The Bible does not teach this.
It's not my job to make your argument for you. Too many critics of Calvinism are intellectual freeloaders. I can't refute a nonexistent argument. Unless and until you put an actual argument on the table, there's nothing for me to evaluate. Critics of Calvinism need to master the difference between assertions and arguments, become aware of their unexamined assumptions, learn that just because something *seems* to be wrong to them, that creates no presumption that their perception is correct.
Then you agree this fallen lump of clay DESERVED no universal mercy. Are you now arguing that each and every one gets it?
I've said it 100 times because it's all that needs be said: God (in the Bible) damns those who will not believe. If you're right, He lies because they're only doing that which He preordained them to do, not what He states they CHOSE to do because there is no "chose."
See immediately above. You are confused. At least be consistent, not double-minded. Either the lump is fallen or it is not. You tacitly agreed it is. So how is God at fault for leaving those He has not loved before time in their state of fallenness? Why is God not within His right to ordain them to dishonor and wrath
for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice. (Mat 11:25-26; Rom 9:17-18, 21-22; 2 Tim 2:19-20; 1 Pet 2:8; Jude 1:4).
Reformed theology makes Him a liar for His damning as a choice what He knows cannot be a choice. The Bible says He simply couldn't do this. Seriously, now...which do you expect us to believe?
Either the lump of clay is fallen or it is not. Are you really not getting this?
In the decree of God there is
no violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away,
but rather established. Get that? Had God not decreed that all may choose according to their greatest inclinations when they so choose
no one would be able to choose (Acts 2:23, Matt. 17:12, Acts 4:27-28, John 19:11, Prov. 16:33).
EVERY SINGLE DOCTRINE we can build upon the Bible - no matter who builds it - can and must first be traced right back to the revealed character of God. The secret things belong to Him and His ways are usually not our ways...but we CAN know Him according to what He told us about Himself. If a doctrine doesn't align with what He says is true of Himself, it's to be rejected as a lie of Satan.
Works for me. No one denies we can have
analogical knowledge of God,
ectypal knowledge of the
archetype, God. Now how about making an actual argument that I can work with in support of your naked assertions? No intellectual freeloading allowed. I will not make an argument for you.
Paul said both, so both are true: God has reconciled the world unto Himself, but that does not automatically result in the forgiveness/justification of the world with no regard to faith, as universalists claim. If it did, Paul would have said so. Rather, God still expects and requires faith expressed by believing the Gospel of the grace of God. If we do not give Him that faith our reconciliation goes nowhere. We remain unjustified and unsaved, and we remain subject to wrath and the Lake of Fire. What part of this do you disagree with?
No. As we see in Romans 1,
belief is a duty of all mankind, which is why their refusal to believe deepens their already state of condemnation (remember that fallen lump of clay).
Faith is a grant from God. Paul did not in any way say that Christ died for all the sins of all men. If so, all in Hell are being punished for sins remitted in full already by our Lord's active and passive obedience. I call DOUBLE JEOPARDY! Your view declares Christ suffered the penalty of sin for every man, i.e., ETERNAL CONDEMNATION - “The wages of sin are death” (Romans 6:23a), and yet God turns around and punishes some people for the EXACT SAME SINS Christ suffered for at Calvary. This kind of theology unwittingly charges God with injustice.
Rather, Paul was clear that Our Lord died for those given to Him by the Father and only those.
God so LOVED the world that He GAVE His only begotten Son. You cannot separate the intense loving from the definite giving. God commendeth His LOVE toward us in that while we were yet sinners Christ DIED FOR US. Again, electing love is manifested in particular redemption. Scripture leads us to distinct and clear views of God's saving purpose so that through patience and comfort of the Scripture we might have hope. The idea you are proposing leads to a nebulous view of saving grace which weakens assurance of God's love.
You want to argue, “
The difference between the sinner who is in hell and the one who goes to heaven is that one BELIEVES, and the other doesn’t BELIEVE.”
Since you claim Paul supports your view, I'll let Paul answer this foolish statement:
“
Not by works of righteousness (INCLUDING OUR GOOD WORKS OR OUR FAITH) which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost” (Titus 3:5).
“
I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness (THE HOLINESS OR SATISFACTION TO LAW AND JUSTICE REQUIRED TO ALLOW A SINNER TO CONTINUE IN GOD’S PRESENCE) come by the law (by any sinner’s obedience or faith), THEN CHRIST IS DEAD IN VAIN” (Galatians 2:21).
God's intentions are made clear in Scripture. If you wish to ascend higher and peek behind the curtain, the Holy Spirit shuts the door by the mouth of Paul, when Paul informs us that God's love of His chosen was founded on the purpose of his will (Eph. 1:5).
The Apostle John wrote of Christ’s work at Calvary as a PROPITIATION - “
And He is the PROPITIATION for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” (1 John 2:2)
John didn’t write that Christ was trying to be the “propitiation” (satisfaction to both the penalty and precept of God’s holy law) for every man, woman and child. Rather, John clearly declared Christ “IS” the “propitiation for OUR SINS.” (Those Christ represented or THE ELECT). When we read of
propitiation in Scripture, it always involves perfect satisfaction and reconciliation through an appropriate sacrifice. The Greek word for “propitiation” is used three times in the New Testament, and in every case it always declares Christ and His righteousness ALONE as the hope of our being propitiated (declared legally righteous and holy) to God (Romans 3:25; 1 John 2:2; 1 John 4:10).
Our Lord makes it even more pointed: "But you do not believe because you are
not of My sheep" (John 10:26). The Shepherd knows who are His sheep. If a prerequisite (that you can say) for believing is being the sheep, and knowing that Christ said He lays His life down for the sheep, yet, He tells the Jews here that they are not of His sheep, would this not conclude that Christ is saying, "I am not going to lay my life down for you
since you are not of my sheep" ? I don't see how any clearer Christ can be in John 10 about for whom He is laying his life down. I would hope when you partake of the Supper that you do not say (as must Robert Pate) at the Lord's Table: "
This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for EVERYONE IN THE WORLD,..."" Sigh.
When we want to discover what was meant by our Lord's sacrifice for the "whole world" or "all men", we need only look to the final book of Scripture, which explains what "all" and "world" mean as relates to salvation:
And they sang a new song, saying, "Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, (Rev 5:9). Trying to force this clear teaching to read "each and every person" is just plain entrenchment in a view read into what Scripture is clearly not teaching.
Indeed, Christ’s life, death, and resurrection was not an attempt by God to make men
savable, if they fulfilled certain conditions, even INCLUDING FAITH. It was His
actual accomplishment of the justification of EVERY ELECT SINNER who Christ represented by His obedience unto death at Calvary.
Finally, our Lord's High Priestly prayer in John 17 makes it clear that not "all" (each and every person) are the subject of His prayer.
Why would God command belief if it can't result in anything? What's the point? They're already damned by virtue of their reprobation; whatever they believe, it makes no difference. Doesn't He know that?
The duty to believe is upon each and every person (see above). That they do not compounds their guilty state. You continue to ignore the fallen lump contemplated in God's hands. Bringing the decree into the sincere offer of the gospel to all is the error of hyper-Calvinism. The Scriptures reveal to men, as creatures, to have creaturely confidence, the maximal possible confidence they can have, that Christ is offered for their salvation in the Gospel. They need not peer into hidden things and wonder about whether they have been hypothetically or really decreed to believe the Gospel. It is sufficient for them to hear and believe or reject the historical proclamation of the Gospel. No person has to go up to heaven to discover God's secret decree to give faith and repentance to some. No person has to descend into the depths of their own experience to conclude they have been called. The gospel itself gives a full and free warrant to receive and rest upon Christ alone for salvation. Anyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will not be turned away, nor lost to Him.
As for the fallen lump contemplated by God when creating, those purposely left by God in their state, Scripture speaks expressly on the relation and action of God towards them, as it has been determined by His eternal and immutable counsel. They are vessels of wrath fitted to destruction (Rom. 9:22), enemies of the cross of Christ (Phil. 3:18), delivered unto thraldom to obey Satan as their god, (2 Cor. 4:4), ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth (2 Tim. 3:7). Any goodness they experience from the hand of God is a bittersweet. It serves to inure the reprobate and to prepare them for the day of wrath (Rom. 2:4, 5). Indeed, God has been pleased to leave multitudes of them without the sweet fragrance of the gospel, and of those that do come under its aroma, the Gospel becomes a savor of death unto death (2 Cor. 2:16). The Gospel's promises were never intended for them, having only been purchased by Christ for the elect (2 Cor. 1:20); and the Gospel's commandments are odious to them, for they are never graciously renewed by the Holy Ghost (Rom. 8:7). And when they stumble at the word, continuing in their disobedience, it is because that is whereunto they were appointed in accord with the good pleasure of God (1 Pet. 2:8).
Had God decreed the salvation of all men, it would be possible to predicate “that God
desires the salvation of all men.” Since, however, God has not decreed the salvation of all men, but has only
commanded that all men be saved, and since God’s revealed
preceptive will only
commands what
ought to be done, the most that can be said is that "God desires that all men be under
an obligation to be saved". The nature of God is what God is
irrespective of the creature. So while the offer of the gospel might very well imply a disposition of loving-kindness on the part of God, that is all it could imply. For it is the eternal decree of God which has determined the mode in which God shall express His nature towards the creature.
Sadly, this is an aspect of the eternal decree which is too often overlooked. The nature of God is what God is
in se— in Himself—not what He is with respect to anything outside of Himself. It is the eternal decree which has determined not only what
shall be, but also the relation and action of God towards the creature.
So, some might ask,
"if this be the relation which God sustains to the reprobate, why does He allow them to be partakers with the elect in the generous invitation of gospel promises and in the ingenuous proclamation of gospel commands?"
We Reformed answer with another question:
"if God did not send gospel promises and commands to them, would that be proof enough that He had no desire or love for them?"
We Reformed will also answer the question for those that do not understand the rejoinder above: It is for the elects’ sake.
How then comes the Gospel to the elect? It comes to them not from Christ as their Surety, since He prays not for any mediation of His own towards them, rather for the elect’s sake.
Men and brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and who among you feareth God, to you... is the word of salvation, to you and for your cause, that ye may be saved, is the Gospel, sent (Acts 13.26).
For all things, our suffering, our dying, are... for your sake (2 Cor. 4.15).
Therefore I endure all things... for the elect’s sake, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Jesus Christ, with eternal glory (2 Tim. 2.10).
Thus, there is no salvation but that which is in Christ Jesus our Lord, the Author and Cause,... and meriting Procurer of eternal salvation(Hebr. 5.9). The gospel cannot be regarded as having any intention of benefit for the reprobate simply because the benefits it holds out to its hearers were only procured by Christ for the elect. If there were any benefit to be obtained by the reprobate, why do they not all hear the gospel, say the heathen in the jungle, or the multitudes living and dying in China during the early days? No, their hearing of the gospel must be due to the fact that those who are sent to publish it do not know what is not revealed in God's purposes (Deut. 29:29) and cannot distinguish between the elect and the reprobate. The Lord, in His wonderful providence, sends the gospel to wherever He has His elect that they might be made partakers of the benefits revealed therein; and this gospel is commanded by God to be published promiscuously to all, lest the restricting or limiting of it should result in any of the elect not hearing, and so, not obeying its message.
It is a plain fact that God expects and requires faith because LACK of faith, REFUSING faith in Christ, is the very grounds on which He damns those who hear and reject the Gospel. That proves it is not a gift He gives only to some but not others. It is the innate ability of ALL MEN, going right back to Adam and FALLEN, DEAD IN SIN Cain, who God tried to reason with...
...God expects faith, indicating all have the capacity for the faith He expects. Else, His condemnation specifically for faithlessness is unjust and insane.
...Also, Titus 2:11. If you're right, this is false.
No, as above, the
duty of all is
belief, not
faith, which is a grant from God, you are not only saved by faith in opposition to works, but your very faith is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God (Eph. 2:8).
I'm glad you cited Titus 2:11 because it helps establish my frequent argument that there is no passage in Scripture that speaks of so-called
prevenient grace. While you may construe this passage as arguing against a limited atonement, the question of the extent of the atonement is distinct from the question of whether or not God gave grace that effectively overcame total inability in all people. In fact, the doctrine of
prevenient grace was invented to explain away total inability because it is untenable with a desire to defend an unlimited atonement and libertarian free-will. Now you walk with the Romanists who propagated such a view.
The Scripture knows nothing of that which implies that when people hear the Gospel, the ball is in their court when it comes to salvation, or that God has made His move, now it's up to us to make our move. The unbeliever will never seek God's righteousness for the unbeliever is
deceitful and
desperately sick (Jer. 17:9);
full of evil (Mark 7:21-23);
loves darkness rather than light (John 3:19); unrighteous, does not understand,
does not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12);
helpless and
ungodly (Rom. 5:6);
dead in his trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1); by nature a
child of wrath (Eph. 2:3);
cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14); and a
slave of sin (Rom. 6:16-20).
Further, that little word "For" in Titus 2:11 points back to Titus 2:1-10. The reason we are not to make a distinction in whom we teach, such as the young, old, men, women, husband, wives, slaves, and masters, is because the grace of God does not make a distinction in those people groups.
Not if they're reprobates.
Intrinsic merit is in view here, as I so stated. Not extrinsic merit. Everything is about God's intentions, not our feeble notions of what God should be doing according to our feeble minds.
"Without faith it is impossible to please God." That axiom- and it is an absolute axiom, don't forget that - makes no sense in the context of condemnation if faith is a gift given to only a select few. It makes even less sense when the Bible repeatedly shows God condemning LACK of faith specifically for being LACK of faith.
You tell me: can He justly condemn someone for not exercising the very gift that (according to you) He elected to not give them? How would doing this not make Him a liar?
I think I understand Paul just fine on these points.
No, you do not understand Paul. Throughout your rejoinder, despite having agreed with me, you ignore the fallen lump in the contemplated hands of God. My surrejoinder herein has answered all your complaints.
AMR
