Mutual understanding

Scott Alt, replying to a commenter to the effect that I am willfully blind to think that the Scripture teaches both of the following facts:
1) Believers who have reached the end of their earthly lives are alive to God, and
2) God forbids us from talking to dead people,

says the following:

Scott_Alt33p· 20 hours agoI think that's right, though the concept of an obstinate refusal to see suggests the kind of freedom of the will that a Calvinist would deny. Interesting to speculate how Rhology would get himself out of that conundrum.

Thus he shows that he doesn't even have the first idea what Calvinism says about the human will. Or, say, Romans 8:

3For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, 4so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, 7because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, 8and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

It's just funny. Chalk this up to another "Protestant-to-atheist-to-Protestant-to-Catholic con­vert" who never got close to understanding Reformed theology. The problem here is that Alt thinks he does understand it. And the funny thing is that I get accused of misunderstanding Roman Catholic theology all the time but rarely does anyone attempt to demonstrate where I've mistaken its meaning. That's just projection.

Friendly Reminder From Augustine on Effectual Calling

Augustine: "When, therefore, the gospel is preached, some believe, some believe not; but they who believe at the voice of the preacher from without, hear of the Father from within, and learn; while they who do not believe, hear outwardly, but inwardly do not hear nor learn;—that is to say, to the former it is given to believe; to the latter it is not given. Because “no man,” says He, “cometh to me, except the Father which sent me draw him.” And this is more plainly said afterwards. For after a little time, when He was speaking of eating his flesh and drinking His blood, and some even of His disciples said, “This is a hard saying, who can hear it? Jesus, knowing in Himself that His disciples murmured at this, said unto them, Doth this offend you?” And a little after He said, “The words that I have spoken unto you are spirit and life; but there are some among you which believe not.” And immediately the evangelist says, “For Jesus knew from the beginning who were the believers, and who should betray Him; and He said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me except it were given him of my Father.” Therefore, to be drawn to Christ by the Father, and to hear and learn of the Father in order to come to Christ, is nothing else than to receive from the Father the gift by which to believe in Christ. For it was not the hearers of the gospel that were distinguished from those who did not hear, but the believers from those who did not believe, by Him who said, “No man cometh to me except it were given him of my Father.” [source]

Addendum
John Calvin: "We now see why this exception was by the way introduced; it was, that no one might suppose that faith necessarily follows where there is preaching. He however does afterwards point out the reason, by saying, “To whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” by which he intimates that there is no benefit from the word, except when God shines in us by the light of his Spirit; and thus the inward calling, which alone is efficacious and peculiar to the elect, is distinguished from the outward voice of men. It is hence evident, how foolishly some maintain, that all are indiscriminately the elect, because the doctrine of salvation is universal, and because God invites all indiscriminately to himself. But the generality of the promises does not alone and by itself make salvation common to all: on the contrary, the peculiar revelation, mentioned by the Prophet, confines it to the elect." [source]

Speaking of Calvinism and Missions

Speaking of Calvinism and Missions, from yesterday's post, it is quite providential that Dan Philips has an excellent article on Matthew 28:19. at Pyromaniacs today.

Dan does an excellent job of showing that the Aorist participle, "going" has command force. "go and make disciples". He points us to Dan Wallace's Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics for confirmation.

The main verb in command/imperative form is "make disciples" or "disciple".

Dan's article is much better explaining how the first verbal form "Go" relates to the second verb command, "disciple". This is much more accurate than the passive sort of way that many have taught this, "as you go".

The first participle, "going" has command force, "go and disciple all nations" .

The second two participles (baptizing and teaching) are adverbial participles, seems to be, by context, modifying the main verb, "disciple", as the methods by which the nations are discipled - "by" - nations are discipled, by baptizing and by teaching.

by baptizing (which includes preaching and evangelizing; and the nations -ta ethna ( τα εθνη ) where we get the English ideas of ethnicity, ethnic, cultures (ethnities, peoples, people groups, cultures, languages - Revelation 5:9) - also includes culture and language learning as applications.

by teaching

And the nations cannot be discipled without the going part either, they are also parallel and indicate methods by which we "disciple all nations":

so the structure is:

"Go !" and

Disciple all nations (main verb)

by baptizing

by teaching



But since the "going" is Aorist, and first, and is linked directly to the command "to make disciples"; then it has that command force and nuance that Dan's article so excellently explicates.

And part of the "going" includes "sending" by a local, Biblical church - see Acts 13:1-4 - the church sent them out (verse 3) and the Holy Spirit sent them out.(verse 4) See also Romans 10:13-15

How shall they hear without a preacher?

How shall they preach unless they are sent?

Calvinism and Missions

I love the combination of John Piper's commitment to sound doctrine, Reformed Theology, the glory of God, the Gospel, and evangelism and missions, especially his zeal and commitment to missions to the Muslim world.

How the offspring of Isaac Blesses the sons of Ishmael by John Piper

Samuel Zwemer, "the apostle to Islam" was a Calvinist and a missionary to Arab Muslims for many years - in Basra, (today in Iraq), Arabia, Egypt, Bahrain. (years in the Muslim world: 1891-1929) See here for a synopsis of his life and ministry and notice the external links at the end of the article. His books are still used to today to for helping understand Islam and Muslims and evangelism to Muslims.

William Carey, missionary to India, was a Calvinist and a missionary. See here for a synopsis of his life and ministry. He wrote the famous little book, "An Inquiry into the Obligation of Christians to Use Means for the Conversion of the Heathens". He went to India in 1792, and ministered mostly among Hindus. He argued for "Means" - for a mission society of several men who would band together for preparation, training, prayer, actually going and learning languages and for the local churches to support such a group/society. This was the very first denominational mission agency. He worked on several NTs being translated into several languages, the most notable was his work on the Bengali New Testament. He was a key force in making Sati (the Hindu custom of burning widows alive with their dead husbands) illegal in India and Hindu culture. He even had an Indian Postal stamp done by the India government in his honor. William Carey is called "the father of modern missions" by Evangelical Protestants. He also made the famous statement, "Expect Great Things From God, Attempt Great things for God!" See the many biographies written about William Carey.

Henry Martyn, was a Calvinist-Anglican missionary to Persia (Iran) and India, and his work on the Persian (Farsi) New Testament was the first time that the full New Testament had been translated into Farsi in history! He died in 1812 after he finished his work on the NT in Persia, on his way back from Persia to England. He died of fever/pneumonia in Tokat, Turkey at the age of 29, trying to get back to England. He is the one who said, "Let me burn out for God".

William McElwee Miller was a missionary and a Calvinist to Persia (Iran) for 40 years. (1920-1960) His books are still motivating Christians today to go to the Muslim world and preach the gospel to Muslims. He also wrote one of the first analysis of the Bahai faith done from a Christian view point.

A Christian Response to Islam

My Persian Pilgrimage

Tales of Persia

Ten Muslims Meet Christ

The Bahai Faith: Its History and Teachings

David Brainard was a missionary to American Indians and a Calvinist.

Charles Spurgeon was a pastor, effective preacher, evangelist and a Calvinist for many years in England.

D. James Kennedy was a Presbyterian Calvinist and wrote a whole book on Evangelism called "Evangelism Explosion" and trained many in Evangelism.

Dr. James White is a Calvinist and has done evangelism for years with Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, atheists, Roman Catholics, and more recently, with Muslims, and his debates with them and others are very helpful for others to study and be equipped.

And there are many others! Don't say "Calvinism hinders evangelism and missions!"

The Underlying Rift

It's not all a White Horse Inn love fest between the Lutheran and Reformed out in cyber space. Some of you are probably aware of the underlying rift between Lutherans (that take their Lutheranism seriously) and the Reformed (those people not afraid to refer to themselves as "Calvinists").

I rarely get involved with this dispute. I'm not a Lutheran, and I don't plan on becoming one anytime soon. On the other hand, I'm not going to spend my sparse blogging time fighting with Lutherans over predestination, the extent of the atonement or the sacraments.

Here's a blog post though for my Reformed friends with time on their hands: Luther & His Tower Experience:

The most dangerous enemy of the Lutheran confessions is not so much Rome who is obvious but Reformed doctrine which is more clandestine.

Here's another similar tidbit from a CyberBrethren comment box:

As a former Calvinist doctrine was a philosophical matter. We were proud to show how well our i’s were dotted and our t’s were crossed. Everything was done in the Divine Council before the beginning of time. Your life on earth was about your gratitude and your glorifying God. The reformed worship is a play of things past, it is not about what is happening in this very moment.

Speaking of CyberBrethren, recently Pastor McCain posted a comment from Doug Wilson he found uplifting. I like Pastor McCain (and his blog), but if I recall correctly, he's not a big fan Calvinism. So, posting a comment from a post millennial federal vision Calvinist was somewhat surprising:

‎Jesus promised us that the gates of Hades would not prevail against the Church. It is not often noted that the gates of Hades are not an offensive weapon. Hades is being besieged by the Church; it is not the other way around. We need to learn to see that biblical worship of God is a powerful battering ram, and each Lord’s Day we have the privilege of taking another swing. Or, if we prefer, we might still want to continue gathering around with our insipid songs, dopey skits, and inspirational chats in order to pelt the gates of Hades with our wadded up kleenex.” ~ Douglas Wilson

I left this brief comment: If this is the Doug Wilson I’m familiar with, you’re quoting not only a Calvinist, but a post-millennialist. I haven’t seen this quote in context, but for a post-millennialist, of course "Hades is being besieged by the Church."

Pastor McCain responded, "Well whatever he meant by the comment, I thought it was still good. A broken watch is correct at least twice a day."

Well, the next time either I, or one of my fellow Reformed minions quote Dr. Luther’s De Servo Arbitrio on predestination and a Lutheran complains, I’m going to say, “Well whatever he meant by the comment, I thought it was still good. A broken watch is correct at least twice a day.” (:
Doug Wilson is a great writer. I have some serious disagreements with him, but he is an excellent communicator, and highly quotable. Why… even Lutheran pastors quote him!

Norman Geisler "reasoned" his way to faith

Rhology sent this over to me after reading my recent aomin entry on Geisler's Chosen But Free. This is from the debate I mentioned. Note Dr. Geisler's answer to the first question, if he "reasoned" his way to faith.


Charles Haddon Spurgeon, preaching on 2/5/1882, on the passage from John 6:66,

“From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him” said, The defection in this case was on account of doctrine... The truth was too hard for them, it was not to be borne with. “It is a hard saying. Who can hear it?” A true disciple sits at the feet of his Master, and believes what he is told even when he cannot quite comprehend the meaning, or see the reasons for what his Master utters; but these men had not the essential spirit of a disciple, and consequently when their Instructor began to unfold the innermost parts of the roll of truth, they would not listen to His reading of it. They would believe as far as they could understand, but when they could not comprehend they turned on their heel and left the school of the Great Teacher. Besides, the Lord Jesus Christ had taught the doctrine of the sovereignty of God, and of the need of the Spirit of God, that men should be led to Him, “for Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.” Here our Lord uttered a bit of old-fashioned free-grace doctrine, such as people nowadays do not like. They call it “Calvinism”, and put it aside among the old exploded tenets which this enlightened age knows nothing of. What right they have to ascribe to the Genevan reformer a doctrine as old as the hills I do not know. But our Lord Jesus never hesitated to fling that truth into the face of His enemies. He told them, “Ye believe not because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.” “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him.” Here he tells them plainly that they could not come unto Him unless the Father gave them the grace to come. This humbling doctrine they could not receive, and so they went aside. (CHS, Sermons, 28, 111-2)

Mean Calvinism: The Children! Don't Forget the Children!

I take special notice of Tiber swimmers who claim to be former Calvinists. Here's a tidbit from a Roman Catholic convert, commenting on her previous theological position:

I was probably one of the most radical Calvinists of all. I would and did stand flat footed and state unwaveringly that all five points of the TULIP were infallible and that those who were not elect were going to glorify God simply by their depraved lives and their eternal damnation. I had also come to the conclusion that even unborn babies that perished were subject to God's capricious picking and choosing. I had been taught that since it was Tradition that taught us that children were not guilty of actual sin until after an age of accountability that we should reject that idea along with the whole of Catholic Tradition. So if a child was still born, it was entirely up to God whether that child would die with his sinful human nature and suffer damnation for it or if he would somehow become "regenerate" and be saved. If your head is spinning right now, don't feel alone. I can't believe I once believed this rubbish either. [source]

The sentiment put forth is that those awful Calvinists are really heartless when it comes to unborn children. If you ever want to tug at heart strings, make sure to put children in your argument. I'm not sure which Calvinism this woman ascribed to, but as far as I know, there isn't one Calvinist view on the issue. Some Calvinists hold children who die unborn whose parents are believers will be saved. Others hold different views: God saves all the unborn, none of the unborn, etc. My personal view is I don't know what God does with the unborn, or infants that die. I do know this: whatever He does, it's Holy. That's good enough for me.

But here's the ironic kicker. If one traces the issue through history, some of the finest minds that Rome claims as her own held some rather straightforward views on helpless unborn children. Consider the description B.B. Warfield gives here of Augustine:

The fairest exponent of the thought of the age on this subject is Augustine, who was called upon to defend [baptism is necessary to salvation] against the Pelagian error that infants dying unbaptized, while failing of entrance into the kingdom, yet obtain eternal life. His constancy in this controversy has won for him the unenviable title of durus infantum pater — a designation doubly unjust, in that not only did he neither originate the obnoxious dogma nor teach it in its harshest form, but he was even preparing its destruction by the doctrines of grace, of which he was more truly the father. Augustine expressed the Church-doctrine moderately, teaching, of course, that infants dying unbaptized would be found on Christ’s left hand and be condemned to eternal punishment, but also not forgetting to add that their punishment would be the mildest of all, and indeed that they were to be beaten with so few stripes that he could not say it would have been better for them not to be born.

And consider this comment from Warfield as well:

If the general consent of a whole age as expressed by its chief writers, including the leading bishops of Rome, and byits synod ical decrees, is able to determine a doctrine, certainly the Patristic Church transmitted to the Middle Ages as de fide that infants dying unbaptized (with the exception only of those who suffer martyrdom) are not only excluded from heaven, but doomed to hell. Accordingly the mediaeval synods so define ; the second Council of Lyons and the Coun- cil of Florence declare that "the souls of those who pass away in mortal sin or in orig inal sin alone descend immediately to hell, to be punished, however, with unequal penalties." On the maxim that gradus non mutant speciem we must adjudge Petavius's argument unanswerable, that this deliverance determines the punisnment ot un bap tized infants to be the same in kind (in the same hell) with that of adults in mortal sin: "So infants are tormented with unequal tortures of fire, but are tormented neverthe less."

And also this:

Nevertheless scholastic thought on the subject was characterized by a success ful effort to mollify the harshness of the Church doctrine, under the impulse of the prevalent semi-Pelagian conception of orig inal sin. The whole troup of schoolmen unite in distinguishing between poena damni and poena sensus, and in assigning to infants dying unbaptized only the former — i.e., the loss of heaven and the beatific vision, and not the latter — i.e., positive torment. They differ among themselves only as to whether this poena damni, which alone is the lot of infants, is accompanied by a painful sense of the loss (as Lombard held), or is so neg ative as to involve no pain at all, either external or internal (as Aquinas argued).

Even though this is a bit nicer, it still seems like it would be kind of rough for our Roman Catholic convert swallow, I mean they're children! Where's the free pass straight to heaven? Warfield explains how Rome started to work it all out:

In the upheaval of the sixteenth century the Church of Rome found her task in harmonizing under the influence of the scholastic teaching, the inheritance which the somewhat inconsistent past had bequeathed her. Four varieties of opinion sought a place in her teaching. At the one extreme the earlier doctrine of Augustine and Gregory, that infants dying unbaptized suffer eternally the pains of sense, found again advocates, and that especially among the greatest of her scholars, such as Noris, Petau, Driedo, Conry, Berti. At the other extreme, a Pelagianizing doctrine that excluded unbaptized infants from the kingdom of heaven and the life promised to the blessed, and yet accorded to them eternal life and natural happiness in a place between heaven and hell, was advocated by such great leaders as Ambrosius Catharinus, Albertus Pighius, Molina, Sfondrati. The mass, however, followed the schoolmen in the middle path of parna damni, and, like the schoolmen, only differed as to whether the punishment of loss involved sorrow (as Bellarmine held) or was purely negative.

Warfield explains Trent's sorting this out:

The Council of Trent (1545) anathematized those who affirm that the "sacraments of the new law are not necessary to salvation, and that without them or an intention of them men obtain . . . the grace of justification;" or, again, that " baptism is free — that is, is not necessary to salvation." This is explained by the Tridentine Catechism to mean that "unless men be regenerated to God through the grace of baptism, they are born to everlasting misery and destruction, whether their parents be believers or unbelievers ;" while, on the other hand, we are credibly informed that the council was near anathematizing as a Lutheran heresy the proposition that the penalty for original sin is the fire of hell. The Council of Trent at least made renewedly de fide that infants dying unbaptized incurred damnation, though it left the way open for discussion as to the kind and amount of their punishment.

I could continue quoting Warfield, but go read the article for yourself. Suffice it to say, this Tiber swimmer hasn't gone that deep into history before making her comments. Note to Romanist converts: before chastising a theological view, make sure it wasn't an acceptable view in your church at one time.

DavidW on Gnosticism and Calvinism

I've been interacting some on DavidW's blogpost about his comparisons of Gnostic predestination and Calvinistic predestination.  He swears up and down that Calvinism is dressed-up Gnosticism, and I already corrected him on his point, told him:

My response is basically that you're committing a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Alot of EOC doctrines resemble Mormonism; that doesn't mean they're related. Looking at it the other way, all the ancient heretics held to doctrines that EOC would accept as well - that's what makes heretics so dangerous. They creep in, sound the same in almost everything, but secretly introduce destructive heresies, subtly, drawing away disciples after them. So this point of yours in principle proves too much. Otherwise stated, it proves nothing. 

 DavidW today laid out 5 questions on this topic he'd like me to address.  Let's see how well he did.

David,
1) No, it's not a tu quoque. I don't grant that Calvinistic predest is of Gnostic derivation, remember? Rather, I derive Calv predest from Scr, which preceded Gnosticism. So, that's wrong.

2a) "early church writer" means "someone in the early church who wrote". Nothing more or less.
The entire reason I use that term is to point out your question-begging distinction between "Church Fathers" and "heretics". You test everythg by the church; well, what if those whom you now identify as heretics had won the struggle? Then the men you now identify as CFs would be heretics, to you.
This is the problem with the Sola Ecclesia position; the only way you can judge the heretics of old to have been wrong is b/c the modern church is the group that won out, that won the power struggle. Not so for me - I can and must judge anyone and everyone and their teaching by the Word of God, which does not change.

2b) at least one early Church Father who believed in predestination

I've given you three many times - Jesus, Peter, Paul.
This business about early church writers and the dissent that existed between them is an internal critique of the EO position. It doesn't have any bearing on Sola Scriptura.

3) I've identified your arguments as committing the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy (and am still waiting for a rebuttal). I can demonstrate that my doctrines are drawn from Scriptural exegesis. The ball's in your court.
You said:
If the Gnostic doctrine is not the same as the Calvinist doctrine, surely you should be able to explain how they are different.

Gosh, let's see. Oh, I know - one's Trinitarian and Christian, the other isn't. One's drawn from Scriptural exegesis, the other isn't.
From your own post:
their own selves (who are saved by nature)

Nope, saved by the grace of God. Fail #1.


Faith, then, is no longer the direct result of free choice, if it is a natural advantage.

Define "direct", "result", "free", and "choice".
Besides, Calvinism teaches that the regenerate man DOES freely choose - he chooses God b/c his nature has been changed and he's been given a new heart. Before that, he always freely chooses death and sin, b/c his nature is dead in sin and he hates God, his Enemy.
Fail #2.


Ye are originally immortal

Yet Calvinism teaches we are born dead in sin, and w/o God's intervention we will go to Hell forever.
Fail #3.


he also, similarly with Basilides, supposes a class saved by nature

It's so funny how you want to equate the Trinitarian God of the Bible with the Gnostic "nature". Why would you do that?
Fail #4.


In this way also they make a twofold distinction among souls, as to their property of good and evil

And yet the Bible teaches, and Calvinism of course affirms, that "there is no one good, no, not one." Fail #5.
(BTW, why are you citing the heretic Tertullian?)


For this reason it is that they neither regard works as necessary for themselves, nor do they observe any of the calls of duty, eluding even the necessity of martyrdom on any pretence which may suit their pleasure.

1) Calvinism teaches that God works thru means. Fail #6.
2) Calvinism teaches that man is responsible and called to "be holy as your Father in Heaven is holy". I am obligated to follow the entire law of God. Fail #7.


a rigidly deterministic scheme

Perhaps you're confusing Calvinism with HyperCalvinism? I'm pretty sure you've been corrected on that before, but you seem not to be a big fan of taking correction. Fail #8.
Now that, friends, is a lot of fail.


4) Irenaeus says They have also other modes of honouring these images... Seems like he's not a big fan of ANY honoring of images. I can certainly see where he's coming from - why not honor Christ? If you say "we already do", are you denying you could do so more? Or have you honored Him enough already? Let someone else get their snout in the trough, as it were.

On The Acronym TULIP: Who's Responsible?

Where did the acronym TULIP come from? In preparing some lecture materials, I came across the following web page: The Points of Calvinism: Retrospect and Prospect (PDF alert). The author asserts the TULIP acronym may be of late origin. He asserts the earliest reference to the acronym is in Loraine Boettner’s The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (1932). The author documents his sifting through Reformed literature over the centuries. While I don't agree with all the points being made, it was a very interesting read. I've often wondered who coined the acronym.

Boettner simply states: "The Five Points may be more easily remembered if they are associated with the word T-U-L-I-P; T, Total Inability ; U, Unconditional Election; L, Limited Atonement; I, Irresistible (Efficacious) Grace;and P, Perseverance of the Saints." Simply because he uses it, doesn't mean he was the mastermind of the acronym, but it is a rather curious fact that his is the first book to use it.

From TurretinFan: He found a Google book that predates Boettner:

Some eight years ago I had the privilege of hearing a popular lecture, by Dr. McAfee, of Brooklyn, upon the Five Points of Calvinism,given before the Presbyterian Union of Newark, New Jersey, which was most interesting as well as instructive. To aid the mind in remembering the Five Points, Dr. McAfee made use of the word Tulip, which, possessing five letters, lends itself nicely to the subject in hand, especially as it ends with the letter P, as will be seen later.

Taking the five letters, Dr. McAfee used them as follows:

1st, T stands for Total Depravity.

2d, U " " Universal Sovereignty.

3d, L " " Limited Atonement.

4th,I " " Irresistible Grace.

5th,P " " Perseverance of the Saints. Source

Jesus' prayer for unity in John 17

John 17:20 "My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: 23I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me."

Our friends in Rome like to point out that Jesus prayed in His "high priestly prayer" at the Last Supper that His followers would be in "complete unity", that they would "all...be one, Father..." So, they ask, why aren't Sola Scripturists joined together in perfect unity, as one institution, the Church? Did Jesus' prayer fail? Don't you Calvinists always say that God's will is always performed successfully?

We respond (for example, here, said far better than I ever could) that the unity Christ prayed for was not organisational or institutional in nature, but rather spiritual, as God builds together the Body of Christ into spiritual union with Christ. Presumably, RCs and Eastern Orthodox do not accept this identification of the unity Christ prayed for, but rather insist that the unity is institutional and organisational in nature. Let us see whether their contention holds water.

1) It has been proven over and over again on this blog alone that this claimed unity within Eastern Orthodoxy and Rome does not exist in reality.

2) Our opponents criticise the Calvinistic doctrine of God's preservation of His saints, once justified, as a violation of the free will of each person (not to mention other points of Calvinism, such as irresistible grace). Yet the very building of an institutional unity into a group of disparate and different people who have sinful tendencies, in order to bring an answer to the prayer of the Lord Jesus, would require "violation" of their free will. I mean, Protestants are creatures "blessed" with free will, and just look how organised they are, in their sin! (There are RCs who are more Augustinian and who are less; this would be an argument against the latter and against EO-dox.)

3) On that same topic, take a look at John 17:15 - "I do not ask You to take them out of the world, but to keep them from the evil one."
Isn't it RC and EO dogma that God does not preserve His believers, but that they can in fact fall out of a state of grace? Didn't Jesus' prayer thus fail here (on RC and EO presuppositions)?

4) More pointedly, apparently the fact that we Sola Scripturists are not in communion with the RCC or the EOC is not an obstacle to our eventually landing in Heaven.

Whenever the Sacrament of Baptism is duly administered as Our Lord instituted it, and is received with the right dispositions, a person is truly incorporated into the crucified and glorified Christ, and reborn to a sharing of the divine life, as the Apostle says: "You were buried together with Him in Baptism, and in Him also rose again-through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead".

Baptism therefore establishes a sacramental bond of unity which links all who have been reborn by it. But of itself Baptism is only a beginning, an inauguration wholly directed toward the fullness of life in Christ. Baptism, therefore, envisages a complete profession of faith, complete incorporation in the system of salvation such as Christ willed it to be, and finally complete ingrafting in eucharistic communion.

Though the ecclesial Communities which are separated from us lack the fullness of unity with us flowing from Baptism, and though we believe they have not retained the proper reality of the eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Orders, nevertheless when they commemorate His death and resurrection in the Lord's Supper, they profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and look forward to His coming in glory. Therefore the teaching concerning the Lord's Supper, the other sacraments, worship, the ministry of the Church, must be the subject of the dialogue.

23. The daily Christian life of these brethren is nourished by their faith in Christ and strengthened by the grace of Baptism and by hearing the word of God. This shows itself in their private prayer, their meditation on the Bible, in their Christian family life, and in the worship of a community gathered together to praise God. (source, emph. mine)

Or:

For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ... Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood. In all of Christ's disciples the Spirit arouses the desire to be peacefully united, in the manner determined by Christ, as one flock under one shepherd, and He prompts them to pursue this end. (source, emph. mine)

In short, we Sola Scripturists are, by virtue of RCC's ex cathedra statement, united with Christ and thus on our way to Heaven (unless we commit a mortal sin, of course, but our Sola Scriptura convictions, refusal to participate in transsubstantiated Eucharistic suppers, and failure to join RCC are obviously not mortal sins, else they wouldn't have talked about being united with Christ, etc).
And my EO debate counterpart believes I am not headed to Hell as well.

Now, since we are united with Christ but not in communion with institutional RCC or EOC, since Christ prayed that His disciples would be united with Him, and since the RC and EO claim that Christ's prayer for unity would certainly not fail to be granted, we can conclude that Christ's prayer has either not yet been granted or that the unity He had in mind was not institutional / organisational unity. Either of these conclusions declaws the original argument cited at the beginning of this post.

(Also see TurretinFan's recent dealing with this passage and similar topics.)

Great Apologetic Resources

Saint & Sinner has had some excellent posts on his blog lately. I wanted to quickly highlight a few:

The Infallible Knowledge Argument
The Doctrinal Chaos Argument
The Argument from Apostolic Tradition and Succession
The Argument from Canon Certainty

S&S also has a great apologetic website with lots of great material. I highly recommend his Roman Catholicism page which contains many well-researched articles.

Lance Berkman on Deep Conversations

"Astros power hitter Lance Berkman was asked about the best conversation he ever had with a catcher at the plate, he replied, 'Benito Santiago is pretty good with the banter. It is not like we are discussing Calvinism versus Arminianism or anything."

Source: Jerry Walls & Joseph Dongell, Why I Am Not A Calvinist(Illinois: Intervaristy Press, 2004) p. 14 footnote #4)

Here is detailed explanation of why I embrace sola scriptura, sola fide, solus Christus, sola gratia, and also explains why I adhere to Reformed theology (aka: Calvinism). It also explains why I am not a Roman Catholic, and why I believe the Roman Church teaches a false gospel.

Kim Riddlebarger Remembers Meredith Kline

Kim Riddlebarger wrote an entry on Meredith Kline. Well worth reading.

A Roman Catholic Question For Calvinists

Here's a question from the blog Sancta Mater Ecclesia worth pondering:

If faith is a gift from God, then how can the Protestant Christian's belief in the Scriptures be a fallible one?

The Calvinist paradigm holds faith is a gift from God. God opens the heart of the dead sinner, making him spiritually alive. He becomes enabled to savingly trust the words of God as reliable and certain.

This is one of the best epistomological questions i've heard in a long time. You are invited to weigh in.

Calvinist Conversion Stories

Paul knocked to the ground, blinded, and healed, is a dramatic account of God’s effectual calling and sovereign grace. Over the years I’ve heard unique conversion stories, maybe not as striking, but remarkable nonetheless. One of my seminary professors told of a 19th century minister who experienced conversion from his own sermons! Not getting the details, I’ve wondered if maybe this was a conversion myth- but it is not out of the realm of possibility. Case in point: you’ve probably never heard of Pietronella Baltus. This woman refused to shake the hand of her new minister when he came to visit her. Baltus, though a layman and not a skilled theologian, realized something just wasn’t right with the preaching she heard at church. Her minister had been steeped in liberalism and rationalism. Asking her why she would not shake hands, she told him he was not preaching the Gospel, and she subsequently preached it to him. This minister took her words to heart, and credits her as being used by God in his conversion. He kept a picture of her on his desk his entire life. The minister’s name was Abraham Kuyper, one of the most influential Dutch theologians of the 19th Century.

Here a few snippets with the details:

“After completing his doctorate (his thesis was a modification of his prize-winning work on à Lasco and Calvin), he took the call to a congregation in Beesd and married Johanna Hendrika Schaay, a girl from Rotterdam. The congregation, a small village church, was composed of simple villagers, some of whom were themselves modern and worldly, but some of whom were orthodox and sincere. In an effort to get to know his parishioners, Kuyper visited each in turn. He was surprised and chagrined when one peasant girl of thirty, Pietronella Baltus, refused to shake his hand. Finally Kuyper prevailed upon her to do so, but she made it clear she would do this only because he was a fellow human being, not a brother in Christ. It is quite amazing that Kuyper had the grace and humility not only to inquire from her concerning her reasons, but also to return again and again to her home when she told him that he was preaching false doctrine and that his soul was in danger of eternal hell. It was at the feet of these humble parishioners that Kuyper was led back to Calvin and the Reformed fathers, and from them to the Scriptures, the one great fountain of the Reformed faith.” [Source: Abraham Kuyper: Dutch Calvinist]

"Describing the exact nature of his conversion is difficult, but in his four years at Beesd, Kuyper worked out his salvation "with fear and trembling" among the devout, though uneducated, people of his church. These people held fast to the faith of the reformers. One woman in particular, only a few years his senior, had a profound impact on him by articulately explaining how her beliefs differed from his and urging him to read Calvin's Institutes. The people of his church forced him to choose between "full sovereign grace," (as they put it) and the modernist thought he had still kept open for himself. Kuyper said: "Their obduracy became a blessing for my heart and the rising of the morning star for my life…I had grasped but had not yet found the Word of reconciliation" (Henderson 32). Henderson (32) notes several remarkable things about this conversion: 1) it was the people of the rural Netherlands who taught their future leader some important lessons, 2) this experience cemented his affinity for the "little people" who were to become his greatest supporters, and 3) this affinity with uneducated folk took root in Kuyper's personality, style and faith." [Source: George Saylor, Worldview & Theology, Abraham Kuyper]

Hank on Jeremiah 1:5...Well, Not Really

Jeremiah 1:5
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations."

I listened to the Bible Answer Man Show for 2/12/07. Hank took a call from a guy asking about Jeremiah 1:5. Hank's answer, if you can call it that, did quite a dance around Jeremiah 1:5. In fact, I don't think Hank ever commented on the verse. Do you like philosophical speculation rather than Biblical exegesis? Then, you'll enjoy Hank's answer.The call i'm talking about can be found here:

The Bible Answer Man Comments on Jeremiah 1:5

The question was in essence, "If God knew people before He creates them, why would he create someone He knew was going to Hell?" The caller sees the verse directly says God knew Jeremiah before he was born, and further, that he was set apart by God before his birth to be a prophet. The caller makes the implication that if God knows and chooses someone before birth, that would mean that God knows and chooses everyone before birth to live a particular life, and some of those particular lives end up eternally apart from God.

After you listen to Hank's answer, you'll note one thing in particular: his answer was devoid of Scripture. Here would be a perfect place for Hank to use the analogy of faith- to let Scripture interpret Scripture, and also to show how the New Testament interprets the Old Testament. Is there a place in the New Testament that speaks to this issue? There certainly is:

Romans 9 (NAS)
9 For this is the word of promise: "AT THIS TIME I WILL COME, AND SARAH SHALL HAVE A SON."
10 And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac;
11 for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls,
12 it was said to her, "THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER."
13 Just as it is written, "JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED."
14 What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be!
15 For He says to Moses, "I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION."
16 So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.
17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH."
18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.
19 You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?"
20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it?
21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?
22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?
23 And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory,
24even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.

Now, I like Hank and his work. But if his show claims to provide Bible answers, then by all means, he should provide Bible answers rather than philsophic answers.

The Bondage of the Will and the Reformed Confessions

Question: My understanding (which may very well be incorrect) is that Luther's view of original sin is very much similiar to Calvin's T in his TULIP (total Depravity) Is this true, or could someone tell me the similarities and differences between the two?

The “Calvinistic” doctrine of Total Depravity can be stated as such:

1. God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that it is neither forced, nor, by any absolute necessity of nature, determined to good, or evil.

2. Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom, and power to will and to do that which was good and well pleasing to God; but yet, mutably, so that he might fall from it.

3.Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation: so as, a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.

4. When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, he freeth him from his natural bondage under sin; and, by his grace alone, enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good; yet so, as that by reason of his remaining corruption, he doth not perfectly, nor only, will that which is good, but doth also will that which is evil.

5. The will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to good alone, in the state of glory only.

Source: Westminster Confession of Faith

One can see the confession what is meant by “Total Depravity”. Total Depravity means that humans are unable to do anything “good” in its ultimate sense. By "ultimate sense", I mean, a spiritually dead sinner is unable to perform an action motivated by the love of God. Hence, a spiritually dead sinner who is in bondage to sin cannot "choose Christ" without God first setting the sinner free from his bondage to sin. People though, are capable of doing “good” acts in a certain sense. The Canons of Dort say:

"There remain, however, in man since the fall, the glimmerings of natural understanding, whereby he retains some knowledge of God, of natural things, and of the difference between good and evil, and shows some regard for virtue and for good outward behavior. But so far is this understanding of nature from being sufficient to bring him to a saving knowledge of God and to true conversion that he is incapable of using it aright even in things natural and civil. Nay further, this understanding, such as it is, man in various ways renders wholly polluted, and hinders in unrighteousness, by doing which he becomes inexcusable before God."

Here are some quotes from Dr. Luther that I think agree with the above cited Reformed Confessions:

"Free-will is plainly a divine term, and can be applicable to none but the divine Majesty only: for He alone " doth, (as the Psalm sings) what He will in Heaven and earth." Whereas, if it be ascribed unto men, it is not more properly ascribed, than the divinity of God Himself would be ascribed unto them: which would be the greatest of all sacrilege. Wherefore, it becomes Theologians to refrain from the use of this term altogether, whenever they wish to speak of human ability, and leave it to be applied to God only. And moreover, to take this same term out of the mouths and speech of men; and thus to assert, as it were, for their God, that which belongs to His own sacred and holy Name. . . ."

"But, if we do not like to leave out this term altogether, (which would be most safe, and also most religious) we may, nevertheless, with a good conscience teach, that it be used so far as to allow man a " Free-will," not in respect of those which are above him, but in respect only of those things which are below him: that is, he may be allowed to know, that he has, as to his goods and possessions, the right of using, acting, and omitting, according to his " Freewill ; " although, at the same time, that same " Free-will " is overruled by the Free-will of God alone, just as He pleases: but that, God-ward, or in things which pertain unto salvation or damnation, he has no " Free-will," but is a captive, slave, and servant, either to the will of God, or to the will of Satan."

Source: Bondage of the Will, (Translated by Henry Cole) Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1931), 76-79.

“A man void of the Spirit of God, does not evil against his will as by violence, or as if he were taken by the neck and forced to it, in the same way as a thief or cut-throat is dragged to punishment against his will; but he does it spontaneously, and with a desirous willingness. And this willingness and desire of doing evil he cannot, by his own power, leave off, restrain, or change; but it goes on still desiring and craving. And even if he should be compelled by force to do any thing outwardly to the contrary, yet the craving will within remains averse to, and rises in indignation against that which forces or resists it. But it would not rise in indignation, if it were changed, and made willing to yield to a constraining power. This is what we mean by the necessity of immutability: — that the will cannot change itself, nor give itself another bent; but rather the more it is resisted, the more it is irritated to crave; as is manifest from its indignation. This would not be the case if it were free, or had a " Free-will." Ask experience, how hardened against all persuasion they are, whose inclinations are fixed upon any one thing. For if they yield at all they yield through force, or through something attended with greater advantage; they never yield willingly. And if their inclinations be not thus fixed, they let all things pass and go on just as they will.

But again, on the other hand, when God works in us, the will, being changed and sweetly breathed on by the Spirit of God, desires and acts, not from compulsion, but responsively, from pure willingness, inclination, and accord; so that it cannot be turned another way by any thing contrary, nor be compelled or overcome even by the gates of hell; but it still goes on to desire, crave after, and love that which is good; even as before, it desired, craved after, and loved that which was evil. This, again, experience proves. How invincible and unshaken are holy men, when, by violence and other oppressions, they are only compelled and irritated the more to crave after good! Even as fire, is rather fanned into flames than extinguished, by the wind. So that neither is there here any willingness, or " Free-will," to turn itself into another direction, or to desire any thing else, while the influence of the Spirit and grace of God remain in the man.

In a word, if we be under the god of this world, without the operation and Spirit of God, we are led captives by him at his will, as Paul saith. (2 Tim. ii. 26.) So that, we cannot will any thing but that which he wills. For he is that " strong man armed," who so keepeth his palace, that those whom he holds captive are kept in peace, that they might not cause any motion or feeling against him; otherwise, the kingdom of Satan, being divided against itself, could not stand; whereas, Christ affirms it does stand. And all this we do willingly and desiringly, according to the nature of will: for if it were forced, it would be no longer will. For compulsion is (so to speak) unwillingness. But if the " stronger than he "come and overcome him, and take us as His spoils, then, through the Spirit, we are His servants and captives (which is the royal liberty) that we may desire and do, willingly, what He wills.

Thus the human will is, as it were, a beast between the two. If God sit thereon, it wills and goes where God will: as the Psalm saith, " I am become as it were a beast before thee, and I am continually with thee." (Ps. lxxiii. 22-23.) If Satan sit thereon, it wills and goes as Satan will. Nor is it in the power of its own will to choose, to which rider it will run, nor which it will seek; but the riders themselves contend, which shall have and hold it.

Source: Bondage of the Will, pp. 72-74.

"Paul says, in II Timothy ii, " Instruct those that oppose the truth; peradventure God will give them repentance, that they acknowledge the truth, and return from the snares of the devil, by whom they are taken captive at his will." Where is the free will here when the captive is of the devil, not indeed unable to do anything, but able to do only what the devil wills? Is that freedom, to be captive at the devil's will, so that there is no help unless God grant repentance and improvement? So also says John viii, When the Jews said they were free, Christ said, " Verily I say unto you, all they who sin are servants or possessions of sin; if the son make you free, ye shall be free indeed." So St. Augustine changes the term " free will," in his work Against Julian, book ii, and calls it servum arbitrium, " a will in bondage."

Source: "An Argument in Defense of All the Articles of Dr. Martin Luther Wrongly Condemned in the Roman Bull," Works of Martin Luther, Vol. III, pp. 108. (Philadelphia 6 volume set)

"This is my absolute opinion: he that will maintain that man's free-will is able to do or work anything in spiritual cases be they never so small, denies Christ. This I have always maintained in my writings, especially in those against Erasmus, one of the learnedest men in the whole world, and thereby will I remain, for I know it to be the truth, though all the world should be against it; yea, the decree of Divine Majesty must stand fast against the gates of hell."

Source: Table-Talk, #CCLXII (Hazlitt edition).

"I wish that the word " free will " had never been invented. It is not in the Scriptures, and it were better to call it " self-will," which profiteth not. Or, if anyone wishes to retain it, he ought to apply it to the new-created man, so as to understand by it the man who is without sin. He is assuredly free, as was Adam in Paradise, and it is of him that the Scriptures speak when they touch upon our freedom ; but they who lie in sins are unfree and prisoners of the devil; yet because they can become free through grace, you can call them men of free will, just as you might call a man rich, although he is a beggar, because he can become rich. But it is neither right nor good thus to juggle with words in matters of such great seriousness."

Source: " An Argument in Defense of All the Articles of Dr. Martin Luther Wrongly Condemned in the Roman Bull," Works of Martin Luther, Vol. III, pp. 110 f.

"Dear Christians, one and all rejoice, With exultation springing, And with united heart and voice. And holy rapture singing, Proclaim the wonders God hath done, How his right arm the victory won; Right dearly it hath cost him. Fast bound in Satan's chains I lay, Death brooded darkly o'er me; Sin was my torment night and day, Therein my mother bore me, Deeper and deeper still I fell, Life was become a living hell, So firmly sin possessed me. My good works could avail me naught, For they with sin were stained; Free-will against God's judgment fought, And dead to good remained.Grief drove me to despair, and I Had nothing left me but to die, To hell I fast was sinking. God saw, in his eternal grace, My sorrow out of measure; He thought upon his tenderness — To save was his good pleasure. He turned to me a Father's heart — Not small the cost — to heal my smart. He gave his best and dearest. He spake to his beloved Son: 'Tis time to take compassion; Then go, bright jewel of my crown, And bring to man salvation; From sin and sorrow set him free, Slay bitter death for him, that he May live with thee forever."

Source: Luther's Hymns (Phildadelphia, 1917), p. 75.

As far as I can understand Luther and the Reformed Confessions, both seem to be saying the same thing about “Total Depravity.” I will not argue that Luther was a “Calvinist”. He was not, but both had the same concept of the bondage of the will.

Luther and Predestination: Probing the Secret Council of the Hidden God

I am Reformed- in the fullest sense: a 5-point Calvinist. Now I have to be careful when reading Martin Luther, because Luther was not a 5-point Calvinist. Luther does though say many things “harmonious” with those 5 points, but I would be doing him injustice if I declared that he was a 5-point Calvinist. Luther’s theology is not Reformed theology. I have to always remind myself of this. When I read his comments on the will, or predestination, I get a warm fuzzy feeling: “That’s what I believe!” Yet, there are some major differences in how Luther expresses himself on these issues.

If I don’t take into account Luther’s underlying presupposition of the hidden and revealed God, I will make some blatant errors against his theology. I could make all sorts of web pages proving Luther was a 5-point Calvinist. I could even find a lot of secondary sources to prove it. But, I would be doing injustice to Luther’s work. I would be manipulating his material to prove something that is untrue (Which reminds me, one of my favorite authors, RC Sproul has said a few times something like: “Luther spoke more about predestination and election than Calvin ever did...”- I find this statement to be in error, having read both Calvin and Luther extensively myself).

Reading Luther accurately requires reading Luther according to his own theological paradigms, particularly a basic understanding of his use of contrast and paradox. Luther repeatedly exhorts his readers not to probe into the secret council of the "hidden God. However, what are those things which should not be probed? Luther lets us know it’s the deep mysteries of providence, election and reprobation. On the other hand, to only look at Luther’s understanding of the "revealed God" does not give us an adequate picture of Luther’s paradox of the "hidden/revealed God." One does not understand Luther's paradox without probing both sides to see what he means.

My understanding is that Luther did indeed attribute double predestination to the "hidden God." To prove this, I'd like to quote a section from: Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966). I consider this book crucial to any study of Luther:

“For Luther the assertion that God is God implicitly includes the fact that God alone works all in all together with the accompanying foreknowledge…. This determines not only man's outward but also his inner fate, his relationship to God in faith or unfaith, in obedience or disobedience. Here too man is completely in God's hands. Luther finds the biblical basis for this particularly in I Corinthians 12:6, "God works all in all." Luther expands the sense of this passage far beyond Paul's meaning in its original setting. It appears very frequently in Luther's thought.

The Bible in addition bears witness, and experience confirms the fact, that men actually relate themselves differently to the word of God. Some are open to faith; others remain closed to it. Accordingly, the Bible expects human history to end in a twofold way. Not all will be blessed; and many will be lost. Luther can, in the context of his assertion that God works all in all, find the ultimate cause in God himself, in his intention, and in his working. This decision is not made by man's supposedly free will, but only by God's willing and working. He chooses some to be saved and he rejects the others without an apparent reason for either choice. He gives faith to one through the working of His Spirit; and he refuses to give faith to others so that they are bound in their unbelief. Salvation and destruction thus result from God's previous decision and his corresponding twofold activity. God's choice is not based on the individual's condition; it establishes this condition. This means an unconditional, eternal predestination both to salvation and to damnation.

Luther does not reach this conclusion on the basis of philosophical speculation about God, but finds it in the Scripture. He experienced it in God's relationship to him personally; and the God whom he thus personally experienced is the very same God who speaks and is proclaimed in the Scripture. Paul especially testified to Luther that God makes this twofold decision and that he hardens those who are lost: "God has mercy upon whomever he wills, and he hardens the heart of whomever he wills" (Rom. 9:18). Paul illustrates this with the picture of the potter making vessels of honor as well as dishonor out of the same clay (Rom. 9: 20 ff.). In addition, Paul quotes Malachi, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated" (Rom. 9:13). And Paul specifically refers to God's treatment of Pharaoh (Rom. 9:17)

The position Scripture thus presented to Luther was also the inescapable result of his understanding of God. He even cites man's innate rational concept of God as an additional proof. It seems blasphemous even to think that God does not work man's decision to believe or not to believe, as though God could be surprised by man's choice and men might be saved or lost without God knowing it. Whoever so thinks denies that God is God and makes fun of Him as though he were a ridiculous idol." Whoever speaks seriously of God must necessarily teach his foreknowledge and his unconditional determination of all things.

Luther thus finds a twofold will of God in the Scripture. Together with statements about God's all-inclusive grace are other statements which express another willing and working of God which stands with his willing and working of salvation. Together with grace stands wrath, a wrath which rejects and which is no longer a part of love; and this is found not only in the Old but also in the New Testament. Luther did not draw a two-sided picture of God from his own imagination, but he saw it already present in Scripture. The God of the Bible is not unequivocally the God of the gospel. The God of the Bible is not only the God of all grace but is also the God who, if he wills, hardens and rejects. This God even treats a man equivocally: he offers his grace in the word and yet refuses to give his Spirit to bring about his conversion. He can even harden a man—in all this Luther does not go in substance beyond the difficult passages of Scripture which describe God as hardening a man's heart.

Luther, however, summarized the substance of such scriptural statements in the sharpest possible expressions. In The Bondage of the Will he teaches that God has a double will, even a double reality. The God revealed and preached in the gospel must be distinguished from the hidden God who is not preached, the God who works all things. God's word is not the same as "God himself." God, through his word, approaches man with the mercy which (according to Ezekiel 33) does not seek the death of the sinner but that he turn and live. But the hidden will of God, the will we must fear, "determines for itself which and what sort of men it chooses to enable to participate in this mercy offered through the proclamation." God "does not will the death of the sinner, that is, according to his word; he does, however, will it according to his inscrutable will." God revealed in his word mourns the sinner's death and seeks to save him from it. "God hidden in his majesty, on the other hand, does not mourn the sinner's death, or abrogate it, but works life and death in everything in all. For God has not limited himself to his word but retains his freedom over everything. . . . God does many things that he does not show us through his word. He also wills many things his word does not show us."

Source: The Theology of Martin Luther 274-276

Prayer, Predestination, and Evil, the Basics.

Question:
“Ok, I really don't want to start a debate or anything, just an answer and I'll return to my supposedly “evil” catholic ways. If everything is completely predestined then after one is "saved" what is the purpose of asking God for something in prayer? If everything is predestined should God not already know our need and whims? Another question...why the creation of evil, or the need for a final battle?”

Now I love questions like these, whether they come via cyberspace, from a coworker, or a relative. These are opportunities not only to answer with kindness, but also to point to answers found in the Bible rather than in the teaching magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church. With Roman Catholics, the emphasis in the discussion should gravitate on the ultimate authority of Scripture. A Roman Catholic believes that God has spoken in the Bible, so the answers should provoke them to read the Bible.

Church history is replete with debate over predestination and God's sovereignty. Think of it this way: great struggles with particular aspects of the Christian faith are well worth the effort. Sometimes we need to wrestle with God.

You ask, “If everything is completely predestined then after one is "saved" what is the purpose of asking God for something in prayer?” The first and foremost reason a Christian must pray is the Bible commands us to do so. 1 Thessalonians 5:17 tells Christians to pray continually. Ephesians 6:18 states, "And pray in the Spirit on all occasions". There is deep mystery in prayer- how could there not be? The finite human is speaking to the infinite God of the universe. Whether or not we can understand the relationship between how our prayers and an infinite God who knows everything “works” does not alleviate a Christian from the Biblical exhortation to pray.

You ask, “If everything is predestined should God not already know our need and whims?” Indeed, God does know everything; even Roman Catholic theology admits this. God, because He is omniscient, must know everything. If He didn't, He wouldn't be God. Remember what the Lord Jesus said in Matthew 6:8: "Your Father knows what you need before you ask him." Here we come face to face with a deep mystery of God. The Bible tells us That God knows our needs beforehand. This is a great comfort to a Christian. The God of the Bible is not caught off-guard by anything that occurs in this world.

You ask, “why the creation of evil, or the need for a final battle?” Again, there is deep mystery in the existence of evil. There is no totally satisfactory answer this side of heaven that explains completely how a sovereign all-good God and evil both exist. But we do have some knowledge revealed to us from the pages of the Bible that explain the existence of evil. We know, that ultimately all of reality and the universe culminate in God's glory as Revelation 22 describes. Romans 8:28 states "We know that in all things God works for the good..." in describing the life of a Christian. After going through a myriad of "evil" circumstances Joseph declares to his brothers in Genesis 50, "You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives." So, in all circumstances, the evil that occurs happens for a reason: God uses it for a good purpose. Even the worst event in all human history was predetermined by God: Christ was handed over to wicked men by God's set purpose (Acts 2:23). What was the most evil act committed in human history is used by God for the most glorious act in human history: the redemption of the world.

Well, how did this Catholic respond? She stated, “Thank you for the responses, they cleared some things up, I am very surprised at the kindness, I am very curious about Calvinism but I usually am met with anger and rudeness, this was a nice change.”

It is possible to tell people the truth in love. My prayer for this woman is that the answers provoke her to search the pages of Scripture rather than the official teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. These answers only scratch the surface, highlighting my own “wrestling” with the Bible. I am Calvinist because of the Biblical text: It says what it says. I may not understand all of the Biblical mysteries totally, but to be obedient to God I believe what is revealed. I respect anyone who grapples with these types of questions. I have had many friends who have hated the type of answers I gave, only to hear them tell me years later that what they once hated became the sweetest of all comfort.