Amen and Amen.

Scripture is continually taken out of context to support Calvin’s theory. Praise God that someone else “sees” it!

Blessings to you,
C.Hartline

Every person who does not receive Christ knows God, he changes God’s glory into something else, and he changes the truth into a lie. This is what Romans 1:18-25 reveals. There is no such thing as someone who does not suppress the truth at all, but he still does not get saved. That is what you are saying, however, in contradiction to this passage. No, every single person who does not get saved, does not get saved because at some point he suppressed the truth. That means that if he is not suppressing the truth, he is continuing to receive it until he has received enough in order to be saved.

Bob, you say that the passage doesn’t promise more revelation to those who don’t suppress it. Not everything must be “promised” in order to be valid or at the level of a promise. The “no-promise” idea is a red-herring. The passage does say that everyone that is subject to the wrath of God (which is only unbelievers in Scripture) is subject to it because he suppresses the truth. Therefore, he who is not subject to the wrath of God does not suppress the truth, that is, he keeps receiving it until he is saved. If not, then he too would suppress it. Or someone that has not suppressed would be subject to God’s wrath. But the passage says that God’s wrath is vindicated by this point. Saying that God stops revealing to those who do not suppress is to call God guilty of injustice by His own standard.

There is worse punishment for those who suppress the most truth, that is, have the most revelation without receiving it (Mt. 11:20-24). This dovetails with Romans 1:18-25.

A few other points. 1 Peter 1:3 does not say God “causes” us to be born again. It says that he begats us. He actually does the regeneration. It does not follow that He does that without our faith. We can’t regenerate ourselves. That’s what we conclude in the adverse from 1 Peter 1:3. You add the idea of “cause” to Scripture. James 1:18 says that He does that with the Word of Truth.

You wrote: “2 Thess. says God chooses some to be saved through belief in the truth. It is the salvation which comes through belief in the truth, not God’s choosing.”

The text of 2 Thessalonians 2:13 reads: “God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.”

“to” is a preposition, eis. “salvation” is a noun, soteria. You rendered a preposition and noun, in unknowing or knowing deceit, as an infinitive “to be saved.” I have noticed that John Piper does the same thing. People are given the wrong impression of this verse through this mistranslation of the TR or the UBS 3/4—they’re the same. The verb is “chosen,” not “salvation.” If I were to diagram the phrases after the preposition en, translated “through,” I would place them under the verb “chosen,” eilato. We actually have a parallel passage for this that is clinching for this position that says that this is “salvation through” instead of “chosen through.” That passage is 1 Peter 1:2. 1 Peter 1:2 says “elect…through the sanctification of the Spirit.” This is the same preposition and noun (one of only four times in the NT) as in 2 Thess. 2 and it ties back to eklektois.

There is only one perspective and it comes out of the text, not put into the text. Let’s get ours from the text. This is the solution for “impasse.”

2 Thess. says God chooses some to be saved through belief in the truth. It is the salvation which comes through belief in the truth, not God’s choosing. And yes, God initiates his new birth in and through the preaching of the gospel, as no one is saved apart from that. It is still, however, God who causes us to be born again (1 Pet. 1:3).

The indians were guilty of suppressing truth and rejecting God’s general revelation and thus have no excuse. They also did not receive the gospel, as others did. Irrespective of the gospel coming, they are guilty. But yes God sovereignly chose to pass them over even as he gave the light of the gospel to other groups.

You can respond once more, but lets shut down this topic as we are obviously coming at this from different perspectives and no one else is engaging in this at present.

Yours in Christ,

Bob Hayton

Based on Romans 1, yes, as God continues revealing His truth to those not suppressing it (however you want to describe this non-suppression—I think “responsive” and “cooperative” are Calvinist code-words, due to their understanding of total “inability”), they will finally believe. In light of Rom. 1 within the context of the whole book of Romans, this is what will occur. If they aren’t suppressing, then God is granting them faith and repentance. They can’t suppress something that they are not getting. And they can’t get unless God gives. He grants faith and repentance by means of His Word (Rom. 10:17; 1 Peter 1:23-25; James 1:18). These aren’t just implications. Scripture states these points, and God does tell us that in 2 Thessalonians that He chooses “through belief in the truth.”

You are correct in that exegesis in your last point. No one is really disputing that. But you go a step further and say that everyone who doesn’t suppress the truth then receives even more explicit revelation and an opportunity to actually hear the gospel. That is what Rom. 1 does not expressly teach. The Jews resisted the great amount of revelation Jesus gave them, the Gentiles resisted the small amount gained from Creation. Both are condemned and in accord with justice, to a greater degree of condemnation for those rejecting the more explicit revelation. No one is innocent, no one has no revelation, all are guilty and all are accountable to God.

Also, all at one time resisted the truth, until they were saved. Did they get saved because they in their unregenerate state were more and more responsive and cooperative with God and his revealing work? Or does God have to grant faith and repentance to those who are unable to please God and who are blinded by the devil?

Anyways I’m not trying to extend or open a new debate. I’m just pointing out that your exegesis is fine, I just differ with what seems to be the implications you draw from it.

Come to think of it, there is a Far East Bible College in Singapore which is fundamentalist. They are very staunch on King James Onlyism, but at the same time they defend Calvinism–which is not common for the more conservative fundamentalists.

Bob, I affirm that Calvinism is not a man-made philosophy. At first, it was also difficult to accept. I am from the East/Southeast Asian region. The countries here with a significant number of Evangelical Christians are South Korea (one of the strongest bastions of Calvinism today), the Philippines (my country and has a growing Reformed community), Indonesia (also with a Reformed community), and Singapore (also with a Reformed community) among others. The gospel reached the shores of our countries only during the 19th century. That means that our ancestors never had the chance to hear the gospel. When I think of this, I remember this article from a popular Reformed teacher.

Double Predestionation by R.C. Sproul – http://www.the-highway.com/Dou.....proul.html

I took the time to read through it and I have a couple observations.

1) Albert’s connection of limited atonement to God’s limited work of election and regeneration is not uncommon. But it is not essential to “Calvinism” per se. Seth McBee would agree with me in affirming that there is a limited sense of the atonement that only applies to the elect. He and I (at present) differ on what exactly the universal effects/purposes of Christ’s atoning work on the cross were. Seth goes by the designation 6 point Calvinist, and some as CDJ above, are 4 pointers, I (like Albert I think) am a 5 pointer. But I admit the “L” point has more room for alternate views than the other 4 points (I’ve posted about this before).

2) The debate between Albert and Kent doesn’t really impact the atonement debate. It centers more on the level of unconditional election and/or irresistible grace. I understand where Albert is coming from. Many will argue against Calvinism by saying God loves all men and would never do for some what he doesn’t do for others in God’s desire that all be saved. What Kent is saying jives with that view. All have rejected God, but if they didn’t God would give more revelation to them, even spiriting people away (as with Philip) in order to give those people opportunity to believe in Jesus.

3) With respect to that argument let me interact a little. First look at the key verses Kent is using:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
(Rom 1:18-20)

This does deal with fairness and culpability. Indeed chapters 1-3 of Romans point out that every one is a sinner and the whole world is accountable to God. All are without excuse. And all have sinned.

What it does not expressly state is that if someone were to respond to the natural/general revelation about God they have, that they would thus require God to give them more revelation. It just doesn’t state that. God set his love on the Jews and not on other nations, totally irrespective of their response to Him. It wasn’t something great in them as a people which secured for them a greater supply of revelation than for other peoples, like the ancestors of the Mayas, for instance. (Deut. 7:6-8; 9:4-6; see also 2 Tim. 1:9)

In fact, we know that the presence of spiritual teaching is a blessing to a people–consider Jesus’ warnings to Capernaum and other cities, for instance. So the fact that Jesus did not teach in the Americas in 500 BC, but he is preached to us in 20th/21st century America, is a distinct advantage to us. But we don’t have to reason this out, what I’m trying to say is expressly stated here:

Then he began to denounce the cities where most of his mighty works had been done, because they did not repent. “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You will be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I tell you that it will be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for you.” At that time Jesus declared, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will. All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.
(Mat 11:20-27)

In the above passage, Jesus knew that if more revelation/works had been performed for Tyre, the people would have repented. But God chose not to give those works. And more so, God gave the works to those He knew would not respond (Capernaum/Bethsaida).

Faith and repentance are gifts, and all are called to believe, but only some are drawn. Of those who hear the gospel, some stumble at it, others think it foolish, but all the “called” respond in faith, believing it is the power of God (see 1 Cor. 1). Those “of God”, hear his words [Jn. 8:47], and those “ordained to eternal life” believe [Acts 13:48], and those who are Jesus’ sheep, believe and know his voice [Jn. 10:26-27]. This is Scriptural, and it is what all variations of (as someone said above) historical Calvinism affirm.

I believe Calvinism is a name of the belief system closest to the general teachings of Scripture. Just because someone’s system doesn’t have a name, doesn’t mean it is true and thus not “man-made”. “Calvinism” is just a term, a descriptive term for a set of beliefs that many (who differ with Calvin even on important points) accept.

Thanks for all who have joined the discussion. (By the way, I can’t guarantee I will be able to follow up this response with further and more detailed responses, due to time and other constraints.)

Blessings to all in Jesus,

Bob Hayton

PS Feel free to follow Seth’s links to the atonement debate–interesting and worthy of study.