Of Serpents, Doves and Christian Bakers

Our Lord was frank when he spoke about the dangers of the world for his sheep. He stated, in Matthew 10:16:

Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.

This was no mild or anecdotal description which was intended for us to merely put into the back of our minds, rather, it was the naked assessment of how most of the world, if not at times all the world, was going to see and treat the believer. The world is a world of wolves and we are to operate, day in and day out, minute by minute if it requires, with this reality as our viewpoint.

Our Lord did not teach us to be unsuspecting and suffer needlessly. However, as I read, over and over again, I am observing what appears to be Christians who do not fully understand that Christ our Savior did not promote naivety as a way of life for the believer which seems to be the case for a few people who apparently feel it is somehow required of them to "show their cards" to people who have no good intentions for them. No such obligation exists in the Scriptures.

If one owns a bakery and is a Christian and someone comes requesting he or she make a product that causes offense in one's conscience before God, one is to be wise about this. Establish a process which requires customers to explain everything they are desiring and then explain that the company will contact them if the calender permits this request.

As well, answering questions about who you will and will not serve as a restaurant, as if you are bound to respond to hypotheticals, is gullibly falling into a trap when it could be avoided. Difficulty will arise on its own, or if forced. But revealing to a world of wolves all of your thoughts and intents is to leave a trail to your front door with a key in the lock and an invitation for them to enter in and take what you have.

Think about how our Lord was often confronted with direct questions. He rarely answered them instead, he shrewdly turned the questions back on the inquirers in a number of ways ultimately walking away without ever answering them thereby, taking away their ammunition.

I post this with a caveat. I do not know all of the details of all of the various cases that have arisen as of late but I do know of a few which could have been avoided. Others, on the other hand, may not have been able to be avoided so I am not attempting to judge where I do not have the details and really not judge specifically any case at all.

What I do wish to do is to remind you and encourage you. Remember, dear believer, you are among wolves. Hold your cards close to the vest. Be wise as a serpent but harmless as a dove.

(Yes, I have been busy and have not blogged too much this year. I hope the summer provides more opportunity. I have had a series on marriage that I may be able to do more with by the fall which I believe will be of great edification for my readers).

ONCE JUSTIFIED, PERFECTLY JUSTIFIED – FOR THOSE WHO CLAIM A BELIEVER CAN LOSE HIS SALVATION OR BECOME UNJUSTIFIED

Introduction

I often wonder if those who assert a believer in Christ as Savior - someone who has been justified - take the time to examine exactly what they are claiming with regard to all we receive in our salvation. Many of the dismissals in adjudicating that we can lose our salvation are absent of the due diligence inherently necessary for such arguments pertaining to how all, which is consummated the moment we believe and are saved, is terminated when we somehow have our eternal life vanquished only to be rehabilitated when one returns to salvation, possibly many times (some say this is accomplished through repentance and absolution and others through getting “saved again” or re-believing and so on, there is a myriad of theological formulas for the reconstitution of one’s salvation out there).

Salvation isn’t just…

Salvation isn’t just, “you’re going to heaven” and when you allegedly become unsaved you are now just “not going to heaven”. Rather, a litany of extensive and ultimately legal declaration(s) and works by God occur that, if we were to really be able to lose our salvation, would require the view that all these things, far more than just going to heaven, have been reversed, nullified or obliterated and must all be obtained and performed anew in order for one to be saved, again. 

All that we receive at Salvation

Made popular by the late Lewis Sperry Chafer and modified by various Pastors and Bible teachers since, there is a list is things received at salvation which stand in confrontation to the man or woman who would argue that man’s salvation can be lost. Such arguments are made in the absence of the accompaniment of a reverse accounting which explain how all these blessings received at salvation have now, suddenly, dissipated, capitulated and/or been obliterated.

Yes, they say we can lose our salvation with a handful of proof-texts. But nay, it is when one asks them to explain how a Christian is de-justified, de-sanctified, de-positioned with Christ, de-adopted and de-credited with the righteousness of Christ and so on.

Missing as well, in the assertion that one can lose salvation is a thoroughly Biblical explanation as to how this so great a salvation and all of its properties are re-transacted when the person, who has allegedly lost their salvation, recovers that salvation again, and again, and again - determined of course, by how often they lose their salvation. AWOL are the explanations of how one is then re-justified and re-re-justified and re-re-re-justified along with all of the other reapportioning of salvation’s properties when one allegedly returns to salvation or is saved again.

I plan to deal with just a handful of the blessings received at salvation to make my point. And of course that point is that when a person claims we can lose our salvation, all of the magnificent properties of salvation have to be walked backwards, if such a putative claim is made, seeing that to lose salvation is to lose all of its possessions. Subsequently, this demands a thoroughly sufficient doctrinal/theological argument of the reversal of all of the corresponding blessings given by God and received at salvation (an assumption not permitted merely by logically assuming they must be undone). If you are interested, click here, and this link will take you to The Riches and Grace in Christ Jesus by Lewis Chafer and the list he compiled. 

The Uphill Climb for those whose Justification is Tentative

As I said, here is but a sprinkling of the blessings received at salvation which, by default, must also be reversed when one is allegedly unsaved or loses their salvation and worse, supposedly reconstituted every time someone returns to salvation, over and over again - its absurdity plays itself out in a rather prima facie manner:

1. The Righteousness of Christ is imputed or credited to Us (Romans 4:3-5)

2. We are made Holy (Hebrews 10:10)

3. We are justified, legally declared acceptable by God by way of the righteousness of Christ credited to us (Romans 4:3-5)

4. We are regenerated (Titus 3:5)

5. We are sealed by God’s Spirit unto the day of our full redemption (Ephesians 4:30)

With just these five blessings of salvation, alone, one is faced with an impassable theological task when championing the view that they can be eradicated.

Imputed or Credited with the Righteousness of Christ

Though we have been imputed or credited with the righteousness of Christ (Romans 4:3-5), this apparently can be lost through some kind of sin, even the sin of unbelief. Thus, Christ’s righteousness, a work he has done which is credited to us the moment we believe, is reversed or nullified according to opponents of permanent or perfect justification. Thus, we are now back to not possessing the righteousness of Christ. Think of what is being asserted here.

Placed upon us the moment we believe is the cover of divine righteousness. This is not merely a metaphorical exercise but a legal one. God, legally or forensically, declares us righteous. This covers our past, present and future, the entirety of our being and apart from another court proceeding in heaven, it stands, forever. It is not merely an immediate or contingent declaration by God but by its very nature, a permanent legal rendering.

Thus, if one argues that salvation is lost (and all of its properties, accordingly), getting past just this hurdle will prove to be hopeless. Where, crusaders, are your citations and arguments that the divine legal rendering has been overpowered by sin and reversed by the court of heaven, whether as a result of conduct or unbelief after one is rendered righteous by heaven? No such doctrine exists or is even remotely implied in the Bible.

Our Holiness

In that righteous credit referred to above, we are also made holy. Hebrews 10:10 says of the believer, “having been sanctified”. The verb tense which the writer uses in reference to our having been sanctified is quite revealing, it is the perfect tense. That tense, in Koine Greek, indisputably refers to a completed or once-and-for-all action in the past with a permanent result in the future. This language is deliberate and for a reason.

Once we are sanctified, made holy, we cannot be made unholy though we may act as such. Christ’s righteousness is not something that can be erased because it is the thing which erases.

But to those who would counter this, please explain how you feel free to challenge the use of the perfect verb tense here and insist that though Hebrews 10:10 uses the perfect tense it is, in fact, an imperfect and tentative holiness which can be lost and further, one that will be performed again though God says it has been done, once-and-for-all in the past with permanent results in the future. Your argument is with God’s claim and remains so.

Our Justification

Further, to accept the proposition that salvation can be lost, we must also acquiesce to the notion that the divine legal verdict of our innocence is destroyed along with its objective, namely our justification which it, too, apparently has no real standing legal power. We must believe that the verdict by God that we are declared just and that God’s justice has been satisfied by way of the propitiation of Christ which we receive when we believe on him as Savior, is guaranteed – not by God - but by our sustained faith, conduct or both! We are now the adjudicator of our own justification, it seems.

Another passage in the epistle to the Hebrews which stands as a stalwart gatekeeper against such predications is Hebrews 10:14 – (ESV) “For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.” The word “perfected” is the Greek word τετελείωκεν (teteleiōken). And just like the earlier Hebrews passage, it is in the perfect tense; a once-and-for-all completed action in the past with no further action in view but with permanent results in the future which stands in defiance to those who would counsel otherwise.

Dear friend whose sad salvation is so fortuitous, based on what grammatical property do you now maintain that the Greek perfect is again, imperfect and clumsily used by God in his inspiration of the text? And to what text(s) do you point us to believe God mistakenly permitted and inspired the use of the perfect tense, here, in referencing our being made “perfect” which directs us else ways and overrides its clear and unimpeachable meaning?

Our Regeneration

We are regenerated – born again or spiritually resurrected by God’s Holy Spirit and made anew - when we receive our salvation. Titus 3:5 states (KJV):

Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.

Is there really the suggestion that this new man, our regenerated being, who is made alive, not by any human power but the divine power of God through the Holy Spirit, suddenly dies again when we allegedly lose salvation but further, upon renewed belief, repentance or absolution or all of the above, he springs back to life with this process taking place every time someone returns to “the faith”? 

The elephant in the room, of course, is why we are made alive by the Holy Spirit in the first place. We are washed or cleansed of our sin and reconciled to God. To assert we can lose salvation is to forward the dubious theological view that we can become in need of the washing of regeneration again, which, somehow can occur over and over again, each time we return to salvation from “falling away”. 

Then what good is the cleansing in the first place if it is itinerant? To be in need of being washed from our sins a second time is to say we weren’t sufficiently washed the first time!

But what did our Lord tell St. Peter in John 13:10? Jesus said to him:

The one who has bathed does not need to wash, except for his feet, but is completely clean.

Sealed until our Future Redemption

Finally, Paul writes and tells us we are “sealed unto the day of redemption” by God’s Spirit (Ephesians 4:20). The verb used there is an aorist verb which refers to an action in the past with the indicative. While not the same as the perfect tense, its use clearly directs us to understand this is not a process that is repeated, rather a past action with a resulting condition and the very reason for this is to secure our salvation as the sealed ones, not by our own conduct, faithfulness or whatever but by God’s declaration and legal seal.

And aside from this, the text is clear of the duration of this action, until the day of our redemption. This is a reference to the future, when our bodies are glorified and we enter into our fully glorified state. There is no counter or objection raised in Scripture where this is presented as contingent or subject to our conduct or sustained faith. But when one argues that we can lose our salvation, here again, stands an impregnable barricade which denies such a thing can occur - that is unless you feel free to dismiss the promise of these words which state emphatically and unconditionally that we are sealed by God the Holy Spirit until the day of redemption. But understand what you are doing if so choose.

Conclusion

It really is amazing how negligent those who assert salvation is something that can be lost, fail to provide the theological citation and explanation of how all these benefits are all subject to putrefaction; these benefits which are instantaneous when one receives salvation. I am not referencing what Paul wrote about concerning our works as God’s children which will be judged at the Bema Seat of Christ which indeed, may be lost - but our salvation and all of those things equally prescribed to all believers the moment one believers which are kept by the integrity of God.

God’s great recantation of all he blesses us with at salvation requires a theological, line item, justification which I believe is grossly and embarrassingly missing by those who claim salvation is held by something other than God and can be lost by the believer through some action on his or her part.

If you are going to assert this, explain then, how one goes to being declared just by God and given eternal life and then unjust and having it taken away then back again to justified and how many times it may be possible, not to mention all of the other promised permanent blessings of eternal life which, itself and by its very nature, cannot be eternal if it can be lost.

I think so much is rushed over and the implications, both practically and more greatly theologically, are simply not considered and certainly not explored when these kinds of postulates are entertained and affirmed. I have never read any treatise on the Scriptural citations and arguments regarding how the thirty-three (33) plus blessings given at salvation are lost and regained by the believer and done so several times if one is consistent with such a view. I have read general claims in abundance but believe the full apology for such a view does not exist because mid-way through its development I have no doubt it would be abandoned and likely has on many occasions.

FERGUSON AND THE RACE THING IN A NUT SHELL

An abundance of issues may be (and have been) extrapolated from the Ferguson calamity, never minding the few predominant ones immediately arising from this event. And one of the topics is, of course, race and more specifically black on blue or blue on black contact (blue is Law Enforcement if you are unsure) and the various points of either conflict or potential conflict (real or imagined).

Among Christians in the Protestant/Evangelical/Fundamentalist world, the Ferguson matter has been written about and discussed like a slow train wreck. Thabiti Anyabwile, a member of The Gospel Coalition, has lost himself, as it appears to me, to racial narcissism in transcribing a number of recent posts which are absent of any consistent objectivity.  Ultimately, as I read, he simply reduces the matter, in essence (along with the larger considerations of race, Christianity, theology and socialism), to emotionalism and racial sentimentality while formulating what arguments he does make with a very selective use of the information available. You can read about it here.

In another place you can scan a classic example of a man whose whiteness has him groping around in the dark (pun intended for those of you able to handle it, if not, pretend it doesn’t exist), flailing away at ghosts either he has invented or has received via a large body of racial political correctness always looming over such matters. It got so bad at one point he simply quit permitting comments because he attempted to set up codes for who should say what and how they must think about the issue and on and on, never minding the flood of objections to his clearly patronizing piece. He is able to be found here and is worth checking out if not just to learn how the disease of racial political correctness and false white guilt infects someone's thinking resulting in a catastrophic inability to discuss such topics objectively.

I could continue pointing to all the wrong steps but that is not necessary seeing they are quite apparent in the online world of Christendom. What is difficult to find however, is an honest and frank assessment of the relative Ferguson issues among Christians.

The Protestant/Evangelical/Fundamentalist world of Christianity, as I see it, is so afraid of being labeled something or so busy with self-aggrandizing patronization and so fixated on crusadershipism and racial campaigns of sensitivity that nothing real may be said, that is, nothing that can possess solutions. Because in order to offer solutions the problems must be identified and as long as we tippy-toe around the problems, restricting speech either by code or by assigning to various racial groups what they may and may not say and how they must say what they do say, we are left with nothing but gusts of wind in every direction.

Nevertheless, all is not lost. I cannot recommend in any greater way that you go to The Gospel Coalition and read what Pastor Voddie Baucham wrote. His article (click on the article title and it will take you to his essay), Thoughts on Ferguson, is a tremendously conscientious and practical approach to the issue(s) of race, justice and law enforcement which have emerged. You will not regret the visit.

Must All Christians be a Calvinist or Arminian? The Infelicitous Assertion by Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary’s Bill Combs or When Devotion to a School of Theology Leads to Impoverished Reasoning

Most of us have seen it in one form or another. Evolutionists are a good example. I am speaking of the case in which a man or woman becomes trapped, if not enslaved, by a particular school of thought, so much so that they lose the virtue of good reason, no matter what is presented to them. Everything and anything is filtered through this school of thought. Ultimately, it (this school of thought) becomes the dictate over the rational and logical processes of a person to the point that the obvious becomes the enemy and exaggerated obscurities and unwarranted minimization become the bewildering merchandise offered as justifications for the sycophant's enigmatic intellectual/apologetic crusades.

If you are uncertain of my aim, allow me to be precise. Over at Theologically Driven, a blog of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary (who are self-identified Baptist Fundamentalists), one of the seminary professors, Bill Combs, posted an article, Why You Must Be a Calvinist or an Arminian (and this did not stand alone, it actually augmented an earlier post by another professor, Mark Snoeberger who made a related assertion). This may seem but a blip on a radar but then a plane crashing into a building is, too. Thus, I want you to stop and consider the degree of concern which this warrants, if you consider yourself a Baptist Fundamentalist, a Christian who identifies with Calvinism via DBTS style, someone who intends on attending DBTS or simply a Christian interested in the issue, itself.

I posted a response to Bill Comb’s post at Theologically Driven which was up for a while but then taken down. Nothing rude or personal was contained in the rebuttal. I do think, however, that it shed a rather embarrassing light on Comb’s assertion(s) and consequently Mr. Combs and DBTS who would endorse such an idea, thus, its removal.

I certainly expect binary or black/white thinking to abound in Calvinistic acolytes such as this group, here. However, for a seminary professor who has demonstrated capacity for more considerate paradigms and whose profession ought to reflect it, there is a reason for real concern, especially for his students and those in his sphere of influence. Therefore, I have made this rebuttal post at my blog for all my readers and beyond because this issue is critical in how it is framed and how it affects theological discourse in the Protestant/Evangelical/Fundamentalist Christian community

Comb’s Assertions

Generally, Bill Combs formulates his argument somewhat the way Snoeberger did in his earlier post at Theologically Driven, namely, by way of circular reasoning combined with selective (should I say elective? – pun intended) logic. Basically put it is:

• God saves us without help from ourselves (he uses this phraseology which is with reference to monergism, while actually referring to election)
• Calvinism believes this
• Whoever agrees with this is a Calvinist

And the same paradigm Combs uses for Arminian assignment with a bit of a qualifier. Basically he asserts that to disagree with his construct, which he claims is a Calvinist construct based on the U (unconditional election) of the Calvinist TULIP, is to be Arminian. Case closed, either you are an Arminian or Calvinist and no other possible taxonomy can exist (he expressly says with regard to this that it is, “the only other possibility”).

On the face of things or as Latin lovers like to say, prima facie, most people’s instinct is correct, that this is very narrow, prejudiced and inconsiderate thinking. Multiple flaws in this thinking instantly come to mind and here are but a few of them.

Quick Rebuttal Points to the Infelicitous Binary Taxonomy

Lutheranism - Let’s first consider Comb’s claim that there cannot be a third way. Enter, Lutheranism, more precisely, Martin Luther. Luther posted his Ninety-Five Theses when John Calvin was an 8 year-old boy. In fact, it was not until ten years before Luther’s death that Calvin published his Institutes. While it is a significant body of work, it is quite a matter of history and now plain to see that Luther did not gain his views from Calvin. Thus, the absurd taxonomy Combs and others wish to impose on Lutherans and Christianity is laughable.

Is he not aware of this? Does he not know a large body of Lutherans and their Book of Concord, which articulates Lutheran doctrine so clearly and which was born before Calvinism, exists in robust form today? And he asserts there can only be Arminians and Calvinists? Dear Professor, how embarrassed do you wish to be?

Calvinism is more than a single postulate – Calvinism, in its true theological science, is a body of belief with all of its parts integral to one another for its rationalistically based theological system to function. All of its parts combined make up its proprietary theological identification and system.

Holding to a single postulate that a Calvinist may hold to does not make a person a Calvinist no more than agreeing with a Democrat or Republican on one point makes a person one of them. This is just as true in so many things in this world.

A good example of this simple truth is martial arts. Many schools share various movements, both offensive and defensive, but they are distinguished by their unique developments and specialized or proprietary combat techniques and so on. And in these communities most adherents have the common and good sense to respect such distinctions.

As well, computers share common parts but also have proprietary elements which separate them. One is not the other because of what they have in common but what they have which is not common. Combs completely ignores this reality or irresponsibly dismisses it through reductionism.

Calvinism is, in reality, Augustinianism – Many of the proponents of the oversimplified binary taxonomy proposed by Combs and DBTS, argue that the two labels are warranted because of historic identification. In other words, because historically, Calvinism (at least in their minds) and Arminianism both stick out in opposition to one another, they must be the two polar ends and exist as a reasonable means for identifying others.

Wrong, and for the most obvious reason.

First, Calvinism is not even five-hundred years old while the church is two-thousand years old. If we are going to talk about history and labels, Calvinism is in the last quarter section of a two-thousand year long line.

Secondly and related, Calvin was deeply and admittedly influenced by Augustine who preceded him and dominated theology for over a century before Calvin. In truth, if we are going to argue theological history, Calvin is an Augustinian thus, are all Calvinists and if historic labels are so important then how about a bit of integrity, eh?

Everyone is now a Catholic and Dispensationalist – By way of Combs’ magical thinking in which circular reasoning rules his consideration on this matter, we now are permitted to assert the preposterous, namely, that every Christian is a Catholic and Dispensationalist (Why do I hear someone insisting, "No, really, that is a good point."? UGH).

If someone shares one point in a theological system they clearly warrant being labeled as adherents to such and all Christians share at least one or more points of Catholic theology (the Trinity to name one).  And for dispensationalism, specifically,  most every Protestant/Evangelical/Fundamentalist agrees that we are no longer under the protocols of the Theocracy of Israel. Of course, readers can see the absurdity of this which is exactly the point.

The conspicuous absence of the pursuit of this taxonomy by non-Calvinists – Have you ever noticed who is almost exclusively attempting to force this binary theological taxonomy for all Christians? Right, Calvinists. This easily informs the average person that something conspicuous is going on. Why is this effort so exaggeratedly present with Calvinists but absent with non-Calvinists?

There are a number of possibilities but I suspect the most common one is behind much of this, namely the desire to minimize, isolate or ill-defined those with whom they disagree in order to expedite the dismissal of them in order not be forced to deal with them as peers in arguments they cannot sustain in a debate.

This is done all the time in society. If we label someone or something we or our community considers objectionable, we are then justified in dismissing them and not engaging with them or at least when we engage with them, we may hold them in contempt as inferior students, thus always wrong from the start. We are the correctors and they the correctees, always.

Why would a Calvinist want to do this?

Ego-Investment - The truth is, this is not unique to Calvinists. It happens quite often where there is ego-investment in one’s thinking. When a person buys into an idea or concept they often invest their person or ego, as well. That is a mistake in many ways and for many reasons. Not that we cannot invest our egos, at times, but such an investment must be made for the right reasons.

Theological systems are attractive to people, intellectually and then, theologically if not spiritually as well. Many systems contain many right things. but further, they appear to have all the answers or at least most of them. They do a great deal of thinking for people, thinking for which many people do not have time or capacity. Thus, when they encounter a detailed body of theology such as Calvinism or Lutheranism (just to name a couple but certainly not just these), people can be deeply impressed and mistakenly identify it as so superior to their own considerations that to all of its tenets, they must yield and further, pledge allegiance lest they offend the God who enlightened such a soul or souls who formulated and articulate a grand theological system. Thus, they buy in lock, stock and barrel without ever making the necessary effort to vet and test its major or essential views, rather their energy is spent simply validating them.

Conclusion

I have no doubt Professor Combs desires to please the Lord and serve him and it is demonstrated by his life in many ways as one can view publicly. However, impoverished reasoning is not one of those ways, particularly by one who has been academically and theologically trained to avoid such restricted considerations. It comes across naïve and reckless and ultimately needlessly marginalizes him and DBTS in the Christian community.

And as to theological taxonomies, we ought to find a generous paradigm which both identifies larger schools and their influence while respecting other schools with their own proprietary views and development. I prefer to use and articulate a global theological taxonomy, a three-dimensional one, which I do understand some might have trouble picturing in their brain. However, just get out a globe (if you still have one) and use that as your method of developing a taxonomy or map. In the meantime, when you encounter this kind of thing, deal with it for what it is, which isn’t much other than a gimmick for constructing theological arguments to the Calvinist’s imagined advantage.

Colloquium I: The Calvinist and Non-Calvinist

Non-Calvinist Christian: Christ died for every human being in history, past, present and future.

Calvinist Christian: That’s impossible. If Jesus died for them, they would be saved. It doesn’t make sense that Christ paid the price for their sins but when they die they have to go pay for their sins. Jesus only died for those who get saved.

Non-Calvinist Christian: So you’re saying that if Jesus died for them they would automatically be saved?

Calvinist: Well, they still have to believe the gospel, no one is automatically saved.

Non-Calvinist: Wait. Earlier you argued that if someone goes to hell it’s because Jesus did not die for them but now it is because they did not believe. You have two answers here. Which is it?

Calvinist: What I mean is that it doesn’t make sense, any rational sense, for God to suffer for someone’s sins if they are not going to believe on Christ. God doesn’t waste himself like that. Therefore, it stands to reason he only died for those who will believe, the elect.

Non-Calvinist: Right, God never pours out his love, mercy and grace in an overflowing manner. He isn’t like that at all. He’s more like you, a human rationalist, who only does what makes sense because God is like that. God wouldn’t waste his love, mercy and grace on just anyone, only those who will receive it. After all, we have absolutely no example of God going to such extents for anyone in the Bible

Calvinist: Now you’re twisting my words.

Non-Calvinist: No, I am applying them and agreeing with their conclusion, at least rhetorically, to make a point of the absurdity of your claim.

Calvinist: No you’re not.

Non-Calvinist: So you agree, God does in fact extend himself to those who he knows will reject him, is this correct?

Calvinist: Yes, sometimes, but not in the case of Jesus dying for people’s sins.

Non-Calvinist: And this exception to the seemingly obvious over-extending nature of God is because why, again?

Calvinist: Because it does not make sense. God wouldn’t waste dying for those who would not accept his gift. That would mean he suffered for nothing.

Non-Calvinist: I thought we just covered this. You agreed God does this in the Bible, extending his grace over and over to people who do not receive it, so your argument that “it does not make sense” is gone. You cannot argue that anymore because you just agreed there are some examples of this in the Bible.

Calvinist: Yeah, but what about the elect in Ephesians, it says God chose who would be saved, doesn't it?

Non-Calvinist: No it doesn’t. It actually says nothing about God choosing who would be in Christ, rather that “in him” (Jesus) God chose us (those who believe on Christ) to be made holy and blameless. He chose the means of our salvation, Christ. A little patience with the sentence structure would help you stop making that erroneous claim.

Calvinist: Are you sure?

Non-Calvinist: Feel free to take your Greek NT with the English translation to any University Greek or English Professor and ask him/her to diagram the sentence. You’d be amazed how wrong the Calvinist claim is. By the way, don’t feel bad, few Calvinists have ever taken the time to diagram the sentences in Ephesians, never mind accept the explications of the diagram on their exegesis and theology.

Calvinist: Hmmm…wait, listen. If Jesus died for the sins of people who don’t believe, then why do they have to pay for their sins? That still does not make sense to me.

Non-Calvinist: Let me ask you a question. What was required for you to be saved, for Jesus to die for your sins, only, or for Jesus to pay for your sins and you believe that?

Calvinist: Oh, I had to believe.

Non-Calvinist: Okay, you just resolved your own quandary. People who do not accept the gift, don’t have it applied to their account. Hence, they must suffer for their own sins.

Remember, you had to believe didn’t you? Jesus dying for your sins didn’t automatically save you. You still had to believe, right? And for a reason. The reason is that is where and how this sacrifice by Jesus is applied to your account.

Calvinist: (Pause….pause……pause….) Wow, wow!