'I absolutely believe in the kingship of God, and the kingship of God. But I am not a Calvinist. Why? Well God didn't predestine not to be a Calvinist; no I am joking. That's not why I am a Calvinist. I do see verses about God's predestining plan and God Sovereign choice. But what I see is this: God in his sovereignty chose to give us a choose to respond.. a yes or no. And his grace works in our lives and we can refuse it or we can embrace it. Now honestly, I see this from the beginning of the bible all the way to the end. I see in Genesis 6 that God grieved over the people; and to me, it is odd that he planned out to do a certain thing. And is grieved over it. I see it throughout the scripture, God desires that we live differently. and when I see it over and over again this how he set it up, that we should live differently. And we do not. And he calls us to 'choose life' and so forth. (Deuteronomy 30; Ezekiel 18). When I see Jesus grieving over Jerusalem; saying how often I desired to gather your children as a hen gathers her children but you weren't willing. God is accomplishing his will. Ultimately in the midst of it. God is setting about to do what he planned, which is to have a people who love him and be with him forever. But even when I get to the end of the book of Revelation, the 22nd chapter. And the 17th verse. I mean there it is 'The Spirit and the bride say "come!" And let the one who hears say, "come!" Let the one who is thirsty come: and let the one who wishes take the free gift of the water of life... So i see this 'choose, choose, choose' through out scripture. And I believe it genuine through out the scripture. ' (Michael whole statement; minus a few unimportant parts)Now I am not saying that all Christians have to hold to the doctrines of grace to be a Christian; but what I am saying there needs to be a balance in how one comes to all subject matters and there is not on this issue. What this man does is effectively becomes careless and slippery in his reasoning; and to top this off, his scripture handling is very off beat and lopsided too.
As I have said before now, this man seems to be great at deal with cultural issue, and seem to be good when he is partnered with someone who knows how to properly handle the scripture. But when it comes to something other side of these bounds, such as the reformed faith and its solid exegetical foundation; he does not do well. And in fact can be seen as akin to a cult member in his handling of scripture as I have demonstrated on his handling on John 6.
Now let us consider the above statement in a bit more detail. He first states:
I absolutely believe in the kingship of God, . But I am not a Calvinist. Why? Well God didn't predestine not to be a Calvinist; no I am joking. That's not why I am a Calvinist. I do see verses about God's predestining plan and God Sovereign choice. But what I see is this: God in his sovereignty chose to give us a choose to respond.. a yes or no.Now it is good to see that he has a humour that may serve him well in some way. But putting this issue aside. What he first states in the premise of a joke; he can't actually refute as it is scriptural that God predestines people not to be a Calvinist, but to salvation. That can be seen through the whole of scripture; but more in focus in the New Testament in place such as John 6 and 10 and 17; All Paul letter in varies manners such as Titus 3: 4-7 and 2 timothy 1:8-10 as two places. But in the key text such as Ephesians; let us note that this letter is not addressing the Ephesian Christians at all but is a circular letter to all christians and the first two chapter tell us about God active work in salvation. So therefore, it applies even till this day.
And then let us note that 'Kingship of God' that its an absolute position and man does not determine it application. Scripture does. And scriptures tells us that God as the king has full authority over all his creation (not just some aspects) but everything; including man. He alone determines his own right to judge and condemn or save a person. Not man. Such response shows that the arminian has no grounds for his unscriptural emotional diatribe. Let us come back to scriptures please. This is the grand testimony of scripture which the Calvinist right understands.
Now we come to this most important and yet very strange statement. He states, 'But what I see is this: God in his sovereignty chose to give us a choice to respond.. a yes or no.' Now what on earth is this meant to mean. Is it his position that the Calvinist position denies or deride choice or even negates it. Of course, none of the above are true. Or perhaps we can understand his statement as this 'God is sovereign that he chose to give it up in order for man to gain it and have his own way.' That is probably what is meant. God is Sovereign even in salvation; and man does have freedom in the sense that he held accountable before his creator on how he lived. But that is not about salvation. The scriptures are clear once God works in a person to bring them to faith; it is an unstoppable process. From one point to the next until the very last God accomplishes his will. Man cannot reject this. Not even for a second.
If as Christ says in John 6 and 10 that 'all whom the Father gives him' none will be cast out, none can walk away, and He will keep them unto the very end for it is the 'will of the Father.' It seems to contradict this false view of Micael browns. Every person whom the Father has chosen out of his mercy, that the Son died for upon the cross, that the Spirit has regenerated and is sanctifying in Christ has their very life rapped up and his in Christ And all are his people. None can ever be lost, all will be saved. God cannot lie about what he has declare to be his plan and purpose for all whom are united in Christ. And here is an important statement that is a little bit of a paradox, he says:
And his grace works in our lives and we can refuse it or we can embrace it. Now honestly, I see this from the beginning of the bible all the way to the end.Here then is a very interesting statement. Not because it is true or false. But because he clearly did not catch the inconsistency in it. For grace to work in ones life, it means God has done what to a person: He has made them a new creature in Christ; and therefore, he is a what? He is a Christian. And then by this very logic, Michael statement is false. As we must recognise that by his understand 'grace' cannot work in a person if they have rejected it. What is this grace that he is speaking of. It is not clearly defined; is it regeneration, conviction, or something different. But we know for certain it does not abide and work in unbelievers.
Just what does he see 'from the beginning to the and of the bible' we cannot be certain. But whatever it is; it certainly is not what he thinks it is. And what does he think it is? Here we are told in his second statement:
I see in Genesis 6 that God grieved over the people; and to me, it is odd that he planned out to do a certain thing. And is grieved over it. I see it throughout the scripture, God desires that we live differently. and when I see it over and over again this how he set it up, that we should live differently.How are we understand this? Are we to take it that this is the reason for his rejection of God decree? The problem in all of this, lies in the fact that he is filtering it through his false theology. And if he were truly consistent, the only alternative would be what. Open theism. For this is the same bankrupt argument that they would use. 'In many passages', they say, 'God reveals that he does not have knowledge of certain thing, certain fact, certain outcomes regarding the creation.' And hence, he gains knowledge, he even grieves. Do we see why this argument does not help Michael's position. For even in the classic arminian understanding of these matters.
God has all knowledge of all thing to come to pass (even if not decreed); so therefore, his grieve though genuine still misplaced. And so too is this when used as an argument against the Reformed position.
Let us ask. Even if God has such a standard in mind for how man should conduct themselves. Did he or did he not know in any fashion that man would fall into sin? And, did he or did not plan to restore this situation from all eternity? Which begs the question. Was Salvation a contingent plan or was it is just what he had purposed to do all along? These are definition questions. And truly i do not see how these things can be answered from either the Openness view point nor Michael view point. What this means is we can not rely on superficial or foolish arguments to disprove the reformed faith. What the bible clearly lays out is that man is a sinner and enslaved to that sinfulness; and God has put into effect a plan to rectify that situation. And he so clearly will on his own basis. Let us rest in this very knowledge.
Recall that the scripture tells that God is the one who saves man. And how does he do this? In this manner: 'Blessed is the man whom thou choose, and cause to approach unto thee, that he may dwell in thy courts: we shall be satisfied with the goodness of thy house, even of thy holy temple.' (Psalm 65:4) And then, 'Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,' (1 Peter 1:3). There it is clear as day.It is God who choose, it God who calls, it is God who Justifies, it is God who regenerates, it is God who sanctifies us. It is God alone who saves. Independent of mans actions. That is scriptural. That is God's way of doing things. To God be the glory. Now let us come to the third statement that he makes:
I see it throughout the scripture, God desires that we live differently. and when I see it over and over again this how he set it up, that we should live differently. And we do not. And he calls us to 'choose life' and so forth. (Deuteronomy 30; Ezekiel 18). When I see Jesus grieving over Jerusalem; saying how often I desired to gather your children as a hen gathers her children but you weren't willing.
I have kept a bit of the former statement so that we see it in full manner. And address it as such. now the main things i need to get into here is this almost idolatrous view of 'choice' in the arminian camp. Where it is raised up to an almost deified position. And that is, because man choices to do that or that; it means that he must do so even to point of his coming to God and Christ. And of course, this is something which the bible never teaches regarding choice.
When the bible command man to do something. The unregenerate man in and of himself cannot even begin to adhere. Let us make a simplistic comparison: a parent tells a child not to do something 'do not touch the cookies before dinner?' or something along those lines. More often that not they disobey the command as the bible tell us they will. To what length; only that person can know outside of God's knowledge. There is one way to see this play out.Or take a more biblical approach: the bible says 'do not steal' 'do not kill' 'do not lie' and so forth. And this was given to all men; and more particularly the Israelites. Did anyone ever obey these commands? No, they did not. They done all these things and more. This is just to prove the obvious fact. God does indeed give command and expect people to obey them. But man cannot and will not due to a deep sinful issue regard a depraved nature. So much for this idea of 'choice.'
Now lets deal with these scriptures that are offered even without a moments contemplation. As to what is going on, let us see an interesting scripture feature: ''Do I have any pleasure in the death of the wicked,” declares the Lord God, “rather than that he should turn from his ways and live?' Well, it seems to say that he doesn't 'take pleasure' and quite correctly. But what of this statement: 'But if your heart turns away and you will not obey, but are drawn away and worship other gods and serve them, I declare to you today that you shall surely perish. You will not prolong your days in the land where you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess it.' (Deuteronomy 30:17-18). Here is the vital connective point in all of this.
No calvinist has ever said that "God takes pleasure the death of the wicked' our contention which is biblical is that he has a the right and authority to what is in accord to his will. And based on how sinful someone is in life he will and must judge them. Some one must be judged. That is what we have said. Now there is a verse in Isaiah 53 that flies in the face of this argument as says that God took pleasure in the death of one man. His very Son. It say 'it pleased him to crush him. Now I am not saying Christ was wicked, so do not misunderstand me.
Now the final text from Matthew 23:37 helps not his case either. For in that text, there is a clear distinction being made the 'children of Israel' which are those that the leaders are misleading. And then there is 'Jerusalem' which is referring to whom? the Leaders. It is children that he wanted to rescue and not the leaders. But what is far more interesting is how this one sentence gets ripped apart from its context and given a new meaning apart from the contextual meaning: which is Judgement. From 1-39 the contextual meaning does not change. He is bringing judgement on the leaders of the Jewish nation for their false teaching and hypocritical living.
The next argument he presents is this one:
God is accomplishing his will. Ultimately in the midst of it. God is setting about to do what he planned, which is to have a people who love him and be with him forever.I only ask some simple questions at this point. Based on what is said above 'that God has plan' and he is 'accomplishing it' in amidst his creation. And given what is said regarding man in the other statements being free 'to choose to accept or reject' and yet he will accomplish his plan.
I simply ask: what is this plan? And then, how is he actually accomplishing this plan in human history? And more importantly, this plan of God as you state, what is it in accords to and how can God know it is being accomplished. Does such an idea indicate that there is something out side man and out side God's essential nature but is only known to God in its full manner of execution. And, what is this thing? because it seems as though there is something there that Michael theology won't allow for; even though God's word clearly teaches it.
And that thing is his decree of all that takes place in human history. And the prophecy in scripture is the declaration of that decree. This leads onto this final statement that Michael offers up:
And the 17th verse. I mean there it is 'The Spirit and the bride say "come!" And let the one who hears say, "come!" Let the one who is thirsty come: and let the one who wishes take the free gift of the water of life... So i see this 'choose, choose, choose' through out scripture. And I believe it genuine through out the scripture. 'Let be sure to note one thing that the statement from the 22nd chapter of the book of Revelation. In no way, shape or form supports this irrational and emotional interpretation at all. Let now consider it:
The Spirit and the Bride say, “Come.” And let the one who hears say, “Come.” And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who desires take the water of life without price.Notice that he only quotes a single verse to make his point. And this is not the way we are to deal with scripture; we are not to read things into scripture that do not belong there. His idea in quoting this is to justify the idea that it is a free for all offer. And that is not even substantiated from the context.
Firstly, what is the theme of this book? Well it is that all who belong with Christ will reign with him in eternity. And this can be geared out from reading all of the book. It is not speaking of those who are not saints, but the saints alone. That is a vital point in this matter at hand.
Secondly, notice the context carefully. It first say that the Spirit and bride "come" that is the Spirit of God the church. It then says 'let the one who hears' that is the redeemed believers, the ones who have given the ability to hear spiritual truth. Not all men can; only the redeemed. And it is the same people that are given this ability who are those that are 'spiritually thirsty' and have 'spiritual desire' it is all that which Matthew 5:1-12, John 4 speak to those that Christ has redeemed.
Thirdly, notice the place in which this is to happen. The church is so much clearer on this aspect if it is actually read. It states just before the key verse: 'Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates. Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and the sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.' There we have a distinction. Only those that are spiritual clean and physically clean can enter. The text is very plain on this, many will not enter.
So again, my question is this: without the Spirit can anyone at all enter the kingdom? Or put it this way. if some is unregenerate do they have the capacity to enter the kingdom? Clearly the answer is no.
Conclusion.
All that remains in this is to give a reason why I am a Calvinist and hold to the Doctrines of Grace. And it is nothing new; it is same reason that all the reformers have done and every Christian should. And that is, consistent exegesis on this matter and with all matters will force you to the position. Just as consistent exegesis will force us to the Trinity or the Deity of Christ or Justification by Faith; so to consistent exegesis will force man to all five points (T.U.L.I.P).
If you cannot walk through John 6, Roman 8-9, Ephesians 1 without leaving the immediate context -- you are not correctly handling it.
