H. Boyce Taylor (1870-1932) was an able Baptist minister. In a biography written by Roy O. Beaman, "The Life of H. Boyce Taylor, Sr.," see here, Beaman wrote: (emphasis mine)
"Born in Ohio County, Ky., September 29, 1870; died in the Baptist Memorial Hospital, Memphis, Tenn., May 31, 1932. Fourth in a line of Baptist preachers: Boyce Taylor, son; W. C. Taylor, Sr., his father, Alfred Taylor, his grandfather; Joseph Taylor, his great grandfather.
Converted at an early age at Auburn, Ky. Ordained to the ministry by the Baptist Church, Russelvillle. Ky. Scholastic attainments: A.B. and M.A. from Bethel College, Russelville, Ky.; Th Master from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville. Ky.; D.D. from Hall Moody Institute, Martin, Tenn. Pastor in Carroll and Trimble Counties, Ky., during seminary days in Louisville. Pastor Murray Baptist Church almost thirty-five years, January 1897-October 1931, during which pastorate Dr. J. F. Love and Dr. B. H. Carroll said respectively that it was the greatest missionary, church and the nearest to New Testament pattern they had ever seen. No set salary from third year in Murray; a constant preacher and writer on tithing and stewardship; used the "box plan" in his church. Held many revivals in many states; received many flattering calls to leave Murray. A contender against evolution, Arminianism, Masonry, and many heresies; held over fifty public discussions with representative men of numerous denominations. Jailed during World War I because he kept his church house open for worship, preferring to obey God rather than man."
"He authored "Why Be A Baptist", "Bible Briefs Against Hurtful Heresies," "Studies in Romans," "Acts of the Apostles," "Studies in the Parables," and many tracts on salvation, Christian living, and sound doctrine, which he printed and distributed by the multiplied thousands."
"A man of God; a man of faith and prayer; the sinner's friend; a devout lover of missions and a strong contender for "the faith once for all delivered to the saints:" student of Broadus, admirer of Graves and Pendleton, friend of Eaton and Carroll, coworker of J. N. Hall and other stalwarts of the faith."
Dr. Taylor was a staunch opponent of Hardshellism and held several debates with Hardshell leaders.
"Why Be A Baptist?" See here
Concerning Hardshellism, he wrote:
"The second heresy of Hardshellism is like the first, a half-truth. They teach the doctrine of personal, unconditional, eternal election. That is the truth, but not all the truth on that subject. "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction" (II Peter 3:16). But they warp and wrest and twist that truth and make it teach a lie, namely, that if God elected a man unto salvation, he will be saved, whether he ever hears the gospel or not. The God, who elected the men unto salvation, also elected the means for their salvation. To preach the personal election of men, as Hardshells do, and leave out or deny the divinely chosen means, is not only not the truth, but is a wicked perversion of the truth. When Paul states the doctrine of election he states the whole truth. Rom. 8:28-30: "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified." He clearly teaches that all the elect will be glorified; but between their predestination and their glorification he puts in the two things the Hardshells leave out, namely, their calling and their justification. They are called, Paul said, by the gospel and they are justified by faith or believing the gospel. So that the whole truth as to election is that all the elect will be called by the gospel and be justified by believing the gospel and be glorified by reason of the hope obtained through the gospel. Or take this passage in II Thes. 2:13-14: "But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ", Paul again tells the whole truth about election: There is eternal election, from the beginning; personal election, "you"; unconditional election, "God chose." But that is only half the truth. God's election was "unto salvation." This salvation was not unconditional, but was "through the sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth." This unconditional election was unto a conditional salvation to which the elect were called by the gospel. These unconditionally elected ones could only obtain the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ through a conditional salvation to which they were called by the gospel. Since Hardshellism preaches no gospel, no one has been called unto salvation through it. Since being called unto salvation by the gospel is necessary to obtaining salvation and Hardshellism has no gospel for the unsaved, no one was ever saved by Hardshellism. Since God's elect are all called unto salvation by the Gospel and the Hardshell elect are all saved without the gospel, Hardshell elect are not God's elect. Since all God's elect are saved "thru sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" and Hardshells are saved without the belief of the truth. Hardshells are not saved or not God's elect and Hardshellism is not the truth. Since God's unconditional election is unto a conditional salvation and Hardshell unconditional election is unto an unconditional salvation; Hardshell election is not the truth but a perversion of the truth and is not unto a salvation at all but unto damnation. Remember that God's unconditional election is unto a conditional salvation and when Hardshellism teaches an unconditional salvation the election they preach is unto damnation instead of salvation. An election which does not include the preaching of the Gospel as a condition of salvation is not God's election at all; for "it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe" (I Cor. 1:21). God's election included both the men and the means. But once more Paul said: "I endure all things for the elect's sake, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory" (II Tim. 2:10). The elect will obtain eternal glory; but how? By the missionaries enduring all things that they may preach the gospel by which the elect are called unto salvation. Since Hardshell election leaves out missions it is not God's kind, not Paul's kind and not the truth."
Powerful!
Dec 9, 2010
Dec 8, 2010
Simmons on Hardshellism
T. P. Simmons
"Arminians charge that unconditional election means unconditional salvation, and that we teach that men were actually saved in eternity. Both charges are groundless, for election is not salvation. We were unconditionally elected in eternity to a conditional salvation in time. And when we speak of salvation as being conditional we do not mean that the salvation of the elect is in any way fortuitous or uncertain, but only that certain conditions (repentance and faith) must be fulfilled before they come to possess salvation.
A condition is "something that necessarily precedes a result, but does not produce it." In eternity the salvation of the elect was purposed, and the elect are spoken of in the purpose of God as called, justified, and glorified (Rom. 8: 29, 30), but this is simply the language of Him, who in His purpose, "calleth the things that are not, as though they were" (Rom. 4:17). Many passages clearly teach that actual salvation takes place in time. For this we strongly contend. We have no patience whatsoever with the theory that the salvation which takes place in time is only temporal salvation, or salvation as it respects this life."
And again:
"At the same time God chose His people He ordained all the means necessary to accomplish their full and final salvation. See Rom. 8:29, 30. These means were inseparably joined to election in the decree of God. We have no sympathy with Hardshellism, hypercalvinism. To say that the elect will be saved whether they ever hear the gospel or not is to misunderstand completely the connection between election and the means God has ordained for the accomplishment of the end of election.
Salvation—spiritual, temporal, and eternal—is by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8-10; Rom. 5:1; Gal. 8:26). All the heathen that die without hearing the gospel will be lost (Rom. 1:19, 20; 2:12). Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God (Rom. 10:17).
Wherever God has an elect soul, in the fullness of His own time, He will in some way send the gospel to call that one from darkness to light. See 2 Thess. 2:14. Thus Philip was sent to the elect eunuch, and thus it was given to Paul to endure that the elect might obtain eternal salvation (11 Tim. 2:10). Thus we have the divine tie between election and missions.
Some charge that unconditional election makes all means useless. They say if the case is so with man that he cannot by nature receive spiritual things and must be quickened by the Spirit before he can turn from sin, being sure to turn when he is quickened, then why preach to him? We preach to him, first of all, because God has commanded it. We accept God’s Word whether we can reason out why He speaks thus and so or not. We do not make our reason the standard of obedience or truth, as is the case with Arminians. But, on the other hand, we find God’s Word to teach that God calls His elect by the Word, since the Word is the instrument of the Spirit in regeneration (John 3:5; Eph. 5:25, 26; Titus 3:5; Jas. 1:18; 1 Pet. 1:23). There is no more incongruity in preaching the gospel to the spiritually dead than there was in Christ’s standing before the tomb of Lazarus, dead four days, and saying, "Lazarus, come forth." As long as he remained dead Lazarus could not hear, much less obey, the command. But the life-giving power of God accompanied the Word of God, and Lazarus both heard and came forth. It is ours to preach the gospel to every creature, for so has Christ commanded. It is God’s part to bring the dead to life. See also the parable of the dry bones in the valley, where we have a picture of conversion through preaching (Ezek. 37). The dry bones represent the state of sinners by nature. The bones were lifeless; yet preaching to them was not in vain.
And Arminians ask, "Why pray for the lost, since all God’s elect will be saved and none others can be saved?" We pray for the lost for the same reason that Paul prayed for men, even though he taught unconditional election. We pray for the lost for the same reason that Christ prayed for the security of believers, even though that security was already certain. See John 17:11. Christ also prayed for a restoration of His former glory with the Father. See John 17:5. Was that in any sense uncertain? Prayer, as well as preaching, is a means of God in carrying out His will. His purposes are sovereignly fixed and eternally immutable, but He did not fix them independent of means."
IX. ELECTION IS NOT HARDSHELLISM
"It is customary for Arminians to reproach the Bible doctrine of election by referring to it as "Hardshellism." May God forgive them, for they know not what they do. That election is not Hardshellism is proved by the following facts:
1. ELECTION IS INDISSOLUBLY JOINED TO THE GOSPEL AS GOD’S MEANS OF CALLING HIS ELECT TO SALVATION.
This is proved by the Scriptures given above that show that regeneration is through the Word. And it is also proved by 2 Thess. 2:13, 14. The elect have been chosen to "salvation in sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth." To this, Paul says, they are "called by our gospel." Typical Hardshells deny the indispensable necessity of the knowledge of the gospel in regeneration. For that reason they show little concern in the carrying out of the great commission.
2. THE HARDSHELLS AND MISSIONARIES DID NOT SPLIT OVER ELECTION.
(1) They split over "mission, education, support of pastors, and other religious enterprises" (Jarrell, p. 431).
(2) In the split both parties held to unconditional election.
It will not be challenged that the Hardshells held to this doctrine. That the Missionaries did too is proved by the testimony of Spencer, who says that the Missionaries, "which embraced the main body of the denomination, held the doctrinal sentiments of Andrew Fuller," who believed in unconditional election, even though he taught an atonement of universal sufficiency. See History of Kentucky Baptists, Vol. 1, p. 645.
3. THERE IS YET NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MISSIONARIES AND HARDSHELLS ON THE MATTER OF UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION.
This is proved by—
(1) The fact that both accept the statement on election in the Philadelphia Confession of Faith.
Hardshells still accept this. And among the Missionaries this confession "is stiff widely used, and in the South it is probably the most influential of all confessions" (McGlothlin, Baptist Confessions of Faith, p. 298).
(2) The fact that unconditional election is taught in the other great American Baptist confession—the New Hampshire.
See proof of this under later discussion of unconditional election as a Baptist doctrine.
(3) The fact that all our standard theological text books and all doctrinal books written by representative and recognized Baptists teach this doctrine.
For proof of this see discussion referred to immediately above.
4. BAPTIST BELIEVERS IN UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION, COUPLED WITH THE GOSPEL AS AN INDISPENSABLE MEANS IN REGENERATION, HAVE EVER BEEN MOST AGGRESSIVE IN THE PROPAGATION OF THE GOSPEL.
Modem missionary vision and effort originated, not among the General (Arminian) Baptists, nor yet among any other Arminian denomination, but among the Particular (Calvinistic) Baptists of England. See the record in most any Baptist history. Robert Hall, Sr., Andrew Fuller, and William Carey were the leading lights.
American world-wide missionary effort originated in the Philadelphia Association, which adopted the hated Philadelphia Confession of Faith. See "The Story of Baptists," Cook, p. 327. "The Philadelphia Association speedily became the leading body of American Baptists—a position that it has not wholly lost to this day (1897). Pretty much everything good in our history, from 1700 to 1850, may be traced to its initiative or active cooperation" (Vedder, Short History of Baptists, p. 204)."
(Systematic Study of Bible Doctrine, Chapter 20)
"Arminians charge that unconditional election means unconditional salvation, and that we teach that men were actually saved in eternity. Both charges are groundless, for election is not salvation. We were unconditionally elected in eternity to a conditional salvation in time. And when we speak of salvation as being conditional we do not mean that the salvation of the elect is in any way fortuitous or uncertain, but only that certain conditions (repentance and faith) must be fulfilled before they come to possess salvation.
A condition is "something that necessarily precedes a result, but does not produce it." In eternity the salvation of the elect was purposed, and the elect are spoken of in the purpose of God as called, justified, and glorified (Rom. 8: 29, 30), but this is simply the language of Him, who in His purpose, "calleth the things that are not, as though they were" (Rom. 4:17). Many passages clearly teach that actual salvation takes place in time. For this we strongly contend. We have no patience whatsoever with the theory that the salvation which takes place in time is only temporal salvation, or salvation as it respects this life."
And again:
"At the same time God chose His people He ordained all the means necessary to accomplish their full and final salvation. See Rom. 8:29, 30. These means were inseparably joined to election in the decree of God. We have no sympathy with Hardshellism, hypercalvinism. To say that the elect will be saved whether they ever hear the gospel or not is to misunderstand completely the connection between election and the means God has ordained for the accomplishment of the end of election.
Salvation—spiritual, temporal, and eternal—is by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8-10; Rom. 5:1; Gal. 8:26). All the heathen that die without hearing the gospel will be lost (Rom. 1:19, 20; 2:12). Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God (Rom. 10:17).
Wherever God has an elect soul, in the fullness of His own time, He will in some way send the gospel to call that one from darkness to light. See 2 Thess. 2:14. Thus Philip was sent to the elect eunuch, and thus it was given to Paul to endure that the elect might obtain eternal salvation (11 Tim. 2:10). Thus we have the divine tie between election and missions.
Some charge that unconditional election makes all means useless. They say if the case is so with man that he cannot by nature receive spiritual things and must be quickened by the Spirit before he can turn from sin, being sure to turn when he is quickened, then why preach to him? We preach to him, first of all, because God has commanded it. We accept God’s Word whether we can reason out why He speaks thus and so or not. We do not make our reason the standard of obedience or truth, as is the case with Arminians. But, on the other hand, we find God’s Word to teach that God calls His elect by the Word, since the Word is the instrument of the Spirit in regeneration (John 3:5; Eph. 5:25, 26; Titus 3:5; Jas. 1:18; 1 Pet. 1:23). There is no more incongruity in preaching the gospel to the spiritually dead than there was in Christ’s standing before the tomb of Lazarus, dead four days, and saying, "Lazarus, come forth." As long as he remained dead Lazarus could not hear, much less obey, the command. But the life-giving power of God accompanied the Word of God, and Lazarus both heard and came forth. It is ours to preach the gospel to every creature, for so has Christ commanded. It is God’s part to bring the dead to life. See also the parable of the dry bones in the valley, where we have a picture of conversion through preaching (Ezek. 37). The dry bones represent the state of sinners by nature. The bones were lifeless; yet preaching to them was not in vain.
And Arminians ask, "Why pray for the lost, since all God’s elect will be saved and none others can be saved?" We pray for the lost for the same reason that Paul prayed for men, even though he taught unconditional election. We pray for the lost for the same reason that Christ prayed for the security of believers, even though that security was already certain. See John 17:11. Christ also prayed for a restoration of His former glory with the Father. See John 17:5. Was that in any sense uncertain? Prayer, as well as preaching, is a means of God in carrying out His will. His purposes are sovereignly fixed and eternally immutable, but He did not fix them independent of means."
IX. ELECTION IS NOT HARDSHELLISM
"It is customary for Arminians to reproach the Bible doctrine of election by referring to it as "Hardshellism." May God forgive them, for they know not what they do. That election is not Hardshellism is proved by the following facts:
1. ELECTION IS INDISSOLUBLY JOINED TO THE GOSPEL AS GOD’S MEANS OF CALLING HIS ELECT TO SALVATION.
This is proved by the Scriptures given above that show that regeneration is through the Word. And it is also proved by 2 Thess. 2:13, 14. The elect have been chosen to "salvation in sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth." To this, Paul says, they are "called by our gospel." Typical Hardshells deny the indispensable necessity of the knowledge of the gospel in regeneration. For that reason they show little concern in the carrying out of the great commission.
2. THE HARDSHELLS AND MISSIONARIES DID NOT SPLIT OVER ELECTION.
(1) They split over "mission, education, support of pastors, and other religious enterprises" (Jarrell, p. 431).
(2) In the split both parties held to unconditional election.
It will not be challenged that the Hardshells held to this doctrine. That the Missionaries did too is proved by the testimony of Spencer, who says that the Missionaries, "which embraced the main body of the denomination, held the doctrinal sentiments of Andrew Fuller," who believed in unconditional election, even though he taught an atonement of universal sufficiency. See History of Kentucky Baptists, Vol. 1, p. 645.
3. THERE IS YET NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MISSIONARIES AND HARDSHELLS ON THE MATTER OF UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION.
This is proved by—
(1) The fact that both accept the statement on election in the Philadelphia Confession of Faith.
Hardshells still accept this. And among the Missionaries this confession "is stiff widely used, and in the South it is probably the most influential of all confessions" (McGlothlin, Baptist Confessions of Faith, p. 298).
(2) The fact that unconditional election is taught in the other great American Baptist confession—the New Hampshire.
See proof of this under later discussion of unconditional election as a Baptist doctrine.
(3) The fact that all our standard theological text books and all doctrinal books written by representative and recognized Baptists teach this doctrine.
For proof of this see discussion referred to immediately above.
4. BAPTIST BELIEVERS IN UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION, COUPLED WITH THE GOSPEL AS AN INDISPENSABLE MEANS IN REGENERATION, HAVE EVER BEEN MOST AGGRESSIVE IN THE PROPAGATION OF THE GOSPEL.
Modem missionary vision and effort originated, not among the General (Arminian) Baptists, nor yet among any other Arminian denomination, but among the Particular (Calvinistic) Baptists of England. See the record in most any Baptist history. Robert Hall, Sr., Andrew Fuller, and William Carey were the leading lights.
American world-wide missionary effort originated in the Philadelphia Association, which adopted the hated Philadelphia Confession of Faith. See "The Story of Baptists," Cook, p. 327. "The Philadelphia Association speedily became the leading body of American Baptists—a position that it has not wholly lost to this day (1897). Pretty much everything good in our history, from 1700 to 1850, may be traced to its initiative or active cooperation" (Vedder, Short History of Baptists, p. 204)."
(Systematic Study of Bible Doctrine, Chapter 20)
Dec 7, 2010
Election Debate on the Internet
The recent debate on the bible doctrine of election can be listened to at this web page
http://ourgoodfight.com/
To see each speech separately, open the "file cabinet" link.
Stephen Garrett
http://ourgoodfight.com/
To see each speech separately, open the "file cabinet" link.
Stephen Garrett
Nov 22, 2010
Debate Review 9
Who loves who first? That was one question I asked of my opponent. He said that he believed God loved first as the scripture says - "we love him because he first loved us." He said he did not teach that we love God in order to be loved by God. Yet, on the third day of the debate, in answer to the question - "did God love you in the same way as Jacob, before you had done any good," my opponent said "no." He affirmed that God loved him because of some good he did. What is that good he did? Well, it was his act of loving God! His believing and obeying the gospel, which are acts of love! In Jacob's case, God loved him before Jacob loved God, God's love being the cause or reason why Jacob came to love God. But, this was not the case with my opponent, by his own admission. He was loved by God because of some loving act that he showed towards God!
Also, on the third night of the debate, my opponent, in response to numerous affirmations regarding God's choice of Isaac to become spiritually born and a child of promise, said that the case of Isaac was not a type of Christian salvation. He said this in spite of Paul's testimony where he said - "now we brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise." (Gal. 4: 28)
Also, on the third night of the debate, my opponent, in response to numerous affirmations regarding God's choice of Isaac to become spiritually born and a child of promise, said that the case of Isaac was not a type of Christian salvation. He said this in spite of Paul's testimony where he said - "now we brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise." (Gal. 4: 28)
Debate Review 8
Elected to Regeneration (new birth)
Regeneration or conversion is not the cause of election.
Election is the cause of regeneration or conversion.
1) "chosen to salvation." (II Thess. 2: 13)
2) "chosen to justification and sanctification." (Eph. 1: 3, 4)
3) "foreknown/predestined to calling and justification." (Rom. 8: 29, 30)
4) "chosen," then "circumcised." (Deut. 10: 15, 16)
5) "chosen to knowledge of God and faith." (Isa. 43: 10)
6) "chosen to know God, see Christ, and hear his voice." (Acts 22: 16)
7) "Elected to obedience." (I Peter 1: 2)
8) "Chosen" and then caused to "approach" God in salvation. (Psalm 65: 4)
This was a chart I used early in the debate and believe it focuses in on the major difference between us. Which comes first, regeneration or election? Or, are people chosen to regeneration or regenerated in order to become chosen? The above scriptures, I affirmed, showed that regeneration (salvation) is what God has chosen sinners "to." Regeneration is the effect of election, not the cause of it.
The first verse is in II Thess. 2: 13.
"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ." (II Thess. 2: 13, 14)
Clearly this passage says that men are chosen to salvation, chosen to regeneration. It does not say that they are chosen because of salvation. It does not say that they are saved unto election. This argument never was refuted. It completely overthrows my opponent's corporate view of election which puts salvation before election. My opponent could only bring up other issues regarding the passage as it relates to Calvinism. He argued that "through (in) sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" affirmed that men were elected because they were sanctified and believed the truth. But, obviously, it cannot mean this. If this interpretation were correct, we would have to see the passage as saying - "God chose you to salvation because you have been saved." That is nonsence. People who are already saved do not need to be chosen to salvation. President Obama does not need to be chosen to the presidency because he is already the president.
I argued that the prepositional phrase "in sanctification" and "in belief" modifies or connects to "salvation" and not to "chosen" or "you." The Greek preposition "en" is a motionless word and denotes "existence within" or "location within." The passage may be read like this - "God has from the beginning chosen you to salvation, a salvation located within sanctification and faith." It describes salvation. In the next verse, the apostle says "whereunto he call you," he is pointing to "salvation," and not to election. He called you to salvation, not to election.
The next passage focuses on Eph. 1: 3,4, which passage was often referred to and examined in detail. I showed that people, in that passage, were chosen to holiness, not because of it. They were chosen to adoption, not because of it. They were chosen to justification, and not because of it. My opponent never disproved this.
The next verse, in Romans 8: 29, 30, was also frequently cited by me and declared to show that people are chosen and predestined to be called and justified. My opponent's position says that God chooses and predestines those who are called and justified, thus reversing the divine order. Again, my opponent could not show how this analysis was incorrect. It says "whom he predestined, them he called." It does not say, "whom he called, them he predestined."
The next passage reads as follows:
"Only the LORD had a delight in thy fathers to love them, and he chose their seed after them, even you above all people, as it is this day. Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked." (Deut. 10: 15, 16)
I showed that this verse clearly puts election before salvation (circumcision). My opponent never refuted this. Instead, he chose to focus on a separate, unrelated, issue. He said that God was telling the people to circumcise themselves and tried to say that this upholds his Arminianism and refutes Calvinism. I felt no need to address this because it was beside the point. The point was this: God told the chosen people to be circumcised, not in order to become elect, but because they were elect, thus election preceded salvation, preceded incorporation into the body of Christ. I certainly do believe that God commands the dead to live (Eph. 5: 14), but this command 1) does not imply ability, and 2) is a means in effecting the change.
The next verse reads as follows:
"Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me." (Isa. 43: 10)
Not only did I have this passage on the chart, but, like the previous verses on the chart, were elaborated upon in several of my speeches. My opponent, in one of his last speeches of the debate, in reference to this chart, said that he felt no need to respond to a chart that just listed verses without elaboration. But, the fact is, this was not the case. The verses were referred to, cited, and explained, several times during the debate. This particular verse was cited, read, and shown to prove my proposition, several times in the debate. My opponent, however, never once responded to this passage. The passage says that people were "chosen THAT," or "in order that," they may "know," "believe," and "understand." Clearly the believing and knowing of anyone is owing to this election. My opponent teaches that one believes and knows God in order to be elected. But, the passage clearly teaches otherwise.
The next verse also was referred to by me in nearly every speech I made and again my opponent never even addressed
it. It reads as follows.
"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." (Acts 22: 14)
This verse is similar to the preceding verse from Isaiah. Paul was chosen "to" certain experiences. He was chosen to "know the Lord's will," and to "see that Just One," and to "hear the voice of his mouth." These several things describe what it is to be saved, thus Annanias was saying that Paul was chosen to salvation. The choice of God did not only concern Paul being made an apostle, clearly.
The next verse reads as follows:
"Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied." (I Peter 1: 2)
This verse, I affirmed, was clear. It says that men are "chosen...unto obedience," and not because of obedience. My opponent did make on comment on this passage, saying that "through sanctification" meant "because of sanctification." But, again, this would have Peter saying that God chose those who are sanctified unto sanctification, those who are saved unto salvation. Again, this is nonsensical. Eph. 1 clearly says that people are chosen "to holiness," but my opponent wanted to say that Peter was contradicting Paul by affirming that "holiness is unto election."
The next verse reads as follows:
"Blessed is the man whom thou choosest, and causest to approach unto thee, that he may dwell in thy courts: we shall be satisfied with the goodness of thy house, even of thy holy temple." (Psalm 65: 4)
This verse also was never addressed by my opponent. And, again, the charge that I did not do anything other than cite it on a chart, without argument, was false. I cited the verse more than once, and argued that the election in the passage preceded conversion, or "approaching" the Lord. People do not come to the Lord in order to become elect, but they come to the Lord because they are elect. I also showed how this passage was an individual election, "the man." How could language be any clearer? How could a person affirm individual election in any clearer language? My opponent never responded to these arguments.
Another chart I used in the debate, and which relates to the previous chart, is this one:
Which Comes First?
1. We love him because he first loved us. (I John 4: 19)
2. We choose him because he first chose us. (John 15: 16, I John 4: 19, Acts 13: 48)
3. We know him because he first knew us. (Rom. 8: 29)
4. We come to him because he first came to us. (John 6: 44, 45)
5. We draw near to God because he first draws near to us. (John 6: 44, 45)
6. We are given to Christ before we give ourselves to Christ. (John 6: 37)
7. We turn to him because he first turns to us. (Jer. 31; 18, Acts 2: 39)
My opponent only responded to the first proof listed on this chart. He asked - "does Mr. Garrett actually believe that I believe that men love God before God loves them?"
The problem here is that the love the apostle John refers to is that special love that God has for his people, and not his general love for all mankind. Who can deny that the scriptures speak of salvation as entering into the love and favor of God? Besides, John says that this love of God causes the objects of his love to return love, and so cannot be a reference to God's general love for his people. Paul said, in Eph. 5: 25, that Christ "loved the church," not the entire world. He loves his bride, a particular love. A man who is outside the church is not loved in a saving way.
The next affirmation was proven from the scriptures listed, and also with all the scriptures that showed one was chosen to salvation. To "love" one includes the idea of "choosing" or "favoring" one. Thus, if we love him because he first loved us, then it is also true that "we chose him because he first chose us."
"Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain..." (John 15: 16)
Clearly these words of Jesus say that the choice of Christ preceded any choice of the apostles. One choice was the ground, reason, or cause of the other. Whose choice took precedence? Who chose who first? All my opponent could do was to say that this was not talking about salvation, but about being chosen to the apostleship. Clearly he sees how the passage is against his views if the passage relates at all to the ordo salutis of salvation. But, clearly, the passage affirms that the thing the apostles were being chosen "to," or "in order that," was to "bringing forth fruit that remains" to complete salvation. How can we limit fruit bearing to the apostleship? How can we divorce "that you fruit may remain," from final salvation?
Again, I referenced Romans 8: 29, 30. Who knows who first? Does the sinner foreknow God? Knowing God, in scripture, is a description of the salvation experience. And, again, this passage was not simply put on a chart but not really analyzed, for it was often stated by me. My opponent never denied that the passage says that God knows us before any know him, and that this foreknowledge of God was the cause why any come to know him.
The next passage (John 6: 44, 45) was another that I not only cited, but frequently argued from, emphasizing several important points from the passage. The passage says that men come to Christ because God first visits them and this visit is the cause of any man's coming. Men do not come to Christ in order for God to come to them.
The next passage (John 6: 37) speaks of God's giving a person to Christ prior to that person's actual coming to Christ. Involved in coming to Christ is a person's giving their heart and life to Christ. Thus, who gives first? Do men come (give themselves to Christ) in order for the Father to give them to Christ, or vice versa? The passage is clear. Men come, give themselves to Christ, as a result of the Father's giving of them to Christ.
"...turn thou me, and I shall be turned; for thou art the LORD my God." (Jere. 31: 18)
"For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call." (Acts 2: 39)
In the first passage, a sinner turns (repents) because God turns him. God's work precedes the repenting of the sinner. In the second passage, people repent, are converted, because God calls them.
Regeneration or conversion is not the cause of election.
Election is the cause of regeneration or conversion.
1) "chosen to salvation." (II Thess. 2: 13)
2) "chosen to justification and sanctification." (Eph. 1: 3, 4)
3) "foreknown/predestined to calling and justification." (Rom. 8: 29, 30)
4) "chosen," then "circumcised." (Deut. 10: 15, 16)
5) "chosen to knowledge of God and faith." (Isa. 43: 10)
6) "chosen to know God, see Christ, and hear his voice." (Acts 22: 16)
7) "Elected to obedience." (I Peter 1: 2)
8) "Chosen" and then caused to "approach" God in salvation. (Psalm 65: 4)
This was a chart I used early in the debate and believe it focuses in on the major difference between us. Which comes first, regeneration or election? Or, are people chosen to regeneration or regenerated in order to become chosen? The above scriptures, I affirmed, showed that regeneration (salvation) is what God has chosen sinners "to." Regeneration is the effect of election, not the cause of it.
The first verse is in II Thess. 2: 13.
"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ." (II Thess. 2: 13, 14)
Clearly this passage says that men are chosen to salvation, chosen to regeneration. It does not say that they are chosen because of salvation. It does not say that they are saved unto election. This argument never was refuted. It completely overthrows my opponent's corporate view of election which puts salvation before election. My opponent could only bring up other issues regarding the passage as it relates to Calvinism. He argued that "through (in) sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" affirmed that men were elected because they were sanctified and believed the truth. But, obviously, it cannot mean this. If this interpretation were correct, we would have to see the passage as saying - "God chose you to salvation because you have been saved." That is nonsence. People who are already saved do not need to be chosen to salvation. President Obama does not need to be chosen to the presidency because he is already the president.
I argued that the prepositional phrase "in sanctification" and "in belief" modifies or connects to "salvation" and not to "chosen" or "you." The Greek preposition "en" is a motionless word and denotes "existence within" or "location within." The passage may be read like this - "God has from the beginning chosen you to salvation, a salvation located within sanctification and faith." It describes salvation. In the next verse, the apostle says "whereunto he call you," he is pointing to "salvation," and not to election. He called you to salvation, not to election.
The next passage focuses on Eph. 1: 3,4, which passage was often referred to and examined in detail. I showed that people, in that passage, were chosen to holiness, not because of it. They were chosen to adoption, not because of it. They were chosen to justification, and not because of it. My opponent never disproved this.
The next verse, in Romans 8: 29, 30, was also frequently cited by me and declared to show that people are chosen and predestined to be called and justified. My opponent's position says that God chooses and predestines those who are called and justified, thus reversing the divine order. Again, my opponent could not show how this analysis was incorrect. It says "whom he predestined, them he called." It does not say, "whom he called, them he predestined."
The next passage reads as follows:
"Only the LORD had a delight in thy fathers to love them, and he chose their seed after them, even you above all people, as it is this day. Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked." (Deut. 10: 15, 16)
I showed that this verse clearly puts election before salvation (circumcision). My opponent never refuted this. Instead, he chose to focus on a separate, unrelated, issue. He said that God was telling the people to circumcise themselves and tried to say that this upholds his Arminianism and refutes Calvinism. I felt no need to address this because it was beside the point. The point was this: God told the chosen people to be circumcised, not in order to become elect, but because they were elect, thus election preceded salvation, preceded incorporation into the body of Christ. I certainly do believe that God commands the dead to live (Eph. 5: 14), but this command 1) does not imply ability, and 2) is a means in effecting the change.
The next verse reads as follows:
"Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me." (Isa. 43: 10)
Not only did I have this passage on the chart, but, like the previous verses on the chart, were elaborated upon in several of my speeches. My opponent, in one of his last speeches of the debate, in reference to this chart, said that he felt no need to respond to a chart that just listed verses without elaboration. But, the fact is, this was not the case. The verses were referred to, cited, and explained, several times during the debate. This particular verse was cited, read, and shown to prove my proposition, several times in the debate. My opponent, however, never once responded to this passage. The passage says that people were "chosen THAT," or "in order that," they may "know," "believe," and "understand." Clearly the believing and knowing of anyone is owing to this election. My opponent teaches that one believes and knows God in order to be elected. But, the passage clearly teaches otherwise.
The next verse also was referred to by me in nearly every speech I made and again my opponent never even addressed
it. It reads as follows."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." (Acts 22: 14)
This verse is similar to the preceding verse from Isaiah. Paul was chosen "to" certain experiences. He was chosen to "know the Lord's will," and to "see that Just One," and to "hear the voice of his mouth." These several things describe what it is to be saved, thus Annanias was saying that Paul was chosen to salvation. The choice of God did not only concern Paul being made an apostle, clearly.
The next verse reads as follows:
"Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied." (I Peter 1: 2)
This verse, I affirmed, was clear. It says that men are "chosen...unto obedience," and not because of obedience. My opponent did make on comment on this passage, saying that "through sanctification" meant "because of sanctification." But, again, this would have Peter saying that God chose those who are sanctified unto sanctification, those who are saved unto salvation. Again, this is nonsensical. Eph. 1 clearly says that people are chosen "to holiness," but my opponent wanted to say that Peter was contradicting Paul by affirming that "holiness is unto election."
The next verse reads as follows:
"Blessed is the man whom thou choosest, and causest to approach unto thee, that he may dwell in thy courts: we shall be satisfied with the goodness of thy house, even of thy holy temple." (Psalm 65: 4)
This verse also was never addressed by my opponent. And, again, the charge that I did not do anything other than cite it on a chart, without argument, was false. I cited the verse more than once, and argued that the election in the passage preceded conversion, or "approaching" the Lord. People do not come to the Lord in order to become elect, but they come to the Lord because they are elect. I also showed how this passage was an individual election, "the man." How could language be any clearer? How could a person affirm individual election in any clearer language? My opponent never responded to these arguments.
Another chart I used in the debate, and which relates to the previous chart, is this one:
Which Comes First?
1. We love him because he first loved us. (I John 4: 19)
2. We choose him because he first chose us. (John 15: 16, I John 4: 19, Acts 13: 48)
3. We know him because he first knew us. (Rom. 8: 29)
4. We come to him because he first came to us. (John 6: 44, 45)
5. We draw near to God because he first draws near to us. (John 6: 44, 45)
6. We are given to Christ before we give ourselves to Christ. (John 6: 37)
7. We turn to him because he first turns to us. (Jer. 31; 18, Acts 2: 39)
My opponent only responded to the first proof listed on this chart. He asked - "does Mr. Garrett actually believe that I believe that men love God before God loves them?"
The problem here is that the love the apostle John refers to is that special love that God has for his people, and not his general love for all mankind. Who can deny that the scriptures speak of salvation as entering into the love and favor of God? Besides, John says that this love of God causes the objects of his love to return love, and so cannot be a reference to God's general love for his people. Paul said, in Eph. 5: 25, that Christ "loved the church," not the entire world. He loves his bride, a particular love. A man who is outside the church is not loved in a saving way.
The next affirmation was proven from the scriptures listed, and also with all the scriptures that showed one was chosen to salvation. To "love" one includes the idea of "choosing" or "favoring" one. Thus, if we love him because he first loved us, then it is also true that "we chose him because he first chose us."
"Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain..." (John 15: 16)
Clearly these words of Jesus say that the choice of Christ preceded any choice of the apostles. One choice was the ground, reason, or cause of the other. Whose choice took precedence? Who chose who first? All my opponent could do was to say that this was not talking about salvation, but about being chosen to the apostleship. Clearly he sees how the passage is against his views if the passage relates at all to the ordo salutis of salvation. But, clearly, the passage affirms that the thing the apostles were being chosen "to," or "in order that," was to "bringing forth fruit that remains" to complete salvation. How can we limit fruit bearing to the apostleship? How can we divorce "that you fruit may remain," from final salvation?
Again, I referenced Romans 8: 29, 30. Who knows who first? Does the sinner foreknow God? Knowing God, in scripture, is a description of the salvation experience. And, again, this passage was not simply put on a chart but not really analyzed, for it was often stated by me. My opponent never denied that the passage says that God knows us before any know him, and that this foreknowledge of God was the cause why any come to know him.
The next passage (John 6: 44, 45) was another that I not only cited, but frequently argued from, emphasizing several important points from the passage. The passage says that men come to Christ because God first visits them and this visit is the cause of any man's coming. Men do not come to Christ in order for God to come to them.
The next passage (John 6: 37) speaks of God's giving a person to Christ prior to that person's actual coming to Christ. Involved in coming to Christ is a person's giving their heart and life to Christ. Thus, who gives first? Do men come (give themselves to Christ) in order for the Father to give them to Christ, or vice versa? The passage is clear. Men come, give themselves to Christ, as a result of the Father's giving of them to Christ.
"...turn thou me, and I shall be turned; for thou art the LORD my God." (Jere. 31: 18)
"For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call." (Acts 2: 39)
In the first passage, a sinner turns (repents) because God turns him. God's work precedes the repenting of the sinner. In the second passage, people repent, are converted, because God calls them.
Nov 20, 2010
Debate Review 7
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.
"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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)