[jdironfist]

First of all I would like to define salvation and how it comes about. I’d rather not put words in your mouth, Gavin, but I need to see if I’m right with how I assume your outlook is, so please correct me if I assume something for you and get it wrong. I will attempt to avoid strawmanning to the best of my abilities. Okay, concerning salvation:

Salvation is not something that can be acquired via some form of “Sinner’s Prayer,” following the Four Spiritual Laws, or doing ANYTHING. From your anti-TULIP post, it seems implied that you believe that man must do something in order to be saved. It also seems that you view salvation as largely God’s doing, but partially man’s doing. I disagree with these definitions and I believe Scripture does as well. My view of salvation is not a list of dos and don’ts, but is completely dependent upon a believer’s relationship with God. I’m not necessarily a five-point Calvinist anymore in that I believe that God has completely forgiven the sins of the world. In other words, Jesus’ death was effectual and sufficient for all. This is not universalism. Rather, I have thrown out the legalistic approach that the Church has tended to take in regard to salvation, that a prayer alone can save man, and have replaced it with a God-centered worldview where all that matters with respect to man is his relationship with God. The only sin charged to man in this age (the age of the Kingdom of Heaven) is denying this relationship. That is the unforgivable sin. That said, much of Calvinism transfers nicely into this view of God, so I have no qualms in taking the Calvinist stand. However, for points I don’t hold currently (Particular/Limited atonement for one), someone else should be found who could speak in their defense.

I also want to refine this doctrine, so if anyone can find anything in there that’s obviously anti-Biblical, please tell me. Thanks.

Originally Posted by Gavin

Total Depravity: All men are lost, dead in sin, unable to save themselves, and unable to come to Christ on their own without the drawing power of the Holy Spirit enabling them to come to Christ.

I’m going to write a definition of each point (aside from particular/limited atonement) from The Westminster Confession of Faith. For Total Depravity:

“Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.” (Chapter IX, Section 3)

Originally Posted by Gavin

In other words, without the regeneration of one’s spirit, it is impossible for someone to accept Christ. So, Calvinists believe that the Holy Spirit regenerates a person to the point that they are suddenly able to choose God.

I would agree with one wrinkle. As I said above, I believe that God has forgiven all of humanity, but draws people to Him individually. As they are turned towards Him, they begin running to Him (sometimes the process takes longer than other times). I believe that regeneration marks the beginning of the man-God relationship.

Originally Posted by Gavin

But here’s the thing, we are dead in sin according to the word. We will not be “regenerated” or anything like that unless we are forgiven of those sins we are dead in. Otherwise, it would make the Bible wrong about an unbeliever. The problem is that this unbeliever isn’t dead in sin but is rather alive in sin. Even if the said unbeliever is going to accept Christ immediately after this regeneration, it still poses that problem for scripture.

All are forgiven of sins. We may have been dead in sin, but we can be regenerated at any time, for Christ has already died for us. The unbeliever may be dead in sin due to his temporary/permanent rejection of Christ, but God can regenerate him at any time. The only sin God refuses to forgive is continued blaspheming of the Spirit.

I forgot to mention this at the beginning, but I think it definitely has a place here. All scripture references taken from Gavin’s anti-TULIP post are going to be retyped in NIV so that anyone (like me) who has more difficulty reading KJV can more easily understand the intent and drive of the verse and why the person (Gavin, in this case) chose to use it. I haven’t chosen whether I’ll use NIV or ESV, but I will strive to indicate if I use ESV (my default will most likely be NIV) and any flip-flopping of versions will be largely due to clarification or simply preference of words used in a certain version. I will also try to avoid simply flip-flopping so that the verse seems more favorable to my point. Basically, as far as I am in actually writing down a counter-post, I have seen no reason to use ESV, so I probably won’t.

Also, in throwing verses in when changing Gavin’s translation, I will always keep the verses he used. However, if I feel that surrounding verses may be applicable, I will include them, making sure to trigger everyone’s awareness to them by coloring them purple. In addition, when giving the reference (like “Romans 3:23”), I will put added verses in parentheses—for example, if I give “Ephesians 2: (4,) 5,” that means that Gavin used Ephesians 2:5, but I thought I would include 2:4 for context/counterpoint/other reasons.

Originally Posted by Gavin

Eph 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved; )

So we see indeed that we were dead in sins and that we were quickened in some way or another. The question is how? Calvinists would immediately claim regeneration, but this scripture already answers it, we are brought to life (the definition of quickened) with Christ. I do not see this as being a verse to show us that we had to be regenerated before salvation, but rather that we were dead in sins but now we are alive in Christ. This is why it says that we are saved by grace. Because, we were dead but now we are alive. Again, we cannot be restored without being forgiven of our sins or this verse would be wrong.

Ephesians 2: (4,) 5
4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.

The reason I add Ephesians 2:4 is mainly for context—I don’t like giving a verse as an incomplete sentence. Concerning your point, though, Gavin, I would say that God made us alive (called us to Him) even when we continually rejected His grace. I don’t see how that poses a problem. Unbelievers are currently dead in their state of total rejection of Christ, as we were at one point, and God can regenerate them, causing, in a sense, their salvation. The nuts and bolts of this process get into more of Irresistible/Efficacious Grace, though, so I’ll wait and deal with this particular part of your objection there. You say that we cannot be restored without being forgiven of our sins, which I completely agree with. God regenerates us by allowing us to not reject Him. As I said though, I’ll focus more on that later.

Originally Posted by Gavin

So here’s the real kicker, how are we ever forgiven of our sins?

1Jo 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us [our] sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

We are forgiven of our sins, by God, whenever we confess them to Him. Not before.

1 John 1: (8,) 9, (10)
8 If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives.

I include the verses on either side of Gavin’s verse because they are integral to understanding the middle verse. Gavin, you imply in your interpretation that we are not forgiven of sins until we confess them to God. Do you truly believe that? If you or someone you love were to have lied to another person and then get in a car crash, do you truly believe that they would have that sin against them unforgiven and be sent to hell because of that? I don’t think that’s what you believe, but I want to check to make sure.

Notice how 1 John 1:9 relates to the verses right before and directly following it. Both 1:8 and 1:10 deal with the person who refuses to admit his sin and says instead that he has no sin. 1:9 contrasts with these verses and shows that if we instead confess that we do sin (which diametrically opposes refusing to admit our sin), we can be forgiven. This verse says nothing concerning continually asking repentance, but instead highlights God’s loving faithfulness and grace.

Originally Posted by Gavin

Another verse that springs to minds shows when we are made righteous.

Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Rom 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Romans 10: (6-8,) 9-10
6 But the righteousness that is by faith says: "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?'" (that is, to bring Christ down) 7 "or 'Who will descend into the deep?'" (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8 But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart," that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: 9 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.

The added verses just give a background to the verses Gavin used.

Again, Gavin, you seem to be implying something I don’t think that you believe; that one must be able to talk to be saved, otherwise, how could one confess with one’s mouth that “Jesus is Lord?” I believe these verses should be taken as verses which instill confidence to the believer who is unsure of his salvation—if he is able to say (or think, if he is mute) honestly that Jesus is the ultimate Lord of his life and believes that He has been resurrected, then he does not need to worry about his salvation. Again, I want to know how you meant these verses, because the way that you seem to be presenting them has very unfriendly implications to all mutes.

Originally Posted by Gavin

So, how is it that we are able to accept Christ without being regenerated? Is it because of our own righteousness or works? Man can do nothing on his own to become saved. But that is what you and I are here for. We are commissioned to spread the word to people who do not believe. The word and our testimony is the help from God that allows totally depraved people to believe. It is God through us. Man does not seek God on his own, but that’s why we have to go out to man to bring God’s word to him. Jesus draws all men to him in this way (John 12:32).

This seems like nice doctrine, but I do not see much more than assertion here. I certainly believe that we have a calling to reach the nations for Christ and that God can use something we as Christians say to begin a person’s walk towards salvation, but I think you carry our power as humans too far. You are right when you say that man can do nothing to be saved, but when you say that God’s Word through us allows totally depraved people to believe, I completely disagree. No matter how much pushing we do, without God, “10 There is no one righteous, not even one; 11 there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God.” (Romans 3:10b-11). Instead, completely apart from any meager help we can give, “Jesus [is] the author and perfecter of our faith.” (Hebrews 12:2), and that it was “[colort=blue]he who began a good work in you[/color]” (Philippians 1:6). These verses show a God-centered salvation with man as little more than a sideshow.

However, we all must keep in mind that it is not our decision whether God will use what we say to “catch someone’s attention,” in a manner of speaking. Therefore we must evangelize, although it is God’s show, not ours.

You may say that this does not disagree with what you said, but it does—instead of believing that we are a necessary component (tell me if I’m putting words in your mouth), I believe that God allows us to take part in His plan and we are completely unnecessary. Again, though, we must evangelize if we want to see God’s glory.

Originally Posted by Gavin

Unconditional Election: “…Not all men are created with similar destiny but eternal life is foreordained for some, and eternal damnation for others. Every man, therefore, being created for one or the other of these ends, we say, he is predestined either to life or to death.” John Calvin said this in his “Institutes” Book III, chapter 23.

This is not representative of Unconditional Election, but rather of a more severe form of election called double predestination (John Piper calls this the “sixth point of Calvinism”). I disagree with this. The Westminster Confession of Faith blends Unconditional Election with Irresistible/Efficacious Grace, so I will conceive of my own definition of Unconditional Election, saving the confession’s definition for the fourth point. I view Unconditional Election as follows: Man, with his complete free will prior to the Fall, chose to sin, sending all of mankind to hell. God, however, with His gracious mercy, chose under no condition or merit those who He wished to save. Essentially, God saves some, but leaves the others to the default destination for all mankind: hell.

Double predestination should be avoided because it puts God in charge of actively selecting who goes to hell, which He would not do, not wanting anyone to perish, but all men to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4)

Originally Posted by Gavin

So basically, before time, God chose specific people to be saved and others to be damned. And it is because of this “predestination” that some people get saved and others don’t. This is absolutely not true. Yes, God knew who would get saved and who wouldn’t be saved, but that foreknowledge was non-causative. In other words, God didn’t specifically form the world to make those events happen.

I disagree with the fist sentence for reasons listed above, which are that man’s default destination is hell, but God brought some up to heaven.

I also want to know why you say that God’s foreknowledge is non-causative. Remember that God is outside of time as well as outside the three dimensions in which we live. He has no past, present, or future, but simply is. Therefore, if God knows that you will marry some girl named Becky tonight next year (I’m writing this on Valentine’s Day, so I thought I’d throw that in ) then you will get married to Becky on Valentine’s Day in the year 2007. You will choose this. It will happen. There will exist no universe in which God is wrong, so there will therefore not exist in which events do not play out exactly as God sees all of them. In the time it took you to blink your eyes right now, God has seen His plan through from start to finish an infinite amount of times. How could His knowledge of what will happen not cause it to happen?

Originally Posted by Gavin

How do we know that Unconditional election is false? Well, there are many reasons. For one, we will learn later why Perseverance of the saints (eternal security) is wrong and with eternal security being wrong, we automatically learn that there is a conditional election.

I submit that POTS is true, but I will cover that in the relevant section. I do agree, however, that if you could throw out eternal security, the rest of the five points would follow rather quickly.

Originally Posted by Gavin

But the second is scripture. God does not want ANYONE to die.

2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

1Ti 2:3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,
1Ti 2:4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

How could God desire that no one should die if He created some people to die? The very notion of God desiring that would be a conflict of wills. To desire that something would occur that God didn’t design it to be thus or that God didn’t want to happen would be inherently sinful.

2 Peter 3: (8,) 9
8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

1 Timothy 2: (1-2,) 3-4
1 I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone— 2 for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

There are two counters to your position, and the first deals with context. The reason for including 2 Peter 3:8 is so that the antecedent to “you” and “anyone” can be clarified. “You” refers to the “dear friends” in verse 8. The “dear friends” are those to whom the letter is sent (see 3:1), which are “those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours” (2 Peter 1:1b). So Peter has simply vocalized that his audience (the elect/early Christians/believers/whatever you feel like calling them) need not fear the speed at which God fulfills His promise, for His speed is perfect. Concerning the “anyone” and “everyone” in the latter part of verse nine, I am not sure what that refers to. I would say that it could just as likely mean “any one of the elect” as is could mean “any one of the humans.” It really should not matter too much—a couple paragraphs down I will deal with that view as well.

The extra verses in the 1 Timothy passage serve the same purpose, which is to place Gavin’s given passage in context. Although context is not as huge here as in the previous passage, I think it seems fairly important because it shows exactly what “pleases God our Savior.” God wants us to pray and give thanks for all in authority—this pleases Him because He wants to see all men saved. That seems like an accurate paraphrase, but if you would like to modify something, Gavin, don’t hesitate.

The other reason your position fails is that it neglects dealing with the election part of Unconditional Election, but instead tries to knock down double predestination. While this verse may work well dealing with double predestination, it has problems when you try to apply it to Unconditional Election. Even if you were to apply it, your position is still untenable because although God says that He desires all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth, not all men are saved! The means that while God does want all men to be saved, He wants something else more. You believe this, too, whether you realize it or not. You believe (I think) that God values Free Will enough that He resists imposing salvation on everybody, allowing all people to come to a knowledge of the truth without His interference. Well, then God wants people to have a Free Will more than he wants them saved. Either way you cut it, this verse cements God having multiple wants and desires.

Originally Posted by Gavin

There are of course many other verses that fall in line with this, but I believe that Limited Atonement (the next point) and Unconditional Election are linked closely for many reasons.

I would like to see some that you would use that I do not deal with when I comb through Particular/Limited Atonement.

Originally Posted by Gavin

Before going to the next point, also notice the many requirements listed for someone to be saved. Notice the Biblical lacking of the requirement of God making you first want to do those things.

Two questions concerning that point: one, what requirements are there to be saved? I believe that men do not do anything to be saved but rather that God will enter into a relationship with some, allowing them to experience fellowship with Him, which leads to salvation (more on this later). Two, you are correct in saying that it says nowhere that God makes you want to do these things, but the Bible is also very clear that man cannot go toward God by himself. As I mentioned before, Romans 3 makes this perfectly clear by saying: “10 There is no one righteous, not even one; 11 there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God.” No one seeks God because of our sin nature inherited from the Fall. So while the Bible never makes mention of God making us do these things, without God actively replacing our hearts of stone with hearts of flesh, we would never seek Him. That is shown in at least one verse (I may find more if you want).

Originally Posted by Gavin

Limited Atonement: Calvin taught that Jesus only died for the sins of the elect.

Yes and no. As I will not be strictly defending Particular/Limited Atonement, someone else can modify my definition, but there is definitely more that just what you say. First of all, I need to say that both Calvinist and Arminian limit the atonement, which is why I have been calling it Particular Atonement. The Calvinist says that the atonement is completely effectual at forgiving all the sins of man, but only forgives them for the elect. The Arminian says that Christ died in order to forgive every man his sin, but not all “tap into” the atoning power. Boettner uses an illustration in his book Predestination that may not be completely accurate, but nonetheless gets the point across. For the Calvinist, the atonement “is like a narrow bridge which goes all the way across the steam; for the Arminian it is like a great wide bridge that goes only half-way across” (p. 153).

Concerning my initial problem with your definition, though, Christ’s death not only secured infallibly the salvation of the elect, but also gave grace to the unbelievers—called common grace—enabling them to not live the most miserable life possible.

Originally Posted by Gavin

In this way, I am in some agreement if a different definition is taken on the word, “elect” than the Calvinists view it as. I believe that the elect are the believers. That anyone who believes is an elect. That before time, God made the rule that whoever believes on His son would be saved and in making that rule, He automatically predestined only those who believe to be saved.

Something like that. I suppose that would be conditional election, where God bases His election on His foresight of who would accept/reject Him, but it also makes salvation much more man-centered. Does that description sound accurate?

Originally Posted by Gavin

So, in this way, Jesus’ death only atoned for believers, or the elect. But we need to know that Christ did not die for a pre-selected group of people. That he came to die for all sinners, anyone who would call upon his name.

Again, recall that I write this having currently renounced Particular/Limited Atonement and having embraced more of a Universal Atonement (with a couple caveats I introduced at the beginning) in which Christ died and successfully forgave every man for every sin excluding the one sin which will not be forgiven (Matthew 12:30-32). So I still disagree with you in your views, but in a different way. Basically, I believe that Jesus’ atonement forgave the sins of everyone, but before salvation all unbelievers constantly “blaspheme” the Holy Spirit—whenever one attempts to run his life for himself, one blasphemes the Holy Spirit by saying implicitly that he does not need the Spirit to help him run his life. So instead, it is our relationship with God, made possibly by Christ and connected by the Spirit, through which we find forgiveness for blaspheming the Spirit. I have yet to find enough Scripture to say this without doubt, but it seems to work.

Originally Posted by Gavin

This is found heavily throughout scripture.

Jhn 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Jhn 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
Jhn 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Jhn 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

Here we see that God sent His into the world so that the world might be saved through him.

John 3:16-19
16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.

Sure. The Calvinist’s defense would be that you are only using one variant of the Greek word meaning “world” here. There are two relevant definitions for the Greek here, and you are using the one meaning essentially “everyone” instead of the one meaning essentially “all peoples” or “all nations.” While we may take it for granted that Christ died to save all nations, Jew or Gentile, that was an extremely radical idea at that time, so it is very plausible that definition number two is the intended one.

Originally Posted by Gavin

Of course, the entire world was not saved, but everyone that believed in Christ was.

Naturally. However, taking the definition that you take on the word “world,” you necessitate the passage reading that the entire world was saved. Otherwise, you contradict yourself. Either you say that God attempted to save all people of the world and failed, since He didn’t save all people of the world, or you say He succeeded and what He set out to do and wind up at Universalism. Neither of these options is okay with me; I want my God to succeed at everything He sets out to do and I disagree with Universalism. Therefore I submit that God succeeded at exactly what He set out to do, but use the other Greek definition for “world,” namely all nations. So God saved people from all nations, Jew and Gentile. That is an answer I can believe and that seems consistent with the God I see the Bible revealing. I don’t see your position being tenable.

Originally Posted by Gavin

1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world.

This is a verse that is very important to us. Christ died for the sins of everyone. If only they would accept that forgiveness by believing on him. One must be careful around this verse though, remember that everyone’s sins were not forgiven automatically. Just that he died so that they might be forgiven. The reason I clarify here is to avoid the dangerous believe in universalism in which people believe that everyone has been forgiven.

1 John 2: (1,) 2
1 My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. 2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

Verse 2:1 is included for the antecedent of “our,” which is “dear children” or believers. Your position here is flawed for similar reasons that your position was flawed in the last set of verses. Either Jesus was successful in atoning for all the world, He failed at atoning for all the world and only atoned for some, or was successful in atoning for Jews and Gentiles alike. Essentially, the question you need to ask yourself is this: Is the entire world saved? No? Then by your definition of “world,” Jesus failed. If it is saved, you hit Universalism. If He successfully atoned for all the world, not just Jews but also Gentiles, then He succeeded and you avoid Universalism.

By your logic, the final question of salvation is man’s responsibility. Do you believe that man saves himself? If so, you have been welcomed into the ranks of Pelagians, but if not, then the final decision is God’s and God’s alone. Not man’s.

I’m also glad you are attempting to avoid Universalism. We’ve found something to agree on! However, in rejecting Universalism, you embrace a God who acts powerlessly, and fails to accomplish that which He sets out to do (be the atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world).

Originally Posted by Gavin

Jhn 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

Again, we aren’t talking about the elect here. We are talking about anyone who calls upon the name of the Lord.

John 1:29
29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

There are two problems with your statement. Problem number one is that anyone who calls upon the name of the Lord is part of the elect! That’s the definition of the elect. Secondly, do you believe Christ took away everyone’s sin or the sins of Jews and Gentiles?

Basically, you saying that this passage is not talking about the elect is a complete assertion and is in fact, completely untrue, based on the definition of “elect.”

Originally Posted by Gavin

Suddenly we find ourselves seeing the same verse that was used in unconditional election. Allow me to more explicitly explain why God’s will won’t disagree with God’s will.

2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

1Ti 2:3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,
1Ti 2:4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

It's the concept of God desiring something, with ANY will that you might say He has, which would conflict with His sovereign will.

I’ve already dealt with this somewhat and have given the verses in NIV with context, and I don’t see how your position works. Are all men saved? Do all men have knowledge of the truth? No. Therefore, no matter what position you take, something must be more important to God than for all men to be saved. So your entire next paragraph is bunk. I’ll post it for those who haven’t seen it, then move on.

Originally Posted by Gavin

If, according to Calvinism, even one more person got saved than God wanted (sovereignly) to get saved, then His sovereign will wouldn't have been fulfilled. Thusly, for God to desire something that would effectively do that, would make no sense and would show an extreme conflict of wills. One of those wills would have to conflict God's sovereign will, being therefore a sinful will, outside of the will of God. I do not see this occurring in a perfect being.

This is what was bunk.

Originally Posted by Gavin

Applying this to the Calvinist explanation of this verse (that it's not God's sovereign will for all men to be saved but rather a different will), if God wants for all men to be saved, but having only sovereignly predestined a specific limited number of people to be saved, then Him wanting all to be saved would conflict. God is not a God of disorder.

Again, you neglect the necessity of God desiring something else more than He desires everyone’s salvation, otherwise everyone would be saved. This is also bunk.

Originally Posted by Gavin

Now you're probably wondering if that means that we believe people can disobey God's sovereign will. However, if that's what you're thinking then you're forgetting that we believe human freewill is within God's sovereign will. That He actually WANTS us to choose Him. While He could impose a sovereign will on who would or would not be saved, He does not do so for the purpose of true worship—for us to worship Him of our own desire in spirit and in truth.

You seem to have misunderstood the concept of God’s sovereign will. God’s sovereign will is that which desires that His overriding plan come to pass; that everything passing on Earth would be exactly as He planned it since the beginning of time. We have an appearance of Free Will, but in everything we do, we conform to God’s plan. This isn’t God “imposing” His will on us, but rather us actively choosing exactly the choices He created us to make.

Also, as you said, He wants us to choose Him—I agree. However, I have already established that man cannot choose God without some sort of intervention on God’s part, just like no man can fly without some intervention on an airplane’s part. It’s a similar idea. If it were all up to use doing the choosing (or flying) we would never succeed. There would be nobody saved, for, as Jesus says, “No one can come to [Jesus] unless the Father… draws him,” and “no one can come to [Jesus] unless the Father has enabled him.” (John 6:44a, 65b). Nobody can come unless the Father has somehow intervened. This deals more with Irresistible/Efficacious Grace than Limited/Particular Atonement, but you dealt with it here, so if you want to counter this, include it under Irresistible/Efficacious Grace.

Along with these you also make note of us worshipping Him in spirit and in truth. How would God’s calling of us biblically interfere with our worshipping Him in spirit and in truth? I would think that to know that God wants me in a relationship with Him would help me worship Him. So where do you see a conflict?

Originally Posted by Gavin

You see that I make mention of Calvinists believing in two wills of God. This is their general answer to many of these verses. That God has two wills, one sovereign and the other not. I see no reason for any distinction except to try to salvage one’s doctrine.

Unless you are a Universalist, you have no choice but to believe that God has multiple wills. You differ from the Calvinist viewpoint in saying that God wants man to have Free Will above all instead of God wanting His divine plan above all, but we both believe that not all men are saved. Therefore God wants something else more. If you don’t track with my logic, think about it for a minute—God says He wants all to be saved. Not all are saved. God is omnipotent. Therefore, something must be more important than all men being saved. Whether you agree with the Calvinist or not, you must believe that God wants something more, or succumb to Universalism.

Originally Posted by Gavin

Irresistible Grace: Calvin taught that those who are predestined to be saved will respond and be saved and cannot resist.

Oversimplified. The Westminster Confession of Faith defines Irresistible/Efficacious Grace as such:

“All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, He is pleased, in his appointed and accepted time, effectually to call, by His word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God; taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills and by His almighty power determining them to that which is good; and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by His grace. (Chapter X, Section 1).

For all of you out there keeping score, that really was one sentence . Essentially, the Confession of Faith is saying that God predestined some people to heaven, and He can call them whenever He pleases however He pleases. In calling them, He brings them out of their natural sinful nature and to salvation. This calling (not given to everyone) is always effective, yet never against a person’s will. They will always come freely because of God’s grace. If I left anything not clarified or if I made anything uncertain (or if you just don’t like/disagree with my paraphrase), please tell me, and tell me why.

Originally Posted by Gavin

This point is actually rather simple to defeat.

Then why hasn’t somebody brought this verse up before? Naturally, all Arminians read the Bible, otherwise they wouldn’t have gotten involved in theology and found out they’re Arminians! Therefore, were this truly a point that simple to defeat, there should exist absolutely no five-point Calvinists. Just making sure you’ve thought through what you’re saying, Gavin.

Originally Posted by Gavin

Act 7:51 Ye stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers [did], so [do] ye.

Here we see unbelievers resisting the Holy Ghost. If they can resist anything that the Holy Spirit tries to do then this certainly bites away at predestination and opens the door for free will. Now, what would the Holy Spirit be going to unbelievers for? Certainly not for good works since unbelievers are incapable of doing good works outside of Christ. And they can only be inside Christ by believing. So, the only thing that the Spirit would be coming to them for would be for SALVATION. So they are resisting God's grace right here in this verse.

Acts 7:51, (52-53)
51 "You stiff-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy Spirit! 52 Was there ever a prophet your fathers did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him— 53 you who have received the law that was put into effect through angels but have not obeyed it."

Extra verses include the ways through which the Pharisees (or Israel, in this case) “resisted” the Holy Spirit.

First of all, this is obviously not an effectual calling of the Holy Spirit. We don’t even know what the apostle Peter meant when he said, “resist the Holy Spirit.” He seems to mean (with the provided examples) that the people of Israel were resisting the Holy Spirit by resisting God’s laws and statutes, or resisting the people God gave them. This verse in no way implies that “they can resist anything that the Holy Spirit tries to do,” as you said. It shows one instance of unbelievers rebelling against God. God/Holy Spirit does not need to “be going to them” in order for them to rebel. He doesn’t even need to be present! Don’t you have the choice to resist your parents’/employer’s rules? Do they have to be drawing you toward them for you to resist them? Of course not. You can be on the other side of the world and still resist them. So saying that the Holy Spirit was “coming” to them not only doesn’t make sense (He’s omnipresent), but it also is an unwarranted assertion.

Basically, what you have done here is set up an argument on the premise that the Holy Spirit is resistible. That’s a strawman—anyone can resist the Holy Spirit. Man actually resists any approach or anything in general concerning the Holy Spirit by default because the Spirit is the antithesis of the sin nature. Paul makes this clear in Romans 7:7-25—that the Spirit and the sin nature are diametrically opposed.

Therefore, in order to avoid this tempting strawman again, I think it is best to call Irresistible/Efficacious Grace simply Efficacious Grace (although the “E” doesn’t fit the TULIP). So I have a few questions for you: 1) Why does resisting the Spirit bite away at predestination, 2) Why must all calls to salvation be effectual, and 3) Why must the Spirit come for either good works or salvation and nothing else?

Originally Posted by Gavin

Mat 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, [thou] that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under [her] wings, and ye would not!

Again, people resisting God’s will. Now they will be punished for their sin against a merciful God.

Matthew 23: (33-36,) 37
33 "You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? 34 Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. 35 And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation.

37 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.

Extra verses added for complete context. Essentially, if you look at verse 33-34, you get the same situation as you brought up concerning 1Timothy 2 and 2 Peter 3 back when I discussed God’s wills. You have here God wanting Israel/Jerusalem to flock under His wings, and He even sends prophets and wise men and teachers so that the greater part of Jerusalem might escape judgment in hell. Notice though—they don’t! Therefore, God wants something else more. This is completely irrelevant to Efficacious Grace; rather, this is simply what happens to the people to whom God reveals Himself when they reject Him. There is nothing inherently irresistible concerning this grace.

Originally Posted by Gavin

Jhn 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Things aren’t about God imposing His grace on us. It is a merciful gift that we either accept or do not. Either way, God is showing us grace and mercy. Yet so much of the world refuses to accept it. It is God’s will that everyone that sees His son and believes on him will be saved. Not everyone he’s going to ram it down someone’s throat.

John 6: (37-39,) 40
37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. 38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40 For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

It’s all about context, Gavin. I’m amazed that you could see the three verses preceding the one you referenced and still tried to argue this point. Jesus begins by saying that all that the Father gives Him will come to Him. He says later that “no one can come to [Him] unless the Father has enabled him.” (John 6:44a, 65b). We now see that there are two givens:

1) All the Father gives Jesus will come to Him.
2) No one can come to Jesus unless the Father has enabled him.
3) Therefore, one will come to Jesus if and only if the Father has enabled him.

That is the heart of efficacious grace! Now we know that only those whom the Father gives Jesus will come to Him, and Jesus will never drive those people away. In fact, verse 39 gives an important point that I’ll try to remember to bring back up when we get to POTS; that Jesus will lose none of those the Father has given Him, but will raise them all up on the last day.

Irresistible/Efficacious Grace has nothing to do with “God imposing His grace on us.” God doesn’t “impose” His grace on anyone. However, in the words of Christ Himself, the Father must enable each of the elect to come to Him. There’s no getting away from that. Also, I don’t understand your last sentence:

Not everyone he’s going to ram it down someone’s throat.

Could you clarify it? I really do want to answer any objections/questions you have.

Originally Posted by Gavin

Perseverance of the Saints (eternal security): Those who believe on Christ will not only be unable to have their salvation stolen from them, but they cannot even walk away from their salvation or give it up for something else.

Westminster’s “authorized” definition:

“1. They whom God hath accepted in His Beloved, effectually called and sanctified by His Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace; but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved.

2. This perseverance of the saints depends not upon their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father; upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ; the abiding of the Spirit, and of the seed of God within them; and the nature of the covenant of grace: from all which ariseth also the certainty and infallibility thereof.

3. Nevertheless, they may, through the temptation of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of the means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins; and for a time continue therein: whereby they incur God’s displeasure, and grieve His Holy Spirit; come to be deprived of some measure of their graces and comforts; have their hearts hardened, and their consciences wounded; hurt and scandalize others, and bring temporal judgments upon themselves.” (Chapter XVII, Sections 1-3)

The reason for being so long-winded about this section is because I felt it necessary to use Westminster’s complete confession on POTS, due to my belief that Gavin has strayed from the Word of God especially in this. I really believe that, but I want to show you why I think that. I truly don’t mean it in as harsh of a manner as it might appear in print, but I do need to get the point across that I seriously believe the doctrine of “falling from grace” encourages legalistic activities, possibly pride, irrational fear, and, most importantly, a warped view of God. Again, I don’t mean to imply that you have any or all of these attitudes, Gavin, but those seem to stem from the doctrine of falling from grace.

Originally Posted by Gavin

I really see no way that the idea of eternal security from walking away could be defensible. I believe that nothing can take our salvation from us and that we can't "accidentally" lose our salvation. My usual analogy is that salvation is NOT like a pair of keys, to be lost and found again every few days.

First of all, who is in charge of our salvation, Gavin? If Jesus has us in His hands (John 10:28), I would definitely say that Jesus is in charge of our salvation. Since He is, no one can take it from Him. Now, let me contrast that to us taking care of our salvation. What would happen there? Can we truly be trusted with our salvation? Look to Esau, who couldn’t even be trusted with a birthright! How then can man take charge of his own salvation when he treats a birthright with such contempt?

Originally Posted by Gavin

But here is why I am against eternal security (or "anti-eternal security" so to speak.)

Mat 10:22 And ye shall be hated of all [men] for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.

This verse speaks of only the people who endure all the way until the end will be saved. This does show that some people will endure for a while and then fall. Otherwise there is no reason for this comment. If someone is enduring in anything, they are enduring in salvation—it wouldn't make sense for them to be "enduring" in sin.

Matthew 10:22
22 All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved.

This is a case in which Jesus’ audience and the time in which He is speaking is crucial. He is currently speaking to the Twelve, prior to any of them confessing that He was the Christ. Before I go further, I need to reference a parable of Jesus’:

The Parable of the Sower (see Matthew 13:3b-8)
3 "A farmer went out to sow his seed. 4 As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up. 5 Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. 6 But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. 7 Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants. 8 Still other seed fell on good soil, where it produced a crop—a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown.

This parable references four types of reception to the Good News of the Savior—there are those who are so far removed from the church and God that they do nothing, and may even fight your message; those who hear, spring up and go do something “godly,” but then quickly lose steam when things get hot; those who began having interest, but then had it choked by persecution/bad friends/peer pressure/all of the above; and those who open into a relationship with Jesus and walk with Him. This parable is necessary for understanding because everything about the elect, POTS, eternal security—these all hinge on one’s relationship with God. Person #1 had no interest, thus no relationship. Person #2 had interest, but never developed a relationship and crumbled under pressure. Person #3 had interest, but also never developed a relationship and was suffocated by sin. Person #4 was the only one with a relationship. When Jesus says that “he who stands firm until to the end will be saved,” He isn’t warning the people who have already entered into relationship with Him, but rather those who are trying to stand on their own. When a believer develops a relationship, Jesus will carry him through the times in which he cannot stand alone. Without Jesus, we would all fall.

The reason, then, that the time he talks to the Twelve is important is because it was prior to any of them having a true relationship with Him. I don’t think Judas ever did, but the others, because of Jesus’ strength, were able to stand.

If any of that doesn’t make sense (I don’t know how well I explained it), please direct my attention to it.

Originally Posted by Gavin

Hbr 6:4 For [it is] impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
Hbr 6:5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
Hbr 6:6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put [him] to an open shame.

This is a pretty self-explanatory verse showing a type of person falling away. This person is a former Christian who really knows who God is and still decided to walk away and whose sins had already been atoned for once before by Christ's death. Hence the word afresh.

Hebrews 6:4-6, (7-8)
4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, 6 if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.

7 Land that drinks in the rain often falling on it and that produces a crop useful to those for whom it is farmed receives the blessing of God. 8 But land that produces thorns and thistles is worthless and is in danger of being cursed. In the end it will be burned.

The extra two verses will be dealt with after a long discussion of the first three.

This is actually the hardest set of verses to deal with, in my opinion. I think there are a couple of points that need to be stressed, however, before arriving at the conclusion that we truly can fall from grace, due to other parts of the Bible more clearly indicating otherwise. The first point concerns whom precisely meets the criteria of the passage (one who has been enlightened, tasted the heavenly gift, shared in the Holy Spirit, and tasted the goodness of the word of God and powers of the coming age). So who is enlightened? I believe that refers to anyone who has heard the Good News of Jesus’ death, resurrection, and atonement of sin—after all, those who hear this news are truly enlightened. I’ll skip the heavenly gift for now and say that to share in the Holy Spirit one probably is saved, but the necessity is not there. The person could simply be sharing in the blessings we receive via the Holy Spirit and not have laid claim to Him. To taste the good word of God seems to parallel with being enlightened and seems to mean the same thing, i.e., the good word of God is the Good News. The powers of the world to come could mean a couple of things; either it means that the person has witnessed miracles (less probable) or the person has dealt with God on more of an intimate level than the average Joe. Notice that all these can be done by one who identifies himself as a “Christian,” but has no true relationship with God.

Concerning the “heavenly gift”: I submit the Israelites as evidence to my claim above, and the heavenly gift fits in there, too. All the Israelites had walked in the desert for a time prior to their initial failed entrance into the Promised Land. They were all enlightened to whom God was, they tasted of the heavenly gift—manna and the Law—, they shared in the Spirit (through Moses), tasted the goodness of the word of God (the Law again), and witnessed the powers of the coming age, whether it was a miracle Moses performed, the Law, the giving of the Priesthood—the Israelites had it all! Except one thing: a personal, one-to-one relationship with Almighty God. Moses had it. Caleb and Joshua had it. Other scattered Israelites probably had it as well, but the majority of them did not. They all identified themselves as “God’s people,” and actually were a precursor to Christians of today (Paul, in Romans, speaks of the physical and spiritual Israels). However, all those who had no relationship with God (that’s important) stood with the ones who did have a relationship, initially. But after the Israelites arrived at the Promised Land, the true believers were quickly separated from those simply around “for the ride,” as it were. It was then impossible to renew those people who were along for the ride unto repentance, for they “fell away.”

There exists a very subtle distinction between repenting of your sins and beginning a true relationship with God. The former can be done without the latter, but for the latter the former stands as a prerequisite. Most of the Israelites did the former without seeing the necessity of the latter, survived for a while under their own strength, then fell. Those are the people who have “fallen from grace,” for they took salvation into their own hands.

The purpose of the last two verses is to illustrate the subtle difference. There are two types of Christian, one who produces fruit due to his thriving relationship with God, and one who takes repentance into his own hands and eventually succumbs to the fire that will test all of us.

Does this all make sense? This particular section was initially written after midnight, so it may be slightly out of whack, but I plan on reading over it again when I’m more lucid and catching most of the errors before posting this thing.

Originally Posted by Gavin

1Ti 1:18 This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the prophecies which went before on thee, that thou by them mightest war a good warfare;
1Ti 1:19 Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck:
1Ti 1:20 Of whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.

Its implications are of course obvious. It is not only a proof that people can loose their faith (otherwise Paul warning Timothy at all would be pointless), but it also includes TWO names of people who fell away who had previously been Christians. Thanks Smitty.

1 Timothy 1:18-20
18 Timothy, my son, I give you this instruction in keeping with the prophecies once made about you, so that by following them you may fight the good fight, 19 holding on to faith and a good conscience. Some have rejected these and so have shipwrecked their faith. 20 Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme.

The reading of the text does not necessitate Hymenaeus and Alexander falling from grace, but instead seems to point to temporal judgment (possibly delivered by Satan or his minions) in order to teach the two that they should not blaspheme by showing them the consequences or whatnot. God did something similar with Job, albeit for different reasons. After Satan came to God the second time, “The LORD said to Satan, “Very well, then, he is in your hands” (Job 2:6a). Job was delivered unto Satan, but he was a very righteous man. Could it be that people can be delivered to Satan in order to better their faith? Isn’t exposing someone to temptation the best way to test his faith? So then, why do you take as a given that Hymenaeus and Alexander have fallen from grace? That seems instead to be an opinion you bring to the table and enforce on the passage.

Also, you say that this passage is proof that people can lose their faith, otherwise there would be no point to Paul warning Timothy about it. However, wouldn’t Paul (remember, he is Timothy’s mentor) want to warn Timothy concerning those actions that might bring harm to him or his faith? Naturally! So simply because Paul warns Timothy does not make your reading of the passage definitely correct.

Originally Posted by Gavin

1Jo 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
1Jo 2:23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: [[but] he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also].
1Jo 2:24 Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.

(The Greek word for if is indeed present in the Greek) It is beseeching us to allow the truth to remain in us, or we will not continue in the Father. I am of course posting this verse because it is also a common verse to be attempted to be used in favor of this Calvinistic point. But here we see it breaking from being a support scripture for them.

1 John 2:22-24
22 Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist—he denies the Father and the Son. 23 No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

24 See that what you have heard from the beginning remains in you. If it does, you also will remain in the Son and in the Father.

The support this verse gives you is marginal at best. You also completely ignore the verses immediately before these, which are the verses Calvinists typically use against falling from grace. I will use those to argue for Eternal Security later in this post. Concerning this group of verses, though, I would say that since John is talking to a church, there probably are some within who have not yet entered into a relationship with Christ. That being the case, he beseeches the entire church to confess Jesus Christ as Lord (like they have heard from the beginning) and allow Christ to dwell in them so the truth will remain in them. I see no problem with this interpretation.

Originally Posted by Gavin

Luk 6:37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:

Who is Jesus talking to? He is talking to believers. Unbelievers will already be condemned regardless of how many people they forgive. Jesus is telling believers that if we do these things incorrectly, the same will come our way. And if we do these things correctly, the same will come our way as well.

Luke 6:37
37 "Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.

So are we being judged by our works now? There have been times where I have failed to forgive people who have wronged me, so am I now not forgiven? If you truly still want to use this verse, know that your theology now damns all people. I believe this to be a verse that speaks of temporal judgments/punishments, for it says one verse later that with respect to “the measure you use, it will be measured to you” (Luke 6:38b). Unless we believe that heaven, salvation, and all other rewards given by God are based on works, this passage deals with earthly punishments and condemnations, etc.

Also, the prime reason I give against the next verse applies very well here, but I want to give it with the next verse .

Originally Posted by Gavin

Mat 18:21 Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?
Mat 18:22 Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.
Mat 18:23 Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened unto a certain king, which would take account of his servants.
Mat 18:24 And when he had begun to reckon, one was brought unto him, which owed him ten thousand talents.
Mat 18:25 But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made.
Mat 18:26 The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.
Mat 18:27 Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt.
Mat 18:28 But the same servant went out, and found one of his fellow servants, which owed him an hundred pence: and he laid hands on him, and took [him] by the throat, saying, Pay me that thou owest.
Mat 18:29 And his fellow servant fell down at his feet, and besought him, saying, Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.
Mat 18:30 And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay the debt.
Mat 18:31 So when his fellow servants saw what was done, they were very sorry, and came and told unto their lord all that was done.
Mat 18:32 Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me:
Mat 18:33 Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellow servant, even as I had pity on thee?
Mat 18:34 And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him.
Mat 18:35 So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.

In this verse we see a person forgiven of an unpayable debt. This is referring to our sin. While you may think that the number given is a payable debt, it is not. The only reason that that number is there is because it is the largest number in the Greek (murioi). The word also means innumerable. To show you the point it's making and just how unpayable sin is. Now, this man, for whatever reason, did something that lost him his salvation. Even after being forgiven once. He was condemned. Jesus says that the kingdom of Heaven is just like this. And in the very end, Jesus tells us that God will do the same thing to us if we do not forgive every one of their trespasses. Note again that this is referring to believers, people who are forgiven of sins already.

Matthew 18:21-35
21 Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, "Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?"

22 Jesus answered, "I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.

23 "Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. 24 As he began the settlement, a man who owed him ten thousand talents was brought to him. 25 Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered that he and his wife and his children and all that he had be sold to repay the debt.

26 "The servant fell on his knees before him. 'Be patient with me,' he begged, 'and I will pay back everything.' 27 The servant's master took pity on him, canceled the debt and let him go.

28 "But when that servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii. He grabbed him and began to choke him. 'Pay back what you owe me!' he demanded.

29 "His fellow servant fell to his knees and begged him, 'Be patient with me, and I will pay you back.'

30 "But he refused. Instead, he went off and had the man thrown into prison until he could pay the debt. 31 When the other servants saw what had happened, they were greatly distressed and went and told their master everything that had happened.

32 "Then the master called the servant in. 'You wicked servant,' he said, 'I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to. 33 Shouldn't you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?' 34 In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed.

35 "This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother from your heart."

There is an enormous problem with your use of this passage: it deviates from your thesis! Recall what you said to open your attack on POTS:

Gavin: “I believe that nothing can take our salvation from us and that we can't "accidentally" lose our salvation. My usual analogy is that salvation is NOT like a pair of keys, to be lost and found again every few days.

How does this stance work in relation to your views on this passage? The servant obviously did not want to willingly walk from being forgiven by the king, right? That doesn’t make any sense at all. No, this passage definitely deals with temporal punishment as well. BillSPrestonEsq also said recently that this parable does not end in the same way as others in which it is clear there are people being sent to hell. Therefore, unless you encourage accidentally falling from grace, you either need to throw this verse out or refine your thesis on anti-POTS.

The danger with keeping this passage and adapting your views to what your view on this passage necessitates is that you head quickly towards a works-based salvation. In other words, all who fail to forgive are in danger of hellfire. I honestly do not think the Bible agrees with you there.

As I said, this argument applies to the last passage as well as others you used, but I won’t specify which (I would rather not waste space).

Originally Posted by Gavin

1Cr 10:1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
1Cr 10:2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
1Cr 10:3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
1Cr 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
1Cr 10:5 But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness.

They were saved JUST as we ARE saved. But they fell away in the wilderness by their foolish temptations.

1 Corinthians 10:1-5
1 For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. 2 They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. 3 They all ate the same spiritual food 4 and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. 5 Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered over the desert.

Wait—where in the passage does it indicate they were saved? I used the example of Israel in a counter a few pages up, and I can make a similar case here. Basically, all Israelites were God’s people and the nation of Israel was a precursor to the spiritual Israel (the Church) of today. Just as not all people who go to church are true Christians, so were not all the Israelites God’s people. I submit that there were some Israelites who knew God not through their own experiences, but through those of Moses, or those of their fathers, or those of their siblings, or whatever relation you desire. Although they all served the same God and followed Him, not all knew Him personally. That is the key. Here’s the rest of the verse:

Originally Posted by Gavin

How do we know that? Because it later warns us not to be like them:

1Cr 10:6 Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.
1Cr 10:7 Neither be ye idolaters, as [were] some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.
1Cr 10:8 Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.
1Cr 10:9 Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.
1Cr 10:10 Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer.
1Cr 10:11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.
1Cr 10:12 Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.

Fall from what? Fall from salvation. You cannot fall from sin to sin as that is no difference in elevation. Yet you are either saved or you are in sin. Not both, so the fall must be from salvation to sin.

1 Corinthians 10:6-12, (13)
6 Now these things occurred as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did. 7 Do not be idolaters, as some of them were; as it is written: "The people sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in pagan revelry." 8 We should not commit sexual immorality, as some of them did—and in one day twenty-three thousand of them died. 9 We should not test the Lord, as some of them did—and were killed by snakes. 10 And do not grumble, as some of them did—and were killed by the destroying angel.

11 These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the fulfillment of the ages has come. 12 So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don't fall! 13 No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it.

The inclusion of the last verse is for added support. Also, recall that this letter is written to a group of Christians, so when God says that He will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear, it is implied that you have Christ along with you. Therefore, those who have Christ with them should be careful not to take their lives into their own hands, for Jesus takes care of it better than we do. One cannot fall from sin to sin, but when one sins, one can fall into the world and into temporal judgment even though one is saved. That is possible. It is also possible that this all hinges on the relationship one has with Jesus; that if you try to stand by yourself, you will fall, but if you stand on the Rock, you will not fall. Again, this is a spot where it seems like salvation is a list of dos and don’ts with you, and that is simply not the case. If there were a sin that could throw us from grace, God’s gift would not be all-encompassing, and He Himself says that there is only one sin that will not be forgiven. So no matter what you do, you can’t fall.

Originally Posted by Gavin

Hbr 12:14 Follow peace with all [men], and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord:
Hbr 12:15 Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble [you], and thereby many be defiled;
Hbr 12:16 Lest there [be] any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.
Hbr 12:17 For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears.

This is pretty clear. Again, this is talking to believers. Unbelievers have already failed and are already defiled. Yet here is a warning to be DILIGENT to keep from failing and then falling for it, bringing others down with you.

Hebrews 12:14-17
14 Make every effort to live in peace with all men and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord. 15 See to it that no one misses the grace of God and that no bitter root grows up to cause trouble and defile many. 16 See that no one is sexually immoral, or is godless like Esau, who for a single meal sold his inheritance rights as the oldest son. 17 Afterward, as you know, when he wanted to inherit this blessing, he was rejected. He could bring about no change of mind, though he sought the blessing with tears.

What all does this have to do with POTS? This seems to be the writer of Hebrews giving instruction to believers, such as “live peacefully, be set apart so you can see God, give all the opportunity to have God’s grace, and keep bitterness out. Don’t do the wrong things when it comes to sex, and fear God, unlike Esau, who gave away that which God gave him as a blessing. He tried to get it back, but he could not.” Does that sound like an accurate paraphrase? This does not deal with POTS, but rather with instructions to believers with Esau as an example. Yes, don’t lead others into sin, but does that meant that all fall from grace? I don’t think that’s meant at all.

Originally Posted by Gavin

Hbr 10:24 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:
Hbr 10:25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some [is]; but exhorting [one another]: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.
Hbr 10:26 For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
Hbr 10:27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
Hbr 10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
Hbr 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
Hbr 10:30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance [belongeth] unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
Hbr 10:31 [It is] a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

This is such a clear group of verses from Hebrews. Read them carefully. Note especially verse 28 and 29. Especially, that there is a sorer punishment than the physical death suffered at Moses’ law. There is only one thing worse than physical death, that of the spirit. We see in verse 29 that this person has been sanctified by the blood of the covenant but has gone back and trodden under foot the Son of God. This is what is deserving the punishment greater than physical death. God will judge this person and carry out vengeance on this person. Remember that anyone who has been forgiven of sins is not judged negatively but instead forgiven of all. So this person is going to Hell.

Hebrews 10: (19-23,) 24-31
19 Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, 20 by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body, 21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water. 23 Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful. 24 And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds. 25 Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching.

26 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27 but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. 28 Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him who said, "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," and again, "The Lord will judge his people." 31 It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Notice the context and the phrasing of the NIV, particularly the bolded section contrasted with the phrasing of KJV. The context (in purple) shows that we have a full assurance of faith, for God is faithful. Your commentary does not match this assurance of mercy; rather, you take a much more legalistic view of the next part of the passage. As I said though, I think it is a fault not necessarily on your part, but on the part of the KJV, which contains some words that have a better translation in today’s English language. The NIV, instead of rendering verse 26 “sin willfully,” says “deliberately keep on sinning.” Both work from what they seem to be trying to say, but I think the NIV gets the feeling of the passage across better. In James, James shows that “a person is justified by what he does and not faith alone” and a person’s faith is “made complete by what he [does]” (James 2:24b and 2:22b, respectively). Therefore, rather than these people falling from grace, they never knew the God that they “had faith in.” This faith, though, is dead, for it is without works (James 2:26). If you read it your way, then any time any Christian sins willfully, he is now damned and hellbound. This necessitates a different reading of the passage.

Originally Posted by Gavin

Jam 5:19 My brethren, if any among you strays from the truth and one turns him back,
Jam 5:20 let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.

My brothers refers to fellow believers. He is saying that if anyone of them stray from the truth (meaning that they had to be originally be following the truth to stray from it) and someone brings him BACK to the truth, they have just led them back to repentance and unto forgiveness again of sins.

James 5:19-20
19 My brothers, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring him back, 20 remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of his way will save him from death and cover over a multitude of sins.

You cannot say that the “one” in “if one of you” and “him” in “save him from death” are the same person. Also, this book was not written strictly to Christians, but only to the church in Jerusalem, not necessitating the salvation of all to whom James was writing. Your point has another flaw in that you say that people can be led back to repentance and unto forgiveness again of sins. This explicitly contradicts Hebrews 6, which says if one should fall away, it is impossible for him to be brought back to repentance. Recall that the prerequisites in Hebrews 6 should qualify all Christians and even some who have not entered into a true relationship with Jesus.

Essentially, however, the cementing of the TULI in TULIP ensures the POTS and the verses that I cannot completely persuade you do not talk about falling from grace provide such a weak base that you should not try to stand on it.

Originally Posted by Gavin

So you see, there is far more evidence against Calvinism than there is for it.

Far from it; instead, there seems to be better evidence for a form of Calvinism than non-Calvinism.

If anyone is interested in me actually expounding on my views express in the first couple paragraphs of this post, go ahead and ask. I also am currently putting together a section for Calvinism, but I am really exhausted of writing on this (not necessarily tired of your arguments, Gavin, I just think that I’m done for now), and I think this is enough currently.

Any questions, comments, corrections, go ahead and post (or PM me), but I’d rather, if possible, to keep this an RPD.

Love in Him,
Joel

[Lightknight]

Ah, you finished it . Lol, give me a few days to find an amount of time where I'll be able to devote enough attention to it and I'll respond. I unfortunately have a test tomorrow though.

[jdironfist]

Originally Posted by Lightknight

Ah, you finished it . Lol, give me a few days to find an amount of time where I'll be able to devote enough attention to it and I'll respond. I unfortunately have a test tomorrow though.

Eh. It's half finished cause I really wanted to put it up to give you time to digest. Also, I know you mentioned making this an RPD, but I wasn't sure if you really did want that (that's why I put "Possible RPD"). Do you? Like I said—I can't truly defend Particular Atonement as a true five pointer would.

Finally, I don't recall if I said so in my post, but if you end up unable to defend any point, please don't use it anymore . Of course, if you reinterpret one or two points, it may be redeemable, but I'm sure you know what I mean. Thanks.

Love in Him,
Joel

[jdironfist]

One last addition: it seems as if I wasn't as clear as I could have been at the very beginning when I was briefly outlining my new theories on soteriology, so I will try to clarify as much as I can.

I believe that Jesus came for many reasons, one of which includes forgiving the sins of everybody. Again, as I said above, I do not adhere to Universalism. This is important. I believe that Jesus came to save the sins of all men except the sin He said would not be forgiven:

Matthew 12:31-32
31 And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

The Holy Spirit seems to be the manifestation of God's relationship with man. In other words, God's relationship with us is the Spirit. Consider David's plea in Psalm 51:11—"Do not cast me from your presence or take your Holy Spirit from me." God taking His Spirit from David would essentially equal Him "casting David from His presence." The Spirit, in David's mind, seems to be the idea of his relationship with God.

[semi-tangent]Now, most of this is speculation and I don't have Scripture saying exactly what I'm saying. I like the idea, but if anyone finds something that doesn't seem to agree with this, I will acknowledge that there are holes and I will try to reform my theology.[/semi-tangent]

Now back to Jesus' death and what it accomplished: along with forgiving all men all sins, it also made possible the relationship of God to man. It made possible the Spirit, in the form we have it now. Without Christ's atonement, the Spirit would not exist.

[another tangent]Those of you who disagree with this logic might do so because the Spirit was present in the Old Testament. I believe that it was present either due to animal sacrifice, which foreshadowed Christ's sacrifice, or due to the retrospective nature of Christ's sacrifice, through animals. I think it involves the sacrifices God requested in some way.[/tangent]

About what I was saying, Christ made it possible for sinful humans to approach a perfect God due to His giving of a possibility of a relationship (the Spirit) with God. This is also shown with the symbolism of the curtain separating the Holy of Holies from The Most Holy Place being torn at His death. There is no barrier between God and us now.

That brings me to my third point—the difference between the ages Christ talks about in Matthew 12. "This age" was the age of the Israeli covenant with God through Mosaic law and such (spanning from the issuing of the Law until any time between Jesus' death and the Pentecost). the "age to come" is the age of the Kingdom of Heaven (or Kingdom of God)—our age—in which men can communicate with God as they can with a friend. This also makes sense within Luke 21.

Again, if anything is not clear to any of you, please ask. Post, even—Gavin and I haven't technically started debating. I'm also eager to give this Relational Calvinism a litmus test. Thanks, you guys.

Love in Him,
Joel

PS-If you have read all the way through the first post, you have my respect. I'm not the most interesting "author" to read .

[Lightknight]

Originally Posted by jdironfist

Eh. It's half finished cause I really wanted to put it up to give you time to digest. Also, I know you mentioned making this an RPD, but I wasn't sure if you really did want that (that's why I put "Possible RPD"). Do you? Like I said—I can't truly defend Particular Atonement as a true five pointer would.

Finally, I don't recall if I said so in my post, but if you end up unable to defend any point, please don't use it anymore . Of course, if you reinterpret one or two points, it may be redeemable, but I'm sure you know what I mean. Thanks.

Love in Him,
Joel

Well, the RPD is more for the sake of keeping certain nutjobs on my side out as well as the certain nutjobs on your side out if you catch my drift. If you do have a problem in any areas, please pm me with someone you'd want to help out and I'll probably approve it and it'd open up another debater for your side. Just as long as it isn't one of the guys who never listen to reason and even annoy the Calvinists.

[jdironfist]

Originally Posted by Lightknight

Well, the RPD is more for the sake of keeping certain nutjobs on my side out as well as the certain nutjobs on your side out if you catch my drift. If you do have a problem in any areas, please pm me with someone you'd want to help out and I'll probably approve it and it'd open up another debater for your side. Just as long as it isn't one of the guys who never listen to reason and even annoy the Calvinists.

I understand. I don't know of anyone who really does want to defend Particular Atonement, but if someone really wants to, PM me so I can PM Gavin!

Love in Him,
Joel

[Lightknight]

If you can't defend that point, thus technically not agreeing with it, why do you feel that it needs to be defended at all? This being an RPD between myself and you, there really isn't a necessary arguement to be fixed if we both agree that Christ came to die for sinners.

I mean, if we do both agree on it, then wouldn't someone else posting defence on it be something we should both debate against anyways?

[jdironfist]

Originally Posted by Lightknight

If you can't defend that point, thus technically not agreeing with it, why do you feel that it needs to be defended at all? This being an RPD between myself and you, there really isn't a necessary arguement to be fixed if we both agree that Christ came to die for sinners.

I mean, if we do both agree on it, then wouldn't someone else posting defence on it be something we should both debate against anyways?

I understand what you mean, but I figured that if this were to be a complete debate, there should be someone to defend Particular Atonement—I don't necessarily agree with it, but a form of it I find accurate. See, Christ died for all, forgave all their sins, but specifically made possible a relationship with the elect. I may back off from this point at a later date, but currently, I hold that Christ died for all, but came to give His Spirit (build a relationship) with only the elect. So I essentially agree with a type of Particular Atonement. Like I said though, that point may end up being untenable with my system. For now, I think that it would be best to have someone defend Particular Atonement if only for completeness of this topic. Also, I disagree with you with how you view it, so maybe it would be better if only we went at it. I'm not sure. No one has PMed me yet, so it really isn't a problem. I'll make the call if someone does respond, if that's okay with you.

Love in Him,
Joel

[Lightknight]

By the way, I'm in my midterms so... blah.

just letting you know that I have not forgotten, but I haven't even had the time to read your post yet. I'm looking foward to it.

[jdironfist]

Originally Posted by Lightknight

By the way, I'm in my midterms so... blah.

just letting you know that I have not forgotten, but I haven't even had the time to read your post yet. I'm looking foward to it.

Oh, that's what's been keeping you away. I was under the false impression that my post was keeping you off CGR . Well, I was hoping that it was something like that rather than some bad accident or something... Anyway, I'm excited as well to see what you have to say. Good luck! May the "most correct" points come out on top!

Love in Him,
Joel

[jdironfist]

*bump* (Gavin needs a bit of time to reply due to midterms)

Love in Him,
Joel

[Lightknight]

You don't need to bump this, I know where it is. lol.

My last tests are today. Everything is running smoothly so when I get home I should be able to contribute. I can't wait to read what you have to say. I just don't think it right to sit down and start reading when I can't devot the time to it that it deserves.

[jdironfist]

Originally Posted by Lightknight

You don't need to bump this, I know where it is. lol.

I just don't want to get yelled at for raising a "dead thread," you know?

If the mods would be okay with this thread resurfacing, I can let this alone...

Love in Him,
Joel

[jdironfist]

kaBUMP!

Again, (s)mods, this is so that Gavin will have time to reply when midterms are over. As I said, if I can leave this thread to die and it can be resurrected, I'll let it alone. Thanks for your patience, guys.

Love in Him,
Joel

[jdironfist]

This is half a bump post, but the other half is my intention to let this die if Gavin doesn't answer it (or get me word of his working on it) by April 1. I understand that you're busy, dude, and if this is a bad time, this can die. I'll post it some other time.

Love in Him,
Joel