Rook

Loves Jesus, my family, baseball & coffee.

[Rook @NeilDCastle]

@TalkinBaseball_ @fanaticsmarkets 🇦🇺

[Rook @NeilDCastle]

@timothybarnett The irony

[Rook @NeilDCastle]

@JomboyMedia Now it’s Mariners lore

[Rook @NeilDCastle]

@mbird12 Why does Paul seem to apply it to all the women in the congregation, not just those who came out of the Artemis cult? Why does he not apply the same restriction to the men who came out of the Artemis cult? And can these women still teach in a domineering way over other women?

[Rook @NeilDCastle]

@1984_nate Calvinists would agree that we are not saved in order to believe. However, we are regenerated in order to believe in order that we would be saved.

[Rook @NeilDCastle]

@DrDavidLAllen On your third point, I’d be surprised if most thoughtful Calvinists would claim that the atonement in and of itself save anyone, and would agree that even the elect are under wrath until they believe. The question is, will it, or does it save all those for whom it was intended?

[Rook @NeilDCastle]

@ProvisionistP I’m not sure the pint you are making. Are you saying that loving God is the first link?

[Rook @NeilDCastle]

@SoteriologyA1 The more he teaches this, the more people who will see the silliness of Provisionism. If you can exercise and please God with full saving faith without a new heart, what does a new heart achieve?

[Rook @NeilDCastle]

@Norma5387953815 3531

[Rook @NeilDCastle]

@Toneskeee @OkNotThisTime If a person has a heart attack & you give them CPR, that person has no way to receive or reject the gift you're giving them. But if they come back to life, their heart starts beating, they breathe, etc. You, and they, wouldn't say they were forced to breathe against their will.

[Rook @NeilDCastle]

@CherylSchatz @5solas Im fairly certain the date of Jesus’ return is still a secret, yet to be revealed.

[Rook @NeilDCastle]

@Bashj7 @ThugLifeSproul Thanks. Unfortunately the second two links aren’t working for me

[Rook @NeilDCastle]

@Bashj7 @ThugLifeSproul Can you provide links to these recordings of him teaching Calvinism?

[Rook @NeilDCastle]

@not_our_guy @DPGBehler The problem here is that it seems like you could apply that to any doctrine: ‘could a world exist where Jesus didnt need to die in order to save sinners?’ It could, I guess. But that’s not how God has chosen to act, & philosophizing about it makes God’s actions sound arbitrary.

[Rook @NeilDCastle]

@SoteriologyA1 Wait to you see how closely it resembles Gnosticism

[Rook @NeilDCastle]

@M1NDW4RD3N The underlying premise is false, as it’s not purely based on ‘who’ did it, but the ultimate reason ‘why’ it was done and that determines whether it’s constitutes as being righteous before God. Civic good that isn’t done for God’s is still filthy rags

[Rook @NeilDCastle]

@BeyondTheFundy How is Calvinism Gnostic?

[Rook @NeilDCastle]

Hey Jacob, apologies for the slow reply… crazy few days.

Good question! I’ll try to clarify. I would say that my understanding of faith was how you describe yours - that it isn’t depending on yourself but on God, but it’s still something you (and I) chose to do. That decision still needed to be made.

Regardless of whether it’s classified as a work, the choice was still something I had to make - I had to do something and choose to believe and have faith. The ultimate difference between me and Jimmy next door who doesn’t believe would essentially come down to the fact that I chose to believe and he didn’t.

That means that my righteous before Christ ultimately depends on my choosing to believe.

So, I would disagree with you here - while it’s possible that you don’t boast in that decision you made, but if the ultimate difference is that I chose, that IS grounds for boasting (even if you don’t actually boast in it).

And if it’s ultimately about a choice one makes to believe, it also means we can convince people into the kingdom, and their salvation depends on our ability to persuade them to choose to trust Jesus, and another reason for boasting.

But if my or anyone else’s ability to even believe in the first place is also completely God’s mercy, then there is no reason at all to boast.

Hope that makes sense! Blessings

[Rook @NeilDCastle]

Good thoughts, but keep in mind that Paul's audience isn't unbelievers, but believers. He deals with the objections of unbelievers in places like 1 Cor 1. The objections he is anticipating here is that of believers, and the objections he is anticipating are not in response to salvation by faith, but specifically to do with God's choosing and calling:

Romans 9:11 "though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls..."

The objection of injustice isn't raised against salvation by faith, but against God's choice of one over the other. For believers, salvation by faith isn't an issue of injustice (because of Jesus), but it is often raised by believers against the idea that salvation is ultimately determined by God's choosing and calling. That's the objection he is dealing with.

And the next objection in verse 19 is the same: "why does He still find fault?" is precisely the objection raised against the idea that it's about God's electing, choosing, and calling, and not our free will choice - for "who can resist his will?"

(in fact, 'Why does He still find fault?' is an objection raise against universal atonement, but the efficacy of Christ's atonement is not in view here so that's a different issue!)

I also think that Calvinists can be unhelpful and therefore misunderstood when it comes to the 'faith being a work' thing. Here's what I struggled with for a long time and how I've been able to reconcile faith not being a work:

I believed I was saved by grace alone and not works, but couldn't shake the idea that ultimately I still had to *do* something to be saved, even if that was just choosing or having faith - it was still ultimately up to me, and that always seemed to make it a 'work' and also a reason to boast - because I chose correctly while others did not.

What I finally came to understand that the only way that faith, or my choosing, isn't a work, is if God was actually the determining factor, and not me.

So when Calvinists say that faith is a work, what they should say is that if your faith is the ultimate determining factor, then it is functionally a work.

But Calvinists believe that salvation is by faith alone, and salvation is conditional upon faith. But what makes faith not a work from a Calvinist perspective is that the ultimate determining factor in having faith is God's mercy, and that's why there's no reason to even boast in that.

So I think what Calvinists are doing is more accusing non-Calvinists of functionally conflating faith with works. I hope that makes sense.

I feel like we've come full circle here... it's been a good chat and happy to continue, but ok to tap out if you'd like. I think we have a good understanding of where we disagree, but happy to answer questions. God bless!

[Rook @NeilDCastle]

Me too - good convo! Yes - I can see that seeing faith as something as something we do freely and as synonymous with the will is problematic *if* you are trying to reconcile the two verses the way you have.

So two things:

First, I'd suggest 'will' here is much more than just wishing or desire - it's about volitional choice. Almost everything you do, you do according to your will. Scripture uses the same root word in places like John 5:40: “You are not willing to come to me” and Matthew 23:37: “...and you were not willing...”. These are about volitional choice, not merely wish or desire.

It seems strange to me to say that faith is a human choice, but not an act of the human will, particularly if you hold to some form of libertarian free will (not sure if you do or not).

Second, Romans 4 and 9 are answering different questions, so be careful about importing the 'it depends on' from ch. 4 into ch. 9. Scripture does interpret Scripture, but we need to be careful we don't import one verse from one context into another context in a way that undoes the meaning or argument being made.

In ch.4 Paul is answering the question on how we are justified - we are justified by faith, not by works. Justification depends on faith.

But ch.9 is answering a different question, namely, if Jesus is the promised Messiah, why don't more of his fellow kinsmen believe - has God's promises failed? Here, he is not looking at how one is justified, but the ultimate question of why some have faith and others do not - why does anyone believe at all? The Jews had everything - the law, the covenants, the promises, the patriarchs, the temple... but still don't believe. Why? Notice the answer he doesn't give is 'their free will', but 'God's choice in whom he has mercy on'.

If you import ch. 4's "it depends on faith' into 9:16, it really does give the opposite answer Paul gives and goes against the whole argument he's making in the chapter.

If he had meant "it depends not on human will or exertion, but on your choice to believe", there's no reason for the anticipated objection of injustice or God's reason for still finding fault, and the potter and clay analogy doesn't fit.

So I would say that faith is an act of the human will (chapter 4), but the decisive cause of that faith is not something in me, but God's mercy because human willing and striving is excluded (chapter 9).

Does that make sense?