Irresitable Grace

[LeSellers]

You might try actually reading John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion, ...

I have.

Such turgidity and illogic is not often my lot to read, but I weighed through it a decade ago. I was not impressed.

... if for no other reason than because it is one of the most influential books written in the history of Western civilization.

Das Kapital was also influential, yet I find it to be gravely lacking in truth and light. It, too, was written from a dogmatic, pedantic perspective.

You call my representation of Calvinism a caricature, you provide a single piece of evidence, yet, when I talk to Calvinists, they tend to agree with my understanding. Irresistible grace is forced on those who are chosen. They may not remain "vile" as the WFC says, but the fact is, as I read Calvin, any works are not their own.

There may not be, in the Calvinist imagination, any "good" people, but Mother Teresa and George Albert Smith would not be in the Calvinist heaven. Oddly enough, Calvin will be in the LDS Celestial Kingdom, as best I can tell.

Lehi

Edited October 28, 2011 by LeSellers

[Rob Bowman]

Zakuska,

You wrote, regarding Romans 10:9-10:

He's outlining the first two steps on the pathway leading to eternal life.

What Paul says is "you will be saved," not "you will have started on the pathway to salvation and may eventually attain eternal life."

Regarding my point that to "call on the name of the Lord" meant to pray to him, you replied:

Jesus taught us to direct prayers and worship and bow the knee to his Father in his name:

"Thy Kingdom come thy will be done" et al.

Paul agreed...

Eph 3

14 For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,

I've been over this issue before. Jesus did not teach that we should pray only to the Father to the exclusion of praying to Jesus; he even said, "If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it" (John 14:14 ESV, NASB, NET, NRSV, etc.). Likewise, Paul did not teach that we should pray only to the Father to the exclusion of praying to Jesus. The first apostles (Acts 1:24-25), Paul (2 Cor. 12:8-9), and John (Rev. 22:20-21) all prayed to Jesus. To "call on [epikaleō] the name of" a deity meant to pray to that deity, to petition that deity for supernatural help. For example, the Liddell and Scott Greek-English Lexicon (the standard non-theological reference work of its kind) gives as its first definition of epikaleō “to call upon a god, invoke, appeal to.” This is clearly its meaning in Romans 10:13 and other NT texts that refer to calling on the name of the Lord Jesus.

[Rob Bowman]

Lehi,

I had suggested that you read Calvin's Institutes. You replied:

I have.

That's too bad, as it means that ignorance cannot be your excuse for the vicious misrepresentations you make of Calvinism.

[zerinus]

The doctrine of "total depravity" does not mean that people can never do good things or that people are absolutely evil, but that their disposition or character spiritually is such that they are completely incapable in and of themselves of choosing to honor and glorify the true God in their hearts and lives. Most crucially, the doctrine means that people cannot will of themselves to repent and trust in Jesus Christ in the way the New Testament teaches is essential to a saving relationship with God in Christ. Thus, the Westminster Confession of Faith states, "Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto" (9.3).

Properly defined and understood, there is plenty of biblical support for this doctrine. Here are some of the clearer examples:

• Jer. 13:23. We can’t change ourselves any more than the leopard can change his spots.
  
• Jer. 17:9. The heart is quite wicked and self-deceiving; we flatter ourselves to be better than we really are.
  
• John 3:6. The flesh can give rise only to flesh.
  
• John 3:19-20. People naturally prefer darkness to light.
  
• Acts 7:51. The unregenerate or “uncircumcised in heart” inevitably resist the Holy Spirit.
  
• Rom. 3:10-12. None of us seeks for God, i.e., none of us moves toward God apart from God’s first seeking us.
  
• Rom. 8:5-8. Those who are “in the flesh” not only can’t please God, they are hostile toward God.
  
• Rom. 10:20. God makes himself “found” to those who were not seeking him.
  
• 1 Cor. 2:14. The unregenerate person does not welcome the gospel and cannot recognize its truth; to do that takes an ability to discern that comes from the Spirit.
  
• 2 Cor. 4:3-4. The gospel is veiled to the unbelieving, who are blinded to its truth.
  
• Eph. 2:1, 3. The unregenerate are dead in their sins and are by nature children of wrath.
  

The classic defense of what Reformed theology calls total depravity is actually not by a Calvinist, but by Martin Luther. His book Bondage of the Will is one of the most important works of theology in the history of Christianity.

The most serious error with this Calvinist doctrine is that it deprives mankind of freewill. You have no control over your destiny to be saved or to be damned--which cannot be supported by the scriptures cited, or any other scriptures for that matter. There are passages in LDS scripture that some have misinterpreted in a Calvinist way, such as Mosiah 3:19:

For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.

But it doesn't, because it doesn't destroy freewill, nor teach predestination, as shown by the highlights. It doesn't teach any Calvinist doctrine in fact, including "total depravity"--although some people have tried to read those doctrines into them. Calvinism is false through and through.

Edited October 28, 2011 by zerinus

[zerinus]

No, this is a caricature. First of all, Calvinism does not teach that God "forces" faith on the elect. It teaches that God softens the hearts of unbelievers and warms them toward himself. God illuminates their minds/hearts, convicts them of their sins, awakens in them their need of Christ, and turns their hearts from unbelief to faith. The human will is not violated. Wooing would be a better analogy than forcing.

Okay, so whose decision is it ultimately to accept or reject that wooing; is it man's or God's? If it is man's, then it is not "irresistible grace". If it is God's, then freewill is violated. You can't have your cake and eat it.

Edited October 28, 2011 by zerinus

[LeSellers]

I had suggested that you read Calvin's Institutes. You replied: I have.

That's too bad, as it means that ignorance cannot be your excuse for the vicious misrepresentations you make of Calvinism.

Then you will be so kind as to enlighten me. I mean above that which other Calvinists have done in the past. Because, as I said, they agree with my representation, although I freely admit I used different language than they probably would have done.

Besides, what difference does it make? I am not elect, I am going to he11 no matter what I do, and you to your heaven (I assume you are among the "chosen"). No one who reads my supposed misrepresentations will be affected one way or the other. Those who are chosen will go to heaven anyway and the others will still miss out, not being chosen, as you are. It's all pre-determined anyway, so why waste your time? Nothing you can do will affect me or them. I'm lost you're not.

Lehi

[Zakuska]

...unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man...

Okay, so whose decision is it ultimately to accept or reject that wooing, is it man's or God's? If it is man's, then it is not "irresistible grace". If it is God's, then freewill is violated. You can't have your cake and eat it.

Paul agrees...

Romans 6

16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.

Yielding puts man and free will directly in ultimate control of his own destiny. God did his part now we have to do ours.

yield (yld)

v. yield·ed, yield·ing, yields

v.tr.

1.

a. To give forth by or as if by a natural process, especially by cultivation: a field that yields many bushels of corn.

b. To furnish as return for effort or investment; be productive of: an investment that yields high percentages.

2.

a. To give over possession of, as in deference or defeat; surrender.

b. To give up (an advantage, for example) to another; concede.

v.intr.

1.

a. To give forth a natural product; be productive.

b. To produce a return for effort or investment: bonds that yield well.

2.

a. To give up, as in defeat; surrender or submit.

b. To give way to pressure or force: The door yielded to a gentle push.

c. To give way to argument, persuasion, influence, or entreaty.

d. To give up one's place, as to one that is superior: yielded to the chairperson.

n.

1.

a. An amount yielded or produced; a product.

b. A profit obtained from an investment; a return.

2. The energy released by an explosion, especially by a nuclear explosion, expressed in units of weight of TNT required to produce an equivalent release: The atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima had a yield of 20 kilotons.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Therefore grace is resistable.

Edited October 28, 2011 by Zakuska

[Vance]

Oddly enough, Calvin will be in the LDS Celestial Kingdom, as best I can tell.

I think not, he has the blood of Michael Servetus (a good Christian BTW) on his hands.

Edited to add,

A couple of quotes from John Calvin himself:

7 years before the incident:

"If he [servetus] comes [to Geneva], I shall never let him go out alive if my authority has weight."

Written by John Calvin in a letter to Farel Feb. 13, 1546

During the incident

Again Calvin writes Farel in a letter dated Aug 20th 1553 where he has Servetus arrested.

"We have now new business in hand with Servetus. He intended perhaps passing through this city; for it is not yet known with what design he came. But after he had been recognized, I thought that he should be detained. My friend Nicolas summoned him on a capital charge. ... I hope that sentence of death will at least be passed upon him"

After the incident:

"Many people have accused me of such ferocious cruelty that (they allege) I would like to kill again the man I have destroyed. Not only am I indifferent to their comments, but I rejoice in the fact that they spit in my face."

"Whoever shall now contend that it is unjust to put heretics and blasphemers to death will knowingly and willingly incur their very guilt.

The strongest recorded statement from Calvin on the Servetus affair is a 1561 letter from Calvin to the Marquis Paet, high chamberlain to the King of Navarre, in which he says intolerantly:

"Honour, glory, and riches shall be the reward of your pains; but above all, do not fail to rid the country of those scoundrels, who stir up the people to revolt against us. Such monsters should be exterminated, as I have exterminated Michael Servetus the Spaniard."

Servetus' final words while being burned alive tied to a stake:

"Jesu, thou Son of the eternal God, have compassion upon me!"

Edited October 28, 2011 by Vance

[diglot]

Properly defined and understood, there is plenty of biblical support for this doctrine. Here are some of the clearer examples:

• Jer. 13:23. We can’t change ourselves any more than the leopard can change his spots.
  
• Jer. 17:9. The heart is quite wicked and self-deceiving; we flatter ourselves to be better than we really are.
  
• John 3:6. The flesh can give rise only to flesh.
  
• John 3:19-20. People naturally prefer darkness to light.
  
• Acts 7:51. The unregenerate or “uncircumcised in heart” inevitably resist the Holy Spirit.
  
• Rom. 3:10-12. None of us seeks for God, i.e., none of us moves toward God apart from God’s first seeking us.
  
• Rom. 8:5-8. Those who are “in the flesh” not only can’t please God, they are hostile toward God.
  
• Rom. 10:20. God makes himself “found” to those who were not seeking him.
  
• 1 Cor. 2:14. The unregenerate person does not welcome the gospel and cannot recognize its truth; to do that takes an ability to discern that comes from the Spirit.
  
• 2 Cor. 4:3-4. The gospel is veiled to the unbelieving, who are blinded to its truth.
  
• Eph. 2:1, 3. The unregenerate are dead in their sins and are by nature children of wrath.
  

I fail to see how these verses prove the Calvinist doctrine of Total depravity/inability. These verses are entirely compatible within a non-Calvinist framework (e.g. Arminianism).

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

You wrote:

Okay, so whose decision is it ultimately to accept or reject that wooing; is it man's or God's? If it is man's, then it is not "irresistible grace". If it is God's, then freewill is violated. You can't have your cake and eat it.

You are approaching the issue as a philosophical problem to be settled using reason. I accept the Bible's teaching as the word of God and seek to embrace its teachings, even those that are difficult to understand completely. It isn't that I have no answers to questions like yours, but your starting point is unacceptable. The only relevant question from my point of view is what does the Bible say about these things.

I have already explained why characterizing Calvinism as teaching that God "violates" human will is unfair and inaccurate. I will use another analogy, one that is explicitly biblical. Paul says that we believers were dead in our trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1). A dead person is not responsive. He cannot choose to come back to life; he's fallen and he can't get up! A dead person cannot (unless he's God incarnate!) raise himself from the dead. When Lazarus was dead, he could not choose to move himself toward coming back to life; he was completely dependent on Christ to bring him back to life. When Christ raised Lazarus from the dead, Lazarus didn't complain that Christ didn't make coming back to life entirely Lazarus's decision! When I was dead in sin, I was unable to make myself alive spiritually. So God made me alive spiritually; God raised me from death to life. My body, my mind, my will, all were dead in sin, and God graciously made me alive spiritually. Now my will is alive to God; I am now willing to accept God's truth and to live God's purpose according to his word in Scripture. I certainly don't feel violated; I feel grateful! So it is simply a gross misunderstanding to say that Calvinism teaches that God violates the human will. He doesn't violate it; he liberates it from the bondage of sin.

[erichard]

...

There may not be, in the Calvinist imagination, any "good" people, but Mother Teresa and George Albert Smith would not be in the Calvinist heaven. Oddly enough, Calvin will be in the LDS Celestial Kingdom, as best I can tell.

Lehi

Lehi,

Calvin worked for the execution by burning at the stake of Michael Servetus--

At his trial, Servetus was condemned on two counts, for spreading and preaching Nontrinitarianism and anti-paedobaptism (anti-infant baptism).... Of paedobaptism Servetus had said, "It is an invention of the devil, an infernal falsity for the destruction of all Christianity."... Servetus rejected the classical conception of the Trinity, stating that it was not based on the Bible. He argued that it arose from teachings of (Greek) philosophers, and he advocated a return to the simplicity of the Gospels and the teachings of the early Church Fathers that he believed pre-dated the development of Nicene trinitarianism. ...

In other words, Servetus had the same beliefs as LDS on these two points: he opposed infant baptism and rejected the Trinity as greek philosopy. For this he was burned alive. And Calvin totally supported it. It is hard to see how Calvin will make the Celestial Kingdom. But it is easy to believe that Servetus will make it.

Richard

More from the above link:

Michael Servetus (... 29 September 1511 – 27 October 1553) was a Spanish theologian, physician, cartographer, and humanist. He was the first European to correctly describe the function of pulmonary circulation. His interests included many sciences: mathematics, astronomy and meteorology, geography, human anatomy, medicine and pharmacology, as well as jurisprudence, and the scholarly study of the Bible in its original languages. He is renowned in the history of several of these fields, particularly medicine and theology. He participated in the Protestant Reformation, and later developed a nontrinitarian Christology. Condemned by Catholics and Protestants alike, he was arrested in Geneva and burnt at the stake as a heretic by order of the Protestant Geneva governing council. ... Calvin wanted to show himself as firm in defense of Christian orthodoxy as his usual opponents. "He was forced to push the condemnation of Servetus with all the means at his command." ...Calvin believed Servetus deserving of death on account of what he termed as his "execrable blasphemies".

[Rob Bowman]

Zakuska,

Let's put Paul's statement in context:

"Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions. 13 Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness. 14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace. 15 What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! 16 Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17 But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, 18 and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness." (Rom 6:12-18 ESV)

The order Paul presents is as follows:

• You were slaves of sin, under its dominion and the condemning rule of law (vv. 14, 17).
  
• God brought you from death to life and set you free from sin under the forgiving rule of grace (vv. 13-14, 17-18).
  
• Now you are slaves not of sin but of righteousness; you are now supposed to serve righteousness, not sin (vv. 16-18).
  
• Since sin is no longer your master, don't serve it or let it rule over you any more, but serve God in righteousness (vv. 12-13).
  

The crucial point is this: it is only after God brings a person from spiritual death to spiritual life, from the condemnation of law to the forgiveness of grace, and from being a slave of sin to being a slave of righteousness, that a person is freed from the bondage or enslavement of sin. You say that "God did his part now we have to do ours." You're close to being right, but God's "part" is to make it possible for us to do ours. The idea that an unsaved, unregenerate, unbelieving person can "yield" himself to righteousness completely misses the context of Paul's statements. It is believers, who have been born again, whom God has brought from death to life, and who are now under the forgiving covenant of grace, who are in a position to yield themselves to serve God and his righteousness. True, the regenerate believer can and must choose to obey God, but he could not even get started without God first freeing him from his enslavement to sin. That is what Calvinists mean when they talk about "irresistible grace": they mean that God must first overcome the enslavement of our whole being, including our will, to sin before we can be free to choose to obey God.

Paul agrees...

Romans 6

16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.

Yielding puts man and free will directly in ultimate control of his own destiny. God did his part now we have to do ours.

Therefore grace is resistable.

Edited October 29, 2011 by Rob Bowman

[Rob Bowman]

I would appreciate it if folks would stop derailing the thread with the Servetus issue. No Calvinist today agrees with the way that situation was handled, and it has no bearing on the theological issue at hand.

[altersteve]

I've been over this issue before. Jesus did not teach that we should pray only to the Father to the exclusion of praying to Jesus; he even said, "If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it" (John 14:14 ESV, NASB, NET, NRSV, etc.). Likewise, Paul did not teach that we should pray only to the Father to the exclusion of praying to Jesus. The first apostles (Acts 1:24-25), Paul (2 Cor. 12:8-9), and John (Rev. 22:20-21) all prayed to Jesus. To "call on [epikaleō] the name of" a deity meant to pray to that deity, to petition that deity for supernatural help. For example, the Liddell and Scott Greek-English Lexicon (the standard non-theological reference work of its kind) gives as its first definition of epikaleō “to call upon a god, invoke, appeal to.” This is clearly its meaning in Romans 10:13 and other NT texts that refer to calling on the name of the Lord Jesus.

We've been over this before too. Latter-day Saints pray to the Father because Christ seemed to make it clear that He desired for us to pray to the same person that He prays to, and because we accept Christ's several admonitions for us to do so as a commandment. You are free to believe that Jesus' words are something other than a commandment if you wish, but criticizing Latter-day Saints for praying to the same person Christ Himself prayed to is ridiculous. As for John 14:14, not all Bible translations include the word "me." The KJV, American Standard Version, Darby Bible Translation, Webster's Bible Translation, World English Bible, and Young's Literal Translation are among those that don't.

Furthermore, Acts 1:24-25 and 2 Corinthians 12:8-9 each say that the prayer was directed to "the Lord," and "the Lord" does not refer exclusively to the Son; it can refer to the Father as well. It's simply another name for God. And to believe Rev. 22:20-21 ("Even so, come, Lord Jesus") is a prayer is laughable at best.

Edited October 29, 2011 by altersteve

[Rob Bowman]

Steve,

You wrote:

We've been over this before too. Latter-day Saints pray to the Father because Christ seemed to make it clear that He desired for us to pray to the same person that He prays to, and because we accept Christ's several admonitions for us to do so as a commandment. You are free to believe that Jesus' words are something other than a commandment if you wish, but criticizing Latter-day Saints for praying to the same person Christ Himself prayed to is ridiculous.

What is "ridiculous" is that statement, since I didn't say we shouldn't pray to the Father but that we should pray to both the Father and the Son. What you are doing is pitting some biblical texts against others instead of accepting all of them.

You wrote:

As for John 14:14, not all Bible translations include the word "me." The KJV, American Standard Version, Darby Bible Translation, Webster's Bible Translation, World English Bible, and Young's Literal Translation are among those that don't.

Doesn't matter. Leave it out and the meaning is the same: "If you ask anything in my name I [Jesus] will do it." Jesus is the one who answers the prayer! But notice also that all but one of the versions you cite is about a century or more old. Most modern translations include "me" because the manuscript evidence for it is much better than the manuscript evidence for omitting it.

Furthermore, Acts 1:24-25 and 2 Corinthians 12:8-9 each say that the prayer was directed to "the Lord," and "the Lord" does not refer exclusively to the Son; it can refer to the Father as well. It's simply another name for God.

Read the verses in context, and if you're not closed to the idea, you'll see that in both passages Jesus is the Lord mentioned there.

And to believe Rev. 22:20-21 ("Even so, come, Lord Jesus") is a prayer is laughable at best.

Is that a refutation? Argument by derision is neither respectful nor persuasive.

[Calm]

No one who reads my supposed misrepresentations will be affected one way or the other. Those who are chosen will go to heaven anyway and the others will still miss out, not being chosen, as you are. It's all pre-determined anyway, so why waste your time? Nothing you can do will affect me or them. I'm lost you're not.

Lehi

My understanding is that God does some of his work through men so people may be persuaded to come to God through something other men do, though I assume it is still God doing the directing behind the scene.

[Calm]

zerinus,

You wrote:

You are approaching the issue as a philosophical problem to be settled using reason. I accept the Bible's teaching as the word of God and seek to embrace its teachings, even those that are difficult to understand completely. It isn't that I have no answers to questions like yours, but your starting point is unacceptable. The only relevant question from my point of view is what does the Bible say about these things.

Just to be clear, using reason is not a viable method for determining truth?

[altersteve]

What is "ridiculous" is that statement, since I didn't say we shouldn't pray to the Father but that we should pray to both the Father and the Son. What you are doing is pitting some biblical texts against others instead of accepting all of them.

I never said you were trying to say that we shouldn't pray to the Father. I meant that you're criticizing us for not praying to Christ. That's what's ridiculous. Again, we accept Christ's statement to pray to the Father in His name as a commandment, and I do not believe any other part of the Bible contradicts that.

Doesn't matter. Leave it out and the meaning is the same: "If you ask anything in my name I [Jesus] will do it." Jesus is the one who answers the prayer! But notice also that all but one of the versions you cite is about a century or more old. Most modern translations include "me" because the manuscript evidence for it is much better than the manuscript evidence for omitting it.

Yes, Jesus does answer our prayers. You're exactly right. We pray to the Father in Christ's name, and Christ answers it in the Father's name. Our communications to the Father, and the Father's communications and dealings with us, are done through His Son. And CFR that "manuscript evidence for it is much better than the manuscript evidence for omitting it." Besides, are we really to ask Jesus Christ something... in the name of Jesus Christ? How does that make any sense?

Read the verses in context, and if you're not closed to the idea, you'll see that in both passages Jesus is the Lord mentioned there.

I don't see it. Please break it down for me.

Is that a refutation? Argument by derision is neither respectful nor persuasive.

John is merely expressing his desire for Christ to "come quickly." I don't see that as a prayer.

Edited October 29, 2011 by altersteve

[zerinus]

You are approaching the issue as a philosophical problem to be settled using reason.

It is a long time ago that I studied Christian theology, especially Evangelical theology; but as far as I recall, both logic and philosophy was listed as part of the tools of trade in the study of theology and analysis. So your comment sounds a bit hypocritical to me. And what do you make of Paul's "reasoning out of the scriptures"?

I accept the Bible's teaching as the word of God and seek to embrace its teachings, . . .

As if we didn't.

. . . even those that are difficult to understand completely.

Meaning that you are the only one who understands them and can educate us about them. How kind of you to come here and educate us.

It isn't that I have no answers to questions like yours, but your starting point is unacceptable.

My "starting point" was your theological assertion.

The only relevant question from my point of view is what does the Bible say about these things. I have already explained why characterizing Calvinism as teaching that God "violates" human will is unfair and inaccurate. I will use another analogy, one that is explicitly biblical. Paul says that we believers were dead in our trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1). A dead person is not responsive. He cannot choose to come back to life; he's fallen and he can't get up! A dead person cannot (unless he's God incarnate!) raise himself from the dead. When Lazarus was dead, he could not choose to move himself toward coming back to life; he was completely dependent on Christ to bring him back to life. When Christ raised Lazarus from the dead, Lazarus didn't complain that Christ didn't make coming back to life entirely Lazarus's decision! When I was dead in sin, I was unable to make myself alive spiritually. So God made me alive spiritually; God raised me from death to life. My body, my mind, my will, all were dead in sin, and God graciously made me alive spiritually. Now my will is alive to God; I am now willing to accept God's truth and to live God's purpose according to his word in Scripture. I certainly don't feel violated; I feel grateful! So it is simply a gross misunderstanding to say that Calvinism teaches that God violates the human will. He doesn't violate it; he liberates it from the bondage of sin.

How does the metaphor used by Paul in Ephesians 2:1 support irresistible grace or total depravity? How were the Christians Paul was addressing, who had been "dead in trespassing and sins," revived? Did their own volition have anything to do with it or not? Did God revive them, or save them, or "bring them back to life," in spite of themselves, or with their own willing cooperation? I know you are now going to quote me verses 8 and 9 as proof text that their own actions or volition was not involved; but that is your misinterpretation of the Bible. Paul is teaching against Judaistic "works based" salvation (without faith in Jesus Christ); he didn't mean that they didn't need to to anything at all to be saved. And as he affirms in Colossians 2:11-13:

In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

So using your own very analogy and metaphor, after having been "dead in trespassing and sin," we are brought back to life through baptism, which means doing something, not by doing nothing at all, or exercising no volition at all. If our "rebirth," to use your own analogy, comes about through our own willing participation in baptism, then it is not entirely without our own volition, is it? So that analogy or metaphor cannot be used to support your theology, can it? It is true that by grace we are saved; but we have to willingly accept that grace by the things we do, such as participation in baptism for example, and other sacraments of the gospel. There is no scripture that supports "irresistible grace". That is the false doctrine of Calvinism. It is not biblical.

Edited October 30, 2011 by zerinus

[Rob Bowman]

calmoriah,

You wrote:

Just to be clear, using reason is not a viable method for determining truth?

I love it. Mormons are defending the use of reason to determine doctrinal truth, and I am defending the primacy of revelation in determining doctrinal truth. How about that!

Of course we need to use reason, but reason is a tool for understanding what God has revealed in Scripture, not for dictating what is or is not acceptable or possible meanings of what God might reveal. The proper way to critique the Calvinist doctrine is by showing that the Bible doesn't teach it, not by arguing that it supposedly doesn't make sense.

[thesometimesaint]

Rob Bowman:

The trouble with using what's in the Bible as the means of determining what it is that God wants is all in the interpretation.

[Rob Bowman]

Steve,

You wrote:

I never said you were trying to say that we shouldn't pray to the Father. I meant that you're criticizing us for not praying to Christ. That's what's ridiculous.

Not if Christ is Jehovah, the God who made the heavens and the earth, the God who became incarnate, died on the cross, and rose from the grave, all for our salvation! Not by a long shot is it ridiculous to suggest that a religion that denies that we should pray to Christ is in that regard seriously defective!

You wrote:

Again, we accept Christ's statement to pray to the Father in His name as a commandment, and I do not believe any other part of the Bible contradicts that.

I agree. We are commanded to pray to the Father in Christ's name. No other part of the Bible contradicts this command. Both statements are true. But the statement that we are also supposed to pray to Christ does not contradict Christ's command. Therefore, your reasoning here is flawed. If you disagree, please show how the following two statements contradict one another:

A. We ought to pray to God the Father in Christ's name.

B. We ought to pray to Jesus Christ for salvation.

You wrote:

Yes, Jesus does answer our prayers. You're exactly right. We pray to the Father in Christ's name, and Christ answers it in the Father's name. Our communications to the Father, and the Father's communications and dealings with us, are done through His Son. And CFR that "manuscript evidence for it is much better than the manuscript evidence for omitting it."

Okay:

Most of the critical editions of the Greek New Testament in modern times, including the Westcott/Hort edition, the Nestle-Aland edition, and the United Bible Societies edition, include the word while noting the inferior reading that omits it. The UBS edition gives the reading with me a rank of (B), which means that the editors regarded it as “nearly certain” to be correct. The so-called Majority Text edition places the word in brackets because it is lacking in a majority of manuscripts, most of which are medieval in origin. Thus, the NKJV, like the KJV, omits “me,” while virtually all other modern translations (with the exception of the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ NWT) include it. The word me is found in early papyri from the second and third centuries (P66 and probably P75), the Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and Washington codices of the fourth and fifth centuries, and many other manuscripts. It is omitted most significantly in the fifth-century Alexandrinus codex as well as by many later manuscripts. For a list of variant readings, see New Testament Greek Manuscripts: John: Variant Readings Arranged in Horizontal Lines against Codex Vaticanus (Sheffield, U.K.: Sheffield Academic Press; Pasadena, Calif.: William Carey International University Press, 1995), 202. See also the helpful analysis by James Stewart at < http://www.foranansw...ohn/Jn14_14.htm >.

Robert M. Bowman Jr. and J. Ed Komoszewski, Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2007), 299-300.

You asked:

Besides, are we really to ask Jesus Christ something... in the name of Jesus Christ? How does that make any sense?

Well, as we put it in Putting Jesus in His Place: "It sounds strange to some readers to speak of praying to Jesus in his own name, but the Old Testament also occasionally speaks this way (e.g., 1 Chron. 16:8, 'call on him in his name'; Ps. 54:1, 'save me in your name')" (51).

Regarding the "Lord" of Acts 1:24-25 and of 2 Corinthians 12:8-9 being the Lord Jesus, you wrote:

I don't see it. Please break it down for me.

Okay. On Acts 1:24-25, we wrote the following in Putting Jesus in His Place (48-49):

We can be reasonably sure that the “Lord” to whom the disciples prayed was the Lord Jesus, for three reasons (which are to be considered cumulatively). First, like the other New Testament writers, Luke most frequently used “Lord” (kurios) to refer to Jesus.[n. 1]Second, Peter had just referred to “the Lord Jesus” (Acts 1:21) prior to the group addressing the “Lord” in prayer. Third, Jesus personally chose the men who served as his apostles, including Paul and any others chosen after Jesus’ resurrection. The verb Luke uses in Acts 1:24 for “have chosen” (exelexō) is a similar form of the same verb appearing earlier in the same chapter in reference to Jesus having “chosen” his apostles (exelexato, 1:2).[n. 2] Luke used another form of the same verb in the Gospel in reference to Jesus choosing the twelve apostles (eklexamenos, Luke 6:13) and uses the related noun form in reference to the Lord Jesus’ “choice” of Paul as an apostle (eklogēs, Acts 9:15). Thus, when the disciples prayed that the “Lord” would show them whom he had “chosen” to be an apostle, we should understand this Lord to be Jesus himself.[n. 3]

1. The Greek word kurios appears about 207 times in Luke and Acts; of these, about 143 refer explicitly or implicitly to Jesus (67 times in Luke, 76 in Acts). In about 20 instances, kurios refers to God as distinguished in the context from Jesus. In part to avoid Jesus being called “Lord” in a context that implies his identity with the “Lord” Yahweh or Jehovah of the Old Testament, Jehovah’s Witnesses translate kurios 237 times in the New Testament as “Jehovah,” including Acts 1:24 and 7:60 (on which see below). For a critique, see chapter 13 of this book.

2. Noted by F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary, 3d rev. and enlarged ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Leicester, England: Apollos, 1990), 112.

3. See also Joel B. Green, “Persevering Together in Prayer: The Significance of Prayer in the Acts of the Apostles,” in Into God’s Presence: Prayer in the New Testament, ed. Richard N. Longenecker (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 187-88. Green rightly argues that Peter’s injunction to Simon Magus to “pray to the Lord” for forgiveness (Acts 8:22) in context also refers to the Lord Jesus.

On 2 Corinthians 12:8-9, we wrote the following (51):

That “the Lord” here is Jesus is, as commentator Murray Harris points out, “scarcely open to question.”[n. 1] In response to Paul’s prayer, the Lord assures him that by his (the Lord’s) grace Paul’s weakness will provide an opportunity for a greater power to be realized. This promise clearly assumes that the power comes from the Lord. Paul then expresses gladness in his weaknesses because through them “the power of Christ” manifests in his life. The power of the Lord is thus the power of Christ—and since Paul routinely uses both titles for Jesus, he is quite clearly doing so here as well. Elsewhere, Paul speaks of Christ’s “grace” as providing riches in place of poverty (2 Cor. 8:9; cf. 13:14), a contrast paralleling the power/weakness contrast (see also 2 Cor. 13:4) and confirming that this understanding of the passage is correct. As Hurtado points out, “Paul’s easy recounting of his prayer actions here suggests that he knew that his readers would be familiar with direct prayer-appeals to Jesus as a communally accepted feature of Christian devotional practice.”[n. 2]

1. Murray J. Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Milton Keynes, U.K.: Paternoster, 2005), 860.

2. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 140.

Regarding Revelation 22:20-21, you wrote:

John is merely expressing his desire for Christ to "come quickly." I don't see that as a prayer.

John is addressing the Lord Jesus directly: "Come" is in the second person singular ("[You] come"), thus spoken to Jesus. The text echoes other first-century Christian texts in which this prayer was part of the earliest, Jewish-Christian liturgy (especially 1 Cor. 16:22; Didache 10.6). On these texts, see Putting Jesus in His Place, 52-53.

Edited October 30, 2011 by Rob Bowman

[Rob Bowman]

thesometimesaint:

You wrote:

The trouble with using what's in the Bible as the means of determining what it is that God wants is all in the interpretation.

The problem is only exacerbated by adding the Book of Mormon, D&C, and the Pearl of Great Price, in addition to the teachings of the "living prophets." One must still interpret these additional revelations. Even if one feels that one has received personal revelation, one must still interpret that revelation. in short, interpretation is inescapable.

[thesometimesaint]

Rob Bowman:

Not necessarity. Prophets have always had the reponsibility of interpreting and adding to Scriture.

Ephesians 4:11-14

11 And he ^agave some, ^bapostles; and some, ^cprophets; and some, ^devangelists; and some, ^epastors and ^fteachers;

12 For the ^aperfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the ^bedifying of the body of Christ:

13 Till we all come in the ^aunity of the faith, and of the ^bknowledge of the Son of God, unto a ^cperfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

14 That we henceforth be no more ^achildren, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of ^bdoctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive

King James Bible 2 Peter 1:20

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

Fortunately for the Saints we do have modern day Prophets.

[altersteve]

Not if Christ is Jehovah, the God who made the heavens and the earth, the God who became incarnate, died on the cross, and rose from the grave, all for our salvation! Not by a long shot is it ridiculous to suggest that a religion that denies that we should pray to Christ is in that regard seriously defective!

We deny that we should pray to Christ because we believe that Christ has directed us to pray to the same person He prays to. How many times does that need to be explained? You're criticizing us for obeying what we believe to be a commandment from the Savior. That's ridiculous.

I agree. We are commanded to pray to the Father in Christ's name. No other part of the Bible contradicts this command. Both statements are true. But the statement that we are also supposed to pray to Christ does not contradict Christ's command. Therefore, your reasoning here is flawed. If you disagree, please show how the following two statements contradict one another:

A. We ought to pray to God the Father in Christ's name.

B. We ought to pray to Jesus Christ for salvation.

Once again, I don't believe there is any part of the Bible that teaches us to pray to Christ. I believe it teaches the opposite, and that this teaching has been clarified and reinforced in modern revelation. Just as we come unto the Father to eternal life through Jesus Christ, we also come to the Father in prayer through Jesus Christ. It's perfectly consistent. Everything is done through Christ.

Okay:

Most of the critical editions of the Greek New Testament in modern times, including the Westcott/Hort edition, the Nestle-Aland edition, and the United Bible Societies edition, include the word while noting the inferior reading that omits it. The UBS edition gives the reading with me a rank of (B), which means that the editors regarded it as “nearly certain” to be correct. The so-called Majority Text edition places the word in brackets because it is lacking in a majority of manuscripts, most of which are medieval in origin. Thus, the NKJV, like the KJV, omits “me,” while virtually all other modern translations (with the exception of the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ NWT) include it. The word me is found in early papyri from the second and third centuries (P66 and probably P75), the Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and Washington codices of the fourth and fifth centuries, and many other manuscripts. It is omitted most significantly in the fifth-century Alexandrinus codex as well as by many later manuscripts. For a list of variant readings, see New Testament Greek Manuscripts: John: Variant Readings Arranged in Horizontal Lines against Codex Vaticanus (Sheffield, U.K.: Sheffield Academic Press; Pasadena, Calif.: William Carey International University Press, 1995), 202. See also the helpful analysis by James Stewart at < http://www.foranansw...ohn/Jn14_14.htm >.

Robert M. Bowman Jr. and J. Ed Komoszewski, Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2007), 299-300.

Interesting, but I'm not convinced. Clearly, there are several scholars who diasgree with you from what I've read.

Well, as we put it in Putting Jesus in His Place: "It sounds strange to some readers to speak of praying to Jesus in his own name, but the Old Testament also occasionally speaks this way (e.g., 1 Chron. 16:8, 'call on him in his name'; Ps. 54:1, 'save me in your name')" (51).

1 Chron. 16:8 says: "Give thanks unto the Lord, call upon his name, make known his deeds among the people."

Seems to be another example where the KJV and other older translations disagree with newer ones. Are we to call upon the Lord's name, or call upon the Lord in His name? The latter still seems more inconsistent with other parts of the Bible. As for Ps. 54:1, the KJV, NIV, NASB, ESV, American Standard Version, God's Word Translation, Darby Bible Translation, Douay-Rheims Bible, English Revised Version, Webster's Bible Translation, World English Bible, and Young's Literal Translation ALL say "by thy/your name," not "in your name." Exactly which Bible translation are you using?

Okay. On Acts 1:24-25, we wrote the following in Putting Jesus in His Place (48-49):

We can be reasonably sure that the “Lord” to whom the disciples prayed was the Lord Jesus, for three reasons (which are to be considered cumulatively). First, like the other New Testament writers, Luke most frequently used “Lord” (kurios) to refer to Jesus.[n. 1]Second, Peter had just referred to “the Lord Jesus” (Acts 1:21) prior to the group addressing the “Lord” in prayer. Third, Jesus personally chose the men who served as his apostles, including Paul and any others chosen after Jesus’ resurrection. The verb Luke uses in Acts 1:24 for “have chosen” (exelexō) is a similar form of the same verb appearing earlier in the same chapter in reference to Jesus having “chosen” his apostles (exelexato, 1:2).[n. 2] Luke used another form of the same verb in the Gospel in reference to Jesus choosing the twelve apostles (eklexamenos, Luke 6:13) and uses the related noun form in reference to the Lord Jesus’ “choice” of Paul as an apostle (eklogēs, Acts 9:15). Thus, when the disciples prayed that the “Lord” would show them whom he had “chosen” to be an apostle, we should understand this Lord to be Jesus himself.[n. 3]

1. The Greek word kurios appears about 207 times in Luke and Acts; of these, about 143 refer explicitly or implicitly to Jesus (67 times in Luke, 76 in Acts). In about 20 instances, kurios refers to God as distinguished in the context from Jesus. In part to avoid Jesus being called “Lord” in a context that implies his identity with the “Lord” Yahweh or Jehovah of the Old Testament, Jehovah’s Witnesses translate kurios 237 times in the New Testament as “Jehovah,” including Acts 1:24 and 7:60 (on which see below). For a critique, see chapter 13 of this book.

2. Noted by F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary, 3d rev. and enlarged ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Leicester, England: Apollos, 1990), 112.

3. See also Joel B. Green, “Persevering Together in Prayer: The Significance of Prayer in the Acts of the Apostles,” in Into God’s Presence: Prayer in the New Testament, ed. Richard N. Longenecker (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 187-88. Green rightly argues that Peter’s injunction to Simon Magus to “pray to the Lord” for forgiveness (Acts 8:22) in context also refers to the Lord Jesus.

That's interesting, because in Acts 4:29-39 they use the same word for Lord (Greek kurios), yet they are clearly praying to the Father, since "thy holy child Jesus" is referred to. I still see no indication that Christ is the "Lord" they are praying to in Acts 1.

On 2 Corinthians 12:8-9, we wrote the following (51):

That “the Lord” here is Jesus is, as commentator Murray Harris points out, “scarcely open to question.”[n. 1] In response to Paul’s prayer, the Lord assures him that by his (the Lord’s) grace Paul’s weakness will provide an opportunity for a greater power to be realized. This promise clearly assumes that the power comes from the Lord. Paul then expresses gladness in his weaknesses because through them “the power of Christ” manifests in his life. The power of the Lord is thus the power of Christ—and since Paul routinely uses both titles for Jesus, he is quite clearly doing so here as well. Elsewhere, Paul speaks of Christ’s “grace” as providing riches in place of poverty (2 Cor. 8:9; cf. 13:14), a contrast paralleling the power/weakness contrast (see also 2 Cor. 13:4) and confirming that this understanding of the passage is correct. As Hurtado points out, “Paul’s easy recounting of his prayer actions here suggests that he knew that his readers would be familiar with direct prayer-appeals to Jesus as a communally accepted feature of Christian devotional practice.”[n. 2]

1. Murray J. Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Milton Keynes, U.K.: Paternoster, 2005), 860.

2. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 140.

It is correct that the power of the Lord is also the power of Christ, since the Father and the Son are one God. That doesn't mean he was praying to Christ, though. Once again, there are many scholars who disagree with you.

John is addressing the Lord Jesus directly: "Come" is in the second person singular ("[You] come"), thus spoken to Jesus. The text echoes other first-century Christian texts in which this prayer was part of the earliest, Jewish-Christian liturgy (especially 1 Cor. 16:22; Didache 10.6). On these texts, see Putting Jesus in His Place, 52-53.

Once again, I don't see this as a formal prayer, merely as a simple statement.

Sorry, Rob, but I'm unconvinced. I still don't believe any part of the Bible shows Jesus being prayed to, or commanding that we should pray to Him. He always commands that we pray to the same person that He prays to: His Father. Remember that LDS doctrine is not drawn from the Bible, anyway (though it is completely consistent with it). It is modern revelation that is the rock upon which the Church is built. Whether Christ was prayed to in the past is irrelevant. We have been instructed by latter-day prophets and scripture to pray to the Father, always, and we Latter-day Saints will continue to do so until God has specifically directed otherwise.

Edited October 30, 2011 by altersteve