I first learned about this just after I got married and started visiting a Southern Baptist church 2 or 3 times a month in addition to my own SDA church. The Sunday school teacher came for visitation one day started to discuss the fact that he as a Baptist was Calvinist but I as an Adventist was Arminian.

I was not quite sure what he was talking about at the time. But since then I have discovered just how true he was in saying that Adventism is absolutely Arminian (Free will).

(Of course I also later learned that he was wrong about all Southern Baptists being Calvinist -- and I also learned that there are 3 basic flavors of Calvinism -- one that is very close to the Arminian view in fact).

The Arminian position is basically the CORE explanation for why God would ALLOW war in heaven, allow Adam to fall, Allow the earth to continue for 6000 years and allow the investigative jugment.

Our entire evangelistic method of outreach is based on the issue of CHOOSING Christ and our entire IJ doctrine is based on the idea that "the COURT SITS" (not simply God in a room by Himself making up His mind about something).

Having said all of that against the OSAS and Calvinist POV -- I do agree with them on their concept of total depravity as specified in Romans 3. It makes the need of the New Birth - very very clear.

Your thoughts?

Do you ever notice the curious case of some SDAs arguing for Calvinism as IF that were even possible in the Adventist framework for doctrine?

in Christ,

Bob

No, I haven't, but I know what you are talking about. Isn't that what the whole controversy about the book Questions on Doctrine was all about, the difference between the Calvinistic view and the Armenian?

What do those from Armenia think about this controversy over them?

I'm hoping for more information on this, too...

Gail. This is one topic that I am just not knowledgeable about. We will have to wait for the experts. Not only that ... but I have been doing the most talkin on this board long enough. We will just have to wait for someone else.

The controversy has nothing to do with those people in Armenia. It's Arminia and Arminianism that it's about, not the people who live in Turkey and Iraq.

See this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arminianism

Thanks! This would make for interesting discussion, I think :)

Calvinist-Arminian differences were a major part in the debate of QOD (Adventism is Arminian), but the larger problems with QOD had to do with the nature of Christ's humanity and also the atonement.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Questions_on_Doctrine

Jacob Arminius was a key figure in post reformation thought - a much needed corrective to the excesses of Calvin & Beza.

The God of Calvin is A HYPOCRITE.

He says "Let whosoever will come and take of the water of life freely" while knowing full well that they can't.

gcw

If it hadn't been for John Calvin, it is probable that most of Protestantism would have accepted the non-immortality of the soul.

Calvin did a lot of good, but he also did a lot that wasn't so good, too. He was responsible for the martyrdom of one of his time's greatest scientist's simply because he said that he had been to Palestine and seen that it is a desert and not a land of milk and honey.

He was one very serious man. No humor.

I take it, then, that you believe Christ took on an unfallen, sinless human nature. I used to believe that. But I believe now that Christ was born with the same nature we have except that He was born of the Holy Spirit. He never needed to be converted or born again, because He always was indwelt with the Spirit. So Jesus never had to break any bad habits. He had to resist temptations to sin by the same means that we have. He was tempted just as we are, except that He did not sin.

No - QoD never questions the Bible doctrine of Free Will.

The Five points of Calvinism are these (but some Calvinists will hold to fewer than the 5 and I myself like at least the first one)

1. Total depravity of the sinful nature (as seen in Romans 3)

2. Unconditional Election (arbitrary selection by God of the FEW in Matt 7)

3. Limited Atonement (Christ only dies for the FEW of Matt 7)

4. Irresistable Grace (once God zaps you -- you are saved and can not refuse)

5. Perseverance of the saints (all who are born-again will in fact persevere)


T.U.L.I.P


All Calvinists therefore can argue these two points --

I -- it is ALL of God and none-of-you since you did not even decide to become a Christian -- God simply zapped your brain.

II - Once Saved always Saved -- you can not lose salvation.


Given the truth of Total Depravity above - the doctrine of Free Will is that God supernaturally enables it -- first in Gen 3 when He said he would put enmity between the serpent and mankind, secondly as we see in John 16 in His sending the Holy Spirit to "convict the WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment" and thirdly in John 12:32 fact that God supernaturally "DRAWs ALL mankind to himself".

I am normally on non-SDA discussion boards and there I have found that among the few SDAs that visit - many of them are not informed about this basic division - what Calvinism is and just how the Adventist position requires the Arminian view. (A problem I too once had).

in Christ,

Bob

I don't see any claims there that QoD argues for predestination, limited atonement and/or no-free-will of Calvinism. In fact the article is clear that Adventism is based on the Arminian POV.

They do make this one error - they claim that QoD adopts the Calvinist view of complete atonment at the cross instead of the SDA view of complated "Atoning Sacrifive" 1John 2:2 NIV.

My 1957 copy of Q0D says this on pate 342-343

After arguing that our terms for "complete atonment" differ with Calvinists -- the book says that



The next paragraph goes on to show the aspects of Atonement that Adventist believe to be taking place NOW in the heavenly sanctuary - and clearly distinguishes between that phase of atonement vs the one completed the cross -- which is the "Atoning Sacrifice".

One of the problems in any discussion between two groups that differ is "defining terms". But once defined we STILL see that we differ because Calvinists simply do not have the full scope of Lev 16 as their definition of Atonement.

The Wiki article accurately points out the debate about the sinless nature of Christ - but since that is not a direct point in the Tulip and since most other Arminians (in non-SDA denominations) also agree with the fact that Christ had a sinless nature (also including SDA Arminians such as QoD authors, Ellen White, 27 FB, and SDAs like me) let's have that as it's own discussion thread.

in Christ,

Bob

Having said all of that -- Adventism DOES agree with Calvinism on 3 key points.

1. Total Depravity of the sinful nature - as seen in Romans 3. We agree that the sinful nature is accurately described by Paul in Romans 3 as HE says "there is NONE that seeks after God - no not one".

(Which of course is really a quote from the OT - Ps 53 and Ps 14)

This is what man is - without the influence power and action of the Holy Spirit.

We do not agree with the Calvinist notion that God mind-zaps some arbitrarily select FEW so that they are caused to choose life. Rather we argue that He supernaturally "DRAWS ALL mankind" - enabling ALL to choose life in spite of their depraved sinful nature. But not all choose that way of escape.




2. Limited Atonenment.

We do not agree with the Calvinist idea that the entire process of Atonement was complete at the cross - (in 1John 2: 2 we find that the "Atoning SACRIFICE" was complete at the cross).

We also do not agree with Calvinists that Christ did not die for all sins of all people of all time.

But we DO agree with Calvinists that once that process is complete -- only those for whom it is complete are saved and will never change - all for whom it is not complete are lost and will never change.






3. Perseverance of the Saints

We agree that the saints are those who persevere -- but we differ with Calvinists in that we believe that they can choose to cease - choose to fall and become lost again.

in Christ,

Bob

Out of the Reformation of the 16th Century developed two main distinct concepts of salvation that has since dominated Protestantism. The most popular one today is the Calvinist concept of salvation (John Calvin). According to this view, God actually redeemed or reconciled to Himself the human race on the cross of Christ. However, since the Bible clearly teaches that some will be lost, the Calvinists teach that Christ did not die for the entire human race on the cross, but only for those whom God predetermined He would save. Hence, they believe in a limited atonement.


In the other camp you have the Arminians (Jacob Arminius). They teach that Christ died for the entire human race on the cross. However, they also take into consideration that some will be lost. Therefore, according to their view, Christ did not actually save anyone on the cross, but simply made provision for our salvation. Hence, for this salvation to become an actual reality, one has to meet certain conditions, namely: believe, repent, and confess all sins. Only then will God put you into Christ and save you.

Both views of salvation defend their position from Scripture. Both camps have been meeting in a verbal battle for the last 400 years with no sign of a reconciliation. Both are presenting certain aspects of truth, while both have ignored certain texts. The Calvinists have great difficulty explaining the universal text of the New Testament, that Christ came to save the entire human race [see Jn. 3:16,17; 12:47; 1 Tim. 2:5,6; Tit. 2:11]. The Arminians, on the other hand, have great difficulty with those texts that clearly state that on the cross God actually saved, redeemed, or reconciled to Himself the entire human race [Rom. 5:10, 18; 2 Cor. 5:18,19; 1 Tim. 4:10; 1 Jn. 2:2].

While we saw in our last study that present day Adventists are polarized into various groups, concerning the gospel, historically we [Adventists] belong to the Arminian camp. As a result, most, if not all, Adventists have been raised up to believe that Christ did not actually save anyone on the cross, but simply made provision for the salvation of all mankind; that unless we take the initiative and believe, repent (i.e., turn away from sin), and confess all our sins, we stand as lost or condemned sinners before God.

In practice this concept of the gospel has done two things to our people.

1. Since we are still struggling with the sin problem, no matter how hard we try, many Adventists question whether their repentance has been genuine. This, in turn, has robbed our people of the assurance of salvation. Hence, most Adventists are very insecure about their salvation. Value Genesis confirmed this fact, when the majority of our youth admitted they had no assurance of salvation because their conduct was not meeting God’s high standard.

2. Added to this problem is the fact that every time one sins one becomes unjustified, until confession of that sin has been made. This has added to the problem of having no assurance of salvation. Because of this twofold problem, we have produced a people who are experiencing no joy of salvation and who are trying to live the Christian life, either out of fear of the judgment, or a desire to make it to heaven.

But the greatest tragedy of all is that this Arminian mind-set has become a real stumbling block to many Adventists. When they hear the true good news of the gospel, to them it sounds like heresy, or it is too good to be true. It’s beyond belief. One major area of difficulty they have understanding is the objective and subjective aspects of salvation. This has become a major problem to some. This is the issue I would like to address this morning.

Objective and Subjective Salvation

What do these theological terms mean? When one reads the Bible, especially the New Testament, one realizes that, on the one hand, Scripture speaks of salvation as an already accomplished fact, while, on the other hand, it is an on-going process that will not be completed until the second advent. In other words, the Bible describes two phases of salvation — objective and subjective.

On the one hand, a Christian can say I am already saved, while, on the other hand, has to admit I am being and will be saved. This is a paradox, and that is why so many have difficulty accepting this dual concept of salvation. But the Bible is full of paradoxes which we have already accepted. For example, take Christ Himself. We believe that He was God and man at the same time. That means He was immortal and mortal at the same time. This is a paradox. Or take us Christians. According to the truth of Righteousness by Faith, we are sinners and righteous at the same time (Luther). In ourselves we are sinners, while in Christ we stand righteous. Again, this is a paradox.

The best way to understand this paradox about salvation is to look at our situation in Adam. When Adam sinned he actually or objectively condemned the entire human race. But this condemnation in Adam, that objectively was passed on to mankind thousands of years ago, did not become ours personally or subjectively until we are born in this world.

In the same way, the entire human race was placed into Christ, the second Adam, at the incarnation. Thus by His obedience the entire human race was objectively justified unto life at the cross [Rom. 5:18]. But this actual or objective salvation does not become ours personally or subjectively until we experience the new birth [read Jn. 3:3].

But there is one major difference between being subjectively in Adam and subjectively in Christ. Our birth in Adam was through procreation in which we had no choice. That means that the condemnation Adam brought to the entire human race at the Fall is inherited by all who are born into this world. In contrast, the justification unto life objectively obtained by Christ for the entire human race at the cross is experience only by those who believe in Him and have experienced the new birth.

You see, the objective or actual salvation that was obtained for the entire human race in Christ is God’s supreme gift to mankind. And, like any gift, it cannot be enjoyed subjectively if it is rejected or not received. So while condemnation in Adam is inherited and, therefore, applies to all mankind, this is not true with salvation as an experience. Only believers who have received Christ by faith will experience salvation [Rom. 5:17].

When we consider the objective facts of salvation we are looking at the gospel from God’s point of view. And as far as God is concerned He has already redeemed or saved the entire human race in Christ. But when we consider the subjective truth of salvation, we are looking at it from man’s point of view. And from our point of view, only believers will be saved.

It is for this reason the Bible clearly teaches that no one will be lost for being born a child of Adam. The only reason anyone will be lost is because they have deliberately and ultimately rejected the objective facts of salvation in Christ [Mk. 16:15, 16; Jn. 3:18,36; Heb. 2:1-3; 10:26-29].

Further, because God has actually redeemed the entire human race in Christ, He can take to heaven all those who have never heard the gospel, through no fault of their own, but who were faithful to the light they had, whatever that light may have been. These will here about Jesus for the first time in heaven and at that time will give Him the glory for saving them.

This understanding of the objective and subjective aspects of salvation will dramatically change our whole approach to evangelism and witnessing. No longer will we preach the gospel as good advice but as good news. [JS]

Thanks for this info from JS ... Rob. This is very good to know.

Yes...very good info....

I'm going to send you an e-mail....

Rob

Yes. Praise God He died for ALL. "God has actually redeemed the entire human race in Christ, He can take to heaven all those who have never heard the gospel"

Praise God.

Based on the idea that God will take to heaven all who have never heard the gospel, it would seem that God should get rid of the gospel because more people are saved without the gospel than because of the gospel.

Why then did Christ give the command to preach the gospel if more will be saved who didn't hear it than are saved by hearing it?

Because in the end there's no one on the fence post. Your choice will be clear....For or against.

And how will the onlooking universe KNOW who is FOR and who is AGAINST?

Gerry

What if those who have never heard of the gospel are not faithful to the light they have? Are they still saved?

Gerry

Hi Bob,
I want to expand on your comment by making one important distinction. I think that its more accurate to say Adventists agree that humans are depraved, but not totally depraved. I say this because the doctrine of total depravity requires that God chooses people to be saved. Total depravity or total inability teaches that we born spiritually dead, meaning our spirit was separated from God when Adam sinned, and therefore we must be made spiritually alive by God’s regenerating power before we can respond to God’s Spirit and perform any good works. The argument goes, if someone is dead they can’t do anything, and cannot respond to any stimulus. So, any efforts of the Holy Spirit to create good works (faith and repentance) in a person’s life will be ineffectual until a person is made spiritually alive. Therefore, God must choose whom to regenerate or make spiritually alive, before they can respond to the Holy Spirit. In addition, the doctrine stresses that being spiritually dead means that a person is spiritually blind and deaf, meaning that they cannot comprehend any spiritual truth. They believe that spiritually dead people are under the full power of sinful flesh and all they do is sin.

The Calvinist understanding spiritual death is key to their entire belife system. If you disprove total depravity, or total inability as it is often referred to in the reformed circles, then the entire system falls. I studied this topic a while back, and I will include it below, for anyone who may know a Calvinist or is struggling with this confusing teaching. I'm sorry its so long!

The Idea of Death in the Pauline Epistles
There are many cases in Paul’s writings, where the word “dead,” or one of its cases, is used, both in a literal sense and in a figurative sense. In fact, Paul begins using the idea of death consistently and repetitively beginning in Romans 5 and continuing on to Romans 7. This is where he defines what he is talking about and we can understand how he uses the idea in the passages in 1 Corinthians 15:20-22, 2 Corinthians 5:14 & 15, Galatians 2:19 & 20, Ephesians 2:1-6, Philippians 3:10 & 11, and Colossians 2:12-14 & 20-22.
Romans chapters 5-7 contain numerous references to death. We have to look at the context of the chapters to understand what Paul meant by this term.

Romans 5
In Chapter 2, I proposed that the result of Adam’s sin was not spiritual death, but physical death. It should have been immediate, but Christ’s substitutionary death, that took affect before the foundation of the world, saved Adam and Eve, and the entire future human race with them, from immediate annihilation. Adam, as the corporate head of the human race, failed the test of obedience and the consequence that God enforced was that they were sent from the Garden of Eden and kept from the Tree of Life, and thus barred from eternal life. This is why we all die physically, and this is what Paul was citing as the result of Adam’s sin in Romans 5. I discussed this in chapter 1, but I will briefly overview the highlights.
Verse 12 is key in this chapter. We all sinned in Adam and the result is death. Verse 18 has been confusing to many people because it says that condemnation came upon all men because of Adam’s one sin, and life came to all men because of Christ’s one act of righteousness, which was His death. Universalists say this is proof that all men will be saved, and the responses is that the “all” who receive life must be different then the “all” who receive condemnation. This comes from the assumption that the condemnation referred to here is eternal condemnation, or Hell and the life refers to eternal life. But, if we understand that the condemnation is simply physical death, which every man who has ever lived and will ever live (except Enoch and Elijah) experiences, then that same “all” receives life as a result from Christ’s death. By reason of Christ’s death, which took affect “from the foundation of the world” (Revelation 13:8), humanity was given a reprieve from instantaneous annihilation when Adam sinned. This is how Christ is “the Savior of all men and especially of them that believe.” All men receive earthy, temporal life as a result of God’s grace through Christ’s sacrifice.
However, there is more to this life made available through Christ’s death. 1 Corinthians 15:20-22 uses very similar language, but makes the meaning much clearer. “But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.” The righteous and the wicked will be resurrected to receive their judgment (Revelation 20:11-15). So, we see that Adam’s sin results in death for everyone, but Christ’s death results in life for everyone, both temporal life and resurrection, yet only eternal life for the elect.

Romans 6
After establishing that Adam’s sin resulted in physical death for every human, and Christ’s death and resurrection resulted in physical life for everyone, Paul moves on to discuss the spiritual application for this truth. Paul asks, “How shall we who died to sin still live in it?” Then he explains what he means, “Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?” John Piper explains this concept thusly:

“There is a union between Christ and Christians so that what happened to Christ is counted by God as happening to us. His death is our death. God establishes this union. 1 Corinthians 1:30 says, "But by [God's] doing you are in Christ Jesus." God establishes a union between believers and Christ, in a way that makes it fitting for him to count Christ's death to be our death. So when verse 2 asks, "How shall we who died to sin, still live in it?" it is referring to our death with Christ when he died. This death is something historic and once for all. It is applied to us now through our faith, but since Christ died in history only once, and verse 5 says we were united to that, our death happened, in God's way of seeing things, on the day Christ died.1”

Why is it important for Paul to make this point? Because he is trying to show that our union with Christ’s death frees us from sin. He explains in verses 6 & 7, “our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; for he who has died is freed from sin.” Here, Paul makes an obvious connection between death and freedom. The practical application to this spiritual reality is in Romans 6:11-13, which says “Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus. Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts, and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God.” We can see that death, in this spiritual application, is associated with freedom. We have died with Christ, and as a result, are free from sin.

Romans 7
Chapter 7 starts where chapter 6 left off. But, in verse 8, Paul uses a new application for the term “death”. He says, “apart from the Law sin is dead.” We understand from Romans 3:20 that “through the law comes the knowledge of sin.” And, in Romans 7:7 Paul says, “ I would not have come to know sin except through the Law.” In verse 9, he says that he was once alive apart from the law. When was this? He was raised as a law abiding Jew (Philippians 3:5) and would have been taught the law from a young age. This must refer to the time in his life that he was not aware of the law, before he was old enough to mentally understand. Once he became aware of the law, or “when the commandment came” sin became alive and he died. This reminds us of Romans 5, where Paul said, “sin is not imputed where there is no law.” Before he was able to understand the requirements of the law, sin was dead, leaving Paul free from condemnation. But, then the commandment came and through it, sin “killed” him. So, he was alive before the law, but dead after the law came. This seems like a confusing concept, but it makes perfect sense when you read Romans 6:23, “the wages of sin is death.” Paul realized, when he became aware of the law that he was sinning. He knew, as do all people (Romans 1:32) that those who practice sin are worthy of death. So, “this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for [him]” (Romans 7:10). The law reveals that we are under the condemnation of sin, and therefore death. Just as a man on death row is referred to as a “dead man,” so those who are under the condemnation of the law are “dead in trespasses and sins” (Ephesians 2:1). This is why 1 Timothy 5:6 says “But she who gives herself to wanton pleasure is dead even while she lives.” She is living under an impending and certain death sentence.

Death as Separation
Now that I have discussed the context of these passages that refer to “spiritual death”, I will discuss the classic explanation of death as separation. The verse used to support this is James 2:26, which says, “As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead.” Physical death is the separation of the spirit from the body. This association of death and separation could be used to understand spiritual death, as long as it stays within the context of what Paul was talking about. Separation and freedom are similar concepts. You could say that our death by association with Christ’s separates us from sin in the same way that it frees us from its power. We know that according to Isaiah 59:2, that sin separates us from God. God is the only source of life and separated from Him, we are “dead” spiritually speaking.
However, this analogy cannot be taken to mean a state of complete unresponsiveness. We know this for sure, because Romans 6:11 says that we should reckon ourselves to be dead to sin. This does not mean that we are non-responsive to sin, or we wouldn’t be counseled to “flee youthful lusts” (2 Timothy 2:22) and “resist the devil” (James 4:7) and many other commands to avoiding temptation. There is no need to avoid contact with something that has no effect on you. But, if death means separation, then it makes sense that we are to consider ourselves separated from sin. That is, after all, what consecrated, sanctified and holy mean: separated and set apart. So, a Christian is to be separated from sin.
Again, while unresponsiveness is the medical definition of death, it is not the Bible’s definition. The dead are unresponsive to us, but Christ described death as a sleep. In fact, when talking about Lazarus’ death, Jesus said, “Lazarus sleeps, but I go that I may wake him.” When Jesus called Lazarus, the moment He spoke his name, Lazarus heard him and responded. Just as in the resurrection the dead “hear” the voice of the Angel. Death is a sleep, from which only the voice of God can awaken. Similarly, spiritual death is a sleep from which only the word of God can awaken. “Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Romans 10:17). The Holy Spirit speaks the word of God to peoples consciences, and through the preaching of the word, and when people respond, as in Romans 2:14 & 15, it is because they are being awakened from spiritual sleep, or resurrected from spiritual death.

Reference:
1. Piper, John. (2000). United with Christ in Death and Life, Part 1. Retrieved online from http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Sermons/ByDate/2000/29_Unit

1. First of all - there is no such thing as "saved without the gospel".

2. I think what you mean is "saved by better story telling". It is a common misunderstanding that the "the level of the story that you know is what saves you". As we saw in Romans 2:13-16 -- this is not the case at all.

3. Another problem we have is in thinking that God is helpless without us - so if we do not go "save someone" they will be lost and the only reason we are doing the work is because God either can't or won't. But the truth is -- we evangelize because God told us to. (it is the same reason that we keep His commandments).

In the end we follow His commands -- of course it is also "good for us" to participate with Christ in reaching the lost -- because it matures us -- it makes us more LIKE Christ to share love and concern for others AND to follow the commands of God. It also helps others to see the Gospel in shoes.

But the idea that God is helpless so we must bail him out - (which I know you are not saying but some people would go there) is not in scripture.

in Christ,

Bob

Hi Heather. (Your screen name reminds me of Cumming Georgia.)



I would say "yes and no" to that.

"Yes" it requires God to first choose to save a person. And we are blessed because "this is love not that we loved Him but that He first loved us" for "God so Loved the World that HE GAVE ..."

God had to do something He had to "draw all mankind" John 12:32 to Himself or else mankind would not be drawn -- would not come to God on our own.


"No" it does not require "arbitrary selection" between the saved and the lost on God's part IF He "DRAWS ALL" (John 12:32) instead of just "Drawing the select few of Matt 7" as the Calvinists propose.




True. But Calvinism teaches that the supernatual drawing of God (as we see in John 6) "enables what depravity disables" (to quote them).

Their error is in thinking that this requires that the person be born-again FIRST and then be enabled to choose. But in fact the Bible represents it is GOD the Holy Spirit powerful enough to ENABLE the lost sinner -- while dead in tresspasses and sins -- to choose life.

They miss the point on that issue - and as I say to them "it is hard to BE God".



I agree that when they argue that God the Holy Spirit "can not" do something unless He first "causes the New Birth" they simply are solving the problem as if they were God and knew what God could and could not do.




I agree that if you could disprove the total-inability (without God) argument you would have the downfall of Calvinism. However - that leaves them in the driver's seat because Romans 3 makes a great case for total depravity with it's "no not one" language.

But you ALSO have the downfall by simply pointing out that the DRAWING of God that they are all so happy with in John 6 -- IS done for "ALL MANKIND" in John 12:32 and that this supernatural drawing is NOT the New Birth (something they hotly contest) - it is merely the supernatural power needed to ENABLE what depravity disables (something they already agree with)

in Christ,

Bob

No - see Romans 2 "there is no partiality with God" - The argument is that there ARE those with no access to the bible at all who "do instintively the things of the Law of God SHOWING the works of the Law written on the heart" -- that is they are not taught by books or by other humans. Rather they have undergone what Romans 2 calls "circumcision of the heart" that is done by the Holy Spirit.

Romans 8 also makes it clear "IF by the Spirit you are putting to death the deads of the flesh then are you the children of God" - true for the child of God - who is walking by faith - walking as the Holy Spirit directs.

in Christ,

Bob

I don't have much time because I'm supposed to be doing homework, but I wanted to comment on part of your response.



If only it were that easy. I don’t mean to be argumentative, only helpful for if/when you ever get into an argument with a Calvinist. If you quote John 12:32 to a well-studied Calvinist, he will respond thusly:

“‘Peoples’ (NKJV) or ‘men’ (KJV) is not in the Greek. It simply says ‘all’ (pas).”

“All in Scripture does not necessarily mean every person on the face of the earth (Matthew 3:5, 10:22; John 3:26; Colossians 1:23). Paul uses the word 22 other times in 1 Timothy and in many of these references it does not refer to "all existing examples of" something but rather ‘all kinds of’ something or some other meaning (1 Timothy 1:15, 2:1-2, 6, 8, 11, 3:4, 11, 4:4, 8-10, 15, 5:2, 10, 20, 6:1, 10, 13, 17).”

“Also, Jesus teaches that one first has to be ‘drawn’ (Greek elkuse) by the Father to come to Him (John 6:44, Acts 21:20, and James 2:6).”
“In the context of John 12:32, especially in light of the fact that some Greeks came to see Jesus (John 12:20), reveals that Jesus will draw men from every ‘kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation’ (Revelation 5:9), not from Israel only.”

This type of argument goes for any "proof" text that you could throw at them. I know, because I've heard all their arguments first hand.

I agree their response is to tranform "I will draw ALL" (an unqualified "All" in that case) into "I will draw the arbitrarily selected FEW of Matt 7 that I zap to be on the narrow road".

No question that they draw a line their and balk at the idea that ALL means an unqualified "ALL".

That is when I usually direct them to 1John 2:2 "He is the Atoning Sacrifice for OUR sins and not for OUR sins only but for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD"

Where "once again" the only solution for them is to keep "redefining terms".

Notice that in John 1 Jesus "Creates the world" and then it says he is the "light of the world" and that the "light enlightens EVERY man" -- there again their ownly option is to keep redefining "world" mid-chapter mid-paragraph as Calvinism "needs" it.

I have seen them become somewhat frustrated at the constant need in their own system to continually redefine terms in order to get Calvinism to survive the review of scripture.

I believe it was Calvin himself who lamented "we seem to have an Arminian text".

Very instructive for the reader.

(My own background on this is that I have spent a number of years on non-SDA Christian message boards participating in the Calvinist-vs-Arminian debate forums. (No surprisingly - that was a good place to learn and relearn the lesson about avoiding the "heat" in debate and just sticking with the light.) I also learned that there are quite a few Southern Baptists out there that post in favor of the Arminian view. It was helpful to observe that some of the same guys that would oppose my views on the C-vs-A forums would be in my corner on the no-praying-to-the-dead forums or the literal-pre-mill- 2nd coming forums )

in Christ,

Bob

Bob,
I'm glad I have finally found an Adventist who also has some experience dealing with the deception of Calvinism. Most Adventists I have talked to either know little about Calvinism, or have come to think that Calvinists are impossible to convince. I commend you for jumping into the very hostile world of Calvinist/Armenian discussion boards. I have read them but never attempted to participate.

My background is that before my husband and I came back to the Adventist Church, after we had backslidden, we started going to an Evangelical Free church. It is a very conservative, loving, Bible-reading, yet very Calvinist church. We also joined a Bible study with 8 other very intelligent, very well-read, wonderful Christian, Calvinists. I did not immediately make my Adventist background known, but eventually I did and told them that I was going to study Calvinism in depth to see what I believed about it.

That started nearly a year of deep Bible study. Not just looking at Armenian proof texts, which can all be answered by a Calvinist, but looking deeply into all their texts that seem to prove what they believe. I realized that simply quoting verses that they have all read and arrived at an explanation for, doesn't do much good. After all, they have Biblical precedence for all their explanations, such as the world or all can mean certain classes of people. Its taking a Biblical definition of these words that are used elsewhere, and applying it where it suits their purpose. Yes, this is frustrating, but Arminians do it too, for texts that talk about predestination and election.

So, I set out to find the weaknesses in their arguments. And I was surprised to find that the first point (total depravity), the very foundation of their whole framework, was the one that Adventists and seem to agree with. Now, clearly there is much truth to the doctrine of depravity. But you and I realize that there is something wrong with that point because in their thinking it means that God must "mind-zap" certain people.

Anyway, I wrote a book, for the people in the Bible study that we still attend. I asked them to read it on their own time and email me with feedback. When I gave it too them, most of them seemed to be genuinely interested, all but the leader of the study. He came up to me the next Sunday (we still attend that church as well as the Adventist one) and said he thought it would be a good idea if they addressed it as a group, and had their associate pastor (a brilliant young man with two masters and who is currently working on his doctorate) lead them in a discussion. Even though I thought that would not be as effective, I knew God work under those circumstance too. If indeed we have the truth, then it is invincible. But, its been three weeks since he told me he was going to read it, and still no word.

Eventually I would like to try to debate in a Calvinist forum, but I’m not practiced yet. I would like to learn from your experience. I have not been able to test my thinking on anyone but my husband, so I wonder, would you would mind going back and forth with me and discussing each text that they use to prove total depravity and systematically showing that it doesn’t prove what they claim? Do you think you could play the part of a devil’s advocate, with all your experience in those discussion boards? I would appreciate any tips you can give me for debating. I’m a writer, not a debater, so I have a lot to learn. Maybe God has been stalling the associate pastor so I can have time to hone my debating skill, who knows?

~Heather

Welcome Heather. Good to have you here.

I wish they could see that it is a gift.

Heather, I would be interested in seeing your book! Could you send me a copy (I work at an ABC)

I am *trying* to understand this thread, but ......

I better stay away.

Naw, that's a sure sign you should stay and ask questions and get people to explain things better.