Jesus states: "You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you." (John 15:3)
1st Corinthians 3:16 states: "Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?"
2nd Corinthians 5:17 states: "Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come."
Having read these things, how do you feel that they compare with the promise of Ezekiel 36:26?
Ezekiel 36:22-32: "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 My holy name, which you have profaned among the nations where you went. "I will vindicate the holiness of My great name which has been profaned among the nations, which you have profaned in their midst. Then the nations will know that I am the LORD," declares the Lord GOD, "when I prove Myself holy among you in their sight. "For I will take you from the nations, gather you from all the lands and bring you into your own land. "Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. "Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. "I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances. "You will live in the land that I gave to your forefathers; so you will be My people, and I will be your God. "Moreover, I will save you from all your uncleanness; and I will call for the grain and multiply it, and I will not bring a famine on you. "I will multiply the fruit of the tree and the produce of the field, so that you will not receive again the disgrace of famine among the nations. "Then you will remember your evil ways and your deeds that were not good, and you will loathe yourselves in your own sight for your iniquities and your abominations. "I am not doing this for your sake," declares the Lord GOD, "let it be known to you. Be ashamed and confounded for your ways, O house of Israel!"
The new creature that is reborn in Christ through the new birth, is given a new heart and a new spirit that they may be renewed in the image of Christ. This is the promise of the New Covenant.
12 comments:
you're not even really making a logical argument here. it looks like you're throwing random stuff at a wall and hoping some verses stick. IMO, it all works together much better from a calvinist standpoint.
in John 15, we see that it is Jesus who makes the disciples clean. they are clean due to an act of God. in a parallel statement, we see that the power of Jesus makes them bear fruit. foundationally, they were not fruitful because they chose to be so...RATHER because Jesus chose them and appointed them to go and bear fruit. (v.16)
1 cor 3 likewise fails to make your point. are they "temples" because they chose to be so? in the text, paul makes it clear that neither he nor apollos was responsible, for all their efforts and teaching, BUT rather than commend the corinthians for choosing to repent and believe and thereby become temples of the Holy Spirit, paul (unlike you) gives the glory to God: "God (and only God) gives the growth." (v.6-7)
you similarly stop too early in 2 cor 5. "We are a new creation?" "The new has come?" Why is this true? the very next verse (which you omit) tells us. "ALL THIS IS FROM GOD." yes - ALL of it...even the gifts of repentance (acts5:31, 11:18; 2tim2:25) and belief. (phil 1:29)
having mishandled 3 straight verses by lifting them from their context, it is understandable why you offer NO attempt at breaking down ezek36. like the NT passages you selected, it also lifts up God as the Savior...not merely offering salvation to those clever/humble/spiritual enough to claim it but actually SAVING those who are only distinguished in the passage as having profaned His name...and CAUSING them to obey His statutes (v.27) and only THEN (after God had acted to make them new) would they look back at their evil ways and repent of their sins. (v.31)
maybe you should take another look and try again.
To Anonymous,
The summation of my post is simply that the fulfillment of Jeremiah 36:26 is found in the New Covenant where we receive cleansing, as well as a new heart and a new spirt. You're not actually disagreeing with that assessment, are you? (Yes/No?)
The real debate between Arminianism and Calvinism is WHEN a person enters the New Covenant. The Arminian agrees with Ephesians 1:13 which teaches that a person is not sealed in Christ, until AFTER they first hear and believe in the Gospel. The Calvinist, conversely, teaches that certain persons are preemptively placed in Christ, into the New Covenant, BEFORE they are sealed in Christ. Do you believe that this is an accurate contrast between the two systems? (Yes/No?)
Third, if trusting in Christ gives me grounds to boast before God, please explain Romans 3:27.
Dear EC:
There you go again using the terminology:
"The Calvinist, conversely, teaches that certain persons are preemptively placed in Christ, into the New Covenant, BEFORE they are sealed in Christ."
Which suggests a "positional" view that is not Calvinism but a hybrid of your own views and Calvinism.
-Turretinfan
Turretinfan,
Whether I've misrepresented Calvinism, in terms of the meaning of "in Christ," still pending is your responce to the question on the Indwelling, which I've posted on the John 17 Blog. I'll post it here as well for convenience sake:
By The Indwelling, I refer to Romans 8:9 where it is said that the Holy Spirit "dwells" in us, where v.10 adds that Christ is "in you." 1Cor 3:16 adds that "you are a temple of God" on account of the Holy Spirit dwelling in you. And here is the main kicker, 1Cor 6:16-17 states:
"Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her? For He says, 'The two shall become one flesh.' But the one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with Him."
Therefore, do you accept that "in the Son" and "in the Father" can carry the meaning of being sealed in Christ as "one spirit" with God, whereby the Spirit of God dwells in you? (Yes/No?)
EC,
Whether you are willing to accept it as a misrepresentation or not may still be pending.
Nevertheless, I do know what we Reformed folk believe, and I can spot a misrepresentation.
See my other comments elsewhere (especially the most detailed remarks on my blog) regarding the Spirit dwelling in us.
-Turretinfan
I.)ezek36:26 applies to all those (from the old testament forward) who have faith in the Promised One of God, Jesus Christ. certainly it applied as far back as noah, when God accepted his offerings and said, "never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood." (gen8:21)
anyone descended from adam needs a new heart.
II.)the real debate between calvinists and arminians starts with whether you step outside the bible and accept the proposition of human philosophy that says, "if man has no innate ability to be good or choose the good, then God cannot justly hold man responsible if man is not good."
whether paul was "pricked" as a result of stephen's preaching or not, he responded with murderous threats and evil intent. (acts9:1) he was a "pharisee of pharisees" in that matt 23 applied to him completely:
"13You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to."
"33You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? 34Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill [for example, stephen] and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. [towns like damascus]"
we see in acts 9 that paul hardened his heart in response to stephen's preaching. paul was like those in 2 thess 2, in that he "refused to love the truth and so be saved." God could have justly sent paul "a strong delusion, so that [he] would believe what is false, 12in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness."
instead, we know from gal 1:15 that, despite paul's sin and open opposition to God prior to salvation, paul had actually been set apart from birth by God. therefore, God acted miraculously to intervene and forcibly change paul's direction (which is interesting as you would typically claim that the "pricking" of the Holy Spirit should have been sufficient to give paul a chance to respond freely to the gospel.)
so while you complain that calvinists wrongly teach that christians are "in Christ" before their conversion, EVEN YOU are forced to admit that christians are "foreloved in His Son, and foreordained for a particular purpose in Christ" before they are physically born and before they are sealed. (examcalvin.com - gal 1:15)
(it is admittedly extremely difficult for finite human beings to speak sensibly about the eternal God. this is why calvinists try to stick to the language revealed in scripture rather than invent new categories as you are trying to do.)
III.)while i have met several arminians who have boasted in their intelligence, humility or "spirituality" in contrasting themselves with certain pagans who deny the Lord, i am happy to admit that they are extremely rare. but the logical inconsistency between claiming "church growth is given by God alone" and "church growth depends on human decisions - God encourages it as best he can but He can't just make it happen" is a problem for many calvinists. likewise the arminian claim for 2 cor 5:18 that "all this is from God"...except the part where i made a personal free-will decision apart from God (in other words, if you claim that God offers prevenient grace to everyone, then there still must be some "goodness" or other quality apart from God's grace that is present in the christian which draws him to God, while the pagan continues to resist God's prevenient grace.)
but again, i concede that most arminians do NOT boast in themselves...and we agree biblically on that point, at least.
IV.)i also wanted to say that i appreciated the change in format of examiningcalvinism.com. the new setup is much more readable.
To Turretinfan,
I'll check out it and comment on that Blog.
To Anonymous:
I) I see Ezekiel 36:26 from the perspective of Jeremiah 31:31-34: "'Behold, days are coming,' declares the LORD, 'when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,' declares the LORD. 'But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,' declares the LORD, 'I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, "Know the LORD," for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,' declares the LORD, 'for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.'"
I see Ezekiel 36:26 and Jeremiah 31:31-34 as both Prophets foreshadowing the New Covenant. Are you suggesting that 2Cor 5:17 does not reference Ezekiel 36:26? (Yes/No?)
II) Do you believe that Paul was kicking against the Holy Spirit? (Yes/No?)
You wrote: "EVEN YOU are forced to admit that christians are 'foreloved in His Son, and foreordained for a particular purpose in Christ' before they are physically born and before they are sealed. (examcalvin.com - gal 1:15)"
Are you suggesting that this statement contradicts Arminianism? Let me change it, in order to make it teach Calvinism: "The elect are foreloved in the Father, and foreordained to become in Christ."
III) I need to get this question out of the way first, before proceeding on your comments in part III. Do you believe that certain people are preemptively placed in Christ before they ar sealed in Christ? (Yes/No?)
IV) I'm glad that you like the format. Unfortunately, I'm not sure what change was made. Others have complained about purple boxes that covers up certain portions of text, and I could never figure out what they were referring to.
--Richard Coords
I.)answer: no. all are referencing the same salvation. this should have been very clear from my prior response.
from what i understand, God has revealed only one plan of salvation in the scriptures...which is salvation by faith (rom4;heb11) which is a gift. (eph2:8) in each of the scriptures you've quoted, as i've shown, God seems to be acting monergistically. God acts to make it happen...our salvation or "new creation" is "all of God." the new converts that fuel church growth are "given by God alone" and not a result of human will. we "choose" Christ only to discover that our choice was founded upon Christ's prior choice of us.
II.)i can accept that paul was "stiff-necked...with an uncircumcised heart and ears...resisting the Holy Spirit." (acts7) paul, just like all the other pharisees, was acting willfully in opposition to the kingdom of Jesus Christ...and by those evil actions of killing God's messengers such as stephen and imprisoning others, paul was "kicking against the goads."
OTOH, you seem to have imagined that paul felt convicted of his guilt by the Holy Spirit. i see no record of this in scripture. we see paul give approval to stephen's death...and go on from there to continue to imprison and threaten the church UNTIL he was forcibly stopped by a miraculous encounter with the Lord.
i'm not sure it matters, though. even if paul was convicted of his sin and kicked back against the Spirit (BTW, isn't that the sort of thing that sears men's consciences?) by choosing further hatred of the Son and His followers, i'm not sure what that's supposed to prove.
but regardless of the depth of paul's evil, he was set apart (i.e. made holy, consecrated for God's service) by God from his birth...and God can soften the hardest rock of a heart. God could have justly hardened paul in his sin just as He did many others who similarly rejected Him and who never received a miraculous sign of Christ's Lordship...but God is free to "have mercy on whom He wants to have mercy, and harden whom He wants to harden."
c.s. lewis once wrote: "the Irresistible and the Indisputable are the two weapons which the very nature of God’s scheme forbids Him to use. Merely to override a human will...would be for Him useless. He cannot ravish, He can only woo." the apostle paul clearly begs to differ with mr. lewis.
III.)i can accept your argument that "sealing" occurs in space-time after belief. i'm not at all willing to die on the hill that says we were "preemptively placed in Christ" as scripture doesn't seem to use that language...that may be a plausible enough interpretation of eph1:4,11 but not at all a necessary one.
IV.)the bible verses used to be invisible until scrolled over with a mouse...they now appear as little notes with parchment backgrounds. i used to have a problem with floating comments in the discussion but it has cleared up. could have been a browser problem on my end...
To Anonmymous:
I) You wrote: “God has revealed only one plan of salvation in the scriptures.”
However, Jeremiah 31 mentions a “new covenant.” Doesn’t that mean two plans, an old one and a new one? For instance, what happened to an Old Testament believer when he died? Where did he go? Did he go straight to heaven? No? Well, then, where did he go? Answer: He went to Sheol. (Luke 16:19-31) However, ever since the Resurrection (i.e. under the new covenant), upon death, the believer in Christ circumvents Sheol and now goes straight home to be with the Lord, having direct access to the Father. Why? Because under the new covenant, God has a special blessing, which was completely unavailable to Abraham until Christ was raised. Similarly, I contend that the Old Covenant did not have the New Covenant provision of new birth, via a "new heart" and a "new spirit" as the new creature. Your argument essentially alleges that the Old Testament saints were in Christ prior to the Resurrection. Although I acknowledge that they looked forward to Christ in faith, they were not yet “in Him,” or else they would have had direct access to the Father, as per 1st John 2:24.
I’ll come back to Monergism later, because I first want to focus on my point that Ezekiel and Jeremiah both pointed to the New Covenant blessings (i.e. new heart, new spirit) which under the Old Covenant, I allege, were yet unavailable.
II) You wrote: “you seem to have imagined that paul felt convicted of his guilt by the Holy Spirit. i see no record of this in scripture. … even if paul was convicted of his sin and kicked back against the Spirit (BTW, isn't that the sort of thing that sears men's consciences?) by choosing further hatred of the Son and His followers, i'm not sure what that's supposed to prove.”
Yes, that sort of thing absolutely does indeed sear men’s consciences. Every time we say “No” to God, subconsciously, our heart becomes that much harder, each time. Paul’s heart had surely grown hard. Yet, Jesus tells him: “`Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.'” I certainly do believe that this goading, that Paul was kicking against, was the inner conviction of the Holy Spirit, through the preaching of Stephen that kept welling up inside him. It is not uncommon for a person who has come to a saving relationship with Christ, to relay a testimony that someone in their life had presented them the Gospel, which planted a seed, that stuck with them, that caused an inner battle, which later they surrendered to, when they gave their heart to Christ.
4-Point Calvinist, William MacDonald, comments: “Goads were sharply pointed instruments used to force stubborn animals to move ahead. Paul had been kicking against the goad of his own conscience, but even more important, against the convicting voice of the Holy Spirit. He had never been able to forget the poise and grace with which Stephen had died. He had been fighting against God Himself.” (Believer’s Bible Commentary, p.1660, emphasis mine)
Obviously, I agree, and I say so, in my writeup: http://www.examiningcalvinism.com/files/NT/Acts26_14.html
III) I want to give you a quote to examine:
Calvinist, James White, writes: “When the time comes in God’s sovereign providence to bring to spiritual life each of those for whom Christ died, the Spirit of God will not only effectively accomplish that work of regeneration but that new creature in Christ will, unfailingly, believe in Jesus Christ (‘all that the Father gives Me will come to Me’).” (Debating Calvinism, p.191, emphasis mine)
Does this statement reflect a doctrine of Preemptive Placement in Christ? In other words, the elect individual is preemptively placed in Christ whereupon he is regenerated as a new creature, and hence, with the new heart and a new spirit, he irresistibly believes in Jesus? Have I interpreted him fairly? Why or why not?
Thannks,
Richard Coords
I.)i think we've moved outside calvinism and more toward covenant theology. if abraham was a "man" then "every inclination of his heart (was) evil from childhood." i don't believe that abraham's heart could have pleased God without being made new. the old covenant with moses saved no one. OTOH, the old covenant with abraham - which was fulfilled in Christ - is what continues to save us now...which is why we are still considered "children of abraham."
rom4:16Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all.17As it is written: "I have made you a father of many nations." He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed—the God who gives life to the dead and calls things that are not as though they were.
i would agree that there are distinctions before and after Christ in some of the specifics of the outworkings of faith, now that we have received what had been promised (i.e. Christ), but i think the point of rom4 and heb11 is that salvation has always been by faith. do you disagree that abraham is your father or that the OT saints were justified "together with us?" (heb 11:40) not to mention that abraham and many others clearly had very direct communication with God and moses even spoke with God "face-to-face" - yet you still claim (with a straight face?) that they could not have had "direct access to the Father?" (i'm not following your 1john2:24 reference at all.)
II.)"I certainly do believe that this goading, that Paul was kicking against, was the inner conviction of the Holy Spirit, through the preaching of Stephen that kept welling up inside him. It is not uncommon for a person who has come to a saving relationship with Christ, to relay a testimony that someone in their life had presented them the Gospel, which planted a seed, that stuck with them, that caused an inner battle, which later they surrendered to, when they gave their heart to Christ."
both you and macdonald are just speculating, though. paul surely must have heard the gospel from stephen and company, BUT he himself claims not "to have received it nor been taught it by any man."
gal1:11I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. 12I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.
there's simply no evidence that there was an "inner battle" for paul (i.e. that he was questioning himself as he became more and more hateful towards christians.) he was hit squarely from outside himself. if we're allowed to speculate, then you have a problem of explaining why God would deal with this unbeliever in such a miraculous way...imposing His will in such a way that paul had no choice but to see the reality of Christ's Lordship...while so many others must believe without the benefit of seeing.
for that matter, why does God harden any or send a "powerful delusion" so that some "will be condemned" if your take on 2pet3:9 is correct and God does not want "any" to perish but "all" to come to repentance? if paul was hardening himself as you suggest and God could justly have hardened paul to his condemnation for his continued persecution of the church...why give paul such mercy while none of the other pharisees were given this sort of miraculous sign? even if you and macdonald are correct that paul was "kicking...against the convicting voice of the Holy Spirit," why was this fight "rigged" so that paul miraculously lost a fight he seemed to be winning?
a similar argument could be made for israel in the OT: they saw the miracles and the presence of God - yet gentiles seem to have been almost entirely excluded from God's concern for thousands of years. (and yes, it's true that God only preserved a remnant of israel for Himself while many died in unbelief despite the presence of God, but that's a side point. God clearly could compel prophets like jonah (even against their will) to become missionaries...why was it so rare if God wants "all" to come to repentance?)
your initial part 2 question might be restated: even before they are born, does God regard some people as "special" to Him and does He choose to love them more than others? is this basically the issue?
III.)arminians and calvinists have long disagreed over whether the new birth (or regeneration) logically precedes faith and repentance. i'm not sure why james white said "in Christ" rather than the more standard (biblical) language of "born of God (or the Spirit.)" in any event, he is referring not to election but to regeneration: we are born of the Spirit and our nature changes and we are able to apprehend the gospel and believe.
white may have been careless or he may not have any problem with extending being "in Christ" to regeneration (maybe only a split-second before belief but it is still prior to belief as you state) or perhaps even further back in time. he has a radio show and a website, you should email him and ask him. i think your interpretation of white is reasonably fair so far, but i'm not sure if he would agree with making it 3 categories (i.e. preemptively placed in Christ-->regeneration-->belief vs. regeneration "in Christ"-->belief) or whether that would even matter.
speaking of being "born of God", i did notice that your 1john5:1 reference could stand to be updated. you don't address the greek tenses at all nor explain why a comparison with 1john2:29 doesn't bother you. your comment that "true christians confess Christ, false ones don’t" struck me as a little bit comical - all "christians" confess Christ (otherwise they would be "nonchristians") but "true christians" demonstrate saving faith/belief by their actions and lack of conformity to the world.
back to the main point, though, i would say that some of your claims that "calvinists assume the elect are 'in the Father' from eternity" seem to misunderstand the basic calvinist position that ALL are created by the Father ("He is the Potter and we are the clay") and thus all are "owned" by the Father in a sense...some to be given to the Son and some to be left to condemn themselves.
ummm...V.)how do you understand 2pet3:9?
in context, it clearly is an explanation for why Jesus is waiting to return. can we agree that the primary point peter is making is not about salvation but the question of the delay in the second coming? (BTW, it makes sense to me that God is waiting until all the elect are accounted for, before closing the door. - your argument number 2.)
if He truly wants ALL to come to repentance, then coming at any given time means that some children will only be alive very briefly...only seconds past any given "age of accountability" before Jesus comes to judge. many sinners who (presumably for an arminian) might be months or only minutes from repentance and faith might be frustrated. i understand how arminians view calvinistic election as arbitrary, but it seems the second coming puts you in a similar situation...some will have an opportunity to repent and believe and some won't based on timing. and from the arminian position you present, 2pet3:9 appears to be an explanation for why Jesus can never return. without repeating your arguments from the ec.com (which i've read and disagree with) - what am i misunderstanding?
To Anonymous:
I) You wrote: “do you disagree that abraham is your father or that the OT saints were justified 'together with us?' (heb 11:40) not to mention that abraham and many others clearly had very direct communication with God and moses even spoke with God 'face-to-face' - yet you still claim (with a straight face?) that they could not have had 'direct access to the Father'?”
To answer your last question on “access,” from the perspective of Luke 16:19-31, why do you feel that Abraham and the OT Saints went to Sheol when they died, instead of going straight to heaven? What were they missing, they kept them from going straight to the Father in heaven when they died? Clearly, Abraham is the father of faith, as per Galatians 3. My point is that we have something special in the New Covenant. Adrian Rogers pointed out that in the Old Testament, God made a temple for His people, while in the New Testament, God made a people for His temple. That’s a fancy way of saying that we have something special in Christ, I.e. The Indwelling, that the O.T. Saints could not yet receive.
II) You wrote: “if we're allowed to speculate, then you have a problem of explaining why God would deal with this unbeliever in such a miraculous way...imposing His will in such a way that paul had no choice but to see the reality of Christ's Lordship...while so many others must believe without the benefit of seeing.”
To whom much is given, much is required, and to that end, Paul said: “His grace toward me did not prove vain; but I labored even more than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God with me.” (1Cor 15:10) God showed exceeding grace to Paul, so that through him, God might show His grace to many more. As for why God hardens, consider Isaiah 65:2. You would still need to explain what the goading was, at Acts 26:14. Was it the goading of the Holy Spirit?
The rarity issue is that first of all, Israel was called to be a witness nation. God added that accountability falls upon the preacher, if he fails to preach. http://www.examiningcalvinism.com/files/OT/Ezek33_8.html
To answer you question: Does God have a special love for those in Christ whom He did foreknow? Absolutely. Does that diminish the scope of His love, as per John 3:16, of course not. Contrary to what James White felt, Arminianism certainly does affirm that God has degrees of love, but to suggest that Preterition is love, is not a pill that Arminians are able to swallow. For more on that point, check on this article: http://www.examiningcalvinism.com/files/Gospels/Luke10_30.html
I was going to suggest that you contact the Diving Line regarding his quote. He has already weighed in on my dialogue with Jim from old truth.com, which is linked from my writeup: http://www.examiningcalvinism.com/files/Gospels/John6_44.html (linked at the bottom)
I’ll take your advice on 1st John 5:1 and develop it further, and perhaps soon start a new Blog on it. However, I’ve been wanting to do a Blog post on “The Calling of God.” That’s the one that I really want to do next.
You asked how I understand 2nd Peter 3:9. First, Calvinists have interpreted that passage from two perspectives. For some, it is from the perspective of a Secret Will (Calvin, Luther, Lutzer, MacArthur), while for others (White, MacArthur), it intends only the elect. Yes, MacArthur is listed twice on purpose. Refer to the link for the reason why: http://www.examiningcalvinism.com/files/NT/2Pet3_9.html My understanding is developed in that writeup, so if you have questions on it, feel free to propose them.
In terms of God the Potter, indeed we are all God’s children by creation. (Acts 17:28-29) As Christians, we are God’s children by adoption, and people characterize that in different ways, though nevertheless, God has complete ownership. In terms of “in the Father,” many do not realize that such an expression is found in the Bible. One instance is 1st John 2:24. I often ask Calvinists what they think that “in the Father” means, as it is contrasted with “in the Son.” My understanding of Calvinism is that God has an eternal flock of sheep, which I refer to as the eternal flock of the Father, which are given to the Son from eternity past. I consider this relationship as being “in the Father,” or at least in He eternal secret counsel, as John Calvin often puts it, making them “the elect,” which at the appointed time, are born in Christ via the eternal giving, in order to become in the Son’s flock, which we refer to as being “in Christ.” I feel that any view of Calvinistic Election that omits the core “in the Father” status, misses true Calvinism. However, that’s my perspective, being a former Calvinist. I develop this point in the latter portion of the Eph 1:4 writeup:
http://www.examiningcalvinism.com/files/Paul/Eph1_4.html
V) Here’s the link to 2nd Peter 3:9: http://www.examiningcalvinism.com/files/NT/2Pet3_9.html
Given that I’m Pre-Trib, I believe that they will have an opportunity to become saved during the Tribulation. One that about 2 Peter 3:9, is that Arminians feel that the way Calvinists understand it, is this way: “The Lord...is patient with YOU, not wishing for any of US to perish but for all of US to come to repentance.” In other words, Arminianism teaches that Peter is speaking to Christians, but is also making a universally applicable statement, and hence the universal terms, “any” and “all.” Arminians note the similarity to 1st John 2:1.
Like I said, next up is “The Calling of God,” and after that we can dialogue on 1st John 5:1 or 2nd Peter 3:9. You choose.
Post a Comment