doesn't make any logical sense. His conscience is getting to him.
Here we have the first comment from this person after provide a small part of a point that R C Sproul, but the comment made towards it is not in line R C Sproul real point. This what happens when you rely on partial references from another anti-Calvinist. Lets consider what the central idea of his person thought is "His false view of election then makes him wonder why a loving God would create people that He purposefully damned to hell." Basically since we as human have personal feeling; it means that what believe has to be determined by our feelings.
Now let us see what R C Sproul actually said:
Another important considerations is this: Why do so many thing of things in terms of human considerations. Rather than seeing from God's perspective that it is his choice that counts.
The first section is the following section of R C Sproul:
Now let us see what R C Sproul actually said:
A frequent objection we hear is that if God knew in advance that we were going to sin, why did he create us in the first place? One philosopher stated the problem this way: "If God knew we would sin but could not stop it, then he is neither omnipotent nor sovereign. If he could stop it but chose not to, then he is neither loving or benevolent." By this approach God is made to look bad no matter how we answer the question.When one allows R C point to be considered in light of the whole context; one will see the following facts. 1) he is responding to an objection, as it is seen by the fact it starts with "A frequent objection" and "The objection raised by the philosopher." 2) when we allow consistent flow one will see that RC makes a great observation, " Is there any reason that a righteous God ought to be loving toward a creature who hates him and rebels constantly against his divine authority and holiness?" Meaning that the correct frame of mind leads to the correct understanding, that being: not that of some or all being elected, but that none deserve it.
We must assume that God knew in advance that man would fall. We also must assume that he could have intervened to stop it. Or he could have chosen not to create us at all. We grant all those hypothetical possibilities. Bottom line, we know that he knew we would fall and that he went ahead and created us anyway. Why does that mean he is unloving? He also knew in advance that he was going to implement a plan of redemption for his fallen creation that would include a perfect manifestation of his justice and a perfection expression of his love and mercy .
It was certainly loving of God to predestine the salvation of his people, those the bible calls his "elect" or "chosen ones." It is not non-elect that are the problem. If some people are not elected unto salvation, then it would seem that God is not at all that loving towards them. For them it seems that it would have been more loving of God not to have allowed them to be born. That may indeed be the case.
But we must ask the really tough question: Is there any reason that a righteous God ought to be loving toward a creature who hates him and rebels constantly against his divine authority and holiness? The objection raised by the philosopher implies that God owes his love to sinful creatures. That is, the unspoken assumption is that God is obliged to be gracious to sinners. What the philosopher over-looks is that if grace is obligated it is no longer grace. The very essence of grace is that it is undeserved. ( RC Sproul, Chosen by God, pages 20-21).
Another important considerations is this: Why do so many thing of things in terms of human considerations. Rather than seeing from God's perspective that it is his choice that counts.
2) “Predestination seems to cast a shadow on the very heart of human freedom. If God has decided our destinies from all eternity, (unconditionally) that strongly suggests that our free choices are but charades, empty exercises in predetermined placating. It is as though God wrote the script for us in concrete and we are merely carrying out His scenario.” (http://www3.calvarychapel.com/library/bryson-george/books, Citing; R.C.Sproul, Chosen by God, 51.)
So Mr. Sproul is saying that we really don’t have free will. It is a charade. God is the puppet master behind everything, orchestrating everything to its minutest detail. There’s only one problem with that: How can God hold me accountable for things I didn't do, but that He orchestrated to happen in my life?
3) Calvinism teaches that one must be regenerated first before he or she can believe. The only problem is that you will never find that in the Bible. The Bible teaches that you are regenerated when you believe and not before you believe.
“The Reformed view of predestination teaches that before a person can choose Christ his heart must be changed. He must be born again…one does not first believe, then become reborn.” (http://www3.calvarychapel.com/library/bryson-eorge/books, Citing; R. C.Sproul, Chosen by God, 72.)
“A cardinal point of Reformed theology is the maxim: "Regeneration precedes faith." (http://www3.calvarychapel.com/library/bryson-george/books/fpocwafw.htm, Citing; R. C.Sproul, Chosen by God, 72.)
Even though these statements come from one of the great thinkers of our time, he is off base in his theology. Why? He can't back up what he is saying from the scripture
All of these quotes are true in of themselves in as far as biblical theology is concerned and as far as the reformed position teaches. In other words, these statements are true because the bible teaches these things in the manner that the Calvinist presents them. But this is only the start of to this, it get worse when one realises how they selectively cited section of these great works. By taking only a section we are being misinformed or at least in some way the person who see such thing is not being taught the whole issues at hand. Therefore, we will provide the whole context to these
The first section is the following section of R C Sproul:
Predestination seems to cast a shadow on the very heart of human freedom. If God has decided our destinies from all eternity, it strongly suggests that our free choices are but charades, empty exercises in predetermined playacting. It is as though God wrote the script for us in concrete and we are merely carrying out His scenario.
To get a handle on the puzzling relationship between and free will, we must first define free will. That definition itself is a matter of debate. Probably the most common definition says free-will is the ability to make choices without any prior prejudice, inclination, or disposition. For a will to be free it must act from a posture of neutrality, with absolutely no basis.
On the surface this is a very appealing. There are no element of coercion, either internal or external, to be found in it. Below the surface, however, lurk two serious problems. On one hand, if we make our choices strictly from a neutral posture, with no prior inclination, then we make choice for no reason. If we have no reason for our choices, if our choices are utterly spontaneous, then our choices have no moral significance. If a choice just happens-- it just pops out, with no rhyme or reason for it -- then it cannot be judged good or bad. When God evaluates our choices, he is concerned about our motives.
..... The second problem this popular view faces is not so much moral as it is rational. If there is no prior inclination, desire, or bent, no prior reason for a choice, how can a choice even be made? If the will is totally neutral ? why would it choose the right or the left? (RC Sproul, Chosen by God, pages 37 -38)
Under the topic of regeneration this person claims the following about the reformed position and in particular of RC Sproul: "Even though these statements come from one of the great thinkers of our time, he is off base in his theology. Why? He can't back up what he is saying from the scripture." Now what we should note is this is an assertion, but like he seems to imply "he can't back up what he is saying from the scripture." This man cannot do this.
Now lets consider the remaining two statements; it will not as two separate quote but one, since they are from the same context:
As crucial as these passages from John's gospel are, they do not surpass in importance another teaching of Jesus in the same gospel with respect to man's inability. I am thinking of the famous discussion that Jesus had with Nicodemus, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God" (John 3:3) Two verses later Jesus repeats the teaching: "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he can not enter the kingdom of God."
Once again, we encounter the pivotal word unless. Jesus is stating an emphatic necessary precondition for any human being's ability to see and enter the kingdom of God. That emphatic necessary precondition is spiritual rebirth. The reformed view of predestination teaches that before a person can choose Christ his heart must be changed. He must be born again. The non-reformed views have fallen people first choosing Christ and then being born again. Here we find unregenerate people seeing and entering the kingdom of God. The moment a person receives Christ he is in the kingdom.
One does not first believe, then become reborn? and then be ushered into the kingdom. How can a man choose a kingdom he cannot see? How can a man enter a kingdom without being reborn? Jesus was pointing out Nicodemus need to be born of the Spirit. He was still in the flesh. The flesh only yields the flesh. The flesh, Jesus said, profits nothing. As Luthor argued, "that does not mean a little something." Non- reformed views have people responding to Christ who are not reborn. They are still in the flesh. For non-reformed views the not only profits something, it profits the most important thing a person could ever gain_ entrance into the kingdom by believing on Christ.
If a person who is still in the flesh, who is not yet reborn by the power of the Spirit, can incline or dispose himself to Christ., what good is rebirth? This is a fatal flaw of the non-reformed views. They fail to take serious man's moral inability, the moral impotency of the flesh. A cardinal point of reformed theology is the maxim: "regeneration precedes faith." Our nature is so corrupt, the power of sin is so great, that unless God does a supernatural work in our souls we will never choose Christ. We not believe in order to be born again, we are born again that we may believe. (R C Sproul, Chosen by God, pages 54-55)The reality of this matter is that bible teaches with an uncompromising clarity that the way one becomes a saint (the elect), is through what the reformed view has held to "regeneration unto repentance and belief (divine faith). And as R.C states "Natural man does not want Christ. He will only want Christ if God plants the desire into his heart. Once that desire is planted, those who come to Christ do not come kicking and screaming against their will. They come because they want to come. They now desire Jesus."In other word it is a monogistic work that never fails it's objective.
An important question should be asked here: If ones belief in Jesus is what courses the act of regeneration; then does that mean that Mormons, Jehovah witness and Muslims have been regenerated cause they believe in a Jesus. This also puts in focus the correct Jesus as the object of faith.
