Disarming Calvinism (part three)


I have made the boast that I will disarm the notion of Calvinism which teaches that man has no free will.  That it is God’s calling only that determines His elect.  We all agree it is this elect that receives imputes righteousness from God.  But Calvinism is wrong when it states we do not have any part to play or any exercise of personal will in the matter.

I have stated that I will demonstrate from our New Testament that we do have free will.  That we do have a role and a choice in our calling and election.  I will disarm Calvinism’s doctrine that teaches men have no choice in their going to Heaven or Hell.

We learned in “Disarming Calvinism (part two)” that God made a covenant with Abraham and this covenant is, God is to be his God and he and his descendants after him are to be His people.  At this point we think that God simply made circumcision the sign of this covenant, mainly that they are God’s chosen people.  However the New Testament teaches us that circumcision was not simply a mark in the flesh that they were the people of God.  Instead our New Testament doctrine teaches us that circumcision is a sign in the flesh of the righteousness that God imputed to Abraham.

And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised.[1]

We learned that this covenant that God gave to Abraham and the seal of righteousness was for all of his descendants.  Hence any male who was not circumcised was cut off from the people.  They were cut off from this blessing given to Abraham.  Yet now we as gentiles can be grafted into the family tree of Abraham and share in this imputed righteousness through Christ.

He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.[2]

So now we too without the sign of imputed righteousness, that being circumcision, are credited righteousness.

This is why “it was credited to him as righteousness.”  The words “it was credited to him” were written not for him alone, but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness–for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead.[3]

This is why, speaking of Israel, scripture teaches us that we like unnatural branches are grafted into the family of Abraham though Christ, while others who were part of that blessing of imputed righteousness were cut off.  Once we share in this imputed righteousness we qualify to be grafted in.  Those who by lack of faith and disobedience reject the blessing given to Abraham of imputed righteousness are cut off from this covenant, while we are now included.

If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root,[4]

So what has God done?  He has taken a whole nation of His people and credited them righteousness and put a seal in the flesh of their men.  God started His gospel message of imputed righteousness for His people starting with Abraham.  But why should this be surprising to us?  After all scripture teaches us that scripture announced to Abraham in advance our gospel.

The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.”[5]

Is not our gospel the good news of not having our sins held against us?  Is this what we find taught by David?

Of David. A maskil. Blessed is he whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered.  Blessed is the man whose sin the LORD does not count against him and in whose spirit is no deceit.[6]

Understanding that God imputed to Abraham and his descendants righteousness that we are now grafted into, a whole new understanding on why God wanted to kill Moses for making light of His imputed righteousness for His people. 

But what have the people of the covenant done?  How have the people of His election treated His grace towards them and unmerited favor of righteousness?  They have trampled it and served foreign gods.  They have become worse than the nations that were before them.

God credited them righteousness but they for the most part trampled it under foot.  They in their free will have rejected the righteousness of God.  Since they did not submit to God’s righteousness by their own free will, they sought to establish their own, even though they were of the covenant of circumcision. 

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.[7]

By their own free will rejecting God became manifest in them when they did not pursue the righteousness that comes by faith.  Rejecting what God had imputed to them they pursued their own righteousness by works, they stumbled over the stumbling stone.  Isn’t this the same trap we can fall into today as believers?

Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the “stumbling stone.”[8]

What the Jewish nation did was to reject what was offered to them by God which was testified to by circumcision.  You can not reject what is not offered.  And again Paul says they did not pursue their righteousness by faith.  They unlike there father Abraham simple didn’t believe in the promise of righteousness that God had imputed to them.

They did not reject the offer of imputed righteousness, they rejected imputed righteousness after it was credited to them.  God had elected them all as a nation as a people as the children of Abraham.  But only a few go in.


[1] Romans 4:11

[2] Galatians 3:14

[3] Romans 4:22-24

[4] Romans 11:17

[5] Galatians 3:8

[6] Psalms 32:1-2

[7] Romans 10:3

[8] Romans 9:32

15 thoughts on “Disarming Calvinism (part three)

  1. Hi.
    I found your Web Site by Google
    And I wish you the best you can get,
    the peace of God through Jesus Christ.

    Welcome to visit my Site.
    Allan Svensson, Sweden
    http://www.algonet.se/~allan-sv/INDEX.HTM

    The great falling away

    People think any revival is not coming. They refer to
    2 Thess. 2:3 and tell about that a great falling away shall
    come. But this falling away has taken place a very long time
    ago. The entire Christendom was lead astray by false
    shepherds and preachers, which preached false doctrines.
    Since then, God’s people have been slaves under many
    churches and denominations. And the great falling away is
    still today continuing. The great falling away is NOW!

    Waiting for the great falling away is not needed. It began a
    very long time ago. The topical are now the restoration of the
    Assembly of God from the great falling away. Acts 3:31.
    Revival is just this, all God’s people must be released from
    the great Babylon.

    In the time of the apostles any church did not exist, and therefore
    the word “church” occurs not at all in the Bible. Everywhere in
    your English Bible where you see the word “church”, it is a
    translation error, it ought to be “assembly”. Jesus did not build
    any church.

    I have five Bible translations in Swedish, (the oldest from 1703,
    translated from the same original bible text as KJV). Nowhere in
    these Bibles we can find the word “church” (kyrka). Nowhere in
    the Bible we can find any hint of that the Assembly of God is
    constituted of church systems and many religious organizations.

    It is at least two Bible translations in English without the word
    ‘church’, (WEB) and (KJ3). Perhaps there are more such
    translations, I do not know.

    The Assembly of God is no Pentecostal church. Please, consider
    what this expression “the Assembly of God” in the reality implies.
    The Assembly of God must be the same as the Greek word
    “ekklesia”, and the Body of Christ. 1 Cor. 12:12-31.

    Then it is easy to understand that this has nothing to do with the
    Pentecostal Movement. Pentecostal churches have existed about
    100 years, but the Assembly of God has existed ever since Jesus
    baptized his first disciples by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit
    gave them the new life in Christ so that they became born anew.
    Then the Assembly of God was born. Since then, the Assembly
    of God has lived here on the earth generation after generation.

    The establishment of the first church took place in connection with
    the great falling away. 2 Thess. 2:3. Since then, God’s people have
    lived in slavery under Satan’s false doctrine about the Assembly of
    God. We cannot use the word ‘church’ when we mean the Assembly
    of God. Still to day, most Christians cannot see the difference between
    the Assembly of God and the Church of Satan.

    All churches have come into existence through religious fornication.
    People have mixed God’s word with false doctrines of evil spirits,
    and so new churches appear.

    In the free churches the world around
    there are thousands of preachers
    and bible teachers, but none can explain
    what the Assembly of God is
    http://www.algonet.se/~allan-sv/EXPLAIN.HTM#thousands

    The condition of the Assembly of God
    is now much worse than in the assemblies
    in Ephesus, Sardis and Laodicea
    http://www.algonet.se/~allan-sv/SARDIS.HTM#condition

    • I wnt to your site and it looks like you have been at this for some time. I think you and are are on the same page on a lot of things. I thank you for your coming to my site and taking the time to comment. I hope it is an encouragement to you.

  2. IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS means that God made EVERY provision necessary for man’s redemption from death ….and for the eternal security of man’s soul. All man has to do is ‘believe’ or ‘agree’ with God’s way…God’s plan…God’s purpose…God’s SUPERNATURAL PURITY AND WORTHINESS. Since Eden, God has ‘imputed righteousness’ clutched in His right hand. He is extending it outward to us. All we have to do is….TAKE IT!!! But we can’t TAKE His imputed righteousness and KEEP our fleshly carnality at the same time. The contemporary of ‘imputed righteousness’ is ‘once saved always saved’….with the same outcome for those who cover themselves with its supposed protection. We convince ourselves that Christ’s blood ‘covers’…’justifies’…’erasers’….our penalty of continued sinfulness. Not so…under those terms. Christ’s giving of His total self for the sins of the world…refers to ‘sin that are past’. His blood, His body, His soul was given to provide a ‘Door’ back into Eden….back into the place of fellowship with the Father…back into LIFE. The ‘Door’ is Christ…..ALIVE. For those who accept…believe…receive the redemptive gift…..they are redeemed from the curse of death which began in Eden. Now they are instantly ‘free’ from sin and death. BUT…BUT…BUT…that is Step 1. Step 2 requires ‘following’ Christ…led by the present..invisible…powerful…Spirit which He became for the purpose of being one with us…the Holy Spirit. But Light has NO fellowship with Darkness. One CANNOT serve two masters. One will serve God or he will serve mammon…flesh…darkness. They DO NOT mix. One cannot have half of one and half of another.

    IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNES is the term which describes the reality or existance of what we term ‘Grace’….well before Christ lived and died as a man. Adam had it ….and as a ‘type’ of Christ…lost it when HE gave himself to redeem the bride…Eve (church)…..regained it when God covered both Adam and Eve with the bloody coats of the sacrificed ‘lamb.’ That bloody ‘covering’….which pointed to the Lamb of God was the ONLY thing (since ‘life’ is in the blood) which had the Godly power to redeem…remove the penalty of sin which was death. Able had that ‘imputed righteousness’ when he believed God concerning the required sacrifice of ‘blood.’ Cain did not ‘believe’ God. He sacrificed fruits and veggies. Cain served mammon…not God. Noah had that ‘imputed righteousness’..when the ‘believed’ God and built the Ark. Noah’s ‘belief’ gave him favor with God. That ‘favor’ covered his whole family.

    (Joh 15:7 If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you. )

    Abraham had ‘imputed righteousness’ when he ‘believed’ God….followed God’s instructions …was faithful to the commands of God….all which in New Testament terminology is called WORKS OF FAITH.

    Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

    Eph 5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.

    2ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

    Tit 2:7 In all things showing thyself a pattern of good works: in doctrine showing uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity,

    Jas 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

    Jas 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith without thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works.

    I know this, again, is long. But SURELY we have time to discuss something as crucial as the life and death of the souls of men.

    THE CONTEMPORARY ‘GOSPEL’ does not demand RIGHTEOUSNESS AND HOLINESS. THEREFORE, the contemporary gospel is NOT the Gospel of God!!! One who sins….is a SINNER! One who commits ‘faith-born works’ is RIGHTEOUS.

    Carolyn

    • Hi Carolyn,

      Our modern church does not demand righteousness and holiness because they have not understood what I have laid out in my post (part three). I think you will agree we have our doctrine backwards and put emphasis on the wrong things today.

      Take care.

  3. Um…Calvinist don’t say man has no free will. Calvinists say man’s will is bound by his sinful nature therefore all of the things he “wills” are consistant with his sinful nature. If that is not true then you should be able to stop sinning by an exercise your “free will”.

    • Actually Calvinism does teach that man has no free will. This is one of the big debates between Arminian thought and Calvinism. I didn’t make the debate up, it was going long before I got here. It sounds like you are describing more to the idea that man is a complete degenerate and can do no good in his sinful nature, even Christ taught that we being evil do good for our children so how much more will He give us the Holy Spirit who ask.

      • I am not saying you made up the debate. I am saying that your statement mischaracterizes the Calvinist position on man’s will. Pointing out that the debate is a long running one does nothing to refute my statement. However, in fairness, I gave no proof of my position and I owe you that.
        At the Synod of Dordrecht, Nov 1618-May 1619, the Arminian ideas were given a fair hearing and compared to the standard of the Holy Scriptures. The 5 points of Calvinism have their roots here (not in Calvin). At the end the synod put out a statement now know as the Cannon of Dort. Please note just a couple of excerpts:

        REJECTION OF ERRORS
        The true doctrine having been explained, the Synod rejects the errors of those:
        THIRD AND FOURTH HEAD: PARAGRAPH 3. Who teach: That in spiritual death the spiritual gifts are not separate from the will of man, since the will in itself has never been corrupted, but only hindered through the darkness of the understanding and the irregularity of the affection; and that, these hindrances having been removed, the will can then bring into operation its nature powers, that is, that the will of itself is able to will and to choose, or not to will and not to choose, all manner of good which may be presented to it. This is an innovation and an error, and tends to elevate the powers of the free will, contrary to the declaration of the prophet: “The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure (Jer 17:9)”; and of the apostle: “All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts (Eph 2:3).”

        THIRD AND FOURTH HEADS OF DOCTRINE.
        THE CORRUPTION OF MAN, HIS CONVERSION TO GOD, AND THE MANNER THEREOF
        THIRD AND FOURTH HEAD: ARTICLE 10. But that others who are called by the gospel obey the call and are converted is not to be ascribed to the proper exercise of free will, whereby one distinguishes himself above others equally furnished with grace sufficient for faith and conversion (as the proud heresy of Pelagius maintains); but it must be wholly ascribed to God, who, as He has chosen His own from eternity in Christ, so He calls them effectually in time, confers upon them faith and repentance, rescues them from the power of darkness, and translates them into the kingdom of His own Son; that they may show forth the praises of Him who has called them out of darkness into His marvelous light, and may glory not in themselves but in the Lord, according to the testimony of the apostles in various places.

        THIRD AND FOURTH HEAD: ARTICLE 16. But as man by the fall did not cease to be a creature endowed with understanding and will, nor did sin which pervaded the whole race of mankind deprive him of the human nature, but brought upon him depravity and spiritual death; so also this grace of regeneration does not treat men as senseless stocks and blocks, nor take away their will and it properties, or do violence thereto; but is spiritually quickens, heals, corrects, and at the same time sweetly and powerfully bends it, that where carnal rebellion and resistance formerly prevailed, a ready and sincere spiritual obedience begins to reign; in which the true and spiritual restoration and freedom of our will consist. Wherefore, unless the admirable Author of every good work so deal with us, man can have no hope of being able to rise from his fall by his own free will, by which, in a state of innocence, he plunged himself into ruin.
        I could cite more but I hope you get the point. Calvinism does not deny a free will but that the will has been corrupted by sin and does not partner with grace to bring about salvation.
        It may sound like I am describing the idea that man is a complete degenerate because all 5 points of Calvinism are closely tied together. They rise (or fall) together. To properly understand one you have to see how it relates to the others. By the way the same is true of Arminianism. Do you believe that Christ using the philanthropic illustration of a father doing “good” for his children is an example of man’s ability to glorify God even in his sinful state? While we do good for our children unless we have been regenerated even that is a sin! That is how bad we are. Please consider Rom 1:18-25, Rom 3:23, James 2:8-11. Further—Rom 14:23 says “..whatever does not proceed from faith is sin” and Heb 11:6 “And without faith it is impossible to please him (God)…”. Everything the unregenerate man does is sin. Are there any verses that would indicate that the natural man, by his own will can do anything that God would count as a good work that brings glory to Him? Can you show from scripture that something that man does by an act of his will is not tainted by sin? Calvinism says you have a “free will” but it to is tainted by send rendering it useless to please God or bring glory to God. It is a reminder on how sinful we are, how much we have offended God and how great the burden of wrath was that Christ had to bear. Then by God’s grace the Holy Spirit works faith in my heart at a time when all I could do was sin. What a great God we serve!

        • You know as well as I do the doctrine of Calvinism is well document and chewed on and regurgitated ad infinitum, so the weight of material you have to buttress your view is of no interest to me. I have read other material sent me from others who would make conclusions that are different than yours. I do not care to do the research to find it just to justify myself, for you to only ignore it. Additionally, just as Luther was not interested in all the Papal volumes concerning the gospel, I feel the same concerning Calvinism. What is important is what does scripture clearly say.

          I read your verses. I, like you know and understand that all men have sinned. This is not arguable, because it is clearly written, which is my whole point with you. Keeping things as they are clearly written. It is not clearly written that men are in a state of total depravity. But it is clearly written that man is in total needed of a savior. I think you would agree with that last statement. This is why God sent Jesus to taste death for “every man” because every man is a sinner and needs a savior. (I could not resist the jab, since my last answer considering the meaning of word “world” was ignored by you. You didn’t even say it was food for thought. Now is this intellectual honesty?)

          So what verses could I quote for you that man is not in a state of total depravity as taught and understood by the Calvinist doctrine, since after all I am big on being able to say, “It is clearly written”? Not to mention, I demand the same standard from you. So I will not go to any great historical archive of well intentioned men, I will go to scripture.

          Paul in the book of Romans describes a people who do not have the Law, but somehow do by nature (this should have some meaning to you such as the natural man) the things written in the Law. In Paul’s own words, he says again, “these, having not the Law, are a law unto themselves.” (The words “are a Law unto themselves” should weigh heavy on you.) Soooo… far I can say it is clearly written… even twice!

          Although they have not the Law, they have the Law written where? No other place but in their hearts. Remember, these are describe by Paul’s own words as “do by nature”.

          Paul concludes his thoughts about the hypocrisy of hearing the Word and not doing the word, by saying these very people who have not the Law and are uncircumcised to boot! Are going to judge those who have the Law but do not obey it.

          To add insult to injury, it is clearly written these uncircumcised heathen who have not the Law, but keep the righteousness of the Law… their uncircumcision shall be counted as righteousness. Remember, Paul describes these people as acting in their nature, apart from the Law and being a Law unto themselves. Still tracking with me… still see this is clearly written?

          And Paul ends this thought by saying, “And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee”. Again Paul finishes his thought by describing them as by nature fulfilling the Law, remember a law unto themselves, who have not the Law.

          So here are the verses, so you too can see what is clearly written.

          Rom 2:13-29 KJV (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. (14) For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: (15) Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) (16) In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel. (17) Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God, (18) And knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law; (19) And art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness, (20) An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law. (21) Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal? (22) Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege? (23) Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God? (24) For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written. (25) For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. (26) Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? (27) And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law? (28) For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: (29) But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

          So yes, Jesus meant that evil men do good for their children, just as it is clearly written.

          Your words, “Everything the unregenerate man does is sin. Are there any verses that would indicate that the natural man, by his own will can do anything that God would count as a good work that brings glory to Him?”

          Not everything the unregenerate man does is sin. And yes there are verses the indicate that natural man (even a law unto himself) by his own will can and do anything that God would count as a good work (even their uncircumcision) that brings Him glory.

          So should it be kudos for me? I have successfully believed and lived the conviction of the Reformation fathers who believed that men could have a revelation of who God is in their own native tongue, such as I just demonstrated, again.

          Will you answer me, or ignore my answer like you did with the meaning of the word “world’? Will you admit that what I have said, was well said, as a demonstration of what is clearly written? Will you even say, It is food for thought, considering what is clearly written against what is not clearly written?

          Did I do good? Did I surprise you? Am I consistent with my beliefs and convictions of sticking to what is clearly written.

          Thanks for your comments

          • You, sir, in your refutation of Calvinism said that Calvinist do not believe that man has free will. The point I was trying to get you to see is that you misrepresented Calvinism and then refuted your own representation. You still insist your misrepresentation is correct. I cannot account for what other people have sent you. I don’t know how other people’s conclusions are relevant. To make it simple I pointed you to the single document that is at the root of Calvinism which clearly acknowledges a free will that, like everything else, is a slave to sin. You still have given no proof that your proposition is even correct. I offered you proof that you proposition is not correct but you stated that it is of no interest to you. I would be very interested the refutation you might offer to the Calvinists actual position but it seems you are only interested in knocking down the straw man you set up. In that regard you did not surprise me.
            Thank you for taking the time to read the verses I referred to. When you read that “without faith it is impossible to please God” and then say that the person with no faith is capable of performing work that god sees as good? Wouldn’t a “good” work be pleasing to God? I agree with you on the importance of what is clearly written if properly interpreted. I do agree that evil men can do good for their children but that “good” is only a philanthropic exercise. The evil person does (and cannot) not feed his children to the glory of God. Therefore what you are calling good falls short of the glory of God. Further I believe it would be an error to make a principle out of the nondescript person Christ uses to illustrate what great things we can trust God for.
            As for the Romans 2 passage you sent you did surprise me. Basically after the introduction the first part of Romans is about man’s sinful state. No real hope or gospel is offered until you get to 3:24. Yes man without the law has become a law unto himself. Guess what? Man does not keep that law either! I have seen this first hand when I have been out sharing the gospel (What? a Calvinist who believes in evangelism? I suppose that conflict with things others have told you?). A person may be unfazed by the presentation of the law and gospel. A person may careless that their eternity is hell yet if you ask them if when they lied did they know it was wrong and 100% of the time they say “yes”. I have asked people if they feel they have lived up to their own standard of goodness and 100% of the time they say “no”. Romans 2 is not saying those people will be found righteous on judgment day and they are not exempt from the group in Romans 1 who suppress the truth. The entire last part of Romans is a scathing condemnation to the Jews. It is not a proof that a person who is a law unto themselves will end up being saved. It is telling the Jews that their hypocrisy is so great that a gentile who tries to be faithful to his own conscience is more Jewish than they are. You are missing the point of this passage if you think it proves that not everything the unregenerate man does is not a sin or that God counts it as a good work. Have you ever read Galatians? The law is powerless to save anyone. The law brings death and failing to keep even one law is tantamount to breaking every single law God ever gave. Are you keeping the whole counsel of scripture in view to correctly interpret Romans 2?
            If I have ignored you on the use of the word “world” I apologize. Are we involved in a second exchange that I have neglected? I am not purposefully ignoring anything you have taken your valuable time to comment on. I was trying to comment on another one of your post as I had free moments throughout the day but that disappeared from my computer screen before I was finished, is that somehow in play here? I have replied to everything that came to my email with your comments.
            To answer your final paragraph–You are indeed consistent with your beliefs and convictions. You seem to be sticking to scripture as you see it but it seems your hermeneutic is skewed by your own presuppositions and traditions. You, my friend, are the first person I have ever seen who sees Romans chapter 2 as an affirmation rather than a condemnation.
            He is a final thing that may be food for thought. You used considerable time and space on your website to refute Calvinism. Then when I give you evidence that might indicate your premise is wrong you use a whole paragraph to explain why you are not going to comment on my evidence culminating in the statement that “What is important is what does scripture clearly say”. It was important enough for you to publically try to refute Calvinism. You chose to address Calvinism and invited a reply. In the space you used to say me evidence is of no interest you could have commented on my evidence. Either the Canon of Dort makes a statement about free will or it doesn’t. I don’t mind having my beliefs scrutinized and tested. I just want a fair hearing. All points of Calvinism have been chewed on and regurgitated ad infinitum so why do you even bother to address it at all? You invited this conversation then you dodged it. It makes me skeptical that you desire a meaningful exchange or that you will leave this posted on your site. Do you just write so people who agree with have a venue to pat you on the back and make you feel good? If that is the case please let me know and I will gladly get out of thier way.

            • The following was sent to me by a gentleman who is a theologian in Great Britain. You will see his comments at my blog by the name irishanglican. He is a stout Calvinist and at times has accused me of not understanding Calvinism, but I do not remember him every saying I misrepresented it on this subject. It seems like there are different camps within Calvinism, some being more extreme in their doctrine than others. So are you from the northern Calvinist or the coastal Calvinist?

              I would like to point out in particular, “Therefore we reject everything taught to the contrary concerning man’s free will, since man is nothing but the slave of sin and cannot do a thing unless it is “given him from heaven.”^23 “

              But the real question is, are you extreme in your Calvinism or not? I would guess you are not one of those who are hyper extreme.

              If you have other “Calvinist” out there misrepresenting your doctrine, the problem is not mine to correct, it is yours to correct. The fact that you can’t help which card carrying Calvinist misrepresented what you think Calvinism represents doesn’t make my history with the other Calvinist unreal, untruthful or misrepresentative of your flavor of your doctrine.

              Article 14: The Creation and Fall of Man
              We believe that God created man from the dust of the earth and made and formed him in his image and likeness– good, just, and holy; able by his own will to conform in all things to the will of God.
              But when he was in honor he did not understand it^21 and did not recognize his excellence. But he subjected himself willingly to sin and consequently to death and the curse, lending his ear to the word of the devil.
              For he transgressed the commandment of life, which he had received, and by his sin he separated himself from God, who was his true life, having corrupted his entire nature.
              So he made himself guilty and subject to physical and spiritual death, having become wicked, perverse, and corrupt in all his ways. He lost all his excellent gifts which he had received from God, and he retained none of them except for small traces which are enough to make him inexcusable.
              Moreover, all the light in us is turned to darkness, as the Scripture teaches us: “The light shone in the darkness, and the darkness did not receive it.”^22 Here John calls men “darkness.”
              Therefore we reject everything taught to the contrary concerning man’s free will, since man is nothing but the slave of sin and cannot do a thing unless it is “given him from heaven.”^23
              For who can boast of being able to do anything good by himself, since Christ says, “No one can come to me unless my Father who sent me draws him”?^24
              Who can glory in his own will when he understands that “the mind of the flesh is enmity against God”?^25 Who can speak of his own knowledge in view of the fact that “the natural man does not understand the things of the Spirit of God”?^26
              In short, who can produce a single thought, since he knows that we are “not able to think a thing” about ourselves, by ourselves, but that “our ability is from God”?^27
              And therefore, what the apostle says ought rightly to stand fixed and firm: “God works within us both to will and to do according to his good pleasure.”^28
              For there is no understanding nor will conforming to God’s understanding and will apart from Christ’s involvement, as he teaches us when he says, “Without me you can do nothing.”^29
              ^21 Ps. 49:20 ^22 John 1:5 ^23 John 3:27 ^24 John 6:44 ^25 Rom. 8:7 ^26 1 Cor. 2:14 ^27 2 Cor. 3:5 ^28 Phil. 2:13 ^29 John 15:5

              I hope this satisfies you that I have not built a straw man case just for the purpose of the blog.

              For you, I will recognize that you are offering not only a fresh perspective on the debate concerning man’s free will, you are putting forth evidence from you doctrine to support your case. I acknowledge this.

              Bottom line, I think your doctrine has differing branches in it and that there is not a uniform belief through out all Calvinism. You all may agree with TULIP, but not all interpret to the same degree. Is this a fair comment for you and I to agree on?

              I am just as concerned about the rapid pace the world and the “church” has turned from God and feel like you do when you say, nobody obeys the Law. But this does not change what Paul has written.

              Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

              You say, “You are missing the point of this passage if you think it proves that not everything the unregenerate man does is not a sin” It is not I who say it, it is Paul who said it.

              Rom 2:26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?

              I said in my last response that Paul was writing against those who hear and do not do the word. So no I have not missed the point of the condemnation of the Jews who violate the Law. But, to disregard as truth the material Paul uses to shame the Jews, as I think you are willing to do, then what shame is left for the Jews?

              I agree with you, the Law brings death. In fact it is clearly written the Law came so that sin might be imputed to us all. (This is why Jesus tasted death for every man)

              Again, you said, “Are you keeping the whole counsel of scripture in view to correctly interpret Romans 2?” Why yes I am!

              In the grace only gospel of Paul both here in Romans and Galatians (yes I have read Galatians) Paul teaches that men will be judged by what they do, which is no different than what he is saying about the Jew who has the Law and does not keep it, and the gentile who has not the Law but does keep it.

              In chapter two of Romans we read this:

              Rom 2:6-11 KJV Who will render to every man according to his deeds: (7) To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: (8) But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, (9) Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; (10) But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: (11) For there is no respect of persons with God.

              Men who are judged according to their deeds (even in the gospel of grace) and their place in eternity is determined by their deeds.

              In Galatians Paul says the same thing again.

              Gal 6:7-8 KJV Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. (8) For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.

              John in I John says this:

              1Jn 2:4-5 KJV He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. (5) But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.

              And again:

              1Jn 3:7 KJV Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.

              And again:

              1Jn 3:10 KJV In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.

              So yes, I think I am very consistent with what is not only written about the gentiles, what is written in Romans, what is written in Galatians, but the gospel as a whole. Not to mention how this does not violate the words of Jesus about producing fruit.

              Please do not think that I look at scripture from some presupposition, in fact this couldn’t be further from the truth. I believed in many things you teach, but lost all confidence in it when I started to study the bible myself.

              I hope I have sufficiently put forth evidence that I am not building a straw man in my blog. I hope that I have satisfied you that I can see what you are saying has merit from the evidence you put forth. Can you see that what I have said might have merit, even if those who represent Calvinism do not represent it with what you would consider proper interpretation?

              Yes I would like to know if you accept what is written about Jesus tasting death for every man as spoken of in the book of Hebrews concerning the question on the meaning of the word “world”.

              Thank you for your comments

              • I have to say you response feels very gracious! I appreciate that and commend you for that. If what you believe is based on what other Calvinsits have said then there is not much I can say. I will agree and concede with what you called your bottom line. You are correct when you say TULIP is the common ground and people vary in how they see that. That said, I will also concede that you have not made a strawman for the sake of your blog. There is no sanctioning body for Calvinism. I tried to reference the Canon of Dort which would serve as the anchor document for cataloguing TULIP. I will not try to correct them or defend “card carrying Calvinists” who see different than me. My true allegiance is to the Bible. Since the Canon of Dort accurately reflects what the Bible says I am comfortable with being “Calvinist”, it is a quick and easy way to communicate where I stand on God’s sovereignty. So, when I take you to task on the things you have written it is not because I care that Calvinism is misrepresented, I am standing up for what I see as the truth of the Bible.
                I have read over the verses you referenced and what you have said. To be honest, I cannot reconcile it. In my opinion, I think you still don’t see the basic truth of man’s desperate situation skewing how you interpret some verses. I know you will probably disagree I am just telling you how I see it. You said “…it is clearly written the law came so that sin might be imputed to us all”. I am guessing maybe you just wrote that in haste but Adam’s sin has already been imputed to every man (Rom 5:1-22). The law came so that man would be aware of their sin (Rom 3:19-20). Thank you for acknowledging my sincere effort to make my points biblically. There is one thing left unaddressed and I would request that you address it for me and the sake of all who have or will read our exchange. In my contention that the unregenerated man can do nothing that God sees as good I have referenced Romans 8:7-8—Because the carnal mind [is] enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they are in the flesh cannot please God (KJV). Would you please exegete this passage in light of you position that natural man can (has the ability to) please God. For some reason I can’t find the Hebrews verse that Jesus tasted death for everyman. Would you please give the specific reference? I will give you the last word on this because there is a point where the horse is too dead to beat.
                Thanks so much for your time.

                • I have never heard of the Cannon of Dort. Heard of the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Beltic Confession. So are these, and probably more, all followed by the Calvinist. Or one sect follows this one and one sect follow the other one, etc,?

                  Are you familiar with these other confessions of faith and if so how else are you different? I have never met your shade of Calvinist.

                  I too understand it was Adams sins that put sin in man, but it Romans 5:13 said without the Law sin is not imputed, so I am not sure how you can say I wrote something in haste. Am I missing something here?

                  Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

                  I agree with you doctrinally about Adams sins, the Law the knowledge of death and man’s need of savior.

                  I would like to address in the future your last comments, but before I do that you wanted me to give my side on the carnal mind. So I will hold off on the last comment you sent in.

                  Rom 8:7-8 KJV Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. (8) So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

                  I have no problem with what Paul is saying here. In fact I may agree with Paul more than you do on this one. I believe scripture teaches that the carnal mind is enmity with God. It is the carnal mind of the unbeliever and the carnal mind of the so called believer that is enmity against God.

                  Scripture speaks about loving the world and the things of the world and not having the love of the Father in us.

                  1Jn 2:15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

                  The scripture is full of warnings to those who would profess to believe and not walk in righteousness.

                  So again I agree with Paul probably more than you since I have the conviction that the unbeliever and so called believer with the carnal mind will not enter into the kingdom of heaven. I do not buy the idea of perseverance of the saints. I am convinced it is unscriptural and one of the most destructive teachings of Calvinism.

                  When scripture says NO fornicator, idolatry, murderer etc will enter into the kingdom of heaven, I believe it. “Believer” or not.

                  So how does this prove my thoughts on the unbeliever being able to do anything that pleases God?

                  First of all Paul says so. He says their uncircumcision will be counted as righteousness when they by their nature as a law unto themselves do what is required of the Law.

                  Secondly, Romans teaches us that in nature man has the testimony of God and His power in nature, even the God head. This is why Paul says no man is without excuse. No one can really say, I knew not of God because creation testifies of God.

                  This same Paul speaks of these same men who are without the covenant given to Abraham, the Law of Moses and Christ being a law unto themselves. But he does not say all these men do what is required of the Law, but when they do what is required of the Law not having the Law. So it is not as if these men are beating down the path to do what they know is right or good based upon the testimony of creation. But when a man does fulfill the Law not having the Law they are counted as righteous.

                  But sadly, most of men only care about the carnal things. How to pleasure themselves and do not seek God. I am also convinced that scripture teaches this is true of some “believers“.

                  It is my conviction that Paul taught those who are a law unto themselves who do by their nature what is in the Law, when the secrets of men’s are revealed by Christ in the day God shall judge the secrets of men, their conscience will excuse them, not accuse them, according to his gospel.

                  Rom 2:14-16 KJV For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: (15) Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) (16) In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

                  This is why Paul teaches that it is not the hearer but the doer of the Law that is justified by God. This is why the Spiritual mind is described as doing righteousness in scripture. And the carnal mind is described as being unrighteous in scripture.

                  The bizarre fact is this, some who never heard the Law or Christ will on the day God judges the secrets of men, being a law unto themselves, will have their uncircumcision counted as righteousness because the did what was requited in the Law. Additionally, there will be those who have the Law and do not keep the Law who will be shut out of the kingdom of God. And all of this according to Paul’s gospel.

                  Christianity wants to teach we are held accountable by what we believe, when in fact we are held accountable to what we do. This goes for those with the Law and those without the Law according to Paul’s gospel.

                  I am sure this probably has questions popping off in your mind like a Jiffy Pop. I understand I am very different in my understanding than yours. But I am convinced this is the teachings of scripture. I believe I can still say, “It is clearly written”. And I am still true to the convictions of the fathers of the reformation, who believe man could have a revelation of God through his common tongue with out the use of a linguist.

                  Thinking for you, if I may, you have a problem with some who put their faith in Christ being carnal minded. You leave this realm only for the unbeliever. Is this correct.

                  Thinking for you, if I may, you have a problem with someone who knows not Christ being counted as righteous before God. You leave this realm only for those who confess Christ whether they do what is required of the Law or not. Is this correct.

                  And let me put to rest any possibility that I am saying man is justified by his works, I agree in no way with this. Nor do I believe Christians are supposed to carry the yoke of the Law.

                  What I say must seem so contradictory, but it is not. It just takes more time to see how I can keep saying, “scripture clearly teaches” to see that not I nor what is written in scripture is contradictory.

  4. Steve, where did you go?
    I sent you proof that I was not making a straw man and I hear nothing from you.
    Steve, where did you go?
    I was a wishing you would address Christ dying for every man in Hebrews.
    Steve where did you go?
    I was still a wishing we could have a meaningful discussion about how Paul’s own words speaking of men not being totally depraved.

    Steve, where did you go?
    I was a hoping that you would be able to show me from scripture what you believe. As I see it, all that you have left is _U_IP since scripture clearly says, or I can say it is clearly written, man is not “T” totally depraved. Nor is there such thing as “L” limited atonement, since scripture clearly says, or should I say, it is clearly written, Christ died for every man.

    Would you like to discus U, I and P?

    I have a whole bunch more of “It is written”.

    glasseyedave

    • Sorry I have been delayed. I got a tasking that took all my attention for the week. After I posted the last reply I did find the Hebrews reference (2:9). ? If Christ tasted death for every man, as that seems to be the hill you have chosen to die on, how can God send anyone to hell? In your understanding either Christ paid for everyone’s sin and God sends some to hell anyway or no actual work was done on the cross, no sins were actually paid for. If that is the case why was Christ resurrected from the dead or did he conquer death and sin with no real payment? In Heb 2:9 (or any passage) “Every” man does not automatically mean every person that ever lived. In Heb 2:9 the every man comes from the Greek word pas. Pas can mean every if it is used individually. Pas is rarely used in the individual sense in the Bible. In the context of Heb 2:9 it is speaking collectively. In that context pas means some of all types. In other words you could rightly read Heb 2:9 this way: But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for men of every tribe tongue and nation. Compare this to James 1:14—the every man is from the Greek word hekastos. It only has a singular/individual meaning. When James says “But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust and enticed” it means that each person is tempted by the lust in their own heart. In English both words are translated “every man” but in the Greek, given the context, the meaning is quite different.
      When you say “As I see it, all that you have left is _U_IP…” makes it sound as though you have wiped out T and L. If you think that is true there is not point to continue. If you think that it indicates that you don’t fully understand TULIP. I spent 38 years of my life as an Arminian, although I was not aware. I grew up in the Nazarene Church. I used to argue with Baptists about once saved always saved. They never went anywhere. On day I decided to try to figure it out for myself. I then first learn the terms Arminian and Calvinism. I did not care which one was correct I just wanted to know what was correct. As soon as I I learned that the 5 points rise and fall together. As soon as I started looking at the larger picture if became easy to see what fell in line with the Bible. I realized that my staunch beliefs were rooted in a presupposition that man has free will and church tradition. Like you seem to ne I am disappointed with the church. Why did I got to church for 38 years (even outside the united states) and get very little doctrine? Why did I have to discover it on my own? If T is true then man will never come to God on his own. In order for people to be saved God will have to elect some (U). In order for God to get them Christ has to pay the price for them (L). Since in man’s state if T he won’t come it takes the Holy Spirit to overcome man’s resistance (I). God has to keep them (P). If man is not T then there is no reason for ULIP. No single point makes any sense on its own the 5 rise and fall together. That is why it is so hard to discuss it because people want to argue a single point but they work together. If you think man is not T then he can (ability) come to God on his own. If he can come to God on his own then U makes no sense. If God is trying to save all people equally and waiting for them to respond with their free will then L makes no sense. I think you get the picture By the way, the 5 points of Arminianism are the same. You take all 5 or it makes no sense. Sir, do you know why grace is amazing? Because before the foundation of the world my name was written in the Lamb’s book of life (Rev 13:8). God chose me! I had a heart of stone, was dead in trespasses, and a slave to sin. Yet He sent His only son to be a substitute for me, to take the wrath that I deserved not only that He credits me with Christ’s perfect life! Despite that great price paid for me I still would choose sin. God sent his Holy Spirit to overcome my resistance by working faith in my heart. Then, because I am still bound to this body of flesh he preserves me and keeps me until the end. And because God did everything He gets all the glory. In what you put forward grace is not amazing. Christ paid the price for everyone’s sin but yet God is powerless to save anyone. The Trinity has to stand at the side hoping maybe some will choose them. Considering free will it is lucky that Christ even made it to the cross. How many free will decisions did that take? What is Joseph would have had Mary put away quietly. What if the disciple refused to follow? What if in anger the Pharisees stoned Jesus before he got to the cross? What if the Romans never used cross to punish criminals? What if Judas changed his mind at the last minute? What if in the garden one of the soldiers got over zealous and speared Jesus? What it Pilot, finding Jesus not guilty, commanded that Jesus be released? What if Jesus died during the lashes with the whip? I think you get my point. Are you sure your Bible is 100% correct or is it possible that one of the authors might have exercised his own will to write what he wanted regardless of the Holy Spirit’s inspiration. What if after Christ died no one ever chose him? That is a real possibility under your understanding? If you are not T then can you, by an exercise of your will, stop sinning? If Christ tasted death for every man, as that seems to be the hill you have chosen to die on, how can God send anyone to hell? In your understanding either Christ paid for everyone’s sin and God sends some to hell anyway or no actual work was done on the cross, no sins were actually paid for. If that is the case why was Christ resurrected from the dead or did he conquer death and sin with no real payment? Again, I will give you the last word and your readers can decide. Soli Deo Gloria!

      • Hi Steve,

        I would like to respond to your following question and comment.

        “If Christ tasted death for every man, as that seems to be the hill you have chosen to die on, how can God send anyone to hell? In your understanding either Christ paid for everyone’s sin and God sends some to hell anyway or no actual work was done on the cross, no sins were actually paid for.”

        First of all it is not like your theology has me surrounded and that this verse is my last stand.

        Secondly, you criticism of Christ paying for all men’s sins, make me wonder if you understand the gospel. I like you think it would be foolish to say no work of God was done on the cross, so please do not try to put it forth as my defense of the gospel.

        What is the gospel? Some consider that it is only the NT. You and I both know that Jesus only quoted the OT. In fact I know not one place in all the writings of scripture where the NT is quoted. Seems redundant to say so, but I want to make the point. Jesus even held His hearers accountable to the OT, not any NT writings or quotes. Seems redundant to say so, but I want to make the point. I have lots of verses to back this up.

        It appears to me that Calvinist like to hold this view about Paul. Correct me if I am wrong, but think Paul has a new revelation that your doctrine is based in, based on scripture in Galatians. Therefore, the justification for a lot of your doctrine is based on this new revelation. At least this is the excuse I have from the other shade of Calvinist.

        When Paul say, “Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. “ you naturally think of a revelation he had in Arabia and think Paul is referring to this revelation when he penned this verse. Is this correct?

        I can tell you that Paul is indeed referring to this revelation he had in Arabia, but not like you think. Paul’s gospel isn’t some new revelation based on a new gospel. Paul’s gospel is a new revelation based on the same old gospel, that being the OT.

        When Paul penned Romans 1:16 he was speaking of the gospel of OT only. Paul’s own words in Romans says he wants to preach the gospel to the Romans for in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed.

        In another place in Romans, Paul says, “Rom 3:20-22 KJV Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. (21) But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; (22) Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:”

        This righteousness from God , in Paul’s own words, is witnessed to not by his new revelation, based on new things, that people justify their doctrines by, but by his new revelation of the OT.

        In fact Paul, in the very last chapter of Acts in the last part of the chapter is finally able to teach the Romans his gospel. He taught of Christ and His kingdom from morning till evening from the Law and the Prophets exclusively, being true to what he penned in Romans.

        So to answer you about Christ dying for men whom will never chose Him, we can understand that Paul’s gospel is his new revelation of the same old boring text of the OT.

        At the core of Paul’s gospel is Abraham. Abraham whom he says in Romans was given the sign in his flesh of the righteousness of God (which Paul says in revealed in the gospel which is the OT). Scripture testifies this covenant given to Abraham was also given to Isaac and Jacob.

        This is how Paul can say in Romans that Christ is a minister of circumcision to confirm the promises given to the fathers and by which gentiles now rejoice in God.

        This goes hand in hand with what Paul says in Galatians when he says that Christ became a curse on the tree so that the promises given to Abraham might come upon the gentiles by which we receive the Holy Spirit. We do not receive the Holy Spirit outside of Abraham’s promise now applying to us through Christ.

        This is how scripture testifies that we gentiles were without the Law, the covenants, the promise, without hope and without God, but now made near in Christ.

        Speaking of circumcision, this is how scripture testifies that believers are still circumcised, but this time without hand, by the putting off of the flesh. In fact, by the work of Christ done on the cross, believers actually are the sign of God’ imputed righteousness when scripture testifies, “we are the circumcision”.

        Now reflect on God’s comments concerning those men who do not get circumcised, that have no part in Him. Likewise, anybody today who is not circumcised by Christ has no part in Him.

        God’s gospel of grace started with a promise to Abraham that we gentiles are now grafted into through Christ. This is why God was going to kill Moses after the burning bush, because he made light of God imputing righteousness to His people.

        Speaking of this promise in Galatians, Paul says the Law which came 430 years after the promise did not nullify this promise. This is how David could be quoted by Paul as his source of what salvation is when he penned the book of Romans. Paul understood that this promise to Abraham was not nullified when the Law came. The Law came until the seed (Christ) should come. Again, this is how Paul could pen that Jesus is the minister of circumcision to confirm the promises to the fathers (that promise the Law could not nullify) and why we gentiles now rejoice in God.

        We know Abraham was credit with righteousness before he was circumcised, not after as if were due to his working. Instead, Abraham was credited righteousness because of his faith. Paul says in Romans, if we have the faith of Abraham we are Abrahams children.

        Now if all those who were circumcised in the OT had a mark of God’s imputed righteousness the Law could not nullify, then why did not all go to God in death? Yes, the OT speaks of going to God in death as their hope.

        Paul teaches in Romans they did not enter in because they did not live in faith, not because they did not have the gospel (which would be what Paul preached out of the Law and the Prophets). Remember we have to have the faith of Abraham to be Abraham’s children. This is why Paul says not all Jews are Jews. But God always has His people or remnant if you will.

        God has through Christ taken the covenant given to Abraham and his descendants and now included us gentiles in the promise. Hebrews says Christ died for every man. John says he died for the whole world. Paul says Christ has reconciled the world and in other place everything on earth and in heaven is reconciled to God. So to answer you, the work of Christ was and is complete! More so than even you want to believe. All of this to bring all mankind into the promise given to Abraham.

        But just like the Jew, many will not live in faith in what God has done for His friend Abraham now applied to us all. Many did not live it in the OT and now will not live it today. Not just those who are not believers, but even some believers who, though being grafted in will not produce fruit, and the Father will prune them in His day.

        This is a nutshell of what the gospel is, the work of the Christ on the cross, were grace started and how we are now included in this grace and the only origins of Paul gospel ,which is the OT exclusively with a fresh new look from the Holy Spirit.

        To wrap it up for you, if this all seems to be far flung.

        The Jews were given the promises, covenants and the hope, as scripture says. Many, although being marked in their flesh, did not live in faith concerning the promise given to their father Abraham. Although, they were given the promise of imputed righteousness many did not live in it. Christ did not die to bring the Jews into this promise. According to Paul’s own words, Christ died to bring the gentiles into this same promise, by which those who live in faith are still circumcised not by hands but by Christ.

        It is not as though God waits for the soul to come forward and say a prayer to be forgiven. The work of Christ on the cross has done this. But if they do not live in faith, just like Abraham did, then the promise does not apply to them. Just like it did not apply to those who were disobedient and fell in the desert (Hebrews and Jude). The covenant they already had received was by oath by God were God swore by himself. Just as sure as what we have been include in through Christ. But God’s oath only applied to the Jew who lived by faith. Just like them, in Christ we must live by faith in order to please God and be a son of Abraham.

        This also branches into why I do not agree with your doctrine of perseverance of the saints. And scripture says the were written down for our example.

        Sooooo… I have been consistent in stating what is clearly written. I have kept the convictions of the fathers of the reformation, in that I do have to parse words and refer to the original language to justify a different meaning.

        Not only this, I have stayed true to what Jesus has said, I have taken His gospel simply at what it says like a little child, when you keep trying to convince me this is not enough to understand Christ’s gospel.

        I will address the rest of you comment later.

Give me a piece of your mind, let me know what you thought.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s