Why the Difference?
"For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?" (I Cor. 4: 7)
The Arminian view of election represents the Father as choosing those who have made themselves different from others by an independent act of their free wills. They differ from another, not because God has made them different, but because they have made themselves different. But Paul, in this passage, represents saving differences as the result of God's giving.
Paul argues that this gracious system or paradigm of conversion, eliminates all boasting, or crediting oneself. The opposite system, where the creature is credited with making the difference, does in fact promote creature boasting. If I am the one who has made myself different, then I may take credit for that difference. But, Paul argues that sinners cannot credit themselves for their being different.
If they have faith, and therefore differ from others who are without faith, then they can only give God the credit for it, he being the one who made them different by giving to them what he did not give to another.
Why was one part of the lump of clay chosen for becoming a vessel of mercy and the other part not? Was one part of the clay different from the other part and God selects the better part? Does not the apostle say that the vessels of mercy come from "the same lump" as the vessels of wrath? If all parts of the lump are the same, then he is not choosing to make part of it into vessels of mercy because it is different from the other part. A difference does come to the clay, but it is not a difference naturally, but a difference that results from the choice and work of the Potter.
Barnes, in Barnes notes, said "That proud Arminian, Grevinchovius (17th century Dutch theologian), in answer to this text, said,
"I make myself to differ; since I could resist God, and divine predetermination, but have not resisted, why may not I glory in it as of my own?'"
My opponent could only respond to this by saying that the verse in I Cor. 4:7 only concerned differences in spiritual gifts, and nothing more. I countered that the language was broader than this. My opponent, in opposing the idea that I Cor. 4: 7 could be applied to salvation, or to any other context than spiritual gifts, demonstrated how he believed that the application of the verse to every aspect of life and salvation went against his Arminian position. He also never denied the statement of the Arminian Dutch theologian about who makes who to differ.
I later enlarged upon this by showing that the scriptures teach that all the good a man possesses is owing to God's gift. Notices these passages.
"John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven." (John 3: 27)
"Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." (James 1: 17)
"Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things." (Acts 17: 25)
Thus, I Cor. 4: 7 is saying the same thing as these verses. No one can boast because of his excellence or superiority because it is all owing to God's gracious giving. He makes men to differ by his giving to one what he withholds from another.
I later developed this even further by referring to these words of God to Moses.
"And the LORD said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the LORD?" (Exo. 4: 11)
I showed how my opponent had no place in his theology for God being the cause of men being born blind or deaf, or lame, or what have you. I showed that God makes men blind by not giving them the gift of sight, etc. Why would God do this? I then cited these words in answer to this question.
"And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth. And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him." (John 9: 1-3)
I then stated that I believed that this passage presents a paradigm to explain why God has willed that men be born spiritually blind. Bruce never responded to this.
Nov 20, 2010
Debate Review 6
Example of David's Body
"Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them." (Psalm 139: 16)
I introduced this passage in my first affirmative of the third night of the debate. I believe it destroys the argumentation of my opponent regarding corporate election.
Notice that God is said to "see" the "substance" of David, a reference to the physical body of David. He is said to "see" the body of David even in its imperfect form, as a simple glob, or zygote. Further, God is said to "see," or take special note of, the body of David even before it existed in the womb of his mother. He saw the creation of David's body and the formation of its members, "when there was none of them," that is, before the body and the members existed. He named and recorded the members, before they existed, in his "book of remembrance."
This verse clearly says that God chose what members should be incorporated into the body of David before he actually incorporated them into it. My opponent saw the weight of this argument and could only respond by saying that this, like the case of Naaman, was not a type of how a member is incorporated into the body of Christ. He asked me to tell him why I thought that the choosing of members to make up the body of David was a type of God's choosing what members would make up the body of Christ. I replied by reminding Bruce of how he had brought up I Cor. 12: 27 which reads:
"Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular."
It was Paul, by inspiration, who likened the society of saints to a "body" with "members." Thus, this made the incorporation of members into the body of David pertinent. I also stated that what was true of David is true of any "body," including the body of Christ. The body cannot exist apart from its members. In fact, the joining together of the bodily members is what constitutes the body whole. Following these comments, Bruce never made another reply. Truly these words of David destroy the corporate view of divine election. Bruce must have realized this for he would not accept that the case of David's body and its members was like that of Christ's body and its members.
"Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them." (Psalm 139: 16)
I introduced this passage in my first affirmative of the third night of the debate. I believe it destroys the argumentation of my opponent regarding corporate election.
Notice that God is said to "see" the "substance" of David, a reference to the physical body of David. He is said to "see" the body of David even in its imperfect form, as a simple glob, or zygote. Further, God is said to "see," or take special note of, the body of David even before it existed in the womb of his mother. He saw the creation of David's body and the formation of its members, "when there was none of them," that is, before the body and the members existed. He named and recorded the members, before they existed, in his "book of remembrance."
This verse clearly says that God chose what members should be incorporated into the body of David before he actually incorporated them into it. My opponent saw the weight of this argument and could only respond by saying that this, like the case of Naaman, was not a type of how a member is incorporated into the body of Christ. He asked me to tell him why I thought that the choosing of members to make up the body of David was a type of God's choosing what members would make up the body of Christ. I replied by reminding Bruce of how he had brought up I Cor. 12: 27 which reads:
"Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular."
It was Paul, by inspiration, who likened the society of saints to a "body" with "members." Thus, this made the incorporation of members into the body of David pertinent. I also stated that what was true of David is true of any "body," including the body of Christ. The body cannot exist apart from its members. In fact, the joining together of the bodily members is what constitutes the body whole. Following these comments, Bruce never made another reply. Truly these words of David destroy the corporate view of divine election. Bruce must have realized this for he would not accept that the case of David's body and its members was like that of Christ's body and its members.
Debate Review 5
"The Scriptures teach that God's election to salvation is of a class of persons and not specific individuals."
This was the proposition affirmed by Bruce Reeves. I showed how my opponent's proposition affirmed that people were chosen "to salvation." Thus, the wording of his proposition is against his corporate and conditional view of election.
To become a member of the body of Christ = salvation. Thus, if one is chosen to salvation, then he is chosen to become a member of the body of Christ.
But, my opponent argued against his own proposition when he argued that one must become a member of the body of Christ, or saved, in order to be elected to salvation.
If one is chosen unto salvation, and salvation is the same as becoming a member of the body of Christ, then is one not chosen to become a member of the body of Christ?
Is being a "member" in the "body of Christ" the result or cause of God's choice and predetermination?
Is this "class" a saved or unsaved class? My opponent says God is choosing those who are already saved, when he says God chooses those who become members of the church. Thus, the choice is not "unto salvation," as the scriptures declare it to be. (II Thess. 2: 13) Is this not unto membership in the church, which is salvation?
I believe the scriptures show clearly that it is the result of God's choice and decree, but my opponent will say that one must first put himself into the body of Christ, by his own choice and predetermination, and then God, on that basis, will choose him and predetermine him.
The issue before us is this - why some are elected to salvation and eternal life and others are not? The question is this: Does God elect people because they believe in and obey the Lord Jesus Christ, or does God elect people in order that they shall believe in and obey Christ? Is God's choice of a sinner unconditional, or conditional? In other words, Is my believing and obeying the result of God's choice, or the cause of it? Do I credit God alone for my having believed, or do I credit myself? Do I praise God or congratulate myself?
We are not disputing whether faith and repentance are necessary for salvation. We both agree that the unbelieving and unrepentant will not be saved. The question is this: Are faith and repentance necessary causes of election, or are they the necessary effects of election?
Ephesians 1
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved." (Ephesians 1: 3-6)
I. Individual Election
This choice of the Father was of individual persons, and not of a mere idealistic, or virtual, class, group, or corporation; it was not therefore impersonal. We do not deny the idea of a corporate or class election, in scripture, or in social life. We do deny that this passage, and others like it, when speaking of election to salvation, is corporate only, and never applies to individuals.
The absurdity of my opponent's proposition can best be illustrated by reading again the words of Paul with the interpretations of my opponent inserted.
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us (corporately and not individually) with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ (corporately, not individually): According as he hath chosen us (corporately, not individually) in him before the foundation of the world, that we (corporately, not individually) should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us (corporately, not individually) unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us (corporately, not individually) accepted in the beloved."
As the holiness, justification, and acceptance are individual and personal, so must the election be.
II. Unconditional
A. The eternal choice of God is not of those who are already holy, for they are chosen to be holy, or "unto holiness." God is choosing the unholy for the purpose of making them holy.
B. Neither is he choosing those who are already believing, but is choosing the unbelieving for the purpose of making them into believers.
C. Neither is he choosing those already adopted, but is choosing the un-adopted for the purpose of making them adopted children.
D. Neither is he choosing those who are already without blame (justified), but choosing the guilty so that they might be thereby justified.
As Calvin put it (Inst. III.xxii.8): "The grace of God does not find men fit to be chosen but makes them fit." And Augustine said: "Man is converted not because he wills to be, but he wills to be because he is ordained to election." As J. I. Packer has observed, "Where the Arminian says 'I owe my election to my faith,' the Calvinist says 'I owe my faith to my election.'"
My opponent never addressed these arguments! He never denied that there was a contradiction in his proposition. He never responded to the arguments that I made which showed that Ephesians 1 taught an election that was unto salvation and was an election of individuals.
I showed that election is the cause of every spiritual blessing, rather than spiritual blessing being the cause or ground or reason for the divine choice. It is not that God is choosing those who are already blessed. All spiritual blessings owe their origin to God's divine intention to confer such. God has blessed us, says Paul, with every spiritual blessing, "because he has chosen us."
Is faith a spiritual blessing? Then any who have it can only thank God for it and recognize that it is the result of his eternal purpose to bestow it.
Said Charles Spurgeon:
"Then the decree of election could not have been formed upon good works. "But," say others, "God elected them on the foresight of their faith." Now, God gives faith, therefore He could not have elected them on account of faith which He foresaw. There shall be twenty beggards in the street and I determine to give one of them a shilling. Will anyone say that I determined to give that one a shilling—that I elected him to have the shilling—because I foresaw that he would have it? That would be talking nonsense."
"In like manner to say that God elected men because He foresaw they would have faith—which is salvation in the germ—would be too absurd for us to listen to for a moment. Faith is the gift of God. Every virtue comes from Him. Therefore it cannot have caused Him to elect men, because it is His gift. Election, we are sure, is absolute and altogether apart from the virtues which the saints have afterwards."
"I never knew a saint yet of any denomination who thought that God saved him because He foresaw that he would have these virtues and merits." (UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION - NO. 41-42)
My opponent argued that God chose people who first made themselves believers. This view makes election a kind of selection, a selection of the fittest, but election, in the bible, is not selection. The word selection often carries the idea of choosing the fittest, or the best, while the term election carries no such connotation. In this selection scheme of election, God is simply showing respect, or honoring, an already existing self-made character type, simply recognizing or rewarding the one who is already a self-made believer. The Father's choice of Christ was indeed a "selection" of the fittest, but the election of sinners is unlike that of the election of Christ.
My opponent is not making faith a spiritual blessing resulting from the divine decree of election, but rather an impetus moving God to choose him. Faith, in such a selection scheme of election, is not a gift of God resulting from the divine intent to confer it, as Spurgeon explained so eloquently.
My opponent will argue that God is choosing those who get themselves into Christ. But, this is blatantly false. First, such an assertion would logically imply that being "in christ" is not itself a "spiritual blessing" and does not result from the election of the Father.
First, this cannot be the case because "in Christ" is dative, not accusative or genitive; that is, "in Christ" is not the direct object of the verb "chosen," but the indirect object. Neither does "in Christ" describe the "us" who are chosen. The Greek preposition "en" is dative of sphere, denoting that the choice was made within Christ, with a view to him, as both means and end. It characterizes the context of God's choosing, not the objects of his choosing. "In Christ" modifies the verb "chosen" and not the pronoun "us."
When we read that God created all things "in Christ" (Col. 1: 16), does this mean that all things were already "in Christ" before they were created? Or does it mean that all things were created with a view to Christ? Within the sphere of Christ? By and through Christ?
Furthermore, sinners are said to be "created in Christ unto good works." (Eph. 2: 10) Will my opponent interpret this expression in the same way he interprets "chosen in Christ"? If so, he would have to interpret Paul as saying that the Lord "creates" anew, or saves, those who are already "in Christ." But, if they are already in Christ, then they are already saved, so to choose them to be saved is nonsensical.
In the New Testament, being "in Christ" is contrasted with being "in Adam." How are we "in Adam"? Is it by choice? Is there anyone who is not "in Adam"? All men are "in Adam" by sovereign divine appointment and natural birth. So, men are likewise "in Christ" by sovereign divine appointment and spiritual birth.
The direct object of the verb "chosen" is "us," but not us as already believing, already holy, already adopted, already justified from blame, or already in Christ. It is a choice to take of those outside of Christ and put them into Christ. It is a choice to take the unholy and make them holy. It is a choice to take the guilty and to justify them. It is a choice to take those who are not his children and to make them so by adoption.
My opponent never responded to all these arguments.
Besides all this, to argue that God is choosing those who make themselves believers, makes the election a failure, because none are able to believe because of the depravity of the sinner; And, if sinners are not able to believe, or to please God, then God would be acting foolishly to choose those who believe. And, if men cannot believe without God causing them to believe, or apart from God giving them faith, then obviously his choice must include giving them faith, or making them believers.
Finally, if God chooses those who make themselves believers, and chooses them upon that basis, then the choice cannot be said to be gracious, or unmerited. But, the text plainly declares the choice to be gracious, it not being a selection of the fittest, or a reward of recognition.
This was the proposition affirmed by Bruce Reeves. I showed how my opponent's proposition affirmed that people were chosen "to salvation." Thus, the wording of his proposition is against his corporate and conditional view of election.
To become a member of the body of Christ = salvation. Thus, if one is chosen to salvation, then he is chosen to become a member of the body of Christ.
But, my opponent argued against his own proposition when he argued that one must become a member of the body of Christ, or saved, in order to be elected to salvation.
If one is chosen unto salvation, and salvation is the same as becoming a member of the body of Christ, then is one not chosen to become a member of the body of Christ?
Is being a "member" in the "body of Christ" the result or cause of God's choice and predetermination?
Is this "class" a saved or unsaved class? My opponent says God is choosing those who are already saved, when he says God chooses those who become members of the church. Thus, the choice is not "unto salvation," as the scriptures declare it to be. (II Thess. 2: 13) Is this not unto membership in the church, which is salvation?
I believe the scriptures show clearly that it is the result of God's choice and decree, but my opponent will say that one must first put himself into the body of Christ, by his own choice and predetermination, and then God, on that basis, will choose him and predetermine him.
The issue before us is this - why some are elected to salvation and eternal life and others are not? The question is this: Does God elect people because they believe in and obey the Lord Jesus Christ, or does God elect people in order that they shall believe in and obey Christ? Is God's choice of a sinner unconditional, or conditional? In other words, Is my believing and obeying the result of God's choice, or the cause of it? Do I credit God alone for my having believed, or do I credit myself? Do I praise God or congratulate myself?
We are not disputing whether faith and repentance are necessary for salvation. We both agree that the unbelieving and unrepentant will not be saved. The question is this: Are faith and repentance necessary causes of election, or are they the necessary effects of election?
Ephesians 1
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved." (Ephesians 1: 3-6)
I. Individual Election
This choice of the Father was of individual persons, and not of a mere idealistic, or virtual, class, group, or corporation; it was not therefore impersonal. We do not deny the idea of a corporate or class election, in scripture, or in social life. We do deny that this passage, and others like it, when speaking of election to salvation, is corporate only, and never applies to individuals.
The absurdity of my opponent's proposition can best be illustrated by reading again the words of Paul with the interpretations of my opponent inserted.
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us (corporately and not individually) with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ (corporately, not individually): According as he hath chosen us (corporately, not individually) in him before the foundation of the world, that we (corporately, not individually) should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us (corporately, not individually) unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us (corporately, not individually) accepted in the beloved."
As the holiness, justification, and acceptance are individual and personal, so must the election be.
II. Unconditional
A. The eternal choice of God is not of those who are already holy, for they are chosen to be holy, or "unto holiness." God is choosing the unholy for the purpose of making them holy.
B. Neither is he choosing those who are already believing, but is choosing the unbelieving for the purpose of making them into believers.
C. Neither is he choosing those already adopted, but is choosing the un-adopted for the purpose of making them adopted children.
D. Neither is he choosing those who are already without blame (justified), but choosing the guilty so that they might be thereby justified.
As Calvin put it (Inst. III.xxii.8): "The grace of God does not find men fit to be chosen but makes them fit." And Augustine said: "Man is converted not because he wills to be, but he wills to be because he is ordained to election." As J. I. Packer has observed, "Where the Arminian says 'I owe my election to my faith,' the Calvinist says 'I owe my faith to my election.'"
My opponent never addressed these arguments! He never denied that there was a contradiction in his proposition. He never responded to the arguments that I made which showed that Ephesians 1 taught an election that was unto salvation and was an election of individuals.
I showed that election is the cause of every spiritual blessing, rather than spiritual blessing being the cause or ground or reason for the divine choice. It is not that God is choosing those who are already blessed. All spiritual blessings owe their origin to God's divine intention to confer such. God has blessed us, says Paul, with every spiritual blessing, "because he has chosen us."
Is faith a spiritual blessing? Then any who have it can only thank God for it and recognize that it is the result of his eternal purpose to bestow it.
Said Charles Spurgeon:
"Then the decree of election could not have been formed upon good works. "But," say others, "God elected them on the foresight of their faith." Now, God gives faith, therefore He could not have elected them on account of faith which He foresaw. There shall be twenty beggards in the street and I determine to give one of them a shilling. Will anyone say that I determined to give that one a shilling—that I elected him to have the shilling—because I foresaw that he would have it? That would be talking nonsense."
"In like manner to say that God elected men because He foresaw they would have faith—which is salvation in the germ—would be too absurd for us to listen to for a moment. Faith is the gift of God. Every virtue comes from Him. Therefore it cannot have caused Him to elect men, because it is His gift. Election, we are sure, is absolute and altogether apart from the virtues which the saints have afterwards."
"I never knew a saint yet of any denomination who thought that God saved him because He foresaw that he would have these virtues and merits." (UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION - NO. 41-42)
My opponent argued that God chose people who first made themselves believers. This view makes election a kind of selection, a selection of the fittest, but election, in the bible, is not selection. The word selection often carries the idea of choosing the fittest, or the best, while the term election carries no such connotation. In this selection scheme of election, God is simply showing respect, or honoring, an already existing self-made character type, simply recognizing or rewarding the one who is already a self-made believer. The Father's choice of Christ was indeed a "selection" of the fittest, but the election of sinners is unlike that of the election of Christ.
My opponent is not making faith a spiritual blessing resulting from the divine decree of election, but rather an impetus moving God to choose him. Faith, in such a selection scheme of election, is not a gift of God resulting from the divine intent to confer it, as Spurgeon explained so eloquently.
My opponent will argue that God is choosing those who get themselves into Christ. But, this is blatantly false. First, such an assertion would logically imply that being "in christ" is not itself a "spiritual blessing" and does not result from the election of the Father.
First, this cannot be the case because "in Christ" is dative, not accusative or genitive; that is, "in Christ" is not the direct object of the verb "chosen," but the indirect object. Neither does "in Christ" describe the "us" who are chosen. The Greek preposition "en" is dative of sphere, denoting that the choice was made within Christ, with a view to him, as both means and end. It characterizes the context of God's choosing, not the objects of his choosing. "In Christ" modifies the verb "chosen" and not the pronoun "us."
When we read that God created all things "in Christ" (Col. 1: 16), does this mean that all things were already "in Christ" before they were created? Or does it mean that all things were created with a view to Christ? Within the sphere of Christ? By and through Christ?
Furthermore, sinners are said to be "created in Christ unto good works." (Eph. 2: 10) Will my opponent interpret this expression in the same way he interprets "chosen in Christ"? If so, he would have to interpret Paul as saying that the Lord "creates" anew, or saves, those who are already "in Christ." But, if they are already in Christ, then they are already saved, so to choose them to be saved is nonsensical.
In the New Testament, being "in Christ" is contrasted with being "in Adam." How are we "in Adam"? Is it by choice? Is there anyone who is not "in Adam"? All men are "in Adam" by sovereign divine appointment and natural birth. So, men are likewise "in Christ" by sovereign divine appointment and spiritual birth.
The direct object of the verb "chosen" is "us," but not us as already believing, already holy, already adopted, already justified from blame, or already in Christ. It is a choice to take of those outside of Christ and put them into Christ. It is a choice to take the unholy and make them holy. It is a choice to take the guilty and to justify them. It is a choice to take those who are not his children and to make them so by adoption.
My opponent never responded to all these arguments.
Besides all this, to argue that God is choosing those who make themselves believers, makes the election a failure, because none are able to believe because of the depravity of the sinner; And, if sinners are not able to believe, or to please God, then God would be acting foolishly to choose those who believe. And, if men cannot believe without God causing them to believe, or apart from God giving them faith, then obviously his choice must include giving them faith, or making them believers.
Finally, if God chooses those who make themselves believers, and chooses them upon that basis, then the choice cannot be said to be gracious, or unmerited. But, the text plainly declares the choice to be gracious, it not being a selection of the fittest, or a reward of recognition.
Debate Review 4
4th Night Questions To Bruce Reeves
1. Does God have prescience (foreknowledge) of all things?
2. Is God ominipotent?
3. Is Romans 9: 9-16 dealing with salvation?
4. In tracing the chain of causes back to the first cause, what do you find as the first cause?
5. How do you reconcile verses that say God does not change or repent with your understanding of Jeremiah 18: 8.
Does God have prescience (foreknowledge) of all things?
Bruce said "no." He said "God knows all he wants to know." And, in answer to the second question, affirmed that God was indeed "omnipotent." Some of my brethren stated to me, after the speeches for the night concluded, how this was a gross contradiction, to affirm that God was not all knowing but that he was all powerful! Amen!
I, on the other hand, went to the scriptures to show that God did in fact know all things, verses which Bruce never bothered to give a reply. Here are the verses I cited and had on a chart.
"Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world." (Acts 15: 18)
"Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure." (Isa. 46: 9, 10)
"Let them bring them forth, and shew us what shall happen: let them shew the former things, what they be, that we may consider them, and know the latter end of them; or declare us things for to come. Shew the things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that ye are gods: yea, do good, or do evil, that we may be dismayed, and behold it together." (Isa. 41: 23)
"For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things." (I John 3: 20)
"O lord, thou hast searched me, and known me. Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising, thou understandest my thought afar off. Thou compassest my path and my lying down, and art acquainted with all my ways. For there is not a word in my tongue, but, lo, O LORD, thou knowest it altogether." (Psa. 139: 1-4)
These verses teach the absolute and universal foreknowledge of God and my opponent is in rebellion against scripture in denying them.
Later in the debate, I asked these questions relative to God's foreknowledge of all things.
"God foresaw that Adam would sin and become condemned even before he created him. Now, let us suppose that God foresaw that Adam would reject God's offer of pardon throughout his life and die unpardoned and go to eternal torment. In such a case God goes ahead and creates Adam any way. Can my opponent defend God in doing this? Must he not acknowledge that God created Adam, in this case, knowing it would mean creating him for eternal destruction? Must he not also affirm that God created the human race, knowing in advance that the vast majority would come into the world doomed for hell?"
My opponent never answered this! All he could do was appeal to men's natural depravity, to their bias against the knowledge of God, and say "Garrett believes God creates men for destruction!" Yet, as I showed, any who believes in the foreknowledge of God, as taught in scripture, must acknowledge that God creates men for destruction.
Is Romans 9: 9-16 dealing with salvation?
Bruce affirmed that "all of Romans nine is dealing with salvation." What he denied, however, was that Romans nine was dealing with personal salvation. I never denied that the salvation of the corporate nation of Israel was taught, especially in Romans 11, but that it chiefly dealt with the salvation of the Israel within Israel, of the "remnant," of the "called out ones from among the Gentiles," of the elect among Israel and the nations. Bruce believed that Romans 9-11 only dealt with salvation in an indirect way, with how God raised up Israel to be a means in providing Christ and thus, indirectly, with providing salvation.
What do you find as the first cause?
"In tracing the chain of causes back to the first cause, what do you find as the first cause?"
I asked this question because Bruce had asked me a similar question on the first night. He asked me if I believed that God was the "first cause of all things," including evil. I stated that God was the "first cause" but not the "efficient cause" of all things. Bruce answered my question by asking me this question - "first cause of what?" I was surprised by this reply. Bruce showed a gross ignorance, willful or othewise, on the subject of causality. He, like some of his predecessors with whom I have debated this subject, think there is only one kind of "cause," and don't seem to want to allow that a person or thing can be a "cause" in various senses and is why adjectives are put before the word. Thus men speak regularly of "first cause," "second cause," "intermediate cause," "indirect cause," "instrumental cause," "primary cause," "final or end cause," "efficient cause," "material cause," "formal cause," etc. In my rebuttal to my opponent's question "cause of what?" I said "the first cause of all causes, the reason upon which all other reasons are based." My opponent's rejecting God as the first cause of all things is just pure ignorance, both of scripture and the first principles of science.
I also responded by having a couple charts on "God the First Cause." I cited several verses which affirmed that God was the first cause of all things. I first cited Romans 11: 36.
"For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen."
Obviously "all things" are "of him" because he is the first cause, the primal source of all things. God, based upon these words, may be called the first, or material, or formal cause of all things.
I also cited these words:
"Who is he that saith, and it cometh to pass, when the Lord commandeth it not?" (Lam. 3: 37)
I showed that this divine rhetorical taught that nothing "comes to pass" apart from the Lord's will, or his command. All my opponent could do was to cite the next verse as somehow contradicting the verse cited. The next verse reads:
"Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?"
My opponent made his argument in his last speech of the debate and I did not have a chance to respond to it. But, he read verse 38 as if it was a statement of fact, affirming that both good and evil did not proceed from "the most High." Yet, the verse is not a statement but another rhetorical with the implied answer being that both evil and good proceed from the Lord. Thus, my opponent made the verse to say the opposite of what the verse says! What is stated in this verse is stated in other verses, particularly in Job where Job ascribes all his evils to the hand of the Lord.
I also cited Isaiah 45: 7.
"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."
My opponent never responded to this verse.
God Repenting
"How do you reconcile verses that say God does not change or repent with your understanding of Jeremiah 18: 8?"
His answer to this question was quite right, for he stated that the verse did not affirm any change in God's character. The verse does indicate a change in God's behavior towards people.
My opponent, however, did not realize that the verse in Jer. 18: 8, where God basically says "I'll repent if you repent," does not indicate that the cause of the repentance was not in God, or that repentance was not God's work and gift. I cited II Tim. 2: 24, 25 where Paul said:
"And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth."
The repentance of any man, Paul affirms, is due to the Lord giving repentance. That "peradventure" alludes to a choice on the part of God to give repentance or not give it.
The failure of Arminians is that they don't see that there is a prior condition required for any man meeting the condition of repentance. Any man's repentance is itself conditioned upon the work of God.
1. Does God have prescience (foreknowledge) of all things?
2. Is God ominipotent?
3. Is Romans 9: 9-16 dealing with salvation?
4. In tracing the chain of causes back to the first cause, what do you find as the first cause?
5. How do you reconcile verses that say God does not change or repent with your understanding of Jeremiah 18: 8.
Does God have prescience (foreknowledge) of all things?
Bruce said "no." He said "God knows all he wants to know." And, in answer to the second question, affirmed that God was indeed "omnipotent." Some of my brethren stated to me, after the speeches for the night concluded, how this was a gross contradiction, to affirm that God was not all knowing but that he was all powerful! Amen!
I, on the other hand, went to the scriptures to show that God did in fact know all things, verses which Bruce never bothered to give a reply. Here are the verses I cited and had on a chart.
"Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world." (Acts 15: 18)
"Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure." (Isa. 46: 9, 10)
"Let them bring them forth, and shew us what shall happen: let them shew the former things, what they be, that we may consider them, and know the latter end of them; or declare us things for to come. Shew the things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that ye are gods: yea, do good, or do evil, that we may be dismayed, and behold it together." (Isa. 41: 23)
"For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things." (I John 3: 20)
"O lord, thou hast searched me, and known me. Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising, thou understandest my thought afar off. Thou compassest my path and my lying down, and art acquainted with all my ways. For there is not a word in my tongue, but, lo, O LORD, thou knowest it altogether." (Psa. 139: 1-4)
These verses teach the absolute and universal foreknowledge of God and my opponent is in rebellion against scripture in denying them.
Later in the debate, I asked these questions relative to God's foreknowledge of all things.
"God foresaw that Adam would sin and become condemned even before he created him. Now, let us suppose that God foresaw that Adam would reject God's offer of pardon throughout his life and die unpardoned and go to eternal torment. In such a case God goes ahead and creates Adam any way. Can my opponent defend God in doing this? Must he not acknowledge that God created Adam, in this case, knowing it would mean creating him for eternal destruction? Must he not also affirm that God created the human race, knowing in advance that the vast majority would come into the world doomed for hell?"
My opponent never answered this! All he could do was appeal to men's natural depravity, to their bias against the knowledge of God, and say "Garrett believes God creates men for destruction!" Yet, as I showed, any who believes in the foreknowledge of God, as taught in scripture, must acknowledge that God creates men for destruction.
Is Romans 9: 9-16 dealing with salvation?
Bruce affirmed that "all of Romans nine is dealing with salvation." What he denied, however, was that Romans nine was dealing with personal salvation. I never denied that the salvation of the corporate nation of Israel was taught, especially in Romans 11, but that it chiefly dealt with the salvation of the Israel within Israel, of the "remnant," of the "called out ones from among the Gentiles," of the elect among Israel and the nations. Bruce believed that Romans 9-11 only dealt with salvation in an indirect way, with how God raised up Israel to be a means in providing Christ and thus, indirectly, with providing salvation.
What do you find as the first cause?
"In tracing the chain of causes back to the first cause, what do you find as the first cause?"
I asked this question because Bruce had asked me a similar question on the first night. He asked me if I believed that God was the "first cause of all things," including evil. I stated that God was the "first cause" but not the "efficient cause" of all things. Bruce answered my question by asking me this question - "first cause of what?" I was surprised by this reply. Bruce showed a gross ignorance, willful or othewise, on the subject of causality. He, like some of his predecessors with whom I have debated this subject, think there is only one kind of "cause," and don't seem to want to allow that a person or thing can be a "cause" in various senses and is why adjectives are put before the word. Thus men speak regularly of "first cause," "second cause," "intermediate cause," "indirect cause," "instrumental cause," "primary cause," "final or end cause," "efficient cause," "material cause," "formal cause," etc. In my rebuttal to my opponent's question "cause of what?" I said "the first cause of all causes, the reason upon which all other reasons are based." My opponent's rejecting God as the first cause of all things is just pure ignorance, both of scripture and the first principles of science.
I also responded by having a couple charts on "God the First Cause." I cited several verses which affirmed that God was the first cause of all things. I first cited Romans 11: 36.
"For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen."
Obviously "all things" are "of him" because he is the first cause, the primal source of all things. God, based upon these words, may be called the first, or material, or formal cause of all things.
I also cited these words:
"Who is he that saith, and it cometh to pass, when the Lord commandeth it not?" (Lam. 3: 37)
I showed that this divine rhetorical taught that nothing "comes to pass" apart from the Lord's will, or his command. All my opponent could do was to cite the next verse as somehow contradicting the verse cited. The next verse reads:
"Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?"
My opponent made his argument in his last speech of the debate and I did not have a chance to respond to it. But, he read verse 38 as if it was a statement of fact, affirming that both good and evil did not proceed from "the most High." Yet, the verse is not a statement but another rhetorical with the implied answer being that both evil and good proceed from the Lord. Thus, my opponent made the verse to say the opposite of what the verse says! What is stated in this verse is stated in other verses, particularly in Job where Job ascribes all his evils to the hand of the Lord.
I also cited Isaiah 45: 7.
"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."
My opponent never responded to this verse.
God Repenting
"How do you reconcile verses that say God does not change or repent with your understanding of Jeremiah 18: 8?"
His answer to this question was quite right, for he stated that the verse did not affirm any change in God's character. The verse does indicate a change in God's behavior towards people.
My opponent, however, did not realize that the verse in Jer. 18: 8, where God basically says "I'll repent if you repent," does not indicate that the cause of the repentance was not in God, or that repentance was not God's work and gift. I cited II Tim. 2: 24, 25 where Paul said:
"And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth."
The repentance of any man, Paul affirms, is due to the Lord giving repentance. That "peradventure" alludes to a choice on the part of God to give repentance or not give it.
The failure of Arminians is that they don't see that there is a prior condition required for any man meeting the condition of repentance. Any man's repentance is itself conditioned upon the work of God.
Debate Review 3
3rd Night
1. Has the word of God come to you in the same way it came to the Thessalonians? (I Thess. 1:5)
2. Can you say that God loved and chose you as he did Jacob, i.e., without any regard for "any good" he had done and before he existed?
3. Can you say that God took you from the clay of mankind, to make into a vessel of mercy, not for any difference in you from others?
4. Was Isaac chosen before he was born to be a child of God?
5. Was Isaac's supernatural birth a result of a decision or act of Isaac or upon God's decision and act alone?
Has the word of God come to you in the same way?
"Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God. For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake." (I Thess. 1: 4, 5)
I asked this question because I knew that Restorationist apologists have historically taught that the word of God did not come to them in the same manner as it did to the Thessalonians. Campbellites have traditionally taught that the "word alone" was all that was required to effect regeneration and that no special operation of the Spirit was needed in addition to the word. So, when this verse was cited by our Baptist forefathers, to rebut that opinion, the Campbellites would say that this "demonstration of the Spirit" and this coming of the word in "power," was a 1st century experience only, and were allusions to miracles attending the apostolic preaching. Their idea is that no one today receives the word of God in the same manner it did to the Thessalonians. But, Bruce affirmed that the word of God had come to him in this manner. I was delighted to hear him say that for it meant he was in agreement with Baptist sentiment and against his brethren.
God loved and chose you as he did Jacob?
In answer to this question Bruce said "no." This was very telling, and marked a serious moment in the debate.
He admitted that, in the context of Romans 9, that God loved and chose Jacob, before he was born, and that this choice and love were unconditional. He just would not admit, however, that this choice and love had anything to do with Jacob's individual salvation, but only to his being made an ancestor of Jesus and to his, and his children, having some temporal advantages, of Jacob over Esau, and of Jews over Edomites. Bruce was admitting that if Romans 9 were talking about individual election to salvation, then it is unconditional as the Calvinist teaches. He was also affirming that God loved Jacob unconditionally, but loved Bruce Reeves conditionally. God chose Jacob not because of any good he did, but God chose Bruce Reeves because of good he did. Jacob's being loved and chosen by God "was not of him who willed or ran," but Bruce Reeve's being loved and chosen by God "was of Bruce who willed and ran."
Taken and Chosen Because of Difference or Unto Difference?
"Can you say that God took you from the clay of mankind, to make into a vessel of mercy, not for any difference in you from others?"
Again, Bruce confessed by saying "no." He could not say that God's choice of him, God's taking him from the common lump of clay, was not based upon any difference he himself first made. He believes that God chooses to save those who believe, by their own free will and ability, and this choice is a kind of recognition, a kind of honoring, a kind of rewarding. He has to look at the illustration of the Potter and clay and show that the Potter is "selecting" the best or superior part of the clay, a part of the clay that is different (better), but this he could not do because clay was all "the same." I also referred back to I Cor. 4: 7 and Paul's statement that all differences are owing to God's giving. People do not make themselves different, are not their own potters, are not the chief determiner of their own destinies.
Also, in Romans 9, unconditionality is indicated in these phrases:
"before they had done any good or evil"
"it is not of him who wills nor runs"
"it is of God that shows mercy"
"out of the same lump"
Was Isaac chosen before he was born to be a child of God?
Bruce said "no." He did not deny that God chose Isaac, before he was born, to be in the lineal ancestry of Christ, but nothing more. But, anyone reading the story, and the NT commentary upon it, and is honest, knows that God chose and destined Isaac before he was born to be more than just an ancestor of Jesus!
Isaac's supernatural birth a result of a decision or act of Isaac?
I had cited these words, more than once, early in the debate.
"Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now." (Gal. 4: 28, 29)
The story of Isaac's being a "child of promise," or "child of God," is stated by Paul to be illustrative of Christian salvation. The miraculous birth of Isaac (Abraham and Sarah were "dead," reproductively speaking) was an type of Christian spiritual birth. So, if we can look at how and why Isaac became chosen, a child of promise, and spiritually born, we discern how and why Christians become so. Any unbiased person knows how Isaac was chosen unconditionally and that his spiritual birth resulted from the divine choice, and was miraculous and certain.
1. Has the word of God come to you in the same way it came to the Thessalonians? (I Thess. 1:5)
2. Can you say that God loved and chose you as he did Jacob, i.e., without any regard for "any good" he had done and before he existed?
3. Can you say that God took you from the clay of mankind, to make into a vessel of mercy, not for any difference in you from others?
4. Was Isaac chosen before he was born to be a child of God?
5. Was Isaac's supernatural birth a result of a decision or act of Isaac or upon God's decision and act alone?
Has the word of God come to you in the same way?
"Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God. For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake." (I Thess. 1: 4, 5)
I asked this question because I knew that Restorationist apologists have historically taught that the word of God did not come to them in the same manner as it did to the Thessalonians. Campbellites have traditionally taught that the "word alone" was all that was required to effect regeneration and that no special operation of the Spirit was needed in addition to the word. So, when this verse was cited by our Baptist forefathers, to rebut that opinion, the Campbellites would say that this "demonstration of the Spirit" and this coming of the word in "power," was a 1st century experience only, and were allusions to miracles attending the apostolic preaching. Their idea is that no one today receives the word of God in the same manner it did to the Thessalonians. But, Bruce affirmed that the word of God had come to him in this manner. I was delighted to hear him say that for it meant he was in agreement with Baptist sentiment and against his brethren.
God loved and chose you as he did Jacob?
In answer to this question Bruce said "no." This was very telling, and marked a serious moment in the debate.
He admitted that, in the context of Romans 9, that God loved and chose Jacob, before he was born, and that this choice and love were unconditional. He just would not admit, however, that this choice and love had anything to do with Jacob's individual salvation, but only to his being made an ancestor of Jesus and to his, and his children, having some temporal advantages, of Jacob over Esau, and of Jews over Edomites. Bruce was admitting that if Romans 9 were talking about individual election to salvation, then it is unconditional as the Calvinist teaches. He was also affirming that God loved Jacob unconditionally, but loved Bruce Reeves conditionally. God chose Jacob not because of any good he did, but God chose Bruce Reeves because of good he did. Jacob's being loved and chosen by God "was not of him who willed or ran," but Bruce Reeve's being loved and chosen by God "was of Bruce who willed and ran."
Taken and Chosen Because of Difference or Unto Difference?
"Can you say that God took you from the clay of mankind, to make into a vessel of mercy, not for any difference in you from others?"
Again, Bruce confessed by saying "no." He could not say that God's choice of him, God's taking him from the common lump of clay, was not based upon any difference he himself first made. He believes that God chooses to save those who believe, by their own free will and ability, and this choice is a kind of recognition, a kind of honoring, a kind of rewarding. He has to look at the illustration of the Potter and clay and show that the Potter is "selecting" the best or superior part of the clay, a part of the clay that is different (better), but this he could not do because clay was all "the same." I also referred back to I Cor. 4: 7 and Paul's statement that all differences are owing to God's giving. People do not make themselves different, are not their own potters, are not the chief determiner of their own destinies.
Also, in Romans 9, unconditionality is indicated in these phrases:
"before they had done any good or evil"
"it is not of him who wills nor runs"
"it is of God that shows mercy"
"out of the same lump"
Was Isaac chosen before he was born to be a child of God?
Bruce said "no." He did not deny that God chose Isaac, before he was born, to be in the lineal ancestry of Christ, but nothing more. But, anyone reading the story, and the NT commentary upon it, and is honest, knows that God chose and destined Isaac before he was born to be more than just an ancestor of Jesus!
Isaac's supernatural birth a result of a decision or act of Isaac?
I had cited these words, more than once, early in the debate.
"Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now." (Gal. 4: 28, 29)
The story of Isaac's being a "child of promise," or "child of God," is stated by Paul to be illustrative of Christian salvation. The miraculous birth of Isaac (Abraham and Sarah were "dead," reproductively speaking) was an type of Christian spiritual birth. So, if we can look at how and why Isaac became chosen, a child of promise, and spiritually born, we discern how and why Christians become so. Any unbiased person knows how Isaac was chosen unconditionally and that his spiritual birth resulted from the divine choice, and was miraculous and certain.
Debate Review 2
2nd Night's Questions to Bruce Reeves
1. Why did God choose Naaman, the Syrian leper, for healing, while not choosing other lepers in Israel or Syria?
2. If one does not become elect till obeying the gospel (thus indicating that all are not chosen at the same time), how do you reconcile this with scripture that indicates all were chosen together? (Eph. 1: 3,4; I Thess. 2: 13; etc.)
3. If a bible writer wanted to express, in writing, individual election, how would he write it?
4. Since Abraham was chosen by God before the corporate entity of Israel was in existence, what corporate group did he become part of that made him an elect one?
5. Was Paul chosen by God for salvation before his conversion?
Why did God choose Naaman?
I had introduced the case of Naaman early in the debate and cited the words of Christ from Luke 4: 25-29.
"But I tell you of a truth, many widows were in Israel in the days of Elias, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, when great famine was throughout all the land; But unto none of them was Elias sent, save unto Sarepta, a city of Sidon, unto a woman that was a widow. And many lepers were in Israel in the time of Eliseus the prophet; and none of them was cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian. And all they in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were filled with wrath, And rose up, and thrust him out of the city, and led him unto the brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might cast him down headlong."
So, why did God choose Naaman, the Syrian leper, for healing, while not choosing other lepers in Israel or Syria?
My opponent would not tell us. I showed how God made a sovereign choice, among all the lepers and starving widows, to save one leper and one widow. I showed how this choice was sovereign and purely gracious. I affirmed that it was a type or illustration of salvation from the leprosy of sin. My opponent's first response was to say that it was an invalid type of salvation and that I had no authority for making it a type of salvation. This opposition and reluctance to admit its typical significance was telling. It showed how he believed that the story of Naaman and the widow, if applied to salvation, would contradict his doctrine, and admit the truthfulness of my position, the Calvinistic one.
When I returned comment to him on this matter I observed an inconsistency and a bit of irony in his affirming that the case of Naaman could be no type of how God operates in the sphere of grace and salvation. This was because nearly every Campbellite Restorationist debater I ever heard was very fond of using the case of Naaman as an illustration of salvation! They talk of Naaman as being "saved" because he obeyed by dipping seven times in the river Jordan and this was the way it is in Christian regeneration. But now, ironically, Bruce Reeves is saying I can't use it as an illustration of God's operations of grace! Consistency thou art a jewel.
In Bruce's follow up to the above rebuttal comments of mine, Bruce reluctantly admitted that it could be a type of salvation and even later began to use it like his Restorationists forefathers!
But, regardless of what Naaman may later do to obtain his cleansing/healing/salvation, God's choice of him alone for healing demonstrated that God's favor towards him was unconditional. Others were passed by, not chosen for healing and deliverance from physical death (famine).
Chosen At The Same Time?
The second question concerned my assertion that all the elect, as individuals, were chosen at the same time, "before the foundation of the world." All their names were written in the Lamb's book of life "from the foundation of the world." Yet, the corporate election view of my opponent would have people being chosen at different times, their names being written in the book of life at different times, and would be against the scriptures I cited. Bruce denied that all the elect ones were chosen before the world began, that their names were all written down at once, in past eternity.
If a bible writer wanted to express, in writing, individual election, how would he write it?
My opponent was like a weasel in response to this simple third question. He at first insinuated that my question was equivalent to asking him if one could add words to the scriptures. Whether this was intentional, or done in ignorance, is up to the audience to determine. But, my question was simple. If one wanted to teach an individual election, how would he write that in a sentence? Bruce said he did not know how! I contend that any English sentence that he wrote in order to affirm individual election would not be all that different from how it is written in scripture.
Since Abraham was chosen by God before the corporate entity of Israel was in existence, what corporate group did he become part of that made him an elect one?
Bruce responded to this question by stating that, according to Matt. 8: 11, the corporate entity was the "kingdom of God." I contended that Abraham's enjoyment of the kingdom of God was yet future in Abraham's day and could not have been the corporate entity. My point was to show that Abraham was individually and personally chosen by God and yet this was not because Abraham had joined some corporate group. His election and calling did put him into a class, of course, but his individual election came before his being made part of a class. Israel, as a corporate group, did not yet exist, so Abraham could not have been incorporated into that entity. I believe the case of Abraham demonstrated individual election to salvation and against the rigid corporate view of my opponent.
Was Paul chosen by God for salvation before his conversion?
Bruce said no. Paul was chosen to be an apostle, according to Bruce, before he was saved, but he was not chosen to salvation before he was saved. The two passages dealing with this directly are Acts 9: 15 and Acts 22: 14.
"But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel." (Acts 9: 15)
"And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth." (22: 14)
It is possible to limit the Lord's choice of Saul (Paul) to his choice of Paul to be an apostle and preacher of the gospel, for the text says "chosen...to bear my name..." But, it is not possible to limit the object of the choice to that of being an evangelist, based upon the latter verse in Acts. There are three things that the latter verse indicates that Paul was chosen to. In fact, in both verses Paul is said to be "chosen to." In the first verse he is "chosen to bear my name." In the latter verse he is "chosen to" 1) "know his will," 2) "see that Just One," and 3) "hear the voice of his mouth."
I argued that such descriptions of the thing being chosen "to" shows that it is not limited to being chosen to the apostleship. To know God's will is to know God, and Paul was chosen to know God and his will, and this is salvation. To "see that Just One" was also a description of the salvation experience. Jesus said:
"And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day." (John 6: 40)
Also, "to hear his voice" is also connected with salvation. Jesus said:
"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me." (John 10: 27)
So, even though my opponent said that Paul was not chosen to salvation before he experienced salvation, he was shown to be against scripture. Also, it is interesting how Jesus called Paul a chosen "vessel." Is this not the term Paul uses in Romans? He there speaks of "vessels," some destined to receive grace and glory, and some destined to receice wrath. In Romans 9 Paul uses "chosen vessels" in the context of personal salvation, not in the context of apostleship.
1. Why did God choose Naaman, the Syrian leper, for healing, while not choosing other lepers in Israel or Syria?
2. If one does not become elect till obeying the gospel (thus indicating that all are not chosen at the same time), how do you reconcile this with scripture that indicates all were chosen together? (Eph. 1: 3,4; I Thess. 2: 13; etc.)
3. If a bible writer wanted to express, in writing, individual election, how would he write it?
4. Since Abraham was chosen by God before the corporate entity of Israel was in existence, what corporate group did he become part of that made him an elect one?
5. Was Paul chosen by God for salvation before his conversion?
Why did God choose Naaman?
I had introduced the case of Naaman early in the debate and cited the words of Christ from Luke 4: 25-29.
"But I tell you of a truth, many widows were in Israel in the days of Elias, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, when great famine was throughout all the land; But unto none of them was Elias sent, save unto Sarepta, a city of Sidon, unto a woman that was a widow. And many lepers were in Israel in the time of Eliseus the prophet; and none of them was cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian. And all they in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were filled with wrath, And rose up, and thrust him out of the city, and led him unto the brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might cast him down headlong."
So, why did God choose Naaman, the Syrian leper, for healing, while not choosing other lepers in Israel or Syria?
My opponent would not tell us. I showed how God made a sovereign choice, among all the lepers and starving widows, to save one leper and one widow. I showed how this choice was sovereign and purely gracious. I affirmed that it was a type or illustration of salvation from the leprosy of sin. My opponent's first response was to say that it was an invalid type of salvation and that I had no authority for making it a type of salvation. This opposition and reluctance to admit its typical significance was telling. It showed how he believed that the story of Naaman and the widow, if applied to salvation, would contradict his doctrine, and admit the truthfulness of my position, the Calvinistic one.
When I returned comment to him on this matter I observed an inconsistency and a bit of irony in his affirming that the case of Naaman could be no type of how God operates in the sphere of grace and salvation. This was because nearly every Campbellite Restorationist debater I ever heard was very fond of using the case of Naaman as an illustration of salvation! They talk of Naaman as being "saved" because he obeyed by dipping seven times in the river Jordan and this was the way it is in Christian regeneration. But now, ironically, Bruce Reeves is saying I can't use it as an illustration of God's operations of grace! Consistency thou art a jewel.
In Bruce's follow up to the above rebuttal comments of mine, Bruce reluctantly admitted that it could be a type of salvation and even later began to use it like his Restorationists forefathers!
But, regardless of what Naaman may later do to obtain his cleansing/healing/salvation, God's choice of him alone for healing demonstrated that God's favor towards him was unconditional. Others were passed by, not chosen for healing and deliverance from physical death (famine).
Chosen At The Same Time?
The second question concerned my assertion that all the elect, as individuals, were chosen at the same time, "before the foundation of the world." All their names were written in the Lamb's book of life "from the foundation of the world." Yet, the corporate election view of my opponent would have people being chosen at different times, their names being written in the book of life at different times, and would be against the scriptures I cited. Bruce denied that all the elect ones were chosen before the world began, that their names were all written down at once, in past eternity.
If a bible writer wanted to express, in writing, individual election, how would he write it?
My opponent was like a weasel in response to this simple third question. He at first insinuated that my question was equivalent to asking him if one could add words to the scriptures. Whether this was intentional, or done in ignorance, is up to the audience to determine. But, my question was simple. If one wanted to teach an individual election, how would he write that in a sentence? Bruce said he did not know how! I contend that any English sentence that he wrote in order to affirm individual election would not be all that different from how it is written in scripture.
Since Abraham was chosen by God before the corporate entity of Israel was in existence, what corporate group did he become part of that made him an elect one?
Bruce responded to this question by stating that, according to Matt. 8: 11, the corporate entity was the "kingdom of God." I contended that Abraham's enjoyment of the kingdom of God was yet future in Abraham's day and could not have been the corporate entity. My point was to show that Abraham was individually and personally chosen by God and yet this was not because Abraham had joined some corporate group. His election and calling did put him into a class, of course, but his individual election came before his being made part of a class. Israel, as a corporate group, did not yet exist, so Abraham could not have been incorporated into that entity. I believe the case of Abraham demonstrated individual election to salvation and against the rigid corporate view of my opponent.
Was Paul chosen by God for salvation before his conversion?
Bruce said no. Paul was chosen to be an apostle, according to Bruce, before he was saved, but he was not chosen to salvation before he was saved. The two passages dealing with this directly are Acts 9: 15 and Acts 22: 14.
"But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel." (Acts 9: 15)
"And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth." (22: 14)
It is possible to limit the Lord's choice of Saul (Paul) to his choice of Paul to be an apostle and preacher of the gospel, for the text says "chosen...to bear my name..." But, it is not possible to limit the object of the choice to that of being an evangelist, based upon the latter verse in Acts. There are three things that the latter verse indicates that Paul was chosen to. In fact, in both verses Paul is said to be "chosen to." In the first verse he is "chosen to bear my name." In the latter verse he is "chosen to" 1) "know his will," 2) "see that Just One," and 3) "hear the voice of his mouth."
I argued that such descriptions of the thing being chosen "to" shows that it is not limited to being chosen to the apostleship. To know God's will is to know God, and Paul was chosen to know God and his will, and this is salvation. To "see that Just One" was also a description of the salvation experience. Jesus said:
"And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day." (John 6: 40)
Also, "to hear his voice" is also connected with salvation. Jesus said:
"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me." (John 10: 27)
So, even though my opponent said that Paul was not chosen to salvation before he experienced salvation, he was shown to be against scripture. Also, it is interesting how Jesus called Paul a chosen "vessel." Is this not the term Paul uses in Romans? He there speaks of "vessels," some destined to receive grace and glory, and some destined to receice wrath. In Romans 9 Paul uses "chosen vessels" in the context of personal salvation, not in the context of apostleship.
Nov 19, 2010
Debate Review 1
Here are the Debate Questions that I asked of Bruce Reeves with my recall of what he said. Also, I give my present review of those questions and answers.
Ist Night
1. What is the "it" of Romans 9: 16?
2. Was Isaac a "child of promise" conditionally or unconditionally?
3. Did God "choose" and "love" Jacob conditionally or unconditionally?
4. Is one "chosen" by God because saved or in order to be saved?
5. Why does God choose one part of the "lump of clay," in Rom. 9, to make into vessels of mercy, and not the other part?
The "it" of Romans 9: 16
The first question involved a mistake on my part, for I intended Romans 9: 16, not 9: 13. It is the verse that says "so then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy." So, my opponent's (Bruce Reeves) first response was not germane. However, he later did give his view as to what the "it" refers. The "it" was God's will to save Gentiles by Israel's birth of the Messiah. I, on the other hand, contended that the "it" referred to God's word of promise, mentioned in verses 6 and 9.
"Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel..." (vs. 6)
"For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son." (vs. 9)
I showed that this "word of promise" (or "oath") was a simple proposition, stated by Paul in his conclusion to the section of the epistle covering Romans chapters 9-11, in Romans 11: 26, and reveals to us the overall context of these chapters.
"And so all Israel shall be saved..."
This word of promise was uttered originally by the prophet Isaiah in Isaiah 45: 17.
"But Israel shall be saved in the LORD with an everlasting salvation..."
The objection of Paul's imaginary objector is stated in verse 6, where the objector concludes that God's word has failed, has not been kept or fulfilled, has not been effectual, because Israel has not been saved as promised, or even as Paul had taught. The chapter begins by Paul lamenting the lost state of Israel and earnestly desiring Israel's salvation. Paul knew that some would object and accuse him of denying the certainty of God's promise of salvation to "Israel" and to the "seed of Abraham." The objector is saying to Paul - "how can you teach that Israel, or most of Israel, is lost, since God has promised to save all Israel? Don't you believe that God does not fail to keep his promises?"
The objector, as I showed, reasoned along these syllogistic lines.
1. God promised that he would save all Israel.
2. Israel is not all saved (either in fact or according to Paul).
3. God's promise has failed.
Paul deals with this by examining the minor premise. Paul focused on the definition of the term "Israel," and by extension, the term "seed of Abraham." Paul says that the minor premise is true, if by "Israel" is meant the physical descendents of Jacob. He also affirms that the minor premise is false, if by "Israel" is meant the elect ones among the chosen nation. Paul affirms that not all fleshly Israel will be saved, but, conversely, that all spiritual Israel will be saved. He further affirms that the promise of salvation (as in Isa. 45: 17) did not pertain to "Israel after the flesh." The spiritual seed of Abraham, or spiritual Israel, Paul believed, would certainly all be saved.
My opponent missed this context. He missed seeing the significance of Romans 11: 26 as it relates to Paul's thesis in chapters 9-11. This led him to equivocate in his interpretation of Romans 9. He would allow certain verses as dealing with individual salvation, but only in a corporate or indirect way.
My opponent affirmed that verse 16 was simply affirming that God's creation of a Messianic line was unconditional, not depending upon the will and running of the individuals who became part of that lineage. Romans 9, according to him, dealt with salvation only indirectly. It dealt with salvation because it dealt with God's creating a lineage that would give existence to Christ.
This was a little ironic because later, when we were discussing the supernatural birth of Isaac, which I showed was "not of Isaac who willed or runned," he began to assert that the birth of Isaac, and his becoming a "child of promise" or "child of God," was conditioned upon the willing and running of Sarah and Abraham. He contradicted himself in this for he affirmed, on one hand, that the willing and running of creatures were not conditions for the creation of a lineage for Christ, but on the other hand, that the willing and running of Sarah and Abraham were conditions.
Thus, God's loving Jacob, and choosing him, was only for the purpose of making him an ancestor of Jesus, and was unconnected with Jacob's individual salvation. God's choice of Jacob to be an ancestor of Jesus was not based upon any good Jacob did. Likewise, God's hatred of Esau was for the purpose of excluding Esau from being a ancestor of Jesus.
In conclusion, I showed how the "it" was God's naming, choosing, or determining that such and such a person be a child of promise or child of God, an Israelite, or seed of Abraham.
Was Isaac a "child of promise" conditionally or unconditionally?
This was a tough question for my opponent. He affirmed that Isaac became a child of promise, was chosen and loved, was supernaturally or spiritually born, conditionally, because he had faith. Yet, he also affirmed that Isaac's becoming a means for the future incarnation of Christ, was unconditional. Isaac, like Jacob, was chosen to be a link in the lineage of Christ, "before he had done any good," or unconditional, but his becoming a child of promise, or child of God, was conditional. He also, in the heat of debate, stated that Isaac's being a "child of promise" did not refer to Isaac's individual salvation, to his being a "child of God," but to his being an ancestor of Jesus. I showed, however, from Romans 9 and Galatians 4: 28, that "child of promise" was equated with being a "child of God." I also showed, from Romans 9: 8, how Paul equated the terms "child of promise" with "child of God."
"Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now." (Gal. 4: 28, 29)
"They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed." (Rom. 9: 8)
I showed how Paul connected being a "child of promise" with being "born after the Spirit" and with being a "child of God," and thus did allude to personal salvation.
"Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called." (Romans 9: 6, 7)
I showed contextually that Paul is dealing with how one becomes a true Israelite, a spiritual seed of Abraham, a child of promise or child of God.
"For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel." (9: 6)
Obviously, Paul introduces his subject in these words. He wants to address how one becomes an Israelite, a seed of Abraham, a child of promise and child of God. Thus, he is dealing with individual salvation. I showed how Paul had already introduced this theme in Romans 2: 28, 29, when he wrote.
"For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 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."
Paul is addressing, in Romans 9, the question of who is the true Israelite, a true seed of Abraham, a spiritual Jew, one spiritually circumcised. My opponent, however, ignoring these contextual considerations, kept affirming that God was not determining that Isaac would be saved personally, but only that he would be a means of bringing Christ into the world, by being chosen to be a link in the lineage or ancestry of Christ.
Did God "choose" and "love" Jacob conditionally or unconditionally?
My opponent never really answered this question. At times he would affirm that this choosing and loving of Jacob did not refer to Jacob's individual salvation, but only to God making him an ancestor of Jesus, an indirect means of providing salvation. At other times, he would indicate that Jacob was loved and chosen because he had faith, thus further becoming guilty of equivocation and doublespeak.
He affirmed that God's loving Jacob "before he had done any good" did not refer to Jacob's salvation but to his being an ancestor of Jesus. Likewise, the statement "it is not of him who wills or runs" did not refer to Jacob's salvation, or being a child of promise/God, being a spiritual Israelite, but to his becoming a chosen ancestor of Jesus.
Is one "chosen" by God because saved or in order to be saved?
Again, I never got a clear straightforward answer to this question. My opponent argued that one became "elect" after he was saved, after he joined himself to the saved community (church), or corporate group, or not until he entered into Christ by water baptism. I showed that this amounted to saying that one did not become elect until after he was saved, and yet both the bible and his own proposition stated otherwise. The bible says sinners are "chosen to salvation" (II Thess. 2: 13), not because of salvation, salvation coming after the choice, the choice being the cause of salvation, and not vice versa. My opponent's proposition stated that God "chose to salvation" a class of saved people. I showed how this was nonsensical, saying that God chose to salvation those who were already saved.
Why does God choose one part of the "lump of clay," in Rom. 9, to make into vessels of mercy, and not the other part?
This was another difficult question for my opponent. I had introduced I Cor. 4: 7 in my first negative speech and tied it to the words of Rom. 9: 21.
"For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?" (I Cor. 4: 7)
I showed how my opponent's position, the Arminian position, argued that God chose part of the clay to become "vessels of mercy" because it was already different from the other part of the clay that became "vessels of wrath." I cited Grevinchovius (17th century Dutch theologian), who said,
"I make myself to differ; since I could resist God, and divine predetermination, but have not resisted, why may not I glory in it as of my own?'"
I showed how Paul argued that saving differences were attributed to God. By his giving to one what he denies to another, he made men to differ. I showed how the lump of clay was all the "same," when God the Potter chose part of it to make into vessels of mercy, and thus the choice could not be based upon a pre-existing difference originating from the clay itself.
The best my opponent could do in regard to this was to ignore my argument on the significance of the "same lump," and to assert that I Cor. 4: 7 dealt with miraculous gifts, and not with anything else. I showed, however, that Paul speaks broadly, and includes all differences, especially saving differences. I showed that all good things are God's gifts and that the giving of a gift to one and not to another, was what constituted difference.
Ist Night
1. What is the "it" of Romans 9: 16?
2. Was Isaac a "child of promise" conditionally or unconditionally?
3. Did God "choose" and "love" Jacob conditionally or unconditionally?
4. Is one "chosen" by God because saved or in order to be saved?
5. Why does God choose one part of the "lump of clay," in Rom. 9, to make into vessels of mercy, and not the other part?
The "it" of Romans 9: 16
The first question involved a mistake on my part, for I intended Romans 9: 16, not 9: 13. It is the verse that says "so then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy." So, my opponent's (Bruce Reeves) first response was not germane. However, he later did give his view as to what the "it" refers. The "it" was God's will to save Gentiles by Israel's birth of the Messiah. I, on the other hand, contended that the "it" referred to God's word of promise, mentioned in verses 6 and 9.
"Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel..." (vs. 6)
"For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son." (vs. 9)
I showed that this "word of promise" (or "oath") was a simple proposition, stated by Paul in his conclusion to the section of the epistle covering Romans chapters 9-11, in Romans 11: 26, and reveals to us the overall context of these chapters.
"And so all Israel shall be saved..."
This word of promise was uttered originally by the prophet Isaiah in Isaiah 45: 17.
"But Israel shall be saved in the LORD with an everlasting salvation..."
The objection of Paul's imaginary objector is stated in verse 6, where the objector concludes that God's word has failed, has not been kept or fulfilled, has not been effectual, because Israel has not been saved as promised, or even as Paul had taught. The chapter begins by Paul lamenting the lost state of Israel and earnestly desiring Israel's salvation. Paul knew that some would object and accuse him of denying the certainty of God's promise of salvation to "Israel" and to the "seed of Abraham." The objector is saying to Paul - "how can you teach that Israel, or most of Israel, is lost, since God has promised to save all Israel? Don't you believe that God does not fail to keep his promises?"
The objector, as I showed, reasoned along these syllogistic lines.
1. God promised that he would save all Israel.
2. Israel is not all saved (either in fact or according to Paul).
3. God's promise has failed.
Paul deals with this by examining the minor premise. Paul focused on the definition of the term "Israel," and by extension, the term "seed of Abraham." Paul says that the minor premise is true, if by "Israel" is meant the physical descendents of Jacob. He also affirms that the minor premise is false, if by "Israel" is meant the elect ones among the chosen nation. Paul affirms that not all fleshly Israel will be saved, but, conversely, that all spiritual Israel will be saved. He further affirms that the promise of salvation (as in Isa. 45: 17) did not pertain to "Israel after the flesh." The spiritual seed of Abraham, or spiritual Israel, Paul believed, would certainly all be saved.
My opponent missed this context. He missed seeing the significance of Romans 11: 26 as it relates to Paul's thesis in chapters 9-11. This led him to equivocate in his interpretation of Romans 9. He would allow certain verses as dealing with individual salvation, but only in a corporate or indirect way.
My opponent affirmed that verse 16 was simply affirming that God's creation of a Messianic line was unconditional, not depending upon the will and running of the individuals who became part of that lineage. Romans 9, according to him, dealt with salvation only indirectly. It dealt with salvation because it dealt with God's creating a lineage that would give existence to Christ.
This was a little ironic because later, when we were discussing the supernatural birth of Isaac, which I showed was "not of Isaac who willed or runned," he began to assert that the birth of Isaac, and his becoming a "child of promise" or "child of God," was conditioned upon the willing and running of Sarah and Abraham. He contradicted himself in this for he affirmed, on one hand, that the willing and running of creatures were not conditions for the creation of a lineage for Christ, but on the other hand, that the willing and running of Sarah and Abraham were conditions.
Thus, God's loving Jacob, and choosing him, was only for the purpose of making him an ancestor of Jesus, and was unconnected with Jacob's individual salvation. God's choice of Jacob to be an ancestor of Jesus was not based upon any good Jacob did. Likewise, God's hatred of Esau was for the purpose of excluding Esau from being a ancestor of Jesus.
In conclusion, I showed how the "it" was God's naming, choosing, or determining that such and such a person be a child of promise or child of God, an Israelite, or seed of Abraham.
Was Isaac a "child of promise" conditionally or unconditionally?
This was a tough question for my opponent. He affirmed that Isaac became a child of promise, was chosen and loved, was supernaturally or spiritually born, conditionally, because he had faith. Yet, he also affirmed that Isaac's becoming a means for the future incarnation of Christ, was unconditional. Isaac, like Jacob, was chosen to be a link in the lineage of Christ, "before he had done any good," or unconditional, but his becoming a child of promise, or child of God, was conditional. He also, in the heat of debate, stated that Isaac's being a "child of promise" did not refer to Isaac's individual salvation, to his being a "child of God," but to his being an ancestor of Jesus. I showed, however, from Romans 9 and Galatians 4: 28, that "child of promise" was equated with being a "child of God." I also showed, from Romans 9: 8, how Paul equated the terms "child of promise" with "child of God."
"Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now." (Gal. 4: 28, 29)
"They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed." (Rom. 9: 8)
I showed how Paul connected being a "child of promise" with being "born after the Spirit" and with being a "child of God," and thus did allude to personal salvation.
"Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called." (Romans 9: 6, 7)
I showed contextually that Paul is dealing with how one becomes a true Israelite, a spiritual seed of Abraham, a child of promise or child of God.
"For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel." (9: 6)
Obviously, Paul introduces his subject in these words. He wants to address how one becomes an Israelite, a seed of Abraham, a child of promise and child of God. Thus, he is dealing with individual salvation. I showed how Paul had already introduced this theme in Romans 2: 28, 29, when he wrote.
"For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 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."
Paul is addressing, in Romans 9, the question of who is the true Israelite, a true seed of Abraham, a spiritual Jew, one spiritually circumcised. My opponent, however, ignoring these contextual considerations, kept affirming that God was not determining that Isaac would be saved personally, but only that he would be a means of bringing Christ into the world, by being chosen to be a link in the lineage or ancestry of Christ.
Did God "choose" and "love" Jacob conditionally or unconditionally?
My opponent never really answered this question. At times he would affirm that this choosing and loving of Jacob did not refer to Jacob's individual salvation, but only to God making him an ancestor of Jesus, an indirect means of providing salvation. At other times, he would indicate that Jacob was loved and chosen because he had faith, thus further becoming guilty of equivocation and doublespeak.
He affirmed that God's loving Jacob "before he had done any good" did not refer to Jacob's salvation but to his being an ancestor of Jesus. Likewise, the statement "it is not of him who wills or runs" did not refer to Jacob's salvation, or being a child of promise/God, being a spiritual Israelite, but to his becoming a chosen ancestor of Jesus.
Is one "chosen" by God because saved or in order to be saved?
Again, I never got a clear straightforward answer to this question. My opponent argued that one became "elect" after he was saved, after he joined himself to the saved community (church), or corporate group, or not until he entered into Christ by water baptism. I showed that this amounted to saying that one did not become elect until after he was saved, and yet both the bible and his own proposition stated otherwise. The bible says sinners are "chosen to salvation" (II Thess. 2: 13), not because of salvation, salvation coming after the choice, the choice being the cause of salvation, and not vice versa. My opponent's proposition stated that God "chose to salvation" a class of saved people. I showed how this was nonsensical, saying that God chose to salvation those who were already saved.
Why does God choose one part of the "lump of clay," in Rom. 9, to make into vessels of mercy, and not the other part?
This was another difficult question for my opponent. I had introduced I Cor. 4: 7 in my first negative speech and tied it to the words of Rom. 9: 21.
"For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?" (I Cor. 4: 7)
I showed how my opponent's position, the Arminian position, argued that God chose part of the clay to become "vessels of mercy" because it was already different from the other part of the clay that became "vessels of wrath." I cited Grevinchovius (17th century Dutch theologian), who said,
"I make myself to differ; since I could resist God, and divine predetermination, but have not resisted, why may not I glory in it as of my own?'"
I showed how Paul argued that saving differences were attributed to God. By his giving to one what he denies to another, he made men to differ. I showed how the lump of clay was all the "same," when God the Potter chose part of it to make into vessels of mercy, and thus the choice could not be based upon a pre-existing difference originating from the clay itself.
The best my opponent could do in regard to this was to ignore my argument on the significance of the "same lump," and to assert that I Cor. 4: 7 dealt with miraculous gifts, and not with anything else. I showed, however, that Paul speaks broadly, and includes all differences, especially saving differences. I showed that all good things are God's gifts and that the giving of a gift to one and not to another, was what constituted difference.
Nov 18, 2010
Debate Conclusion
The debate with Bruce Reeves of the Conway, Arkansas "Church of Christ" was held the week of November 8th through 12th here in Monroe, N.C. at Crossroads Baptist Church. For four nights the subject of election was discussed, with Bruce affirming that the bible taught a conditional corporate election and with me affirming that the bible taught an unconditional election that was personal and individual. It is my intent to begin reviewing this debate over the next week. Bruce is planning to put the audio of the debate on his church's web page. I will be sending him audio and video cds of the debate over the next week so he can make this available on his web page.
You can visit Bruce's web page here
http://www.hwy65churchofchrist.org/
You can visit Bruce's web page here
http://www.hwy65churchofchrist.org/
Nov 1, 2010
Debate Announcement
November 8th & 9th (Monday and Tuesday) 2010
at Crossroads Baptist Church in Monroe, N.C.
"The Scriptures teach that God's election to salvation is of a class of persons and not specific individuals."
Affirm: Bruce Reeves
Deny: Stephen Garrett
November 11th & 12th (Thursday and Friday) 2010
"The scriptures teach that God chose, before the world began, a definite number of people to be saved, without respect to any act on their part as a condition."
Affirm: Stephen Garrett
Deny: Bruce Reeves
at Crossroads Baptist Church in Monroe, N.C.
"The Scriptures teach that God's election to salvation is of a class of persons and not specific individuals."
Affirm: Bruce Reeves
Deny: Stephen Garrett
November 11th & 12th (Thursday and Friday) 2010
"The scriptures teach that God chose, before the world began, a definite number of people to be saved, without respect to any act on their part as a condition."
Affirm: Stephen Garrett
Deny: Bruce Reeves
Oct 13, 2010
Spurgeon - Elected to Faith
Said Charles Spurgeon:
"Then the decree of election could not have been formed upon good works. "But," say others, "God elected them on the foresight of their faith." Now, God gives faith, therefore He could not have elected them on account of faith which He foresaw. There shall be twenty beggards in the street and I determine to give one of them a shilling. Will anyone say that I determined to give that one a shilling—that I elected him to have the shilling—because I foresaw that he would have it? That would be talking nonsense."
"In like manner to say that God elected men because He foresaw they would have faith—which is salvation in the germ—would be too absurd for us to listen to for a moment. Faith is the gift of God. Every virtue comes from Him. Therefore it cannot have caused Him to elect men, because it is His gift. Election, we are sure, is absolute and altogether apart from the virtues which the saints have afterwards."
"I never knew a saint yet of any denomination who thought that God saved him because He foresaw that he would have these virtues and merits."
(UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION - NO. 41-42)
"Then the decree of election could not have been formed upon good works. "But," say others, "God elected them on the foresight of their faith." Now, God gives faith, therefore He could not have elected them on account of faith which He foresaw. There shall be twenty beggards in the street and I determine to give one of them a shilling. Will anyone say that I determined to give that one a shilling—that I elected him to have the shilling—because I foresaw that he would have it? That would be talking nonsense."
"In like manner to say that God elected men because He foresaw they would have faith—which is salvation in the germ—would be too absurd for us to listen to for a moment. Faith is the gift of God. Every virtue comes from Him. Therefore it cannot have caused Him to elect men, because it is His gift. Election, we are sure, is absolute and altogether apart from the virtues which the saints have afterwards."
"I never knew a saint yet of any denomination who thought that God saved him because He foresaw that he would have these virtues and merits."
(UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION - NO. 41-42)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)