1

TULIP forces the Bible into neat little boxes that do not actually exist.

2

"TULIP forces the Bible into neat little boxes that do not actually exist."

Bevets,

It's rather clear that you have not actually read the Canons of the Synod of Dordt -- http://www.reformed.org/documents/synod_of_dort.html. I must frankly admit that, despite a Calvinistic bias, I had accepted the assumption that the Canons were harsh and rationalistic. But when I finally sat down to look them over, I discovered I had been most unfair to their authors. I would challenge you to read what they actually wrote and how they explicated Scripture.

Incidentally, on a matter of history -- the idea of setting out this statement of certain Reformed teachings (about how we come to be saved) did not originate with the writers of this document. It was not a bunch of people sitting around trying to neatly dice theology. Rather, they were attempting to respond biblically to specific teachings that had arisen in the church, teaching which disagreed with what most had been teaching (and from the various early Reformed confessions, e.g., the Belgic Confession).

In fact, it was the followers of Jacob Arminius who first wrote their own list of "Remonstrances" laying out their own distinctive teachings on these subjects. The Canons were the church's responses to the specific points these "Remonstrants" had made.

In any case, the many godly scholars and pastors who, through the centuries, have held these views, are worthy of a respectful hearing, not your caricature and flippant dismissal. You might not end up agreeing with them, but it is impossible to see their work as putting things in "neat little boxes."

And this caricature becomes quite impossible to maintain for the many early Calvinist preachers who earnestly those held to these beliefs AND went out at all hazard to evangelize (e.g., Geneva sent preachers throughout Europe, many to their deaths; the staunch Calvinist John Knox plead earnestly with God "Lord, give me Scotland or I die!" not to mention the first of the modern missionaries, like Adoniram Judson or great evangelists like George Whitfield -- you know, the guy who introduced Wesley to field preaching!)

I find the "neat little boxes" accusation particularly odd since it fits so poorly with the common claim that Calvinists contradict themselves! That charge results from Calvinists' attempts to affirm with equal force things that Scripture teaches that our minds cannot reconcile, rather than to let one teaching swallow up another that we find difficult to harmonize. Again, you needn't agree with the teachings, but please don't be dismissive.

3

Oh, Thou who didst with Pitfall and with Gin
Beset the Road I was to wander in,
Thou shalt not with Predestination round
Enmesh me, and impute my Fall to Sin.

(Omar Khayyam, tr. Fitzgerald)

If you accept the premises, each proposition seems logical, but the system seems inconsistent. I don't get it.

And for the heathen, what does "TULIP" mean?

4

Good post, Joe.

The last part is especially revealing. The Arminian/non-Calvinist is still in the same position. He just denies God's sovereinty over all his creation to escape it. The Arminian should know it is better to trust the Lord than to apologize for His actions. He still created people either knowing or decreeing they are condemned to hell.

While this is some what off the point, (and it doesn’t prove the Calvinist position) I wonder if the Non-Calvinist who says the Doctrines of Grace (Reformed, Classical Protestantism, Calvinism) is heretical would be willing to call Charles Spurgeon, John Calvin, martin Luther, Jonathan Edwards, Charles Hodge, Martin Lloyd-Jones, John Bunyan, Matthew Henry and John Owen. Speaking of Owen, I recall a quote from him that would go well with Joe’s post about what Arminians (or non-Calvinists) make of the cross of Christ by upholding libertarian free-will:

"To suppose that whatever God requireth of us that we have power of ourselves to do, is to make the cross and grace of Jesus Christ of none effect."

-JOHN OWEN

5

Joe, one small clarification that helped me some years back may also be of value to Cyndee and others: The objections to election ultimately hinge on God being "unfair" in His choices. The idea that "everyone deserves a chance" is based on man's innate goodness, that he is worth saving. But if we are all dead in our trespasses and sins, then fairness would dictate that all should perish. That would be perfectly just. But God has chosen to be gracious and merciful to some of those deserving death. There is no explanation as to why; it's simply His choice to make.

That is what taught John Newton's "heart to fear, and grace [his] fears relieved."

It is why Corrie Ten Boom said, "The longer I know Him, the less I understand Him."

And it is why our mandate (from Micah) is act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with God.

Calvinism that concentrates too keenly on polished apologetics forgets God's fearsome power of election and waxes arrogant. The only appropriate response, of course, is speechlessness. And that is impossible to blog.

6

Well, another post that has quickly placed me out of my depth on the theological side.

But fortunately, I've never let my nearly total ignorance on a topic deny me the privilege of chiming in with my thoughts.

My problem with Calvinism, in my admittedly limited understanding of it, is that, scripturally, too much is demanded of us AFTER we accept the gift of salvation. How many of the parables dealt with being ready for the return of Christ? Of being a good steward of that which God has entrusted to us? How many verses deal with zealously guarding our salvation--"Those who FINISH the race shall be saved"; the Prodigal Son "My son, WHO WAS DEAD, is now alive"; the parable of the talents; the warning in 2 Peter, regarding Christians who go back to the world "like a dog returning to his own vomit and a sow who, AFTER washing, returns again to wallow in the mire" and whose spiritual condition is worse today than before they were saved?

And what do the Calvinists do with the most crucial verse of all? "For God's will is that all should be saved, and come to knowlege of Christ Jesus."

7

Joe said:

"The first three options - A, B, and C - fall outside the scope of orthodox doctrine and appear to contradict scripture while D fails to provide a sufficient answer to Cyndees’ question. Obviously, this is a problem for all believers who reject the doctrine of universal salvation"

How do the first three options contradict scripture?

Using three people is a poor example. It completely changes the "odds". 3 may, but not all of 300,000 or 3 million or 3 billion are going to reject salvation.

Perhaps an Arminian would say its possible for no one to choose salvation (I don't know enough to answer that). But that possibility is unfathomable. God is all powerful, all knowing, he can figure out about how many will choose salvation. I'm an idiot and I can probably figure out that a good percentage would choose salvation, so I am sure God could do much better.

8

Kevin W, here's the usual answer to your last question: The context of 2 Peter 3 (that none should perish) is that no believers should perish, not that no human being anywhere should perish. Besides, we know that people perish every day, so are we to believe God has lost control of creation?

Compare this text with Jesus' own parable of the wheat and tares (weeds). The angels are willing to rip out the weeds, but the Lord says no, to let them grow, lest one little grain of wheat be lost. The point: That He doesn't want to lose any of the appointed harvest, and so for the sake of the elect, tolerates the wicked. If 2 Peter 3 is understood in the context of Jesus' earlier parable, it becomes clear that Peter is saying, "God is not willing that any of you should perish."

Arminians generally don't like this answer, but then again, perhaps that's why they avoid the parable about the wheat and tares, and all of Romans 9.

9

You guys act like Arminians think that everybody should be saved!
That's not what Arminians think at all. It is rather accepted that all will not be saved.
I am continuously amazed at what people say that Arminians think that is completely inaccurate.

10

Fair enough.

But doesn't it say in Revelation, that when the antiChrist comes, many of the elect will be deceived and led away?

11

Beggars should be happy with what they get.

12

Grumpy,

Total Depravity
Unconditional Election
Limited Atonement
Irresistible Grace
Perserverance of the Saints

I only got the first 3 from memory. I guess I forgot the fun ones. No surprise, I'm not a calvinist. I'm a bit of a universalist and think that the urge to proclaim god as omniscient is rather silly.

*watches with smug satisfaction at the gasps and recoiling of the self-proclaimed 'elect'*

There's an overview of the basic points of calvinism here, but as always, you (as I) would probably be best served by going to the source and, like, actually reading something Calvin wrote. I actually doubt that most people who call themselves Calvinists or neo-Calvinists today have ever read anything he wrote. This seems rather silly to me, like saying your a Christian and never having read Paul's letters to the Corinthians. There's an internetification of thought these days, it seems to me, where you can call yourself a somebodyist after having read nothing more than online summaries (worse than cliff notes, those) of somebody's work. Not that Joe would be included in this camp, I'm sure. I think he actually reads books.

Am I off base? Do most calvinists study the Institutes? They're even available online, problematizing my spiteful little theory considerably.

13

Consider:
The missing element in every human 'solution' is
an accurate definition of the creature.

The way we define 'human' determines our view
of self, others, relationships, institutions, life, and
future. Important? Only the Creator who made us
in His own image is qualified to define us accurately.
Choose wisely...there are results.

Many problems in human experience are the result of
false and inaccurate definitions of humankind premised
in man-made religions and humanistic philosophies.

Human is earth's Choicemaker. Psalm 25:12 He is by
nature and nature's God a creature of Choice - and of
Criteria. Psalm 119:30,173 His unique and definitive
characteristic is, and of Right ought to be, the natural
foundation of his environments, institutions, and re-
spectful relations to his fellow-man. Thus, he is orien-
ted to a Freedom whose roots are in the Order of the
universe.

THE QUESTION AND THE ANSWER
Q: "What is man that You are mindful of him, and the son
of man that You visit him?" Psalm 8:4
A: "I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against
you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing
and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and
your descendants may live." Deuteronomy 30:19

Q: "Lord, what is man, that You take knowledge of him?
Or the son of man, that you are mindful of him?" Psalm
144:3
A: "And if it seems evil to you to serve the Lord, choose
for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the
gods which your fathers served that were on the other
side of the river, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose
land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will
serve the Lord." Joshua 24:15

Q: "What is man, that he could be pure? And he who is
born of a woman, that he could be righteous?" Job 15:14
A: "Who is the man that fears the Lord? Him shall He
teach in the way he chooses." Psalm 25:12

Q: "What is man, that You should magnify him, that You
should set Your heart on him?" Job 7:17
A: "Do not envy the oppressor and choose none of his
ways." Proverbs 3:31

Q: "What is man that You are mindful of him, or the son
of man that You take care of him?" Hebrews 2:6
A: "I have chosen the way of truth; your judgments I have
laid before me." Psalm 119:30 "Let Your hand become my
help, for I have chosen Your precepts."Psalm 119:173

References:
Genesis 3:3,6 Deuteronomy 11:26-28; 30:19 Job 5:23
Isaiah 7:14-15; 13:12; 61:1 Amos 7:8 Joel 3:14

"Got Criteria?" See Psalm 119:1-176
semper fidelis

14

Kevin W, the puzzle you pose for Calvinism:

"For God's will is that all should be saved, and come to knowlege of Christ Jesus."

Is no puzzle at all. After all, it is God’s will that we obey his commandments, and we fail miserably at it. God’s “will” comes in different flavors: (1) his decretive will (Let there be light)—these are things that will happen. (2) Preceptive will—things God commands (wills) but do not necessarily happen (obeying His law) and finally, (3) His permissive will—things He allows but does not necessarily endorse. Obviously this passage does not refer to God’s decretive will, or else everyone would be saved.

Tim,

Actually, God does know how many will choose salvation apart from election: zero. (Rom 3:11)

Kevin W,

no it doesn’t say that in Revelation

Tim,

A) is contradicted because the bible clearly teaches that some will be saved, therefore not all will reject the gospel
B) is contradicted for the same reasons, the bible is clear that some will be saved therefore Christ did not die in vain
C) is contradicted because the crucifixion did occur

Tim,

Calvinists do not believe that Arminians believe that everyone should be saved. We differ on the Atonement: it accomplished salvation for some rather than making it possible for all; and in man’s moral ability: Unregenerate man will never seek God vs. unregenerate man, with a least a little bit of his own volition will seek God; and finally we disagree on whether regeneration precedes faith or vice versa.

We (Calvinists) agree with Arminians that man chooses God from his own free will. Calvinism simply teaches that unregenerate man has no desire for God and will never, ever choose him, while regenerated man (regeneration being a pure gift of grace God bestows upon the elect) have been given a new heart and now desire God and will then choose God with their own very free will.

Jim wrote “Calvinism that concentrates too keenly on polished apologetics forgets God's fearsome power of election and waxes arrogant.”

Actually I find the opposite: those who say Calvinism is too focused on apologetics often take an ubiblical self-righteous pious highroad, in direct violation of the biblical mandate presented in 1 Pet. 3:15.

Tyler,

As a universalist you are in the enviable position of claiming the “problem” verses for Calvinism really are problems. Virtually all of them deal the word “world” such as

He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world. (1 John 2:2)

This verse is of no help to Arminians in their fight against Calvinism; taken literally (where world means everyone) it supports universalism, not Arminianism.

15

David Heddle responded to me with: [T]hose who say Calvinism is too focused on apologetics often take an unbiblical self-righteous pious highroad, in direct violation of the biblical mandate presented in 1 Pet. 3:15.

True, David, but they are usually the critics of Calvinism, not Calvinists.

16

Kevin My problem with Calvinism, in my admittedly limited understanding of it, is that, scripturally, too much is demanded of us AFTER we accept the gift of salvation.

I agree. In fact, I can’t imagine a system of Christian thought that requires more action after salvation than Calvinism. It’s certainly not a “I’m-elect-therefore-I-can-relax” view of theology.

Tim How do the first three options contradict scripture?

I started a reply and then saw David Heddle's answer:

A) is contradicted because the bible clearly teaches that some will be saved, therefore not all will reject the gospel
B) is contradicted for the same reasons, the bible is clear that some will be saved therefore Christ did not die in vain
C) is contradicted because the crucifixion did occur

I’m not sure I could improve on that response.

You guys act like Arminians think that everybody should be saved!

Really? What comment left you with that impression?

Tyler *watches with smug satisfaction at the gasps and recoiling of the self-proclaimed 'elect'*

**audible gasp** ; )

Actually, I can imagine nothing better than getting to the Day of Judgment and finding that I had misunderstood and that all humanity would be saved. Until then, though, I have to go with what Scripture appears to teach.

I actually doubt that most people who call themselves Calvinists or neo-Calvinists today have ever read anything he wrote.

That’s undoubtedly true, just as it is true that most Marxists never read Marx, most Lutherans never read Luther, and most Baptist don’t read, er, John the Baptist.

I think there comes a point, though, when claiming a label has more to do with the system of thought that has developed around a thinker rather than what they actually wrote. This is unfortunate for I think that we should read these thinkers. As Marilynne Robinson, Pulitzer prize-winning author of Gilead, once wrote:

"In several of the essays in this book I talk about John Calvin, a figure of the greatest historical consequence, especially for our culture, who is more or less entirely unread. Learned-looking books on subjects to which he is entirely germane typically do not include a single work of his immense corpus in their bibliographies, nor indicate in their allusions to him a better knowledge than folklore can provide of what he thought and said. I have encountered an odd sort of social pressure as often as I have mentioned him. One does not read Calvin. One does not think of reading him. The prohibition is more absolute than it ever was against Marx, who always had the glamour of the subversive or the forbidden about him. Calvin seems to be neglected on principle."

I think he actually reads books.

Hmm, do picture books and Nancy Drew mysteries count? ; )

17

Thanks for the post, Joe. T'was educational! I don't consider myself a Calvinist or an Arminian. I've been mocked for this before- but I think they are in some strange way -both right.

This is the question that plagues non-Calvinists. They must either reject the notion that God is omniscient or they must proffer an explanation for how God could have known who would be saved if it is completely within the human’s will to accept or reject him.

Perhaps I'm being obtuse -but I don't see why this question should plague me. I firmly believe God is omniscient AND outside of time. So He is totally capable of knowing exactly who will say yes (the whosoever wills) and who will say no (the whosoever won'ts) - and He knew this from "the beginning".

18

blestwithsons,

True, but the foreknowledge view as a basis for God's mercy has tremendous problems with Jacob/Esau question as presented in Romans 9.

10Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. 11Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who calls—she was told, "The older will serve the younger." 13Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." (Rom. 9:10-11)

Because Paul then anticipates the question, “hey that’s not fair.” He could answer one of two ways

(1) It is fair, because God foresaw that Jacob would respond positively and Esau would not. (foreknowledge/Arminian view)
(2) God does as he wills, apart from man’s actions (election/Calvinistic view)

The answer Paul gives to the anticipated complaint is not the foreknowledge response but unadulterated Calvinism:

14What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."

16It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

19One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' " 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

22What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? (Rom 9: 14-24)

Paul not only gives the “Augustinian” response, he tells us (and it’s not especially pleasant) why God chose some and not others—to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy.

By the way, Joe, I think there are huge problems in Phil Johnson's essay on hyper-Calvinism to which you linked. Do you agree with all his definitions of hyper-Calvinism?

19

If you start with a flawed premise, your findings will be wrong.
Calvinism starts with a flawed premise. That's why all the questions about limited atonement and universal salvation come up which force them to twist the meaning of most of the Bible. You would think that with all of the problems trying to explain who is saved and how that is accomplished, they would go back to the beginning and reexamine what the Bible says about salvation.

Where does Calvinism go wrong? In its understanding of man's condition and what salvation is composed of.
Flawed premise #1: Man's condition and what is the cause of this condition.
Flawed premise #2: What affects salvation.

If you don't have these 2 premises correct, your understanding of the entirety of scripture will be flawed.

Let's look at these 2.

Calvinists believe that Christ's death on the cross provides salvation (or his death and resurrection). They fail to separate the 2 and this is a fatal flaw because there are 2 important meanings behind each event. The reason we need to separate them is directly related to man's condition.
1. All are sinners. We all have a disease called sin.
2. Sin causes spiritual death. We are all spiritually dead.

What does man need then? We need a cure for our disease (sin) and we need life. If you were a doctor and had a dead man in front of you, dead from cancer, what would you need to do to help this man...assuming you had the necessary power to help him? If you just cured the cancer, you would still have a dead man. If you gave the man life, he would just die again from the cancer. You would first need to cure the cancer then give him life. Which brings us to man's condition and God's provision for us. We are not saved by Christ's death on the cross. Christ's death paid the debt for our sins. He did this for ALL men. This is repeated often throughout scripture and twisted by Calvinists to mean only some men. John 3:16-18 explains what is required for salvation. Look at how many times the word believe is used in the book of John, and the rest of the NT. We are condemned if we don't believe.

The cross cleared the deck for us to be able to receive life. If God did not take care of the issue of sin first, then we would not be able to have eternal life--we would die the next time we sinned....just like not have the cancer cured.

Our sins were forgiven at the cross..."God was in Christ at the cross, reconciling the world unto himself, not counting men's sins against them." "Chist died not only for our sins, but the sins of the whole world." This is not salvation. It was preparation for us to be able to recieve eternal life.

Another false premise regards faith. The verse at Ephesians 2:8 says "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—". Calvinists assume that the gift spoken of here is faith. This is incorrect. The gift is grace. Go back to your grade school grammar and analyze the sentence.

We are forgiven. But we do not all have eternal life. We have the choice to exercise faith in what God promised and what he has done for us through Christ. When we choose to believe, we receive eternal life.

"For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to Him through the death of His Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through His life!" (Romans 5:10)

20

The doctrine of election implies more than God's omniscience, or "knowing" who will believe. It says that God in some way causes our faith. It's the "I" in TULIP, Irresistible Grace. Naturally, we ask how our free will, if any, can effect our eternal destiny.

I believe that Calvinism is entirely biblical, yet it seems unable to answer that question. The bible is full of affirmations of our free will, which is closely linked to our guilt. We are urged in every concievable manner to believe, to grow in our faith, to voice our desires to God, and to evangelize.

Although reformed theology is great stuff devotionally, it seems to apply poorly to fulfilling the great commission.

21

Joe Carter

Actually, I can imagine nothing better than getting to the Day of Judgment and finding that I had misunderstood and that all humanity would be saved. Until then, though, I have to go with what Scripture appears to teach.

I find this bizarre. Could you elaborate?

22

I'd like to elaborate on my previous post using scripture. You don't need to twist the meaning of words like "All Men" and "The Whole World" and "Elect" and "Predistination" and "Faith" to fit what the Bible actually lays out.

I hope the outline format does't take away from the message....

Romans 5:10 "For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to Him through the death of His Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through His life!"

Now having been cleansed of all unrighteousness and the sin issue settled forever, there are only 2 things left that God had to do for man:
1. Provide Righteousness.
2. Provide Life.

I. God's Gift of Righteousness.
A. Righteousness Is From God.

Romans 10:3-4 "Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness. Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes."

Romans 1:16-17 "I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: The righteous will live by faith."

Romans 3:21-22 "But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe."

Philippians 3:7-9 "But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ - the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith."

B. Righteousness Is A Gift.

Galatians 2:21 "I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"

Romans 5:15-17 "But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ."
Remember: Before righteousness could be given, man had to be totally forgiven and cleansed of all unrighteousness.

C. You Have Become The Righteousness Of Christ.

1 Corinthians 1:30-31 "It is because of Him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God - that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. Therefore, as it is written: Let him who boasts boast in the Lord."

2 Corinthians 5:21 "God made Him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that IN Him we might become the righteousness of God."

II. God's Gift of Life.
A. Man's Condition Under The Law - Spiritually Dead.

Galatians 3:21 "Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law."

Romans 7:10 "I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death."

Romans 5:12 "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned."

Ephesians 2:1 "As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins."

John 3:36 "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath (Death) remains on him."

John 3:18 "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned (Dead) already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son."

B. God's Provision Under Grace - Saved By His Life.

1. Man is not merely saved by the death of Christ, but by the LIFE of Christ.

Romans 5:10 "For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to Him through the death of His Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through His life!"

Colossians 2:13 "When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins."

John 10:10 "The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full."

John 1:4 "In Him was life, and that life was the light of men."

John 6:48 "I am the bread of life."

John 5:39-40 "You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life."

John 14:6 "Jesus answered, I am the way and the truth and the life."

Romans 6:23 "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."

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

John 14:19 "Before long, the world will not see Me anymore, but you will see Me. Because I live, you also will live."

John 5:24 "I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life."

2. Salvation is restoring man to his true humanity.

John 3:3-6 "In reply Jesus declared, I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again. How can a man be born when he is old? Nicodemus asked. Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born! Jesus answered, I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit."

Colossians 1:25-27 "I have become its servant by the commission God gave me to present to you the word of God in its fullness - the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the saints. To them God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory."

III. In Him You Have Eternal Life.

A. God's Testimony Concerning Eternal Life.

Hebrews 13:5 "God has said, Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you."

1 John 5:9-13 "We accept man's testimony, but God's testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God, which He has given about His Son. Anyone who believes in the Son of God has this testimony in his heart. Anyone who does not believe God has made Him out to be a liar, because he has not believed the testimony God has given about His Son. And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life."

B. Questions To Consider:
1. What caused the Spirit of God to depart from Adam?
2. What caused the Spirit of God to depart from Jesus?
3. What is the only thing that could cause the Spirit of God to depart from you?
4. Where are your sins?
5. Were your sins judged?
6. What was the verdict?
7. What was the penalty?
8. Who took it?
9. How much of it did He take?
10. Therefore, how much is left for you?
11. Why can't the Spirit of God depart from you when you sin?

IV. Conclusion: In Him You Are Complete.

Colossians 2:9-10 "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and you have been given fullness (completeness) in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority."

2 Peter 1:3 "His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by His own glory and goodness."

Ephesians 1:13 "And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit."

V. The Christian Lives By Faith.

Ephesians 2:8-9 "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast."

Romans 14:23b "Everything that does not come from faith is sin."

Colossians 2:6 "So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live (by faith) in him."

Hebrews 10:38a "But my righteous one will live by faith."

Hebrews 11:6 "And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him."

A. Faith Must Have An Object.
Like swallowing- swallowing does not allow us to live. swallowing food allows us to live. swallowing poison kills us. Food or poison is the object.

B. The Object of the Christian's Faith is Jesus Christ and His Finished Work.

John 11:25-26 (KJV) "Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believes in Me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever lives and believes in Me shall never die."

VI. Practical Application.

A. You Will Never Experience a Changed Life Until You Experience the Exchanged Life.

Philippians 1:21 "For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain."

Galatians 2:20 "I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me."

Outline credit goes to Bob George

23

Mike, you have made God into a liar and a cheater. But first let’s deal with Eph. 2:8.

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—".

There is no way your direction: Go back to your grade school grammar and analyze the sentence. solves anything. In English, either grace or faith can properly be the antecedent.

There is a debate here, but it is not resolved by “grade school grammar.” The debate (as always) must go back to the Greek and not the English. In Greek there is a legitimate debate to the genders. That debate is beyond our scope, but it is not anywhere near as trivial as you allowed (and there is a satisfactory explanation, in the Greek, that supports the Calvinist position that the gift is faith.)

Furthermore, grace is by definition a gift, there is no kind of grace that is not a gift, grace is virtually synonomous with gift. Therefore common sense leans toward the fact that if you go out of you way to describe something as a gift, it is because it is not usually thought of as a gift (such as faith) as opposed to an exercise in redundancy, such as calling grace a gift.

Now to your more serious error.

I am assuming you believe in Hell, if not then that is your serious error.

If I understand what you wrote, it is this (a) our sins are forgiven but (b) that doesn’t mean we are saved; we could still end up in hell.

If we are not saved, even though our sins have been paid for, then God is unjust. He is double charging. This is a severe impugning of God’s character. If someone is not saved, but his sins are forgiven, then how could he end up in hell? The only reason to be in hell is because his sins weren’t forgiven.

24

Tyler,

I would certainly love it if more who regard themselves as Calvinist or "Reformed" read the Institutes (I highly commend them, as well as his insightful Commentaries which are appreciated by many a non-Calvinist), but I don't think it is necessary. That's because "Calvinism" is not all about agreeing with the specific beliefs of John Calvin (likewise with Arminianism, which in its usual forms is the expresson of his students not of Arminius himself), and a Calvinist is NOT a devotee of this one individual. It is simply that it was Calvin who, at a critical historical juncture, was at the forefront in articulating these things.

But there have been many others since who have capably expounded them for succeeding generations. And I might agree that anyone who would identify themselves with this "camp" ought to have SOME familiarity with what leading teachers "in the camp" have said. More important, though, is that they have a solid command of the SCRIPTURAL basis for these things. And I'm not sure it matters how they get there.

On the other side, I believe that those who seek to correct what they see as errors in "the other side" (whether an Arminian speaking to Calvinists or vice versa. . .) is quite irresponsible if THEY have not made the effort to become familiar with what the best proponents of the opposing view have said. All too many discussions of these matters respond to caricatures or assumptions and deductions that are not even close to representing how the proponents of the views in question understand Scripture.

That said, I have no problem with someone raising honest questions that trouble them about what they may think someone else's theology entails. But it won't be very fruitful, unless they are also humble enough to allow that their assumptions about what another believes may themselves be mistaken.

25

Mike, I appreciate the view that Jesus' death and resurrection has more than one aspect. We are cleansed from sin AND given new life. You are saying, however, that the cleansing is effective for all humanity, but that the new life is only realized for Christians. I think that is refuted thusly:

"And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins." 1 Cor 15:17

Cleansing from sin is contingent upon the resurrection.

26

David and Hoots, You are still not catching on to the whole thing.
We are condemned to hell for not believing in Christ.

If Christ has not been raised, then yes our faith is wortless and the whole Bible is a lie. We would be putting our faith in something that did not happen... a lie.

Christ was raised. I know we all agree on that.

Grace is the gift. look at it this way.

Suppose you didn't have a penny to your name. If I said to you that I am giving you $1 billion and it's at the 1st bank of Dallas in an accout just for you and you told me thanks but I don't like that bank so I'm not going down there to get the money, would you die broke? Yes. Would you be able to go to another bank to get your money? No. You see the gift has been offered to everyone. Not everyone will accept the gift. If you refuse it, you spend your life in poverty and will die broke. We have to accept the gift. We have to believe and acknowledge what God has done for us through Christ. It's our faith IN CHRIST that saves us. Not our faith. Christ saves us. The whole of scripture points to Christ.

27

Hey Joe,

I wish I had more time today to respond to your post, it was thoughtful as all of yours are, but IMHO way off the mark.

I am mostly Arminian, but like you dislike labels. You said, "Unless a Christian is a universalist, they must admit that Christ’s work on the cross is limited to those who believe."

On that point you are sooooooo wrong! I am NOT a universalist and firmly, completely and totally deny Christ's work on the cross is limited to those who believe!

It has been OFFERED to everyone - because God doesn't want anyone to perish but everyone to come to repentance as Peter tells us. True - it is only effective for those who believe, but it is offered to all.

Whether or not that is God offing things in vain depends on what you call vain. As old Margaret Becker song comes to mind, "It's never for nothing, when you love with no return, it's never for nothing."

If that's true for us in this life, then it's even more true of our infinite Creator and Father.

I could go on but don't have time here, but thanks for the thoughtful post. I may just respond in a fuller way on my blog.

God bless! - Louie

28

Hoots:
Although reformed theology is great stuff devotionally, it seems to apply poorly to fulfilling the great commission.

Tell that to the preachers who fanned out from Geneva during the Reformation, risking (and some giving) their lives to spread the good news.

Tell that to the founders of the modern missionary movement who were sustained in their efforts by the dual conviction that people needed to hear the good news to be saved AND that GOD would be faithful to work a response in human hearts. (I think here of the YEARS Adoniram Judson labored before he saw any fruit at all.)

Further, I do not see how anything can ultimately have real "devotional" value which does NOT work in the heart the kind of devotion/love for God that DOES respond to the Great Commission. The one whose heart is drawn to God (with gratitude and wonder for his saving grace to one like me) will share HIS heart's desires and will, out of love for God, LONG to see his glory fill the earth!

We are urged in every concievable manner to believe, to grow in our faith, to voice our desires to God, and to evangelize.

Absolutely. But I think you've missed the Calvinist conviction that God appoints BOTH means and ends, and that each of these truths must be applied. The preaching of God's Word and the response of faith are NECESSARY --they are the means God has appointed to save and keep people. So we DO need to respond in faith and to declare the good news, calling others to respond. At the same time, we humbly recognize that, when people (including us) do respond, it is because God, by his Spirit has enabled (freed!) them to do so.

I would, however, hesitate to characterize the biblical teaching as "affirmations of our free will". The term "free will" is squishy and often understood in vastly different ways. If you mean that people are free AGENTS, and are called to freely choose Christ, I would agree. At the same time, I find Scripture teaching, to use the name of Luther's little volume contra-Erasmus "The BONDAGE of the Will", i.e., that as sinners we are "slaves to sin", our will itself is corrupted and inclined against God. We will choose freely, but only to SIN, not to follow God -- unless and until God acts to set us free.

29

Our sins were paid for at the cross. Everyone's sins. The cancer was cured. But we still need life. Our sins don't send us to hell. Our unbelief is THE SIN that sends us to hell.

Salvation is not getting your sins forgiven.

Salvation is recieving the gift of eternal life throught belief in Christ. How many times are we told to believe in HIM?

When you try to narrow down who Christ died for you end up having to strain the clear and plain meaning of so many verses it should cause you to question what it is you are saying.

How do take these verses 2 Cor 5:14-18
14For Christ's love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died.
15And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again.
16So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer.
17Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! 18All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation:
19that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them.

30

Joe, I must object to your statement: "Although it may have appeared that they had chosen God, in reality God had chosen them."

God's choosing us or not choosing us does not exclude us choosing God or not choosing God. Yes, God chose me, but that doesn't mean I don't also choose him!

This is not just a nitpick, it's actually the whole key to reconciling the two apparently contradictory statements. God decides to allow every individual to freely choose to accept Him or reject Him. He then looks down on a world where every individual freely and without excuse rejects Him. He intervenes and liberates some people, but not all, from their wrong choice, so that they will instead freely choose him. The people for whom he does not intervene were without excuse before God's intervention and remain without excuse afterward.

Of course, this picture of the way things work is not perfect, because it pictures God as acting within time, whereas all indications are that God is outside time. What I have pictured here as a series of events taking place in a chronological order is in fact the unfolding of what God "had always planned" in eternity. (I put that phrase in scare quotes because it implies a temporal relation between time and eternity, which is false; unfortunately, being stuck in time ourselves we have no way to talk about eternity without using time-words.) But the moral responsibility of the actors is not changed because God made the decisions he made outside time rather than in time. When God, in eternity and "before" I was born, decided to allow me to sin, he did not *cause* me to sin. I did that myself, freely; I am not relieved of my resopnsibility for my actions by the fact that God had previously foreseen them and decided to allow them (and no more than that is necessarily implied by the Calvinist view of God's eternal decree).

31

Regarding the reaction to Joe's comment about wanting to discover that everyone is saved. I speak only for myself, but here's what I think:

Many Christians adhering to the historic faith (as distinct from people who make up their own faith and call it "Christianity") have nonetheless held that it is possible in principle that God might save every person. Yes, the Bible speaks very definitely of people actually being finally lost, and for that reason we must never, ever say that universal salvation is taught or implied in scripture or even that it is likely to be true. The whole tone and tenor of scripture is against it. But I think it is just *barely* possible, consistent with the text, that the passages referring to people being finally lost may turn out to have been admonitory rather than predictive.

This is not even inconsistent with evangelical Protestantism. It may seem so, because it implies that unevangelized people are saved. But many of us Reformed evangelicals believe that children of Christians are saved as members of the covenant community even if they die in childbirth or are prevented by a disability from hearing the gospel. On this view, saving faith is imputed to them by a forensic declaration of God. And if God can do that, there is no reason in principle that he couldn't do it to anyone else, or indeed to everyone else.

I do not think God would be unjust to save some and not others. But I do not find it absolutely and finally necessary to say that this is what he has in fact done.

32

I've just realized that I should explain my comment (made two posts above) that nothing more than God's foreseeing my sin and deciding to allow it is implied by the Calvinist view of God's eternal decree. There is a lot of confusion about the role of foreknowledge in Calvinism and Arminianism. Foreknowledge plays a role in both; the difference betweeen them is in the relationship between God's foreknowledge and his decisions. In the Arminian view, some of God's decisions follow from his foreknowledge (e.g. he decides to offer me salvation because he knew I would accept). The Calvinist view holds that God's decisions are never dependent on his foreknowledge; this is the meaning of the word "unconditional" in the "unconditional election" part of TULIP. However, the Calvinist view does not imply that foreknowledge plays no role in God's eternal decree; some things happen because God decides to cause them, while other things happen because God foresees that we will do them and decides to allow them. It seems to me that this is the only way we can understand God's decree without making God the author of sin. The important point is that when God foresees something and allows it to happen, his decision to allow it to happen is unconditional; it does not depend on his foreknowledge.

33

Our sins were paid for at the cross. Everyone's sins. The cancer was cured. But we still need life.

A cure for sin was provided. People who realize they are sick fall into three categories: some know of the cure and accept it, some know of the cure and reject it, some have not heard that there is a cure. Even for those who accept the cure, the disease is only in remission, since we still struggle against our fallen nature.

Our sins don't send us to hell. Our unbelief is THE SIN that sends us to hell.

I think that distinction is unnecessary in the current context. The bible is clear that SIN is the cause of the curse of death and judgement.

"Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned." Rom 5:12

And atonement is not universal.

"but if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin."

34

Hoots,
The debt owed by us because of sin was taken care of at the cross. My analogy is not a perfect one. We are not cured of sinning. We are forgiven for the sins that we have and will commit.
Where your sins judged? yes.
When? At the cross.
What was the verdict? Guilty.
And the penalty? Death.
When was the only time the debt for your sins was paid? At the cross.
How many of your sins were in the future at that time? All of them.

You see, God could not offer us eternal life if the issue of sin had not been addressed.
What caused the spirit of God to leave Adam? Sin
What caused the spirit of God to leave Christ at the cross? Sin
What is the only thing that could cause the spirit of God to leave you (assuming you are saved)? Sin

Why can't you lose your salvation? because God took care of sin at the cross. He took care of the consequences of sin...Death...spiritual death. If he did not pay the entire penalty for our sins, his spirit would leave us the very next time we sin.

The only sin we are held accountable for is the sin of unbelief. Calling God a liar with regards to what Jesus accomplished for us...blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Jesus took on all the sins of the whole world at the cross except for this one...unbelief...because he couldn't NOT believe in himself. Hence, John 3:18.
As long as we are in this world, we will sin. But we can take comfort in the finished work or Christ at the cross. He paid the ENTIRE debt for our sins. We REST in him. He did not take away our sin nature. He paid the debt for our sin.

35

Hello everybody,

Most of the folks on this comment thread seem to think that if a person believes that Jesus is not the Son of God, then that person is not saved. And that, presumably, that person will go to hell.

Most of the folks on this comment thread seem to think that if a person believes that the Bible is not divinely inspired, or that God himself does not exist, then that person is not saved. And that, presumably, that person will go to hell.

I do think that it's good that everybody here wants to talk about this idea and look at different aspects of it and try to make sense of it. Everyone seems to recognize that there is at least something problematic about the idea of unbelievers being unsaved, and everyone wants to make a good faith effort at untangling the associated paradoxes.

But it's also true that the whole conversation strikes me as being surreal.

There are real people who don't believe in God. I'm not talking serial murderers or some other kind of depraved loony. I'm talking about normal people, like you and me. I'm sure most of you have met or actually know the kind of person I'm referring to.

These people are not going to hell, they are not going to be punished by God for all eternity. It's just not going to happen.

I've been through this before with Joe, and he has politely explained to me that "hell" is just the state of rejecting God. According to Joe, you could consider going to hell not so much a punishment from God, but as someone punishing himself by separating himself from God.

While Joe's version of hell doesn't sound as bad as some others, it still doesn't detract from the surreal nature of what's being discussed here. We're asserting that good people are eternally condemned just because they don't believe in God. Or, just as surreally, apparently good people are not really good people because they don't believe in God, and that's the reason they are eternally condemned.

Now I've been reading and commenting here for quite a while now, so I know everybody here is smart and articulate. So how can some of us here maintain in all seriousness that an atheist, by virtue of his being an atheist, is doomed to go to hell (or to not go to heaven, or to suffer eternal separation from God, or what have you)? How can someone believe that a good person is somehow not good enough if that person's theology is not in order? If God condemns a person for being an unbeliever, then that just doesn't jibe with the reality of good people who happen to be unbelievers.

If anyone doesn't really understand why this all seems so surreal to me, then just imagine being in the West Bank of Israel or in the Gaza Strip on September 11, 2001. Imagine witnessing the crowds of Palestinians spontaneously and exuberantly dancing in the streets in celebration of the attacks on the United States. Imagine watching a mob of people who somehow think of you as belonging to a category of person who is somehow not fully human. A category of person deserving of a permanent, painful, and ignoble end. Imagine how surreal that would be.

That is the kind or surreality I see in this post and comment thread: people who categorize other people as so different and so inferior in some sense as to deserve eternal punishment from God himself. It just is such a strange thing to be discussing and trying to rationalize.

And yes, I know, Calvinists believe that everybody deserves to go to hell, because everyone starts out in the same totally depraved boat. And maybe that's the real issue, believing that everybody deserves to go to hell, whatever that means.

But still, some get saved and some don't, and the ones who don't are otherwise totally normal, good people that you wouldn't have a problem with. There's no getting around this, and it just doesn't make any sense.

36

Matthew Goggins

I'm talking about normal people, like you and me. I'm sure most of you have met or actually know the kind of person I'm referring to.

These people are not going to hell, they are not going to be punished by God for all eternity. It's just not going to happen.

We're asserting that good people are eternally condemned just because they don't believe in God. Or, just as surreally, apparently good people are not really good people because they don't believe in God, and that's the reason they are eternally condemned.

How do you define 'good'?

37

Goggins

"There are real people who don't believe in God. I'm not talking serial murderers or some other kind of depraved loony. I'm talking about normal people, like you and me. I'm sure most of you have met or actually know the kind of person I'm referring to. These people are not going to hell, they are not going to be punished by God for all eternity. It's just not going to happen."

...as far as you know.

(cue up Beethoven's 5th opening chords)

38

Mike, I think I'm starting to understand your idea a little better now, and I'll have to give it some more thought. For now though, how do you interpret 1 Cor 15:17, which I quoted earlier? It seems to deny the relationship you've described as:

Jesus' Death -> atonement for all sins (except unbelief)
Jesus' Resurrection -> new life if we believe

39

Matthew, You are using your definition of "good" to describe people, not God's.
The Bible says there is none righteous, no not one.
Jesus himself said "I am the way the truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except by me."

Do you really think that these so called good people you are talking about have never done anything wrong in their entire lives?
The Bible says that if we break just one of his laws, then we are guilty of violating the whole thing.

The Bible also says there will be eternal separation from God for those who do not believe the gospel message. And that it will be in a very uncomfortable place. We choose not to believe. I have spoken with quite a few atheists. They are more than aware of what they are rejecting and what the consequences are.

You can't water down the message of the Bible by claiming that some people, from your viewpoint, are good. God does not judge us by our standards.

40

Bevets,

Good: honorable, decent people who do good and avoid evil. Maybe they have a family, maybe they don't. Just ordinary, hard-working respectable Americans like yourself and myself.

Larry,

Very funny!

41

Matthew,

Others are pressing you for the meaning of “good” so I won’t go there. I’ll just point out that if Joe’s version of hell is “separation from God” then, in my opinion, he couldn’t be more wrong. I don’t know what hell will be like, because the bible uses seemingly contradictory metaphors (unquenchable fire, outer darkness) but one thing is for sure, it is NOT separation from God:

If I ascend into heaven, You are there;
If I make my bed in hell, behold, You are there. (Ps. 139:8)

God is omnipresent. That includes hell. Probably God’s presence, not his absence, will be the most horrific aspect of hell.

42

Tell that to the preachers who fanned out from Geneva during the Reformation, risking (and some giving) their lives to spread the good news.

I'm not denying that Calvinists have been or are currently great evangelists, I'm just saying that TULIP doesn't seem to provide the motivation. I'm also not suggesting that Calvinism should be found wanting due to this. Maybe I'm altogether wrong on this point. I'm only halfway through Institutes, and perhaps my questions will be answered.

I would, however, hesitate to characterize the biblical teaching as "affirmations of our free will".

Good point. Our "freedom" is not the same as it was in the garden or as it will be in eternity.

43

Hoots,
That verse says that "IF Christ has not been raised", this is a hypothetical phrase which is followed by "your faith is futile; you are still in your sins".

IF Christ was not raised from the dead, then God is a liar and the entire Gospel message is a fraud.
Then our faith is futile--misplaced--worthless--we are placing our faith in a lie.
Then we are dead in our sins. If the Gospel is a lie and Christ did not come to bring us salvation, then we are following a lie and we are still spiritually dead in our sins.

This is all conditional on Christ NOT being raised.

BUT, we know he was.

You can't separate that verse from the context it is in though. Paul was talking about the resurrection of the dead in this passage. Take a look at the whole passage....

12But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.
20But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27For he "has put everything under his feet."Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

29Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them? 30And as for us, why do we endanger ourselves every hour? 31I die every day—I mean that, brothers—just as surely as I glory over you in Christ Jesus our Lord. 32If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus for merely human reasons, what have I gained? If the dead are not raised,
"Let us eat and drink,
for tomorrow we die." 33Do not be misled: "Bad company corrupts good character." 34Come back to your senses as you ought, and stop sinning; for there are some who are ignorant of God—I say this to your shame.

44

Mike,

Assume for the sake of argument that what you say is true: the Bible is inerrant, and God has a standard of good that is different from mine.

But why would God send me, or any other good atheist, to hell for eternity?

You seem to think an atheist cannot be good. And it is true that an atheist can't be good in the sense of fulfilling his Biblical obligation to believe in God and in Jesus. But the atheist can be good in every other sense of the Bible. He can be good to his fellow man, if not to God himself.

So if an atheist is good to his fellow man, then why wouldn't that goodness be good enough for God? Why would God forsake anyone for disbelief if the disbeliever is otherwise a good person?

45

Hoots: Our "freedom" is not the same as it was in the garden or as it will be in eternity.

Yes it is--at least I do not see anywhere in the bible where it says our free will has been damaged by the fall. It is our desires that have been damaged. Calvinism is completely consistent with our having a free will before we are saved, the same free will with which we choose God, the same free will after we are saved, and the same free will in heaven. In fact, Calvinism teaches exactly that.

46

Mike,

I'm completely aware of the context. But if there was no resurrection, Jesus still died. The clear indication of the passage is that our salvation from both sin and death depends on the resurrection.

47

David,

Thank you for your comment.

But as an atheist, I don't concern myself as to whether or not God is in hell. It's like a jihadi arguing whether it is better to behead the infidel or blow him up on a bus: I think he's missing the point.

Now I don't mean to imply that if you believe in hell then you're like a terrorist. I know you are nothing like a terrorist.

But if God really did send good atheists to hell, then he would be like a terrorist.

48

I do not see anywhere in the bible where it says our free will has been damaged by the fall.

whether we call it the "will" or the "desire," we know that we are slaves to sin (Rom 7).

49

Matthew Goggins

We're asserting that good people are eternally condemned just because they don't believe in God. Or, just as surreally, apparently good people are not really good people because they don't believe in God, and that's the reason they are eternally condemned.

bevets

How do you define 'good'?

Matthew Goggins

Good: honorable, decent people who do good and avoid evil. Maybe they have a family, maybe they don't. Just ordinary, hard-working respectable Americans like yourself and myself.

I don't think any Christian on this thread would claim that they deserve to go to heaven. Do you think you are better than everyone else here?

50

Matthew,

Gods standard is not if we are good or not. We don't earn our way into heaven.
God gave the Jews a set of standards. They could not follow them.
So, God provided a way for us to have salvation. According to him, there is only one way. HIS way. NOT our way. NOT what we think it should be.
We don't go to heaven by being good. If that were the case, we would all be doomed.

Can an atheist be a "good" person by our standards? Most certainly. Can a Christian do "bad" things by our standards? We sure can. God doesn't look at us that way though.

51

David,

All the terms you are using for "hell" do not refer to the same thing or the same "place." That's why they seem contradictory.

52

Hoot,
the phrase was hypothetical.
Our salvation depends on the resurrection being TRUE.
We were relieved of the consequences of sin by the cross. but we are still spirituall dead.
The life that God gave to Christ to resurrect him is the life that he is offering us.

If Christ was not resurrected, then there is no truth to the gospel. We can't place our faith in a lie. A lie won't save you.

53

Matthew,

Just to highlight how different God's concept of "good" is from ours, we read:

"For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin." Rom 14:23

Athiesm is (in part) defined by a lack of faith, not a lack of worldly goodness.

54

The problem with having this kind of conversation, as the comments above show, is that theists and atheists do not naturally use the word "good" to mean the same thing. We're just going to talk past each other if we don't clear up this ambiguous word.

If by "good" you mean good by the ordinary worldly standard - "honorable, decent people...ordinary, hard-working respectable Americans like yourself and myself" - then of course there are many non-Christians who are "good" and many Christians who are not. Like all Christians, I believe that following Christ will make you more "good" in this sense than you were before, without Christ, but that doesn't mean you will necessarily become as "good" as your unbelieving neighbor. He may be even "better" without Christ than you are with Christ.

But this idea of "good" is not at all what theists mean by "good". Jesus defined what it means to a theist to be good: "Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." In other words, to be "good" for a theist is to be in a state of godlike perfection. Not that you will be "godlike" in the sense of being omnipotent or omniscient, of course, but "godlike" in the sense of being totally pure and holy.

This is shocking even to most Christians, but Jesus quotes a passage from the Hebrew scriptures in which God says to his people: "You are gods." So even "godlike" doesn't go far enough - we are made to be gods and goddesses, eternally reflecting and embodying the glory and majesty of God.

Being "good" in the worldly sense is just not enough. What's the point of humanity if that's all we were made for? We were made to be gods and goddesses. But of course we are not now gods or goddesses; we have spoiled ourselves and need to be repaired.

If you like, we can rephrase Joe's statement that "Hell is just the state of rejecting God" to this: "Hell is just the state of not being the god or goddess you were made to be." From the Christian standpoint these are the same thing; to "reject God" means to have lost the whole purpose for which we were made.

Why, then, does scripture descirbe hell as a condemnation and even a retributive punishment? I understand that as just a way of making the point that God is just in allowing us to remain in the state of rejecting him.

55

Bevets,

I don't think any Christian on this thread would claim that they deserve to go to heaven. Do you think you are better than everyone else here?

I believe you are right when you say no Christian on this thread is likely to believe he deserves to go to heaven. I don't think I implied otherwise, but thank you for clearing it up anyway.

I certainly don't think I am better than everyone else here. I have great respect for Joe, and although I disagree with a lot of people here, I like everybody and think everyone has good intentions.

Mike,

Gods standard is not if we are good or not. We don't earn our way into heaven.
God gave the Jewish people a set of standards. They could not follow them.
So, God provided a way for us to have salvation. According to him, there is only one way. HIS way. NOT our way. NOT what we think it should be.
We don't go to heaven by being good. If that were the case, we would all be doomed.

While not all Christians agree with you, I have certainly heard this before and understand it.

Can an atheist be a "good" person by our standards? Most certainly. Can a Christian do "bad" things by our standards? We sure can. God doesn't look at us that way though.

And that's the problem. God's way doesn't make any sense: a good atheist should be saved, his beliefs shouldn't matter.

56

Hoots,

Just to highlight how different God's concept of "good" is from ours, we read:

"For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin." Rom 14:23

Atheism is (in part) defined by a lack of faith, not a lack of worldly goodness.

I agree with you that the Bible uses the word "good" in a special sense which emphasizes faith.

But the problem is not that the Bible or Christians use special moral jargon. The problem is that God allegedly sends good ("good" in the common usage sense) atheists to hell. That doesn't make any sense, it is not something God would do.

57

Goggins,
God's way doesn't make sense?
He says your standard of good is inconsistent at best. I'm sure you don't consistently live up to your own standard of good.

He offers you the gift of salvation and you spit on him and say you don't like the gift or the way he is giving it to you. You would rather tell him how he ought to save you. That's very presumptuous.

58

Mike,

If I believed in God, and if I believed that God was offering me the gift of salvation, then it might very well be presumptious of me to refuse God's gift. It might, in that case, be fair to describe me as spitting on God.

But if I don't think he exists, it is not presumptuous for me to reject God's gift. I can't do anything else other than to reject his gift, because I don't think the gift exists.

I'm not telling God anything, I'm just disagreeing with people who are telling me they know what God wants and doesn't want. I'm just disagreeing with people who are telling me they know how God is going to judge people.

I haven't addressed any of my remarks to God, I'm just talking about God.

59

Goggins,
You're speaking a lot of nonsense.

If you don't believe God exists, then why are you even asking these questions? The answers would be meaningless.

God has made himself known to everyone. If you refuse to acknowledge him, that's your loss. You can claim you don't have any evidence from God, but that doesn't make it true.

Some day you will know the truth. I just hope it's not too late when learn it.

60

That doesn't make any sense, it is not something God would do.

I don't like what many people around me do, but I don't react by refusing to believe they exist. I don't always like what God does, either, but I have to start by realizing that He stands in judgement of my actions, not I on his. If you don't believe God exists, why do you have such a strong idea of what he should do?

61

Matthew These people are not going to hell, they are not going to be punished by God for all eternity. It's just not going to happen.

And you know this because…?

While Joe's version of hell doesn't sound as bad as some others, it still doesn't detract from the surreal nature of what's being discussed here.

I probably should have clarified that my “version” of hell is actually much, much worse than anyone could imagine. I suspect that “wailing and gnashing of teeth” and other imagery used to describe hell is actually an understatement. I don’t think a human can truly fathom how intolerable an existence where God is truly absent would be. Imagine choosing to spend an eternal existence in solitary confinement. Now imagine that hell is worse. As Greg says, “…God is just in allowing us to remain in the state of rejecting him.”

We're asserting that good people are eternally condemned just because they don't believe in God.

No, “good people” are eternally condemned because they are not, in fact, good and because God is just.

Or, just as surreally, apparently good people are not really good people because they don't believe in God, and that's the reason they are eternally condemned.

So how can some of us here maintain in all seriousness that an atheist, by virtue of his being an atheist, is doomed to go to hell (or to not go to heaven, or to suffer eternal separation from God, or what have you)?

Because that is what they want. Atheists aren’t atheists because they don’t “believe” in God. Atheists are atheists because they refuse to acknowledge what is readily apparent to anyone: God exists and he is Holy. While I’m sure you’ll disagree, I don’t think we’ll find a single atheist stand before God and be able to say that they really weren’t aware that he existed.

So if an atheist is good to his fellow man, then why wouldn't that goodness be good enough for God?

It’s a matter of what qualifies as good. If the standards of manmade then we could have a discussion between Jeffrey Dahmer and Hitler about which one is the better person (Hitler: “At least I don’t eat people.”). But we are not talking about human standards but the standard set by God.

62

Hoots,
look at it like this:
If Christ was not raised, He was not who he claimed to be. He was not God.
IF he was not God, then his sacrifice on the cross was not capable of paying for the sins of the world--he was just another man.
In which case, we would still be dead in our sins since the debt was not paid at the cross.
His death would have been no different than anyone else's.

63

Mike,

About the Romans passage, you're right that Paul is pointing out that the resurrection is proof of Jesus divinity and thus His gospel. But that's not all he's doing. He states in no uncertain terms that the resurrection achieved something for those who believe. I think you're only recognizing half of the achievement.

64

Hoots,
His resurrected life is the life he is offering to us. That is the other half.
Forgive sins first.
Offer eternal life through Christ second.
If we believe, we receive the gift.

65

Hoots,
see my post (#22) above. I think that outlines it pretty well.

66

Mike, the differences between our interpretations of that passage is very subtle and there's no need to press the point. I'm sure we could find other passages to nitpick over. I hesitate to accept your larger thesis, however, because I haven't explored all the implications of saying that non-believers have their sins forgiven minus one. My gut says there is a violation of Christian doctrine somewhere in the fallout.

Either way, gotta go. God bless.

67

A further thought on what it means to be eternally lost, prompted by Joe's comment that hell is "what they (atheists) want."

The historic Christian view is that man in his natural state is such a being that the presence of a just and holy God is a terror and a horror to him. We do not naturally want God; by nature we would much rather eternally resist God, even at the price of misery, than spend forever in submission to God. It's a manifestly irrational choice, but that doesn't prove it isn't what we are naturally inclined to choose. As C.S. Lewis put it in "The Great Divorce," the gates of hell are locked from the *inside*.

So the important point is not that you have now made a conscious choice that you would rather have hell than heaven; that's obviously false. You could hardly have made that choice consciously, since you don't believe such things even exist. The point is, you are now the kind of being who *will* make precisely that choice when you are confronted with what heaven really is - to love and be loved by God forever in submission to His sovereign lordship - unless you change into another kind of being before you face that choice.

68

you might be a fundamentalist if...

10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by
other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of
yours.

9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people
evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the
Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a
Triune God.

7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed
to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah
slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the
elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" -- including women,
children, and trees!

6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims
about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that
the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who
got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.

5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in
the scientifically established age of Earth (4.55 billion years), but
you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age
tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a couple of
generations old.

4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the
exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in
all rival sects -- will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of
Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and
"loving."

3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have
failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the
floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove"
Christianity.

2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered
prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you
think that the remaining 99.99% failure was simply the will of God.

1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do
about the Bible, Christianity, and church history -- but still call
yourself a Christian.

69

Hi everybody,

I had to sleep for a while so this goes back to the beginning (I am a nurse the works the night shift).

Joe (and others said):

You guys act like Arminians think that everybody should be saved!

Really? What comment left you with that impression?

This comment. "Compare this text with Jesus' own parable of the wheat and tares (weeds). The angels are willing to rip out the weeds, but the Lord says no, to let them grow, lest one little grain of wheat be lost. The point: That He doesn't want to lose any of the appointed harvest, and so for the sake of the elect, tolerates