John Calvin and Liberty

‘Calvin put his finger on enduring biblical truths that would be central to Reformed Christianity’s success in England and America. When England’s kings became despotic, the Reformed Christians’ stand for biblical liberty was an imposing check upon their licentious pretenses. Yet again, when the Libertines and Levelers used their freedom as autonomy from all legitimate government, the Reformed Christians’ stand for biblical liberty was an equally imposing check upon their licentious lawlessness. It was against both the tyrants and the libertines, flanking biblical liberty on either side, that Reformed Christianity proved to be the bulwark of civic responsibility.’

http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/gods_hand_in_hi story/the_stream_of_liberty_from_cal.xml

Well said.

I read this article as well and I believe Calvin is a man worth praising, even outside the religious community. He was revolutionary for his time and helped sewed the seeds of the modern movements in western society.

But I do have one question. In Calvin's third book, he describes how humans and Christ are united spiritually. He, like many other reformers at the time, believed in predestination. God chose who was going to heaven and who was going to hell at birth. My question is, doesn't this conflict with Calvin's own message in his first book where he says salvation is achieved through faith alone? If god already determines who goes where after death, why bother with faith? If there's something I'm missing please explain.

You are a man of logic, so let’s apply some logic to the subject of salvation as defined in the Bible…

Given the premises that salvation is all of grace and that men are spiritually dead in sin, then how can any man gain salvation?

The doctrine of election is the only answer consistent with these premises and that is the answer given in the Bible. Men are chosen before the foundation of the world; they come to faith because the ‘given ones’ receive the gift of regeneration by the sovereign work of the Spirit. The regenerated ones receive the imputed righteousness of faith in order than salvation remains all of grace from first to last.

The conflict here is that men are in rebellion and without the doctrine of election there would be no salvation.

Thank you for your response Valiant. So if I understand correctly, the Calvanist reasoning is that since all men are dead in sin, god chooses who will achieve salvation and it is only by god's will that they become the rigeous reformed Christians that will make it into heaven. Those chosen have righteousness that those not chosen don't. Is this correct?

But that leads to another question. How many of these chosen are there compared to non-chosen? Is it restricted only to reformed Christians? That would leave billions of people to be condemned to hell. That would not make god very merciful or very loving. It would in a sense contradict the bible. How can such a notion be reconciled?

Are you playing the Pharisee again?

You miss the point that God defines mercy and justice. Sinful men have nothing to say. Do you not understand that apart from sovereign grace no man would be saved because sinful men want no part of God or His righteousness?

It is infinite mercy that the Redeemer has come and that any are saved. The gospel invitation is not restricted; all who will may come and the one who comes will not be cast out. Are men not responsible for rejecting the gospel invitation? There is no mercy unless there is also justice. God is gloried in both.

If you were not so full of preconceived prejudices against God as if He is responsible for sin and its consequences, then perhaps you might see that He is the over ruler of sin and the giver of salvation to undeserving rebels.

No man deserves anything from God except His wrath. No man has any righteousness except that imputed to him through faith in Christ. On the last day every mouth will be stopped at the righteous judgment of God. Until then you are storing up wrath for your blasphemy.

I apologize if I did not get all your points from the previous post, but there remains some inconsistancies. You say god's mercy is infinite, but only to those who already believe in the strict, narrow way that you describe. Thta's not exactly infinite mercy. That's very limited because when you factor in all the people who have lived on this planet over the past 2000 years that leaves millions if not billions being condemned, many of which never even heard about the Christian faith.

And you say the gospel is not restricted to those who want to join. But doesn't that go against the whole concept of predestination? If god has already chosen who is going to hell, what's the point of being open to everybody? It still doesn't sound very loving or very forgiving, which is supposed to be at the heart of the Christian faith if you look back at Jesus's ministry.

‘You say god's mercy is infinite, but only to those who already believe in the strict, narrow way that you describe.’ –Jack


Honestly Jack, I do not know how you can come up with this given what I have written. Let’s make sure we get the order of things right because that is most important. We believe because of mercy. Without the mercy of God shown to man in Christ there would be no saving faith. If genuine faith exists in a man, the first cause of it is mercy. Would you please tell me what I have written to make you think that I believe mercy follows belief?

‘And you say the gospel is not restricted to those who want to join. But doesn't that go against the whole concept of predestination?’ If god has already chosen who is going to hell, what's the point of being open to everybody?’–Jack


These are very good questions. Is this from your thinking? I will discuss these things with you if you are willing to read Romans 9 and 10 and search for the answers. Will you read those 2 chapters until you find what you think are the answers? Then let’s discuss what the Bible really says about these things.

Now we are back to what I said to you a long time ago. If you reject the Bible you should at least be honest enough to try to understand what it teaches rather than reject the caricatures of it derived from those who are ignorant and are at enmity with God. The classic example of this is Bertrand Russell who rejected Christ’s authority because Jesus said He didn’t know the hour of His return.

Finally, regarding loving and forgiving: Did you ever read Matthew 23? Please read Jesus’ pronouncement of woe to the Scribes and Pharisees. Would you agree that He was showing love to them and to us by exposing their hypocrisy and telling them the truth?

I looked at Romans 9 and 10 like you asked and found some useful information in regards to my questions. Three passages in Romans 9 stood out.

9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

9:7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

9:8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

This seems to imply those outside the scope of Israel are of the same children of the same flesh. So in that sense everybody, even non-Christians are bestowed the same grace in the eyes of god.

This quote reinforces the predestination ideas of Calvin:

9:11 For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;

Then towards the end it reinforces the point that even non-believers are still the same children of god.

9:25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.

9:26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.

This seems to imply that future generations will be granted the same mercy. So the issue remains for this chapter if all are still the children of god, what is the need for predestination? Why does god need to pick and choose? Your thoughts?

Now for Romans 10. Sorry if the last post ran a little long. I read this one over as well. Some points seemed to contradict the ideas of predestination laid out in the last chapter. One quote says as follows:

10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

This implies that those who profess their faith will be saved. That doesn't seem to fit in line with predestination because if someone was a non-believer before, would they not face the wrath you told me I would face? Or is this one of those paradoxical points where god seems to know from birth who will profess their faith and there's nothing the believer can do to avoid it? It happens either way? Which then begs the question do people even have free will when it comes to faith?

There is also the issue of how far the word has been spread. One passage implies that the whole world has heard the word.

10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

10:18 But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.

But this isn't necessarily true because much of this message was restricted to the Middle East. Much of the world never heard this message until hunreds of years later. So if faith only comes by hearing the word, what about those who never heard it to begin with? It's the same issue I brought up before. Romans 10 implies everybody has heard it, but that's not necessarily true. There is no documentation of it being heard in every society at the time of Christ. So I ask you how can this be reconciled?

Also I read over Matthew 23 and some of the passages there contradict what was in Romans 9 and 10. In the chapter Jesus says:

23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

He seems to imply that god will not grant any mercy to those who criticize Jesus while in Romans 9 and 10 Paul says that all human beings are of the same flesh and of the same mercy from god. So how does one get around this? Your thoughts?

I will take your response as an honest attempt of doing what I asked of you. I will respond to your questions as if you are interested in my answers.

You should know that part of the reformed faith is that Christ knows His people and He is able to save them so that none of them will be lost. Calvinists do not claim exclusivity to the grace of God; nor do we profess that our churches are the only true churches; nor do we profess that all our doctrines must be believed in order to be a Christian.

What we do profess is that church history demonstrates that when real revival occurs it is always associated with the preaching of reformed doctrine. Real revival is defined as that which brings transformation towards righteousness to whole cultures for generations. This is my view of the Great Awakening in colonial New England to which we owe the American Revolution and the establishment of American constitutionalism.

We also profess that the tendency is for the churches to fall into apostasy and the only preventative is the belief and practice of Biblical Christianity which we define as best expressed by the doctrines contained in the reformed confessions of faith.

Jack, let’s focus on Paul’s argument in Romans 9 starting with the first verse you quoted:

9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

This is his premise: that election is demonstrated in OT Israel; not all the physical seed of Israel are included in the covenant promise to Abraham; not all the sons of Israel in the line from Abraham are sons of promise.

He proves this premise with the examples of Isaac and then Jacob. Do you see the force of his argument? Some might object that Isaac’s brother Ishmael was from Sarah’s handmaid. But in the case of Jacob and Esau there can be no such objection. They are twin brothers from the same mother. You have rightly said…

This quote reinforces the predestination ideas of Calvin:

9:11 For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;

Paul makes the application as clearly as anywhere in Scripture that election is according to the purpose of God, NOT according to works. He reinforces his point with the language ‘the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil’.

So before we move on to the next part of his argument can we agree that Paul has defined the doctrine of election as God’s sovereign choice of individuals according to His own purposes and that the choice is unconditional; that is, independent of anything in the person chosen? Is this not the straightforward meaning of the text?

I apologize it has taken me a while to respond to this. I have been busy. But I appreciate you going into further detail with the points I brought up. So if I understand you correctly, that seed of the covenant with god's chosen was not restricted to just Abraham and his descendants. So does this logically assume that it was not restricted to the populations of the Middle East and could therefore be extended to other areas across the world like China and Meso-America?

And going back to Romans 9:11 it implies and is thus reinforced by Calvin that the election of the predestined is by god's own standards and not contingent on any action or behavior of the person. So am I correct in reasoning that this would in turn make free will irrelevant to the issue? It doesn't matter what the person does or doesn't do, if they're chosen they're chosen? The next logical question is how do we know which are chosen and which aren't? Is one that professes faith in reformed protestant view of Christianity the only proof or is it possible for other moral people who aren't Christians to be chosen as well?

How does this reconcile with Matthew 23:13 which actively condemns all Pharisees as having rejected god? But how can they even reject it when they haven't heard of it? Did Calvin comment on this at all? I could not find anything in his writings. Perhaps you can offer further insight. I know Calvin used scripture a lot to justify his ideas. But he had to have gotten around some inconsistancies if he was to get his point across. I appreciate your input.

Let’s continue with Paul’s argument in Romans 9 & 10. What is the apostle’s doctrine of predestination and does Calvin teach a doctrine consistent with Paul? Your questions are addressed by Paul.

Please note Paul’s appeal to the Scriptures as the authority that defines his doctrine. From the covenant promises made to Abraham in Genesis 12 & 17 and from the subsequent history of his life given to us in Scripture, Paul reasons with his readers to consider what is written. He is not inventing new doctrine; rather, he is expounding the doctrine contained in the revelation.

He expects men to think about the doctrine, and he anticipates the objections. His questions in Romans 9:19 leave no doubt that his doctrine of predestination is determined by a plain reading of the text. He means what he says. Will you consider the questions in Romans 9:19 and ask why he raises them?

This is the first thing. Can we agree on the plain meaning of the text? I am NOT asking whether you believe the text is truth. I am asking whether we can agree on the meaning of the text. Then we can move on with your questions as we discuss the implications of the doctrine.

Thank you for your further insight, Valiant. I went and looked at that passage you told me.

9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

In regards to why he's raising this question, it does have a clear direction towards objections. I suppose it should not be too surprising considering that these texts are derived from the letters he wrote to the Romans. It's reasonable to conclude that he would anticipate objections and address them.

Going from this and looking at the text that proceeds it, it in some ways relate to some earlier comments I made a while back when I asked if it is possible that if there is a god and god influences everybody, perhaps it was god's will that made me a non-beleiver. Consider the passage right after the one you mentioned.

9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

This question is just as profound as the previous. It brings into question those who reject the word of god and why god in the infinite power he has would make them so? I know this probably goes back to the issues of the fall in genesis, but Paul seems to imply in his reasoning of predestination that god has a hand in those who believe and those who do not. So in this context could that mean that god not only determines the chosen, but who will believe in him to begin with?

With that in mind, perhaps Paul is trying to reason in his letters that those who do object are predestined to do so. And this is how other Christians should approach it.

Thanks again for your insight. I appreciate it.

Yes these are profound questions.

Here is the context of the questions of Romans 9:19…

‘What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.” So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.” Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.’ [Romans 9:14-18]


Under the umbrella of God’s righteousness, Paul says again that God sovereignly displays mercy independent of the will of men…

‘So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.’

If the will of men is not involved, then how can God still find fault with men who resist His will?

How can these things be unless all men without exception are born under wrath and dead in sin with no hope of escape, being totally dependent on mercy?

So the questions in Romans 9:19 are the logical objection…

‘Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?’

What shall we say of Paul’s answer?

Who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?”

He then compares God to the plotter and men as clay vessels. Then he gives us the ultimate statement against egalitarianism. Equal outcome among men is not a purpose of God…

‘Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?’

So if I understand the text from Paul you cited, free will is indeed irrelevant to the issue of how god predestines someone. So that is one question addressed.

‘So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.’

So it is all dependant on the will of god, which the believer or non-believer has no control over. It relates back to the fall in Genesis how all human beings are born with that same sin. So it makes sense in that context.

But the part that describes god as a potter and humans as the clay is a bit more confusing. You say this is a statement against egalitarianism. I don't see that. I see it as Paul appealing to those who would question how god, being the creator and the source of mercy, has the power to accept all his children. It is similar to the old question people pose as if god is so all powerful then why doesn't he just make everyone the godly way he wants?

Paul's message seems to imply that it is impossible for a mere man to know how god determines who he grants mercy to. The appeal is that having faith in god's wisdom, as Calvin would later preach, is a means to provide context for practicing Christians. As if their own faith is prove that god favors them.

If you have other means of proving this idea of non-egalitarian nature of mercy, please do so. This is what I've been concluding from what you've pointed out. If there is something I'm missing, please let me know.

You are right to link these things back to the Genesis Fall of man into sin. And I would say that all errors in Biblical Soteriology go back to an inadequate doctrine of the Fall.

You do not like Paul’s answer that the Creator has power over the created? You are not alone. Your objection is noted in the question…

‘if god is so all powerful then why doesn't he just make everyone the godly way he wants?’ -Jack

You will not like Paul’s answer…

‘What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? [Romans 9:22-24]

Mercy assumes that justice must be satisfied, but that guilt has been forgiven; mercy requires justice.

Who is a God like You,
Pardoning iniquity
And passing over the transgression of the remnant of His heritage?
He does not retain His anger forever,
Because He delights in mercy. [Micah 7:18]

In Biblical Theology how is justice satisfied and who is this remnant?

So again, it links back to the fall. Would it be reasonable to say that even if god has the power, the burden is on humanity show penance and to do it himself would defeat the purpose?

You say that for mercy, justice must be satisfied. In the context of the fall, I can see why that would make sense. So then with this in mind, that leads into the impact of Jesus Christ and his sacrifice. I'm not sure if I mentioned this quote before, but here it is again.

10:6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above:)

10:7 Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)

10:8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;

10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

We've been working around this whole concept of predestination which Calvin used in much of his reasoning, similar to that of Paul. But does Calvin take predestination and work it into how Christ changed the landscape? I believe we've had previous discussions where you say the sacrifice of Jesus changed the very nature of the covenant. Because if his sacrifice was for the sins of man, does that mean it effects all men or just those who believe in him? Either way, it does affect the nature of predestination.

‘Would it be reasonable to say that even if god has the power, the burden is on humanity show penance and to do it himself would defeat the purpose?’-Jack

Justice is satisfied in one of 2 ways: either in the suffering of Christ or in the suffering of the sinner. Now, if Christ suffered for all men, then justice demands that all men be saved. But the Bible teaches that only those who believe on Christ as He is presented in the gospel are saved. So if all men are not saved, then how is it that God exacts judgment 2 times for the same sin, once on Christ and then again on the sinner? Justice demands that satisfaction for sin be made only once.

We can now link predestination to the work of Christ. Those who believe are the ‘given ones’; those predestinated to salvation before the foundation of the world; these are the same ones for whom Christ suffered. His atonement is perfect in that it is sufficient for all it was intended to redeem. None of the ‘given ones’ will be lost.

Your above question indicates that you still do not see the good news. Christ has done for His people what they could not do for themselves. The rest are left to go the way of their own choosing. Consider how Pharaoh was destroyed? He pursued Moses into the sea under his own will and power, and the people rejoiced to see the destruction of their persecutors. God was gloried in redemption and judgment.

The next part of Paul’s argument is that since we do not know the identity of the ‘given ones’, the gospel must be preached to every man in every nation. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. This is the means of grace whereby the elect are called. We preach because God is able to raise the dead through His word.

Valiant, would you happen to have the biblical passages that indicate how Jesus's sacrifice was for all those who believed in him and not all men in general? I do not quite understand your reasoning and how you come to that conclusion. Based on the passages that I gave you from Romans 10, I see more evidence to the contrary. If I'm missing something, please point it out. Because I couldn't find that reasoning with works from Calvin either.

With respect to your last comment about preaching the gospel to every nation, does that not present an even greater problem? Because for hundreds of years after the life of Christ and after the biblical cannon was finalized, a great deal of the world still never heard of Christ. And people like Calvin claim that the gospel preached up until his time was flawed. What happens to those who did hear the gospel, but did not hear the reformed version? How can this be reconciled because that could possibly condemn someone who did confess their faith to Jesus, but not in the manner that Calvin is arguing.

Please read John 17 and look for the references to the ‘given ones’. Who gives them to Christ and what does Christ give them? These are the ones that occupied the mind of the Savior as He faced the cross. These are the ones that He prayed for, not the world. And finally how will the ‘given ones’ yet born believe in Him?

Remember that there is order in God’s plan of salvation…

‘And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.’ [Romans 8:28-30].

Salvation is not of men or of churches. From the first to the last, salvation is of God. Men believe because it has been given to them to believe. The call is where the sovereignty of God breaks into our space and time and regenerates each one of the elect at the right time according to the purpose of God. The word is the truth in every generation whether the churches teach it or not. The word will accomplish its purpose.

Thank you for pointing me in the right direction again. I did look into John 17. A few quotes stood out that could impact the predestination notions mentioned in Romans.

17:18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.

17:19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.

17:20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

Notice how in 17:18 Jesus says 'world' and not just those who believe in him. And in the passages that follow, Jesus appeals to those that believe him and prays for them with his sacrifice. So it's somewhat confusing in that sense because it's hard to know if he's supporting predestination because he appears to be asking his father, god, to grant mercy on those that believe through him. In that sense, how does his sacrifice affect those who were born before and those born after him?

I don't see how Calvin or others like him could use this as support for predestination. It seems to imply that those who simply profess faith can be saved and that they have some control over their fate after death. What is it that you see that supports otherwise? Thanks for your input.

You did not read John 17 as carefully…

Jesus spoke these words, lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said: “Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You, as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him. And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent…” [John 17:1-3]

Christ is given all authority so that He should give life to the given ones, as many as God the Father had given Him.


“I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours.” [John 17:9]

Christ makes a distinction here between the given ones and the world.


You do quote John 17:20. Christ explains how the given ones will come to faith…

“Neither pray I for these alone [the apostles], but for them also which shall believe on me through their word.”


Christ asks in this prayer that all things necessary for His people’s salvation be accomplished. The world in this context is that which is not submitted to His authority. But He has all authority over the nations to gather His people through the apostolic testimony.

I looked over John 17 again. I apologize if I missed a couple points. But I did not see how the mention of the 'given' ones relates to those god has predestined for salvation. How do you reach that conclusion? He didn't give a lot of details about these 'given' ones.

And if it does it somewhat conflicts with other statements Jesus made. Take the last chatper in John 16.

16:23 And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you.

16:24 Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full.

This implies again that asking for salvation in Jesus's name is a way to gain mercy, which goes against the predestined approach. That being the case, how do you infer that the 'given' ones are the same predestined ones John Calvin was talking about? And how did he reconcile them with quotes like the one from John 16 I just mentioned?

Does the text in John 17 not say that Christ gives eternal life to as many as God has given Him? Who are these given ones if not those predestinated to life? [Please refer back to Romans 8:28.]

Let’s try to address your question from another quote from Jesus…

“This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.” [John 6:39-40]

Jesus describes two perspectives of the will of God:

1. All He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day.
2. Everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life

He forever links the given ones to those who see Him and believe on Him.

The invitation to all men everywhere to repent and believe the gospel is real, because being dead in sin is no excuse to relieve man of his responsibility to love and obey God.

In the NT this invitation is extended to all nations; that is, to Gentiles as well as Jews. The purpose of God expressed in the covenant to Abraham to make his seed as numerous as the stars of the heavens [Genesis 15:5] also refers to the election of grace…

‘There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise’ [Galatians 3:28-29].

Thank you for the explanation, Valiant. I get from your passages that those who see and believe in Jesus as their savior are saved. But what Calvin and his later contemporaries argued is that people are chosen from birth by god whether or not they are saved or doomed. This is what we've already discussed with Romans 9 and 10. This is what Calvin writes about repeatedly in his work. And I can see how it is related to the given ones you mentioned.

Let's go back to Romans to a quote you mentioned earlier.

9:11 For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth

This is the quote we both agreed was a strong pre-cursor to predestination. John 16 seems to indicate something different, focusing more on faith.

16:23 And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you.

With this in mind could it be that the given ones are those who professed their faith in Christ rather than those predestined? I know Calvin argued it was predestined, but it seems that Jesus's own words emphasized faith more than predestination. So might it be possible that there is some middle ground with this issue? Might there be a means for those who profess faith to share the fate of those predestined?

Because it seems to me at least from reading these passages that the NT distinguishes those who are righteous and godly from those who have not accepted Jesus's sacrifice. Could that mean god offers other means of salvation besides predestination?

‘For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them’ [Ephesians 2:8-10].


The language in Ephesians 2 is as clear as it gets, but men and churches will still disagree over the meaning of this passage. We hear of justification by faith plus works of merit. Paul tells us plainly that salvation is of grace and that faith is a gift and that good works are the result of salvation. Is this not the plain meaning of the text?

I may have read you wrong, but I think your question involves the doctrine of spurious faith. From the Parable of the Sower [Matthew 13] we know that many profess faith that is of the flesh and is not saving faith. Those born of the Spirit are always accompanied to some extent with spiritual growth manifest in the fruits of the Spirit [Galatians 5].

I agree, Valiant. The text in Ephesians 2:8-10 is very clear. The faith that saves the believer comes from god as he prepared them at birth. But this text would still contest with other texts such as John 16:23.

The issue at hand is whether or not those who were born another faith and never heard about Christ can still profess their faith and achieve the same salvation. Because it isn't god or Christ that grants them that message, it comes through someone else. If you extrapolate from the past, the vast majority of what would become the Christian population had to go through this conversion as the faith spread in its early years. Even then, it did not reach every human being on the planet that was ever to be born.

If all are born of the spirit like you say, then doesn't that make the nature of conversion or even evangilizing unnecessary? Thanks again for your input.

There are a lot of verses used to refute Calvinism, but John 16:23 is not one of them. What are you getting at here?

We who live in the NT millennium do not appreciate how radically different things are compared to the time before Christ. From Romans 1 we understand that all men from the Fall suppress the truth of God revealed in what He has made and are therefore without excuse. Those who hear of Christ are under greater condemnation.

I don’t think you understand what the Bible is teaching about predestination and the atonement and its application, nor about the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of men, nor about the means of grace given to us in the Bible. How are we to hear and believe without an evangelist who preaches the word? How are we to grow as Christians without a teacher who knows and applies the word?

The only thing we have not mentioned is what is the power of Calvinism compared to Arminianism, whether it be Protestant or RC? Our world view is completely Christ centered rather than man centered. His revelation is sufficient in all things of faith to transform our thinking into conformity with the will of God. He has loosed us from our sin and freed us from its captivity. He has promised to liberate a multitude that no man can number, and we would see His kingdom and liberty extent to the ends of the earth.

I am glad to answer your questions, but I must ask why the interest in Calvin? Darwinism and Calvinism are polar opposite and contradictory world views. I would say that Darwin founded the ultimate man center religion with implications to Romans 1 and the idolatry of naturalism, and that Calvin rediscovered the faith of Augustine; the NT religion of Jesus Christ and His apostles in fulfillment of the ancient covenant with Abraham in fulfillment of the everlasting covenants of redemption and grace.

I have given you a layman’s presentation of Calvin and his doctrine. Hear from a gifted minister of the gospel, a gift to the church, on the sum and substance of all theology…

http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/sum&sub.htm

Thank you for your input so far Valiant. You've given me a lot to research. But my underlying point in this discussion has to do with how Calvin and men like him use reason to formulate their doctrine. Now taken in a historical context, Calvin and Martin Luther both took steps to show people with reasonable arguments how the Catholic Church was not the center for salvation. Salvation came from faith in god alone. But one of the issues I always struggled with as a Christian was how reformed Christians used the bible to rationalize beliefs like predestination. I can understand the faith part in passages with Romans and the 4 gospels. But predestination seems a like a bit more of a stretch when you try to incorporate it into the grand message of the bible and the teachings of Jesus Christ. What I like about Calvin is that he puts the power for salvation back in the hands of the believer and not some bureaucratic body like the Catholic Church. It seems much more in line with what Jesus actually teaches.

Now you say there are verses that refute certain aspects of predestination. Even of the passage from John isn't one of them, would you concede that not every part of the bible is in line with this approach? It seems from my reading that the vast majority of the biblical teachings, namely in the NT, emphasize personal faith a lot more than they exercise predestination. That seems to be what Jesus spends more of his time on than predestination. And when I was a Christian, I took Christ's actual teachings as described in the 4 gospels more seriously than I did other accounts from those like Paul who did not know Christ personally. The most important question to these discussions should be about context. For regardless of how literally one takes the bible, is it not more reasonable to place special emphasis on Jesus's actual teachings rather than the later interpretations of those who merely extrapolated those teachings after his death?

And as a separate aside, the discussion of Darwinism is irrelevant to this discussion. As I said before, Charles Darwin and the theory of evolution makes no statement on religious matters and is by it's own nature completely non-religious. It says nothing about spiritual matters and does not evoke faith in any way. Now I know you'll argue the contrary and we have discussed this many times before, and I'll keep discussing it if that is what you wish, but it really does not have any bearing on the beliefs or teachings of Calvin or religion in general. This is because it is science. Calvinism and Christianity are religion. As such, one does not affect the other and should not if any discussion about them is to be rational.

I was reading over some parts in the gospels again and to go along with my point about giving Jesus's actual teachings more credibility, I often cite what he laid out for his followers to be good Christians and attain salvation. And it was best described in John 15.

15:12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.

15:13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

15:14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.

15:15 Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.

15:16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

15:17 These things I command you, that ye love one another.

Jesus Christ. Therefore we can conclude that people could dislike or hate him for different reasons that they rejected Christ.

One thing that comes to mind is burning people at the stake for heresy. Not exactly an admirable trait nor is it the epitome of freedom and liberty.

And I think you will find that much of America's freedom is due to rationalism and the enlightenment.

You continue to amaze me. I will continue on with you as long as you wish and leave off Darwinism.

Peter tells us to gird up the loins of our minds, meaning that we are to think hard and meditate on the things of the faith…

Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ’ [1 Peter 1:13].

Biblical Christianity is not a blind, irrational faith in the unknown and unknowable...

I agree, Caday. Calvin is a far cry from Jesus. He was also a product of his time. Calvin, during this period of the early 1500s, was in the midst of witch hunts, the inquisition, and corrupt religious institutions like the Catholic Church. But there is some truth to what Valiant has said about him. Calvin and Marin Luther did sew the seeds of a transition towards individualism and the idea of limiting the authority of the church and the state. Rationalism and the Enlightenment added to those ideas and eventually led to the age of reason, from which the essence of the American Republic emerged.

These men were great and shining lights only because they reflected the light of their Savior. They broke through the priest craft and superstition that resulted from a church unaccountable to the Bible. This is the reason for the persecution of the Reformers that opened the Bible to the people. Rome had become like the Pharisees…

“But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in” [Matthew 23:13].

Jack, will you consider that there is a proper use of reason and an improper use. Just as it is in all the gifts that God has given to His image bearers, sin will always lead men to the improper uses. As in science and in reason, fallen men have become completely autonomous and look at the result. When the Bible is rejected as authoritative, men end up saying that nature is all there is and that truth is relative. Starting with himself as a finite being this is all he can do.

The Reformation men found authority in the Bible for a basis for truth about God, men, morals, sin, grace and nature. The Enlightenment lost its way when it exchanged the authority of the Bible for autonomous reason.

Some, looking on from without, attempt to contrast scripture and poke holes in the inerrant Word to their own destruction. They cannot know, neither understand (Is 44:18); for if it were given to them, then they WOULD know and understand (Job 32:8).

Others, however, from a sincere heart, looking on from within, study the scriptures in an attempt to reconcile and learn from them the Truth that they are. They are not of the world which love the Word, and therefore are they informed of the Truth (John 14:26; John 15:15; 2 Thessalonians 2:10). They come, yes they even run, to the Truth, and the Light (John 3:21).

Which are you, jack? In your unbelief, are you working unknowingly for your own destruction? Do you despise the Truth, trod underfoot the Son of God, and count the blood of the covenant as unholy? (Heb 10:29). Do you look forward in anticipation to judgment and fiery indignation?
Or are you willing to humble yourself under the mighty hand of God (1 Peter 5:6)??

With the discernment given of the Spirit, we can know the Truth and tell who is whom (1 Corinthians 2:14,1 Corinthians 12:10,Hebrews 5:14).


Philippians 1:18 ...notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.

Jack, I would suggest you read Augustine on predestination. It is historically wrong to say that this doctrine was invented by Calvin and the Protestant Reformers. Augustine had developed the doctrine 1000 years earlier. The Reformation was essentially a rediscovery of Augustinianism. I will provide links if you want them. Many are on RC sites.


What I meant by ‘refute’ is that there are many verses that are used by the opponents of Calvinism that they claim refute it. You quoted from John 17 where Jesus prayed for His people that would believe through the word of the apostles. This word is the apostolic testimony recorded for us in the NT.

The apostles give divine commentary on the doctrines of Christ and they extend His doctrine as to the proper order and practice of His church. You cannot give preference to the words of Jesus over His apostles. The NT writers are the foundation of the church; Jesus Christ is the chief corner stone.

Nice to see you take part in this discussion. So if I understand correctly, you argue that if I were an actual believer and not a non-believer I would understand? Well that's just making too great an assumption because I had these questions when I was a believer. I don't pose these questions to poke holes in your faith, I ask them to understand. I don't despise truth. I despise people passing things off as truth without proper justification. Whether one is a believer or a non-believer, there should be merit in any claim to a spiritual or material point. You don't offer me any of that. You just attack me as a non-believer as if somehow that is a proof. It isn't. I am genuinely trying to understand this position and Valiant has done a great job of offering me keen insight. For that, I thank him. I hope you can offer the same courtesy.

Thanks again for the input. I'll look more into Augustine for information on predestination. Would you happen to have any particular works I should focus on?

I do agree there is a good use of reason and an improper use. But your use of Darwinism as some sort of dichotomy would fall under the improper use because you're extrapolating something from a scientific theory that makes no comment on these sorts of discussions. That's not reason. That's speculation.

In the light of the reformation, I say it is a proper use of reason to return to the source and foundations of Christianity that were muddled through corruption of governments and churches. Going back to a source like the bible, is a reasonable way to get away from a system that was corrupted by power and that had strayed too far from Jesus's original teachings. And it's those teachings that should always remain central.

Since you profess to prefer the red letter words of Jesus, listen to the "courtesy" of Jesus preaching the Truth and doing the will of God:

Matthew 15
25Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.

26But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.

The truth is the truth...and sometimes it can be painful, but it is the way of Life. Because she was not offended, and did not retreat in anger or disbelief, but reasoned with Him in truth, Jesus then went on to say that because of her faith her request was granted.

Nothing outweighs or is more important than the Truth.

That even your tender feelings, jack.

Jack, Chiefest and I are both concerned for your soul. What I do and what he does is for our own reasons. We both speak truth to you from the Bible. Do you think he is any less concerned than I when he speaks warnings? Jesus warned His hearers of wrath and invited them to come to Him.

As in the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man there are invitations to faith and warnings against unbelief. Both are part of the gospel message and one should not be left off for the other. In a church there is a plurality of elders because ministers have blind spots and need accountability to one another.

I have invited Chiefest to minister the word to us and to keep us accountable because the NT principle is valid everywhere men are involved.

http://www.romancatholicism.org/jansenism/augustine-predest ination.htm

Jack, you could start with this reference. These are indeed the forgotten works of Augustine buried on a RC site. I could display some of his writing up against Calvin and you would be unable to tell them apart.

I will engage you on these things if you like.

is ignored regarding how Christians should react to the civil authorities. Consider the following:

"Justice being taken away, then, what are kingdoms but great robberies? For what are robberies themselves, but little kingdoms? The band itself is made up of men; it is ruled by the authority of a prince, it is knit together by the pact of the confederacy; the booty is divided by the law agreed on. If, by the admittance of abandoned men, this evil increases to such a degree that it holds places, fixes abodes, takes possession of cities, and subdues peoples, it assumes the more plainly the name of a kingdom" -- from Book 4, Chapter 4 of "City Of God"

Augustine points out why we need to fully examine the civil authorities rather than mindlessly submit. The prophets of the OT often challenged the civil authorities. And though this has nothing to do with predestination, it does apply to liberty.

"So if I understand correctly, you argue that if I were an actual believer and not a non-believer I would understand? Well that's just making too great an assumption because I had these questions when I was a believer."-jack


John 6:37
All that the Father giveth me shall come to me...

The "great" assumption would be on your part, jack, in that you assumed you were a believer. If I am to recognize a tree by its fruits (Matt 7:17), I must say that you weren't. Valiant would call your faith was "spurious" in this regard, and not geniune (if I understand the term-correct me Vft). This is what I meant when I said if it were given to them they would understand.

Confessing with the mouth is easy; believing with the heart is something else, and given only by God.
True belief, according to James, is followed by the works that demonstrate a changed heart.
Your works, evident to me only here, demonstrate NO CHANGE by "falling away" and denying the Truth. You consistantly defy faith in favor of man's "peer review".


James 2:18
...shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.


Your faith is in man, and most likely always was. Man is probably also the cause of your falling away-perhaps you were trusting in the "arm of flesh" :


Jeremiah 17:
5Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.

6For he shall be like the heath in the desert, and shall not see when good cometh;



It is not a lack of courtesy to point this out. Instead, I think it is the height of courtesy to be concerned that one understand the truth.

If this is not the truth, then may the multitude of counselors that you have here point it out.(Prov 11:14).

I agree. Truth is truth, regardless of how much you don't like it. But there's no excuse to twist the truth and use unreasonable tactics to push a point. Here's another line from Matthew 15 that changes the context of that which you quoted.

15:28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

The daughter was made whole still as the woman showed faith. That shouldn't be surprising. That's Jesus's message of forgiveness to the letter. It's a good message, one that's been echoed in great literature throughout the ages. But there's a fine line between message and dogma and you routinely cross it under the guise of truth.

You also cast judgment on me, claiming without even knowing me or my history that I was not a true believer when I was a Christian. This is just lacking that whole courtesy concept I mentioned earlier. You cast judgment on me, but I don't cast judgment on you. What's that say about your courtesy?

I don't put my faith in men as you put it, nor do I put it in atheism or non-belief. You can assume that all you want, but that's not going to make it true. If I have faith in anything, it's faith in life as a whole. But I don't have faith in the unseen spiritual world through which people claim to know with no other evidence than their own dogma.

I appreciate your concern. And I appreciate what you do. But unlike Chiefest, you're a lot more reasonable and considerate. You don't talk down to me just because I'm a non-believer. And I appreciate that.

But to make the leap of faith you and many of the other Christians I know would mean going against who I am. I simply cannot reject my personal sense of reason and logic and just believe these fantastic tales about the afterlife that Jesus preached with no other proof besides religious text and personal belief. I would not be Jack otherwise.

I have nothing against those who do believe and devout their lives to religion. I take a lot from the teachings of those such as Jesus as well as Buddha, Mohammud, and Confucious. But I do not ascribe holiness to either of them. I take their teachings under their own merit. At times their teaching needs clarification, as evidenced by our discussions about faith and predestination. But doing so is part of the process of learning. It helps us all become better.

Thank you for the link on Augustine. I will certainly look into it further.

"Because she was not offended, and did not retreat in anger or disbelief, but reasoned with Him in truth, Jesus then went on to say that because of her faith her request was granted."-CofS-Saturday, July, 04, 2009 3:46 PM

You quoted vs 28, which I paraphrased above. How have I changed the context? Jesus called her (and the Samaritans in general) a dog, which is hardly courteous behavior when someone comes to you for help.
Now if we believe Jesus was inerrant, and I certainly do, then that makes His behaviour acceptable.
It was the truth that mattered here, not the woman's potential hurt feelings or pride. The truth was that the Truth considered them no better than "dogs", and said as much. But, because she was not offended in Him, she gained what she had petitioned Him for. He praised her faith.

You, willing to justify yourself because of pride, say I have changed the context. How so?

‘But to make the leap of faith you and many of the other Christians I know would mean going against who I am. I simply cannot reject my personal sense of reason and logic and just believe these fantastic tales about the afterlife that Jesus preached with no other proof besides religious text and personal belief. I would not be Jack otherwise.’ –Jack

Thank you for the honesty. You have spoken truth here on at least 2 levels:

In order to be a Christian you must reject who you are before you can be conformed to the image of Christ. This is called repentance; the acknowledgement that you are wrong and that God is righteous; ‘sanctify them in the truth, Thy word is truth.’

Not only do you have no desire to change who you are, you have no power to do so. What we have been talking about applies here. The desire and power to change comes from a renewed heart; this is the sovereign work of the Spirit called regeneration; it is totally of God. Men’s efforts in baptism and decision making have no power here.

You will see in Augustine what is seen in Calvin. They both come to 1 Corinthians 4:7 in amazement concerning the grace of God…

The way you presented the quote from Matthew came across as a dogmatic appeal to absolutes. It came off as saying that no matter how good someone is or how much they humble themselves before Jesus, if they rejected him in any way earlier they are doomed. That's how it came across and that's why I lifted that other quote to counter. If you mentioned the full context earlier, it wouldn't have come off as such. But as is often the case with the quote mining you use, the message is always skewed and dogmatic. Even though I'm a non-believer, I do know the bible and I do know how to read it. I just don't consider it text inspired by a supernatural entity.

And your arguments about truth being ridged and dogmatic in the context of Jesus has it's problems. It often goes against the underlying message preached all throughout the New Testament of forgiveness, redemption, and compassion. If Jesus had no compassion for those who weren't already followers of his, then that's not very compassionate is it? It would make him a hypocrite. You can make him as dogmatic as you want if you quote mine the bible in the right way, but if you focus on the underlying message of Jesus as a teacher and a philosopher the main message of forgiveness and compassion takes on the greatest meaning.

You say you have compassion for my doomed soul, but you certainly don't come across as such. You talk down to me, you ridicule me, and you insult me. That's not very Christ-like in any respect. That's just mixed messages and dishonesty.

If becoming a Christian again means rejecting who I am and changing into something I'm not, then I don't see myself ever walking that path. My beliefs may have changed over the years. But who I am does not. When I was a Christian I thought I had proof or there was proof of the supernatural grace of god and Jesus. But over time reason and logic caught up with me. I began questioning and inquiring and it stopped making sense to me. Now I am a non-believer and I am who I am.

People's beliefs may change. Their behavior may change. Their attitude may change. But overall, people do not change. A jerk who is a non-believer is just as big a jerk as they would be a Christian. This is just my opinion and what I've surmised from studying psychology and sociology throughout my educational career, but it does seem to have merit when you look at our conversations in the past. Nothing I say will change you or Chiefest. Nothing you say can change me. We are very set in our ways even if we do not believe we are. Now you could claim that this is part of how god made us or as I would claim this is the product of our developing psychology. But the same outcome applies. People don't change. They are who they are.

I just re-read my post we are talking about, and, frankly I have no clue as to what YOU are talking about in your last post. As far as full context goes, I DID mention it in my former post, and quoted it again in my last post if you had cared to read it.

You constantly whine about rejecting the message because I somehow "talk down" to you, "ridicule" you, and "insult" you, in the way that I present the Word to you. You attempt to isolate me from Vft, claiming he somehow soothes your conscience by patronizing you. Since you make no sense in these regards, I ask ANYONE else who might read this objectively, to explain your comment to me.
I don't think for one moment you are serious in trying to understand the doctrine here; for I have run the gambit with you before, as have others. Therefore, I will not pat your head, and rub your tummy and tell you that you're going to be alright. I don't believe it.
I give you the Truth, and even "quote mine" the Word of God so that there is no ambiguity in my commments. Therefore I must conclude you have a problem with the truth, outlined in the Word, rather than with me.

Truth IS compassion.

Jack you could be accused of selectively suppressing evidence.

It is true that much ungodliness has been done in the name of Christianity, but Christ warned us of these things…

‘For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect’ [Matthew 24:24].

Do you know the Parables of the Sower and the Wheat and Tares? The wiles of the evil one include attempts to counterfeit the real thing and thus bring reproach. He loves to blur the distinctions between the true church and the apostates; that is, between believers and professors.

There is no question that the Bible teaches that a Christian experiences a radical transformation; he is a new creation, resurrected from spiritual death…

‘Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new’ [2 Corinthians 5:17].

Church history is full of examples of Christian testimonies that confirm the truth of this teaching. Trying to explain these away with the use of pseudo-sciences is an example of suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.

You cannot measure the immaterial in the science lab, but you acknowledge that it exists. Even so, we have no instrument to detect a renewed heart, but we can see its effects. The beauty of Christianity is the holy life it produces in those born of the Spirit.

Don't infer from my last post to jack that I fault you for your efforts with him. I don't. You have done a wonderful job explaining and answering his questions, taking away the cloke, so to speak.
As always though, his obstinance comes to the forefront. We would do well to suffer long with him, but I am under no illusions, and I don't think you are either.

Take care.

I understood your meaning as I trust you did mine in my last reference to you under the Plurality post. A wise man advised me to treat him as an unregenerate son. But you know well what the Scriptures say about discipline and sons. No amount of flattery will come between us. I hate flattery, don't you?

Are you on vacation this week?

A forced vacation of sorts, today. I had to stay home and tear into a wall to fix a water leak.

I have been staying at home during the week and driving to and from work. Its hard to believe, but the cost is about the same as taking my travel trailer and staying near the job. It does cost me time though; 1 1/2 hours each way!! Sounds silly to drive, and it is tiresome, but a man with a family loves to see them, even if for but a few hours a day.

Remember, your prayers are always welcome.

Perhaps you don't mean to come off as condescending, but that's how your posts read whenever I look at them. If that's not the message you are looking to send, then you should look into using different words. Because I think Caday5 will agree with me when I say you do tend to talk down to those who don't agree with you and you use excessive quote mining to make a point which ends up being unreasonable.

I do not gather from your posts that you're presenting the word or the truth. I gather that you are presenting a dogmatic opinion. You don't try to use reason or persuasion. You yell it out as if commanding it to be true will make it any more true. But the truth is I am very open to a reasonable argument. That's what Valiant has been doing and doing well in our discussions about predestination. He has persuaded me to look at certain bible passages differently than before. And he does it without coming off as harsh or insincere.

I'm not asking you to be politically correct and I'm not asking you to be nice about it. I'm asking you to be reasonable. That's all. You can despise me on a personal level or hate my beliefs all you want. But so long as you make reasonable points, I will consider them. Thank you and good luck fixing that water leak.

I suppose we could both accuse one another of selectively ignoring evidence. That's what opposing sides tend to do in any argument. But I do stand firm that I am not ignoring any of your points. I just see too many fallacies in them to draw a reasonable conclusion. That doesn't mean they are without merit. That just means they do not prove anything definitively.

I don't deny that religious conversions and experiences have a powerful effect on people. They do. That's been documented. But that doesn't mean anything supernatural is at work. That just shows you the power of belief. I've studied this power extensively in my research into psychology. Belief is a very powerful thing. You've heard of the placebo effect, haven't you? Well it can do a lot more than convince someone they're not sick. It can predispose people to believing in things like hypnotism, astrology, ghosts, and even religion. The power of belief is very strong in that respect and can be measured. But the validity of it to any one religion is inconclusive. The evidence of any personal experience is strictly anecdotal and hence limited.

You're right that belief cannot be measured. It is one of those immaterial things such as the mind and the heart. But just because it is immaterial doesn't mean there is a supernatural force behind it. I don't dogmatically assert that there isn't, but there's just not evidence to show that there is. If that evidence comes along, I'll be happy to consider it and even accept it. But for now it is a testament to the power of belief. And regardless of belief, we can still take good lessons from religious texts like the bible. I still do to this day and I know there are plenty who do as well. It's part of being human.

I wanted to respond to your post here of Monday 6 July about this "condescending" business. Have you read my pen name here? I shall explain it to you. Paul speaks in Timothy concerning his past sins, and uses the same expression. Bunyan also wrote of himself and used the term in boasting of God's grace. Lastly, read the following:

Philippians 2:3
Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.

I don't post here to argue (strife) or exhibit some kind of pride (vainglory). I post because the Word is as it was to Jeremiah (20:9), a "fire" shut in my bones that must come out. And if I esteem you better than myself, how can I condescend?

You undoubtedly will say, that I DON'T esteem you better, by my comments. I will say that I know every rotten sin I've committed, and none of yours-other than what you've related here. Even if I did know them, I'll bet I probably top you. This is why I can say that I am Chiefest of Sinners. But the real difference between us is the grace of God that has led me to repentance. This is what we speak of here.

You apparently are sensitive to the Truth, for that is what I have quoted you here. I quote the Word for Jesus said it IS THE TRUTH (John 17:17). Yes, it can seem dogmatic and opinionated if you have no wish to hear it. But if you don't, why do you ask for it by posting here?

You say I will not reason with you and I am rigid in by beliefs. Guilty on the rigid part; however, I will reason with you within the Word of God. But you typically do not do this, other than to say (as in your last post) something to the effect of " focus on the underlying message of Jesus as a teacher and a philosopher" or "you use excessive quote mining to make a point which ends up being unreasonable.".
By "quote mine", I assume you to mean that I remove the verses from their context and portray them incorrectly rendering my point unreasonable. Please correct me if I do this. I obviously do not believe it is true.
I do believe, however, that Satan blinds your eyes to the Truth by directing your gaze to the messenger. But regardless who preaches it, the Truth is preached.

I understand that you may not intend or even see yourself as being condescending, Chiefest. But based on your words, that's how you come off most of the time. Intent is irrelevant in that respect. You can intend to say something, but how others interpret it is the way in which others see it. And I'm not alone. Caday5 has pointed this out numerous times. You can't just take into account your own intent. You have empathy and understanding towards others because they're the ones interpreting your message. But at times you seem to imply that because I or Caday don't interpret your words the way you imply them, we're somehow flawed. That's simply untrue. Nobody is flawed here. It's the words you're using and how you're presenting them.

Now you go on to say that you're a deep sinner. I don't know you personally so I'll have to take your word for it. Whether you are or not is irrelevant because that's how you see yourself. The same issue applies when you evoke your belief in god. You keep passing your narrow interpretation of Christianity as truth with a capital T. And if others don't accept it, they're flawed. That is by definition very condescending and narcissistic even if you don't see it that way. I'm not sensitive to the truth. I just ask that claims be backed up by evidence and reason. When I say you use quote mining, I do mean that you selectively quote the bible to prove your point when doing so skews the overall message. It doesn't prove a point. It just proves you can read. The main issue is you use truth and belief interchangeably when they are two different things. They aren't. Truth is one concept, belief is another. To confuse the two is to miss the point of both.