Are there any Baptists around?

[Calgar]

It isn’t a mere ceremony. It is how one is regenerated. Please read Paul C’s post.

Annie

Who said MERE ceremony, Annie? If you don’t like ceremony fine. Don’t put words in peoples mouths.

 

[paul_c]

I think that’s a fairly debatable generalization on your part. One wonders what position you are in to speak for “most evangelicals.” That said, I fully grant you that there are far too many people who self-identify as Evangelicals who are woefully ignorant of the Bible in general and the doctrine of baptism in particular. So I won’t quibble too much more with your point here…

So you were just being argumentative for no reason?

Yes, but…The problem isn’t that “for” is the traditional transalation of eis; rather it is the problem that the word “for” in English presents to the reader since “for” has such a wide range of meanings in English. Consider the following sentences.

1. We baptize children for the forgiveness of sins.
2. We punish children for their disobedience.
3. We praise children for their achievements.

There is a tendency for those who hold to baptismal regeneration to assume in #1 that baptism is the cause of, or means to, the forgiveness of sins. But how many of us would want to argue that we punish in order that children might become more disobedient or that our praise is the cause, rather than the result of our children’s achievements?

One cannot simply assume that “for the forgiveness of sins” has the causal meaning; rather one has to argue this. How would a defender of baptismal generation go about doing this? I would argue that you need far more to go on than just a possible meaning of eis, since it too has a range of possible meanings. Those wishing to defend baptismal regeneration on the basis of Acts 2:37-39 need to show why both the immediate and wider context favor a rendering of eis that is causal in meaning. I just haven’t seen an argument to that effect.

. Miguel.
Why do you reject the obvious and accepted translation of this passage - the one that has been taught by the Catholic Church for 2000 years: that prior sins are forgiven when you are baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit? You bring up the nuanced definitions of the word "for’ but none of them apply so what is the point? You don’t give an alternative rendering of the verse. What else could it possibly mean?

The gospel message can be summarized as “Repent and believe.”

Sure, you can summarize it this way, but it would be incomplete and misses the point of Christianity, which is to love. Read 1 Corinthians 13 and see how Paul explains the importance of love versus faith…

This is a command given to all of humanity. Anyone who responds positively to this message will find Jesus Christ to be a perfect savior. But man will only respond to this message as his nature permits. Fallen, unregenerate man, cannot, by an act of the will, turn himself toward God. In fact, man in his fallen state is at enmity with God and will always turn away from God. But when we find people asking us, “What should we do?” as in this passage, then we know the Holy Spirit is at work among them. If someone responds positively to a presentation of the gospel, then repentance and faith will result because that person has already been brought back to spiritual life so that he/she can respond. Once we see evidence of repentance and faith, then baptism is the appropriate response.

This is a distorted view of the relationship of God and Man that came out of Calvin’s tradition. God calls to all men and all men have the opportunity to be saved. This aspect of YOUR gospel is a even at odds with your gospel summary from above which would certainly suggest that man has the option to “Believe and Repent”. If Calvin was right and man is born to either be condemned or saved, with no (name removed by moderator)ut from man at all, then there is no need for a gospel message at all: man would simply do what they are programmed to do.

 

[paul_c]

Not at all. The English translations simply use the word “for.” But what does “for” mean here? That is the question at hand. It seems to me that you are assuming/attributing to the translators a causal meaning for “for.” But as my illustrations were intended to demonstrate, “for,” isn’t always or even usually causal in meaning. Consider again:

The man is a member “for” life. (Here “for” has a temporal meaning.)
The man took the exam “for” his son. (Here “for” means “on behalf of.”)
The man is searching “for” meaning. (Here “for” indicates a purpose.)
The man is leaving “for” Florida. (Here “for” indicates a destination.)

Examples can be multiplied. So when we say, “baptism for the forgiveness of sins,” why do you and others assume the causal meaning such that baptism is the cause of the forgiveness of sins and not, say, the response to having been forgiven?

Again, Miguel, despite your lauguage nuances, you never propose another interpretation of this verse. Can it really mean anything other than what it says so simply: we are baptised for the forgiveness of sins?

I agree that the gospel is to be preached to all. This is for two reasons. First, we don’t know who the elect are and so since anyone could potentially be among them we preach to all firm in the knowledge that the Holy Spirit will have mercy on whom He will have mercy. Second, the gospel is not only salvation for the elect, but it is also judgment for the reprobate. The gospel message not only saves, it also hardens–both of which are what God wills to do in his sovereign freedom. Remember, God doesn’t owe mercy to anyone, but only judgment. That he shows mercy to anyone is what makes grace truly amazing.

Why wouldn’t you preach the gospel to everyone with the hope that they will accept it and be saved? The way you describe it is so distorted. Think about it. You propose that God owes mercy to no one, only judgement. Then you turn around and say that everyone’s eternal destiny is predetermined. How is that consistent with judgement when they have no choice? In fact, God has mercy on all those that ask. He condemns those that do not ask for his mercy and saves those that do, both through baptism and the sacrament of reconciliation.

Fascinating. This sounds like your tradition is getting in the way of your exegesis. The Holy Spirit can do whatever he wills to do. “So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills” (Romans 9:18).

Miguel, our tradition is the basis of our exegesis, as is yours. This can not be denied by anyone who understands these matters.

Again, your tradition seems to be getting in the way of your exegesis. First, let me simply point out that you will never find the words “free will” in the Bible. Now, depending on what you mean by the those words, you might not even find the concept in the Bible either. So what is “free will?” If by that you mean that man is sovereign in his own salvation, that when push comes to shove it is finally man’s decision to save himself by choosing and/or cooperating with God, then you are gravely mistaken. Please read the gospel of John and prayerfully reconsider. I am confident that you will see that from start to finish it is God’s free decision to save man and that we can only choose God because he has first chosen us (cf, John 1:13; 15:16)

Miguel,
It is YOUR tradition that is blinding you from the truth. God gave man free will from the very beginning. If you remember Genesis, God gave Adam the option of obeying him or not through the eating of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of Good and evil. Adam and Eve chose freely to disobey. God did not compell them to do so. Throughout the rest of the bible, we are shown over and over that man is given the choice to sin or not. The ten commandments were given to the people through Moses as a way to re-enforce the choices they were to make and all the new testament authors exhort their readers to live lives of Christian morality. This is a choice.

Quite the opposite, I’m afraid. Only by taking those two passages out of context, both immediate, and biblical can you possibly conclude that baptism is what causes our regeneration. Acts 10:44-48 shows us that people are regenerated before they are baptized. In other words, it is your tradition in favor of baptismal regeneration that is guiding your interpretation of those verses. (At least consider this as a possibility.)

Of course it is our tradition that guides us in our understanding of scripture, just like it is your tradition that guides your understanding - hence the comment about regeneration concerning Acts 10, when no such concept is discussed. In fact, what happens is that Cornelius household recieved the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Scripture does not say they were saved by this reception. In fact, the response of Peter to this event is to have them baptized. Why would he do that if they were already saved?

Uniform in choosing the word “for” to translate eis. But you’re the one that is assuming “for” is causal, not the translators.

You have yet to demonstrate any other way to assume " for " in this usage other than in a causal way. What other understanding would make sense?

Well said. Consider that you may be the one with this problem.

Peace.

You should do the same.

 

[paul_c]

Okay, I get you now. I had to read a bit to catch it. You should include a chapter when you cite the Bible.

And include Ro 6:3-7 and Ga 3:27 when you’re speaking about baptism. It sounded like you were talking about the ceremony providing salvation.

God bless!

It is the sacrament of baptism that puts you in the state of grace…

 

[Zenas]

The English translations simply use the word “for.” But what does “for” mean here? That is the question at hand. It seems to me that you are assuming/attributing to the translators a causal meaning for “for.” But as my illustrations were intended to demonstrate, “for,” isn’t always or even usually causal in meaning. Consider again:

The man is a member “for” life. (Here “for” has a temporal meaning.)
The man took the exam “for” his son. (Here “for” means “on behalf of.”)
The man is searching “for” meaning. (Here “for” indicates a purpose.)
The man is leaving “for” Florida. (Here “for” indicates a destination.)

Examples can be multiplied. So when we say, “baptism for the forgiveness of sins,” why do you and others assume the causal meaning such that baptism is the cause of the forgiveness of sins and not, say, the response to having been forgiven?

Because we’re fluent in English. There is absolutely no ambiguity in any of these four sentences because we recognize the context in which “for” is being used. Neither is there any ambiguity in “Be baptized for the remission of your sins.” Only someone who is looking for an alternative meaning would suggest otherwise.

I agree that the gospel is to be preached to all. This is for two reasons. First, we don’t know who the elect are and so since anyone could potentially be among them we preach to all firm in the knowledge that the Holy Spirit will have mercy on whom He will have mercy. Second, the gospel is not only salvation for the elect, but it is also judgment for the reprobate. The gospel message not only saves, it also hardens–both of which are what God wills to do in his sovereign freedom. Remember, God doesn’t owe mercy to anyone, but only judgment. That he shows mercy to anyone is what makes grace truly amazing.

That sounds like two sides of the same coin. In other words,let’s preach the gospel to everyone because we don’t know who the elect are, and besides if they aren’t “elect” they also need the gospel message to harden them up. I don’t recall anywhere in scripture where the gospel served to harden people’s hearts. God does that sometimes and we don’t know why (neither did Paul). However, whatever is God’s purpose in hardening the hearts of men it is not to deprive them of their salvation. “This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” 1 Timothy 2:3-4.

Fascinating. This sounds like your tradition is getting in the way of your exegesis. The Holy Spirit can do whatever he wills to do. “So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills” (Romans 9:18).

I will stand on what I said there. Hardens yes, compels no. We do what we choose to do, although sometimes we will grieve the Spirit by acting contrary to His will.

Again, your tradition seems to be getting in the way of your exegesis. First, let me simply point out that you will never find the words “free will” in the Bible. Now, depending on what you mean by the those words, you might not even find the concept in the Bible either. So what is “free will?” If by that you mean that man is sovereign in his own salvation, that when push comes to shove it is finally man’s decision to save himself by choosing and/or cooperating with God, then you are gravely mistaken. Please read the gospel of John and prayerfully reconsider. I am confident that you will see that from start to finish it is God’s free decision to save man and that we can only choose God because he has first chosen us (cf, John 1:13; 15:16)

So what are you to do if God hasn’t chosen you? Imagine what it would be like to go through life believing you are not one of the chosen ones and there is nothing you can do about it. Never mind, you are a Calvinist and all Calvinists believe they are part of the elect. So you can’t have a clue as to what it might feel like knowing you are damned. You,* i.e*., Calvinists, not necessarily you personally, remind me of the Gnostics of old. You possess knowledge that no one else has and you bask in the pride of your “superior understanding.”

Since you are such a fan of John (and so am I), consider John 3:16 (whosoever believeth on Him should not perish) and Revelation 22:17 (whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely).

Quite the opposite, I’m afraid. Only by taking those two passages out of context, both immediate, and biblical can you possibly conclude that baptism is what causes our regeneration. Acts 10:44-48 shows us that people are regenerated before they are baptized. In other words, it is your tradition in favor of baptismal regeneration that is guiding your interpretation of those verses. (At least consider this as a possibility.)

Not really. I am from a Southern Baptist background so I was never taught baptismal regeneration. I learned about it quite accidentally through many years of studying the scriptures. As for tradition, surely you know that no one ever questioned the efficacy of baptismal regeneration until Huldrych Zwingli in 1525. Read the early church fathers, some of whom were actually acquainted with the apostles. They are unanimous in their belief in baptismal regeneration.

Well said. Consider that you may be the one with this problem.

Yes, I meant to include myself in that statement. None of us are immune, not even Calvinists.

 

[Zenas]

Zenas, in your experience, do Baptist and other Baptistic Evangelicals ever think twice about the preacher pulling out the Greek dictionary to expalin what the translators failed to convey? For instance, we could lay out 12 or 15 translations and all of them would be similar to the above. Does the congregant ever ask: “How come all of them got it wrong and pastor has to come to the rescue with his dictionary?”

I often wonder about that. My family has all de-poped for the mega church which is self described Baptistic. The various and sundry teachers and pastors often resort to what the word really means in “the Greek.” If I were to ask them to translate, from their knowledge of the Greek, a sentence like: “Fido took the keys from the round walnut table in the hall.” would they be completely flabbergasted or correctly translate it?

If one said: “Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you.” 1 Pt 3:21, what would the reaction be? I heard a pastor excitedly talk about upcoming mass baptisms who said: “I don’t know why I get so excited about Baptisms, it’s not like Baptism saves them.” To which I averred to a family member: “Well that’s not what the Bible says.” To which she replied: “You can’t base your religion on that.” OK, I guess, whatever floats your boat, but I wondered if that was a kind of standard answer or whether she was just caught without a thoughtful answer.

Most of them don’t think twice about it because they look to their pastor as a man of God who has studied more than they have and whose responsibility is to lead them. Like I said earlier in this thread, most evangelicals know their bible fairly well, although they are not familiar with many of the doctrinal nuances. They rely on their pastor to give them the nuances and they rarely question him. Some pastors are very well trained and would have no difficulty translating English to Greek. I will say that some of the best educated Protestants are those of the reformed persuasion.

Like you, I find it frustrating when people point to the Greek and say, “What that means is . . . .” Yet no English translation says that.

 

[JRRTFAN]

Most of them don’t think twice about it because they look to their pastor as a man of God who has studied more than they have and whose responsibility is to lead them. Like I said earlier in this thread, most evangelicals know their bible fairly well, although they are not familiar with many of the doctrinal nuances. They rely on their pastor to give them the nuances and they rarely question him. Some pastors are very well trained and would have no difficulty translating English to Greek. I will say that some of the best educated Protestants are those of the reformed persuasion.

Like you, I find it frustrating when people point to the Greek and say, “What that means is . . . .” Yet no English translation says that.

It is an amazing thing to me, I see all these young men in their 20s and early 30s and they exposit like they have an education and they went to seminary, if they went to seminary, either by mail order or at some johnny come lately “reformed” seminary. Baffling indeed.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Miguel, I am simply asking this out of curiosity and for the sake of a better understanding of the reformed teaching that you’re representing. Although I do not place human sovereignty over God’s, it seems to me that the notion of a covenant (both the Old Covenant and the New) requires people to cooperate with God according to his plan of salvation for us. In a covenant, each person has a part to play for the sake of the covenantal agreement. In light of this, how would you define your above statement in terms of ones biblical understanding of a covenant?

That’s a very complex question to which I can only give a brief, provisional response. First, not all covenants have the same terms of agreement. Reformed theology usually distinguishes between three covenants: 1. Redemption (a pact made by the Trinity to redeem a specific people for God’s glory). 2. Works or nature (between God and his creation, including those created in his image, in which both parties are required to keep their end of the bargain). 3. Grace (in which God unilaterally and freely gives grace to those he has chosen to be his people). Again, painting with real big brushstrokes here–we can say that God’s dealings with Adam portrays the covenant of works, yet side by side with that covenant we learn of another one in which the “seed” of Eve, through Seth to Abraham to Christ predicted, prefigured, foreshadowed in types etc and then finally enacted. Consider some of the “unilateral” images we see with regard to this covenant of grace: “For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it ton their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more” (Jeremiah 31:33-34).

Here’s an even longer one from Ezekiel:

“Therefore say to the house of Israel, Thus says the Lord God: It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations to which you came. 23 And I will vindicate the holiness of my great name, which has been profaned among the nations, and which you have profaned among them. And the nations will know that I am the Lord, declares the Lord God, when through you I vindicate my holiness before their eyes. 24 I will take you from the nations and gather you from all the countries and bring you into your own land. 25 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from fall your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. 26 And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules. 28 You shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers, and you shall be my people, and I will be your God. 29 And I will deliver you from all your uncleannesses. And I will summon the grain and make it abundant and play no famine upon you. 30 I will make the fruit of the tree and the increase of the field abundant, that you may never again suffer the disgrace of famine among the nations. 31 Then you will remember your evil ways, and your deeds that were not good, and you will loathe yourselves for your iniquities and your abominations. 32 It is not for your sake that I will act, declares the Lord God; let that be known to you. Be ashamed and confounded for your ways, O house of Israel.

Notice not only God’s unconditional, sovereign determination to save a particular people, but also their complete inability to turn themselves toward God. God has to do this for them by giving them new hearts and a new spirit. That’s monergism, not synergism.

If you find yourself cooperating with God, that’s because you’ve already been given a new heart and a new Spirit. He’s the one who has enabled you to serve Him. Prior to that, however, we’re all in the same boat: dead in our trespasses and sin, slaves to sin, enemies etc. (all New Testament terms that describe our spiritual state prior to regeneration [not prior to our baptism]).

Once again, I am just curious, so hopefully this won’t turn into another enormous debate between us. And because this thread concerns baptism (which many view as an integral part of the New Covenant) I think it would benefit the discussion having this aspect addressed a bit more.

Yes, back to baptism…

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Because we’re fluent in English. There is absolutely no ambiguity in any of these four sentences because we recognize the context in which “for” is being used. Neither is there any ambiguity in “Be baptized for the remission of your sins.”

[Sigh]. Yes, there’s quite a bit of ambiguity, even in English. It makes perfect sense to read this “for” as “on account of the fact that,” rather than cause [baptism] and effect [remission of sins]. If baptism is the cause of the remission of our sin, then we are saved by magic, not by grace. To get around that, Catholics require other things as well: proper intention, matter (water) and form (the Trinitarian formula) and, in the case of adults, a willing disposition.

It seems to me that one problem for your view is that baptism goes hand in glove with repentance. Even in those few passages that do not mention repentance in connection to baptism, the broader context makes clear that repentance is always in view. So baptism seems to follow on the heals of repentance. Now for the million dollar question. What happens if a penitent person dies before getting to the water? Is he/she regenerate? Of course. The good thief is one such example.

In other words,let’s preach the gospel to everyone because we don’t know who the elect are, and besides if they aren’t “elect” they also need the gospel message to harden them up.

Question: Do you believe in election? If so, why put it in “quotes” as if the “elect” were some wacky Calvinist idea? (You do realize that it is a biblical term, right?)

I don’t recall anywhere in scripture where the gospel served to harden people’s hearts.

Ummm, yeah. Well, Isaiah 6:9-10 is probably the most frequently quoted OT verse in the New Testament. It is cited in all four gospels and Acts. Here it is: 9 And he said, “Go, and say to this people: “‘Keep on hearing, but do not understand; keep on seeing, but do not perceive.’10 Make the heart of this people dull, and their ears heavy, and blind their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed.” (See also Matthew 13:14; Mark 4:12; Luke 8:10; John 12:40; Acts 28: 6-7).

God does that sometimes and we don’t know why (neither did Paul). However, whatever is God’s purpose in hardening the hearts of men it is not to deprive them of their salvation.

I respectfully disagree. See Romans chapter 1. Here’s a snippet:

24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions… 28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to aa debased mind to do bwhat ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness…

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

I fully agree with this passage. But “all men” does not and cannot mean “all without exception,” (i.e., in a numerical or quantitative sense); rather it means “all without distinction,” (i.e., all types of men, such as Jews and Gentiles, kings and those in authority–as the context clearly indicates). Besides, if we are to pray for “all men” and if we take “all” to mean absolutely everyone, then there wouldn’t be enough time in your life to finish that prayer. Consider how long it would take you to “pray, intercede, and make supplication” for nearly 6 billion people! Further, if God truly wills the salvation of absolutely everyone, then absolutely everyone will be saved. But other passages in scripture make it quite clear that at least some (if not most) will be finally lost. The only alternative to this is to posit that God wills “all men” to be saved but is simply unable to save them. But that creates far more problems than it solves and utterly makes no sense of Jermiah 31 or Ezekiel 36 where God is not only willing, but also able to save anyone he chooses to save.

So what are you to do if God hasn’t chosen you?

How is this a question? Do you really think the “enemies” of God are worried about their final destiny? On the other hand, if someone is worried, then chances are that someone may very well be under the conviction of the Holy Spirit, in which case we might reasonably suspect that such a person may one day come to faith in Christ and so would be among the elect. But as for the reprobate, just read Romans 1 above.

Never mind, you are a Calvinist and all Calvinists believe they are part of the elect.

All Christians believe this on the strength of Christ’s promise. But believing and knowing are not the same thing. I believe I am elect. But I don’t know that I am, otherwise 1 John 2:19 makes no sense.

Since you are such a fan of John (and so am I), consider John 3:16 (whosoever believeth on Him should not perish) and Revelation 22:17 (whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely).

Yes, consider those verses. The “whosoever,” however, doesn’t mean “just any one,” but rather those whom the father draws. “It was not you who chose me, but I who chose you” (John 15:16). We are born “not of the the will of man” but of God (John 1:13)

 

[paul_c]

[Sigh]. Yes, there’s quite a bit of ambiguity, even in English. It makes perfect sense to read this “for” as “on account of the fact that,” rather than cause [baptism] and effect [remission of sins]. If baptism is the cause of the remission of our sin, then we are saved by magic, not by grace. To get around that, Catholics require other things as well: proper intention, matter (water) and form (the Trinitarian formula) and, in the case of adults, a willing disposition.

Again, Miguel. explain where there is ambiguity in the statement that " baptism is for the forgiveness of sins". You keep going off on tangents about the meaning of the word “for” without explaining how YOU would translate that sentence.

You also seem to misunderstand the sacrament of baptism. It is a physical act carried out by physical beings to demonstrate their covenant agreement with God. Those being baptized agree to follow God’s will in exchange for the forgiveness of all prior sins, the reception of sufficient grace to do God’s will, and the entrance into the Catholic Church.

It seems to me that one problem for your view is that baptism goes hand in glove with repentance. Even in those few passages that do not mention repentance in connection to baptism, the broader context makes clear that repentance is always in view. So baptism seems to follow on the heals of repentance. Now for the million dollar question. What happens if a penitent person dies before getting to the water? Is he/she regenerate? Of course. The good thief is one such example.

The Catholic Church has always acknowledged two exceptions in whch the unbaptized can still be saved. There is the baptism of desire, where the penitent person wants to be baptized but is kept physically from doing so. The Good Thief, St. Dismas is an example of that. An extention of this concept applies to those that never knew about baptism but would have been baptized had it been available. There is also the baptism of blood, where an unbaptized person dies as a martyr for the church.

Question: Do you believe in election? If so, why put it in “quotes” as if the “elect” were some wacky Calvinist idea? (You do realize that it is a biblical term, right?)

The wacky idea of Calvin is not that some people are elected to go to heaven, that is biblical. No, the wacky idea of Calvin is that some are born condemned. (double pre-destination).

Ummm, yeah. Well, Isaiah 6:9-10 is probably the most frequently quoted OT verse in the New Testament. It is cited in all four gospels and Acts. Here it is: 9 And he said, “Go, and say to this people: “‘Keep on hearing, but do not understand; keep on seeing, but do not perceive.’10 Make the heart of this people dull, and their ears heavy, and blind their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed.” (See also Matthew 13:14; Mark 4:12; Luke 8:10; John 12:40; Acts 28: 6-7).

Quote:
God does that sometimes and we don’t know why (neither did Paul). However, whatever is God’s purpose in hardening the hearts of men it is not to deprive them of their salvation

Note in this pasage you quote that God gave them up to dishonorable passions BECAUSE they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshipped the creature rather than the creator. This clearly shows that God judged them for what they did. He did not condemn them prior to this as you are claiming.

 

[paul_c]

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

God desires all men to be saved but he does not force all men to be saved. This is what you and Calvin miss. God gives man the choice whether to love or not. Love is freely doing something for someone else without expecting anything in return. It can not be compelled and still be love.

How is this a question? Do you really think the “enemies” of God are worried about their final destiny? On the other hand, if someone is worried, then chances are that someone may very well be under the conviction of the Holy Spirit, in which case we might reasonably suspect that such a person may one day come to faith in Christ and so would be among the elect. But as for the reprobate, just read Romans 1 above.

Again, in Romans 1, they are clearly condemned because they refused to love not because they were born reprobate.

All Christians believe this on the strength of Christ’s promise. But believing and knowing are not the same thing. I believe I am elect. But I don’t know that I am, otherwise 1 John 2:19 makes no sense.

It’s good that you don’t judge yourself saved. That is for God to decide. Your focus, like all of us, should be on doing the good works God calls for us to do. Do that and don’t worry about whether God will have mercy on you. Love is done for its own sake, not to earn a prize.

Yes, consider those verses. The “whosoever,” however, doesn’t mean “just any one,” but rather those whom the father draws. “It was not you who chose me, but I who chose you” (John 15:16). We are born “not of the the will of man” but of God (John 1:13)

John 15:16 is specific to the Apostles - who were chosen by Jesus for that role. And as for John 1:13, of course man was born of God and not by his own will. If you don’t exist, you can’t will yourself into being. You can’t just grab snippets of scripture and reapply them to justify your own man made teachings. Yes, some men and women are born specifically for God’s purpose (Like Mary, who was conceived without sin). But No where in scripture or in Catholic tradition is anyone born specifically to be condemned. That is a heresy.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

God desires all men to be saved

Right. But what do you think “all men” means in the context of 1 Timothy 2? Go back to verse 1: “First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men…” Now stop right there. Do you seriously think Paul is urging Timothy to pray for every single human being? (Obviously not.) So we see here that “all men” doesn’t mean all without exception. Now keep reading: “…for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way” (v. 2). So now we understand what “all men” refers to. Paul primarily has political leaders in mind, but by saying “all men,” he means to pray for all kinds or types of people–especially those whose decisions and positions can influence our quality of life. Clearly living “a peaceful quiet life” is worth praying for and therefore it is worth praying for those who can help us to live that life.

This is the context in which we read the following: “This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (vv. 3-4). I ask you, is it at least possible that “all men” back in verse 2 may shed light on the meaning of “all men” in verse 4?

but he does not force all men to be saved.

Right. Of course it is simply your caricature of Reformed theology that you are arguing against since we do not hold that God “forces” men to be saved. Have you considered the possibility that the grace of regeneration is in accordance with our coming to faith and our repentance?

Love is freely doing something for someone else without expecting anything in return.

It sounds like you’re taking your definition of love from Hallmark, not the Bible.

Again, in Romans 1, they are clearly condemned because they refused to love not because they were born reprobate.

All children of Adam are born under the effects of sin. “All have sinned.” We are condemned because of our sin. “Refusing to love” is just one of the many possible ways in which we sin. Reprobation and election take place in eternity past. Election is God’s sovereign decree to save a particular people from the fallen race of Adam. Reprobation is simply God letting man remain in his fallen state. The reprobate get justice (which they deserve), the elect get mercy (which they do not deserve). As we can see, reprobation is conditional in that it follows from the fact that man is sinful. But election is unconditional, in that there is nothing in man that merits or causes God to be gracious to us. This, by the way, is a permissible view within Roman Catholicism. Aquinas held to it.

It’s good that you don’t judge yourself saved.

I don’t know that I am elect. But I believe that I am because I believe that I have been saved, am being saved, and will be saved by God’s grace. But I can be wrong about that, as 1 John 2:19 demonstrates.

That is for God to decide.

Yes. You’re catching on!

Your focus, like all of us, should be on doing the good works God calls for us to do.

Yes. That is why God saved us by grace in the first place–so that we would do the good works he has ordained us to do (see Ephesians 2). Or as John might have said it, “You did not choose me but I choose you and appointed you to bear fruit.”

John 15:16 is specific to the Apostles - who were chosen by Jesus for that role.

On what basis do you limit this text specifically to apostleship? Consider the context just prior to 15:16:

12 “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. 13 Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends. 14 You are smy friends if you do what I command you. 15 No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you.

Are you seriously going to argue that only the Apostles are commanded to love one another and that only their decision to die for another is praiseworthy and that only they can be called “friends”??? If not, then on what basis would you argue that the next verse only has apostles in mind???

And as for John 1:13, of course man was born of God and not by his own will. If you don’t exist, you can’t will yourself into being.

Um, Paul, this has nothing to do with physical birth; rather this is about becoming “children of God” (again, you’d do well to read scripture in context). The birth in question is spiritual birth, which is equivalent to regeneration (what you would call entering in to the state of sanctifying grace). The basis for this grace is “not the will of man.” You really can’t get around that. That’s monergism, not synergism.

 

[paul_c]

Originally Posted by paul c
God desires all men to be saved

Miguel, First you argue that the word “for” is ambigous in the English language. Then you argue that “all” doesnt’ really mean 'all". It reminds me of Bill Clinton’s famous comment " it depends on what “is” means". When Paul tells Timothy to pray for all men, he doesn’t require him to pray for them individually, he is telling him to pray for humanity as a group. WE are called to love all men, even our enemies, right? So why should we exclude them from our prayers?

but he does not force all men to be saved.

Miguel, you are so fond of word games. The most fundamental tenant of Calvinism is that men are predestined to heaven or hell prior to their birth and that nothing men does can alter God’s plan for him. Calvin just could not comprehend how God could complete his plan while simultaneously allowing man to have free will so he just denied that man could have free will. In doing so, Calvin underestimated both God and Man. You can couch the words anyway you want, but the simple fact is in Calvinism, man has no free will in regards to his salvation. This theology is of course refuted before you get through the first 5 books of Genesis, where man clearly makes a choice on his salvation.

Quote:
Love is freely doing something for someone else without expecting anything in return.

Hallmark is never this elegant unless it borrows from scripture. here’s St. Paul’s definition from 1Corinthians 13:
4* Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, [love] is not pompous, it is not inflated,
5 it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury,
6 it does not rejoice over wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth.
7 It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
8* Love never fails.

Quote:
Again, in Romans 1, they are clearly condemned because they refused to love not because they were born reprobate.

So NOW you are arguing that all REALLY means All. Curious how that works when you want it to.

We are condemned because of our sin. “Refusing to love” is just one of the many possible ways in which we sin. Reprobation and election take place in eternity past. Election is God’s sovereign decree to save a particular people from the fallen race of Adam. Reprobation is simply God letting man remain in his fallen state. The reprobate get justice (which they deserve), the elect get mercy (which they do not deserve). As we can see, reprobation is conditional in that it follows from the fact that man is sinful. But election is unconditional, in that there is nothing in man that merits or causes God to be gracious to us. This, by the way, is a permissible view within Roman Catholicism. Aquinas held to it.

You are in error here. The view you are espousing here is NOT permissable within the Catholic Church. Double predestination is a heresy and devalues man and God. The church, including St. Thomas Aquinas has always taught that no man is predestined to hell. Every man has the opportunity to choose to love (i.e, free will). Further, man has the capability of becoming truly holy, of walking in the way of Jesus. In fact, we are told in the bible that nothing unclean will enter heaven. We need to rid ourselves of the tendency to sin. This can be done by fully cooperating with God’s grace and giving up ourselves to him. Once we let go of our own desires, we can fully do God’s will.

Quote:
It’s good that you don’t judge yourself saved

This is a very Catholic Statement. I am encouraged by the fact that you recognize that salvation is not a one time event.

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
That is for God to decide.

God (and specifically Jesus) is the judge, without question. But he judges us on our actions and those are up to us.

Quote:
Your focus, like all of us, should be on doing the good works God calls for us to do.

The nuance here is that we Catholics beleive that man has the option of cooperating or not cooperating with those graces. For instance, Mary could had said no when confronted with the news of Gabriel that she would conceive a son, but she consented, " let it be done to me according to they word." A Calvinist would view this as Mary was compelled to say yes. A Catholic would recognize that Mary had a real choice but that God knew what that choice would be because he is omniscient. Some people choose to reject God’s will for them. This is their right and they will suffer the consequences. It is a real choice. God can perfectly predict these choices so he knows how to plan accordingly.

Quote:
John 15:16 is specific to the Apostles - who were chosen by Jesus for that role.

Well, okay, Jesus WAS speaking to the Apostles alone during the last supper discourse but I will grant you that we are all called to love and that you are right, this verse has wide applicability… I will also grant you that Jesus calls all of us to himself. The question that remains is how we respond to that call. Do we follow or do we turn away in sin. That will be the basis of our judgement.

Quote:
And as for John 1:13, of course man was born of God and not by his own will. If you don’t exist, you can’t will yourself into being.

lets review the whole passage to get at the truth as you propose:
9The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world.
10He was in the world,and the world came to be through him,but the world did not know him.
11He came to what was his own,but his own people* did not accept him.
12 But to those who did accept him he gave power to become children of God, to those who believe in his name,
13* who were born not by natural generation nor by human choice nor by a man’s decision but of God.

So we have an interesting paradox in this passage. it says that those who ACCEPT him he gave the power to become the children of God. This shows man’s free will because some rejected him and some accepted him and became children of God. Notice that this is established before we get to verse 13. So what is verse 13 telling us further? In Calvin’s tradition, you would ignore the free will proofs in verses 11 and 12 and conclude that verse 13 eradicates free will and puts it all in God’s hands. Catholic Tradition, however, would harmonize all scripture and would see verse 13 as stating that God makes possible this rebirth. Indeed, In Catholicism, we would see God as calling every man to himself. Some men answer affirmatively and seek to be baptized. In the sacrament, God forgives their sins and they are reborn as Catholics in the state of grace, free of all prior sin. So God truly makes it possible for any man to be put in the state of grace and become Children of God that accepts his graces.

Miguel,
I understand why some people become Calvinists. Some see God as sovereign and can’t imagine how that can be if man has free will. That is simply a limitation in their understanding of God and a discounting of man’s true capabilities. A few others may want to transfer the responsibility of their own salvation from themselves to God. But this is a fool’s errand. We will all be held accountable for our actions, whether we choose to believe it or not. This is not to say that Calvinists won’t seek to love God and neighbor, their consciences will compel them to do so. My chief concern with the Calvinist tradition, besides its denial of the efficacy of the sacraments, is that it seems to say to people that its impossible to be truly holy and demotivates them from reaching their true potential as people and possibly from reaching heaven…

 

[EricFilmer]

That’s a very complex question to which I can only give a brief, provisional response…

Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut, Miguel.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

The nuance here is that we Catholics beleive that man has the option of cooperating or not cooperating with those graces.

Which means, at the end of the day, man saves himself by cooperating. Scripture, on the other hand, teaches that we are spiritually unable to respond to grace until God enables us to do so. “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day” (John 6:44). The words “no one come come” literally read in the Greek, “not possible” or “unable”. But notice also that the same person whom the Father draws is also the same person whom Jesus will raise on the last day. Here we have all of TULIP stated or implied. First, fallen man is unable to come to Jesus unless the Father enables him to do so. That’s the T. Since there is nothing in fallen man that can cause God to draw him, God’s choosing to draw has no conditions. That’s the U for unconditional election. The L is implied insofar as the cross is the means by which Christ draws all men to himself (John 12:32). But surely these are the same as those whom the Father draws to Jesus. The I is also implied in the meaning of the word “draw,” which has to do with pulling something in the direction it tends not to go, such as drawing a bucket from a well (which tends to go down, not up). The Greek word for draw is elsewhere translated “drag” in the NT. In other words, God’s grace is effectual. Just as his word Goes forth accomplishing the purpose for which it was sent, so too regenerating grace regenerates those to who it is given. (A dead person isn’t free to accept or reject the grace that enables one to believe and cooperate with future graces). Finally the P is stated categorically in that God will preserve those whom he draws until the last day by raising them to eternal life.

So where does “cooperation” fit into all of this? That’s sanctification. Because we have been set free from the power of sin and death by the divine life within us, we are now able to cooperate with God’s will for us and thereby grow into Christ. But that’s not a natural ability (so Pelagius, so you apprently). So, in that sense, there is no true “free will” until the will has been set free. “And if the son sets you free, you will be free indeed” (John 8:36). Question, Paul: If fallen man already has “free will” (a term you will never find in the Bible), then pray tell from what is he set free? (In other words, does it make any sense to say we are set free if we are already free?) If the Bible says we are “slaves to sin,” then does this language more naturally correspond to libertarian concepts of free will or what the Reformers called the bondage of the will? Think about it. Human beings are not automatons. We have the power “to do otherwise.” But why is it that we consistently choose evil? Is it not because we choose according to our nature? And if our nature is fallen, then is it not the case that–prior to regeneration–we most naturally choose according to fallen inclinations? How is that in any sense “free?” That’s why I don’t use the term “free will,” not only because it isn’t biblical but especially because it is used by a number of philosophies that essentially define man as the measure of all things. Far better is to use the terms “human responsibility.” We choose according to our natural inclinations and we are held responsible for those choices by a just and holy God.

God can perfectly predict these choices so he knows how to plan accordingly.

So God simply peeks down the corridors of time and reacts to foreseen human choices? That seems to imply a less than sovereign God. It also seems to suggest that our choices are not only the cause of God’s knowledge but also the cause of God giving us his grace. But God isn’t a soothsayer who simply peeks into the future. He’s the very creator of the universe including time itself. God’s knowledge is one with his being. Therefore God creates what he has decreed, including the very future He foresees. In other words, the future doesn’t cause God to know, rather God’s decrees cause the future. I think you have it backwards, Paul.

Well, okay, Jesus WAS speaking to the Apostles alone during the last supper discourse but I will grant you that we are all called to love and that you are right, this verse has wide applicability…

I appreciate your concession of that point here.

I will also grant you that Jesus calls all of us to himself. The question that remains is how we respond to that call. Do we follow or do we turn away in sin. That will be the basis of our judgement.

Yes. But I think we have to distinguish between those whom he calls and those whom he chooses. The invitation is general. The getting to stay at the party is specific. “Many are called, but few are chosen” (Matt 22:14).

continued…

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

continued…

So we have an interesting paradox in this passage. it says that those who ACCEPT him he gave the power to become the children of God.

I find that the word “paradox” is usually just a euphemism for “contradiction.” But this passage [John 1] only contradicts your system because you don’t have a category for understanding how it is that we can “accept him” but that our doing so is “not by human choice.” Here is why it isn’t “paradoxical” or “contradictory” in Reformed theology. First, “as many as accept him” is indicative, not imperative. In other words, this describes the result of having accepted Jesus (i.e., becoming children of God); it does not prescribe the means by which we become children of God, which, verse 13 squarely attributes to God’s sovereign will, not ours.

This shows man’s free will because some rejected him and some accepted him and became children of God.

You’re reading “free will” into a passage that ends up denying it, i.e., “not the will of man,” thereby creating the contradiction (ahem, “paradox”) that you have noticed. The way out, Paul, is the read all of John’s gospel so that you can see how the themes in the prologue play out in their entirety. Over and over again, it is God who draws man to himself thereby making it possible to “accept” him. But apart from the effectual drawing grace of God, fallen man prefers to remain in darkness “because his deeds are evil.” The freedom you speak of only comes as a result of having been set free by the son (John 8:36). It is not the means by which we set ourselves free. Cooperation is the result of having been set free, not the means by which obtain our freedom.

 

[paul_c]

Quote:

Originally Posted by paul c
The nuance here is that we Catholics beleive that man has the option of cooperating or not cooperating with those graces

Sure, man saves himself by cooperating. And if he fails to cooperate, he is condemned. But he couldn’t save himself in a vacuum. He needs God’s grace as well.

Scripture, on the other hand, teaches that we are spiritually unable to respond to grace until God enables us to do so. “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day” (John 6:44).

This is true. But it is also scripturally true that Jesus calls all men to himself.

The words “no one come come” literally read in the Greek, “not possible” or “unable”. But notice also that the same person whom the Father draws is also the same person whom Jesus will raise on the last day. Here we have all of TULIP stated or implied. First, fallen man is unable to come to Jesus unless the Father enables him to do so. That’s the T. Since there is nothing in fallen man that can cause God to draw him, God’s choosing to draw has no conditions. That’s the U for unconditional election. The L is implied insofar as the cross is the means by which Christ draws all men to himself (John 12:32). But surely these are the same as those whom the Father draws to Jesus. The I is also implied in the meaning of the word “draw,” which has to do with pulling something in the direction it tends not to go, such as drawing a bucket from a well (which tends to go down, not up). The Greek word for draw is elsewhere translated “drag” in the NT. In other words, God’s grace is effectual. Just as his word Goes forth accomplishing the purpose for which it was sent, so too regenerating grace regenerates those to who it is given. (A dead person isn’t free to accept or reject the grace that enables one to believe and cooperate with future graces). Finally the P is stated categorically in that God will preserve those whom he draws until the last day by raising them to eternal life.

You see what you want to see. John 6 is the bread of life discourse, where he says that if you don’t eat his body and drink his blood, you have no life within you. This seems quite conditional.

So where does “cooperation” fit into all of this? That’s sanctification. Because we have been set free from the power of sin and death by the divine life within us, we are now able to cooperate with God’s will for us and thereby grow into Christ. But that’s not a natural ability (so Pelagius, so you apprently). So, in that sense, there is no true “free will” until the will has been set free. “And if the son sets you free, you will be free indeed” (John 8:36). Question, Paul: If fallen man already has “free will” (a term you will never find in the Bible), then pray tell from what is he set free? (In other words, does it make any sense to say we are set free if we are already free?) If the Bible says we are “slaves to sin,” then does this language more naturally correspond to libertarian concepts of free will or what the Reformers called the bondage of the will? Think about it. Human beings are not automatons. We have the power “to do otherwise.” But why is it that we consistently choose evil?

I’m glad you recognize that people aren’t automatons and can choose to do otherwise. but Here’s the rub. We don’t consistently choose evil. There are many people who consistently choose to love. Don’t you know anyone like this? This view that we are all drawn to evil is a perversion of the truth. We are all called by our consciences to do good.

Is it not because we choose according to our nature? And if our nature is fallen, then is it not the case that–prior to regeneration–we most naturally choose according to fallen inclinations? How is that in any sense “free?” That’s why I don’t use the term “free will,” not only because it isn’t biblical but especially because it is used by a number of philosophies that essentially define man as the measure of all things. Far better is to use the terms “human responsibility.” We choose according to our natural inclinations and we are held responsible for those choices by a just and holy God.

I agree we can choose to love or not and we are held accountable for that. This is the Catholic position.

Quote:
God can perfectly predict these choices so he knows how to plan accordingly.

No, Miguel, it doesn’t work like this. God exists outside of Time. He sees everything at once. You need to think more expansively. God is not a man.

Quote:
Well, okay, Jesus WAS speaking to the Apostles alone during the last supper discourse but I will grant you that we are all called to love and that you are right, this verse has wide applicability…

My goal is not to win a debate but to find the truth.
continued…

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
I will also grant you that Jesus calls all of us to himself. The question that remains is how we respond to that call. Do we follow or do we turn away in sin. That will be the basis of our judgement.

You pulled a quote out of the parable of the wedding feast but did you understand what it meant? The first set of invited guests were the Jews, they were called but responded negatively - they weren’t interested in the feast. So then everyone was invited. And yet one man who entered wasn’t prepared for the feast (he wasn’t wearing wedding clothes, i.e., clad in holiness) and so he was turned away. So everyone was called, but not everyone was suitable…In the same way, we need to be in the state of grace to get to heaven.

Quote:
So we have an interesting paradox in this passage. it says that those who ACCEPT him he gave the power to become the children of God.

No Miguel. The plain English states that he gave the power to become Children of God to those that accept him. Those fluent in English and not burdened with a reformed tradition to defend would understand this to mean that man has a role in becoming a Child of God.

Quote:
This shows man’s free will because some rejected him and some accepted him and became children of God.

Yes, God draws all men to himself and that’s why being a child of God comes from God. So men reject God, some men follow him. You recognize that man is not an automaton, so how can you not also recognize that this decision is man’s to make. Now you might argue that man was made in such a way that he would be predisposed to make a certain decision (as Aquinas and Augustine would admit), yet they would also admit that still the choice is validly made by man with the full responsibility for his actions.