by J’s comment on Nov 20, 2008 at 1:26 pm

I know that was awhile ago but J did you find a church in Minneapolis area.

I go to Bethany I burnsville. Bethanytc.org check it out.

Great place

This is taught by most in the 5 point camp.

JJ, what do you mean by “this”? Do you mean that any of those people you mentioned teach that the warnings in the Parable of the Sower are not for “us”? I’ve listened to many preachers, and have heard the opposite.

To answer your question… Listen to the ones that teach the truth; flee from the ones that don’t. Anyone who teaches you to disobey God’s command to tell others the gospel should be fled from. Anyone who tells you that you should be casual and relaxed about God’s salvation should be fled from. Anyone who tells you that your salvation is in peril unless you do the right things should be fled from. Sounds like Dever is a scoundrel (I’ve never heard of him), since he’s teaching disobedience to Christ’s commands.

This is taught by most in the 5 point camp. Who should I read. Boice? Piper? Carson?

Piper certainly doesn’t teach that the Parable of the Sower is empty. Sproul doesn’t. I don’t recognise Boice, and don’t recall Carson’s teaching at the moment. It’s certainly not true that false teachings like what you’re citing are “taught by most”; they’re present, but they’re addressed properly as errors by the mainstream. They are certainly NOT definitional nor necessary conclusions.

To answer your claim: the parable of the sower is a real warning because although all of us in the Church are real covenant members by baptism and communion, not all of us are elect — “they went out from us because they were not of us,” as St.John said. The parable of the Tares and Wheat confirms this; the wheat will be saved, the tares burnt; but the burning is reserved to the Last Day, and in the meantime we have the tares. The allegory of the vine confirms this again, in that branches that were attached to the vine which is Christ are cut off and burnt; again, these are the people who fulfilled the covenant physically, but “were not of us” in that they did not have the love and grace of God.

In summary: the warnings apply to everyone who’s a member of the church in good standing, who’s meeting all the requirements, and who therefore thinks he doesn’t have to worry about being saved.

(Note that I’m simply answering your implied challenge that it’s hard to address these important warnings though the Calvinist system; I’m not attempting to defend that interpretation, and I’m certainly not arguing that this is the only reasonable interpretation.)

…and I’ll repeat another thing I said: God doesn’t save us by means of our knowledge of true doctrine or our assent to it.

-Wm

This is taught by most in the 5 point camp. Who should I read. Boice? Piper? Carson?

I read an interesting book on Worship in honor of Boice edited by Ryken. Some great stuff, but many of the contributors can’t help but praise their UNDERSTANDING of Calvin … “the points of Calvinism should be taught (by the pastor) in every passage of the Scriptures.”

What is worse, this gentleman (was it Dever?), says that we should STOP sharing evangelistic messages in the church because we don’t know if God will save them or not!

Now, I don’t hope to help someone like this to understand Scriptures, but unless we don’t start taking a stand against this type of theology, then the GRACE that most Calvinists claim they believe in, will be lost.
JJ

Why I reject 5 point calvinism, as popularly understood:

You’re rejecting a mere caricature. No need to elaborate further.

And yes, some preachers teach this caricature. Reject them. Don’t worry, you won’t lose your salvation for rejecting Calvinism, even if it’s true; we’re saved by God, not by meritorious beliefs. A false understanding of the Gospel will hinder your ability to share the Gospel and will hurt your assurance of salvation, but won’t make you lose what only God can give.

-Wm

1) Calvin and others significantly differed from the notion of 5 point calvinism, so the Five Points of Calvinism are a reduction of a larger system.

2) Five Points of Calvinism are applied without regard to the passage someone is studying. It is a magic catch-all that gives the preacher a wonderful way to be able to preach any scripture. (reduction to the absurd). Try to make sense of the Parable of the Sower as popularly taught by reformed folks, and you lose any real warning (because we are saved, right!?)

3) If the Five Points of Calvinism were REALLY the CRUCIALLY IMPORTANT part of Christian understanding and Truth, then Jesus was the world’s worst teacher.

SInce 5 points of calvinism can be easily taught and understood in short order, then why did Christ not teach it? If you say, “He was teaching it, but people didn’t understand it.” Then I say, why was he such a bad teacher? Men teach 5 point calvinism all the time. It is understandable, it is not hard to come to grips with. As a matter of fact, it is pretty simple theology. With Christ teaching theology at all points in the Gospels, why did the Master Teacher have such problems teaching these 5 points?

Answer: The Master Teacher did not teach it.
Rather, he continually teaches that his love and grace is MORE abundant than those who receive. He teaches whosoever wills, He teaches that God has selected, elected, He teaches that if we are not mindful and faithful, we will surely not persevere, he teaches that we are all dreadful sinners, yet that we are responsible for each choice we make.

In short, there is little in 5 point calvinism that is consistently taught by Christ, without theological gymnastics. The Master Teacher fails to be able to teach the simplest of doctrines of only 5 points.

I will give you this much: Calvinism, especially of the reformed camp has huge growth in numbers in the last 30 years. Why? Probably because it is so simple. I think of it as Gnosticism:

Young Padewan, here are 5 points that will let you interpret all of Scriptures. They are hidden truths. We will give you the true knowledge. THEN YOU TOO WILL BE AROGANTLY FILLED WITH THIS KNOWLEDGE AND CAN TEACH THE UNINFORMED. Follow carefully, as some of this is counter-intuitive:
1) Man is depraved. Yes, we know that almost everyone already says this. But we mean MORE by it. We REALLY MEAN IT! Nothing at all is good in man. He can’t even chose things that God tells us to chose. Nope. And it is God’s fault… er, His Plan. He has made us completely unable to respond to his free offers of grace. ANd rightly so, we are scum. Not made in his image at all. Total scum. And besides, if we don’t stress this first point, all the other points fall aside. So, remember, we are total pond scum, actually worse… we are DEAD (not merely lost, not merely sick), we are dead pond scum and can not decide a blessed (or unblessed) thing. Got it? Good… I mean, bad… only it is Good that God has formed this idea in you. And now you have the first part of this hidden truth.

2) …

I will hold off on the “ULIP,” unless there is a great cry that I finish. You get the idea. And since i am a Calvinist myself (though not 5 points), I don’t want to try the humor of others on this topic… we might miss the point. How could the master Teacher be so inept at teaching the simplistic truths of 5 point calvinism?!!!

Love to hear back! (and pardon the humor).

God Bless,
JJ

WT’s response does not address the Biblical context that JMc used to show that Jacob and Esau were being used as representatives of entire nations.

Of course I did. Read my response. I cited a number of arguments Paul was making that simply make no sense whatsoever if you assume that "Jacob" and "Esau" refer to the sons of Jacob and the Edomites. For example, I asked why not choosing Esau would be an act of condemnation.
Another argument — which I didn’t bring up — is that if Paul had been referring to nations, then he would not have talked about them being in their mother’s wombs — nations are described as being in their father’s loins.
Okay, one more: your argument instantly defeats itself by insisting that Paul is saying that God condemned all of the descendants of Esau and had mercy on all the descendants of Jacob. But this is precisely the opposite of Paul’s point: that God can save without regard for nationality.

The use of individuals’ names for entire nations that descended from them is, I understand, a semitic literary device

The term "Israel" is a great example that most of us are familiar with — it’s Jacob’s gifted name, and also the name by which his descendants are called.

Furthermore, I don’t see that WT has established that “Paul’s arguments in Romans 9 presuppose God’s selection of individuals”; I don’t see such a presupposition.

My fault. I should have said that Paul’s arguments lead to the conclusion of individual election. They do not presuppose it; they argue in favor of it.
[from a later post:]
By the way, I agree with you that it’s silly to present "tensions" as a strength of an argument. Tensions are weaknesses, not strengths.

even if the Biblical text presents the material in a libertarian fashion.

Most of this post was simply begging the question. Here you at least claim to have evidence; unfortunately, when asked to present it, you can show only texts where a choice is being made, never texts that show that the person could have made it otherwise.
You didn’t try, but the strongest example of a person making a contrary choice I know of is when David was fleeing from Saul and asked God "if I were to remain in this city, would the citizens give me up to Saul?" God replied that they would, so David fled — thus apparently making an example of contrary action. But in reality, this seems to show that the people of the city were so predictable that God was able to give a single specific answer — when Saul came and if David was there, they would always give him up without ever NOT choosing to give him up. So after all this isn’t contrary choice; it’s just plain old everyday choice, the one everyone means when they use the word, the one where you choose in order to get what you desire.

Similarly, when the Bible speaks of God changing his mind or repenting, the Calvinist system forces one to state that those words don’t mean what they seem to mean, that we can’t take that language as it is being used. We must instead say that God did not change his mind.

Right; we have to either believe that God does or does not change His mind. This problem comes about not because of the horrid Calvinistic system, but because the Bible clearly and specifically teaches that God does not change His mind or relent, and that His purpose (at least His saving purpose) is eternal — and then the Bible also shows that God "repents" of having made man, and of other things. It’s pretty clear that unless you want to say that the Bible contains inaccurate testimony about God’s nature, one of those expressions has to be other than purely literal.
-Wm

Tulip Calvinism takes texts that speak about God’s knowledge and sovereignity, and erect on those texts a structure and system of sovereignty that goes beyond and outside those texts, and then forces all other texts through the grid of that system.

Thus when a choice between alternatives is presented in the Bible, the Tulip Calvinist states that the alternative selected was determined and could not have turned out other than it did–even if the Biblical text presents the material in a libertarian fashion. Similarly, when the Bible speaks of God changing his mind or repenting, the Calvinist system forces one to state that those words don’t mean what they seem to mean, that we can’t take that language as it is being used. We must instead say that God did not change his mind. A Calvinist also holds other contradictions simultaneously: we are both free and determined (unless, of course, the Calvinist takes the escape route of defining freedom in a deterministic manner that does not mean freedom). Point this out, and a Tulip Calvinist retreats into “mystery”.

Note of course, that I’m speaking of a particular aspect of postmodernism–the destruction of meaning and texts and intelligible communication–and not all the aspects of this broad way of viewing the world. It strikes me as no accident that postmodernism originated in Europe with a very European flavour and that Europe has a much deeper and institutionally supported Calvinistic intellectual milieu.

regards,
John

JMc’s quotations from the Bible show that the Bible itself uses this literary device, and that Paul, as a Jew well versed in Scripture, would therefore likely be using their names as stand ins for the nations that arose from them. The consequence is that there is no need to see individual election in those passages in Romans.

Furthermore, I don’t see that WT has established that “Paul’s arguments in Romans 9 presuppose God’s selection of individuals”; I don’t see such a presupposition.

After reading this thread, it warms my heart and encourages me to see that not all of the program participants buy into the rhetoric and have thought the issue through. I’m thankful for Luke and some of the others who are standing up for the truth of the text.

I’ll refrain from scatter-shooting the proof texts against Calvinism.
For me, after prayerful and diligent research of the relevent text, I found that Calvinism misrepresented the text, as well as the opinions of non-Calvinist. The over-the-top witch hunt on open theism by Piper and MacArthur is a prime example. I’m not a an Open Theist or definding the position, but the academic treatment of it’s proponents has been nothing short of shocking, at the least. I guess it’s just coincidence that those leading the charge are 5-pointers.

Oddly, the Calvinists favorite proof texts are found in Romans, yet Romans militates against TULIP, but provides a full understanding of Election, predestination, and Grace. Predestination and Election are to be understood in the context of Abraham believing God, and it being credited to him as righteousness, and his descendants would be known, “Elect”, by faith, because of Abraham’s faith. This was God’s plan all along (Predestination).
Admittedly, this is a simplified summary, but I dont have the time to be more than brief. I need to get some work done today.
Correctly define Depravity. Correctly define Election, Correctly define Predestination. The rest will fall into place and harmonize.

God loving Jacob and hating Esau had nothing to do with their individual salvation.

Good post. I don’t know how many people are still following this thread, though. I’m only seeing it because I’m subscribed to the “Comments RSS” (see the link above).

The question when interpreting this passage, however, isn’t what you think God meant; it’s how Paul used it in this passage. And that’s a job for context.

One of them needed to be picked (not for salvation and the other for condemnation, but for the blood line).

This is a plausible explanation for Jacob and Esau, but if you accept it, it makes no sense that Paul would then go on to claim that God will have mercy on whom He has mercy. Why would choosing Jacob arbitrarily be an act of mercy to Jacob? And why would not choosing Esau be an act of condemnation? No, there’s more to this than just the choice of bloodline — there’s a condemnation that came on the “hated” one. More than that, the next example cited is Pharaoh, whom God claimed to have hardened — by God’s choice. Certainly there can be no claim that God was talking about Pharaoh’s bloodline!

Then we look at Rom 9:19, You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who has ever resisted his will?” Does that fit at all with your/Smock’s claim that we’re talking about bloodlines? Finding fault? If this were a discussion of bloodlines, finding fault would be nonsense. The possibility of resisting someone’s will would be nonsense.

Romans 9, 10, and 11 should be read in context of each other, along with having the historical context in mind: the debate on whether or not the Jews alone were chosen or if God predestined to extend salvation to the gentiles.

You’re entirely correct here, of course. But one cannot focus on the general and ignore the particular; the arguments Paul makes in support of his premise are as important as the premise itself. Paul says that specific people are condemned by God regardless of their actions; and other people are shown mercy regardless of their actions and regardless of their desires (Rom 9:16). Yes, the purpose of this mercy is to choose God’s People (as you said), but the mercy itself is described by Paul as being a particular mercy, one that reaches out to individuals who are capable of desiring it or not desiring it, acting or not acting, resisting or not resisting.

Paul’s arguments in Romans 9 presuppose God’s selection of individuals, and His mercy to them regardless of their desire for Him. Paul’s point in Romans 9 was indeed to support his explanation of God’s salvation of both Jew and Gentile; but his arguments mean what they say, and can’t be ignored.