A little quiz for your Calvinist Friends. Inspired by the ever resourceful JC Thibodaux and by a Calvinist dude named Jay Banks. Enjoy.
Genesis 25:23 The LORD said to [Rebekah], “Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you will be separated; one people will be stronger than the other, and the older will serve the younger.”
Q: What was in Rebekah’s womb?
A. Two nations and two peoples.
B. One elect person and one reprobate person.
C. Don’t even try to refer to the Old Testament for your exegesis of Romans 9. Heretic.
Ezekiel 18:23 Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?
Q: How much pleasure does the Sovereign Lord take in the death of the wicked?
A. No pleasure
B. Much pleasure
C. No revealed pleasure, but lots of secret pleasure.
Matthew 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.
Q: Why didn’t Jesus gather up those in Jerusalem, when he longed to?
A. Because they were not willing.
B. This is a mystery.
C. Hello pea brain. Jesus was speaking of general chicks, not effectual chicks.
Luke 10:30-37 [The story of the good Samaritan – the priest and Levite “pass by” the traveler, the Samaritan stops and helps.]
Q: Which of these three do you think showed mercy?
A. The Samaritan. Go and do likewise.
B. The priest and the Levite showed mercy by passing by.
C. Each person showed a different kind of mercy. If all had stopped to help, the act of the Samaritan would have been diluted.
John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
Q: God loves what?
A. The world
B. The elect.
C. His glory.Q: Who will not perish?
A. Whoever believes in God’s only son.
B. Let me get back to you on that, I need to look up the answer on “Desiring God”.
C. Francis Schaeffer won’t perish, but his kid Franky was decreed to go off the deep end.
Acts 16:30,31 [The jailer] then brought them out and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.”
Q: What must I do to be saved?
A. Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved.
B. Win the divine lottery.
C. The jailer was a Pelagian.
Romans 11:32 For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.
Q: Who does “all” refer to in this verse?
A. All
B. The elect
C. An unbiased reading of the text shows that the first all refers to everyone and the second all refers to only the elect.
1 Timothy 1:18,19 Timothy, my son, I give you this instruction in keeping with the prophecies once made about you, so that by following them you may fight the good fight, holding on to faith and a good conscience. Some have rejected these and so have shipwrecked their faith.
Q: Paul says that some people have done what with their faith?
A. Some have shipwrecked their faith.
B. This is a hypothetical analogy with no real world application. It is merely used by God to ensure the perseverance of the elect.
C. Nice try. Obviously the ship was never floating in the first place.
1 Timothy 2:4 [God] wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.
Q: Who does God want to be saved?
A. All men
B. All men, but no women.
C. God really wants all men to be saved, but only in such a way that he damns most in order to maximize his glory.
1 Peter 1:1,2 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To God’s elect, strangers in the world, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood: Grace and peace be yours in abundance.
Q: How are the elect chosen?
A. According to the foreknowledge of God the Father.
B. If you were elect you would already know the answer to this question.
C. Who are you oh man to talk back to Piper?
1 John 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
Q: Jesus is the atoning sacrifice for what and what?
A. Our sins and also for the sins of the whole world.
B. The sins of the elect, and also for the sins of the elect.
C. The correct word is “propitiation”. You show your Arminian tendencies by quoting from the NIV. Read the ESV, heretic.
BONUS ROUND!
Revelation 3:20 Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me.
Q: Which picture best depicts the above verse?
A.
B.
C.
Add up your score:
2 points for every A
1 point for every B
0 points for every C
Score:
25+ points – Congrats! You are predestined to be an Arminian
20-24 points – You read a lot of Norm Geisler.
15-19 points – Old school Calvinist
10-14 points – Neo-Reformed
0-9 points – James White is your homie.
Wesleyan Arminian 
The picture question is hilarious, hahaha!
This is hilarious – you’ve got to turn this into a facebook app! :)
Your bonus question is really good :-)
Thanks guys, glad you enjoyed it. Jon – FB is a good idea, I’ll have to see if I can figure out how to do that.
Hey Kevi loved this and have sent the link to my church history class.pete
Haw haw haw, I answered c to everything.
Funny stuff!
Too funny!Agreed, the Pics are fabulous.:-)
That was great! I may link to it on my blog if that is okay.
Thanks everyone.Roy: It would be an honor, link away!
Very funny
:D ROFL…
This quiz is awesome, especially the picture question!!! It’s also amazing how (A) stands for Arminianism, (B) stands for Between, and (C) stands for Calvinism =).
Thanks Bethyada and Wesley. :)True Hope – nice catch. :) I planned it that way for A and C, but never thought of a good association for B. Between works pretty good though. :)
I realize you put this under satire, but as the reason for satire is (according to Google) “to expose and criticize people’s stupidity or vices” do you see this as edifying the Body of Christ?
I do think satire is a useful tool to expose some of the absurdities of Calvinism. This particular piece I wrote as a response to this Calvinist version. And of course there’s the example of Jesus…calling the Pharisees a brood of snakes, the spawn of Satan, rotten tombs, etc. Also see my response to Churchill below.
No reply option to you Kevin so I’ll have to talk to myself :-)
So when Jesus called “the Pharisees a brood of snakes, the spawn of Satan, rotten tombs, etc.” He didn’t mean it he was just being sarcastic?
P.S. How did you go on the Calvinist version of the quiz?
Yeah, I don’t know why WP doesn’t allow replies to nested comments. Just the way it works.
I don’t remember how I did on the Calvinist version, just it just inspired me to write this one. I think mine’s better too. If nothing else, it has better pictures. ;)
Sarcasm is used in the Bible (like Elijah making fun of the prophets of Baal, read the Living Version and it will crack you up). Jesus used it too (“You blind guides, who strain a gnat and swallow a camel” and “why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, and pay no attention to the plank in your own?” ….etc)
Also, while parts of the post are sarcastic, more of the questions use “Reductio ad absurdum”, which is not the same thing. RAD is done by taking things that Calvinists actually believe (secret will, effectual call, etc), and then illustrating them in an absurd way that shows a blatant contradiction. And of course if something is a contradiction, it can’t be true.
Man, it always astounds me that people in the church build ministries for the soul purpose of attacking people within the church. It seems to be that when ever a person can’t defeat an argument they resort to malicious mud slinging. I witness to atheists a lot and they respond to the gospel in the same way. A lot of the time their mocking comments reveal their ignorance and judging by what you’ve stated on this website I would say you either do not understand the doctrines of election or you refuse to understand them. I can have sympathy on the one who wrestles through it. I know what that’s like. But this seems to me to be vicious, un-graceful, and un-Christian.
Churchill, the arguments of calvinists have been defeated by scripture repeatedly. This post cannot be considered malicious, since it is only light humor. It is cannot be considered mudslingling either, since it’s purpose is to expose Calvinst heresy as juxtaposed to the truth of scripture, in a manner which makes it’s intent decidedly un-adversarial. It can’t even be considered as mocking or vicious. I witness to atheists as well, and ALL of the time their mocking comments display their ignorance. I also witness to people from all different walks of life and beliefs, some of whom are under the misapprehension, because of calvinistic heresy, that there is no hope what-so-ever for them. The heresy, many times needs to be de-constructed in order to dispel the wrong belief. Far from being anything even mildly related to your heavy handed description, it is simply a literary device laid out in a comparison form.
I have always found the humor of Arminians to be gentle in comparison to the “humor” of Calvinists. At least the Arminians I know are aware that Calvinists are still saved as they “confess with their mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in their hearts that God raised him from the dead.”
It’s when I see Calvinist ham-fisted attempts at humor like this:
That I am glad I fled Calvinism.
Thanks for the comment Alan. I agree that Calvinist humor tends to be less gentle.
Many Calvinists don’t even know if they have been saved, since they could reach the end of life’s journey only to discover that their salvation was a mere illusion. How sad to subscribe to such a misguided view of Scripture.
gloopey1, where does your idea that “Many Calvinists don’t even know if they have been saved” come from?
Adrian, it’s a common problem among Calvinists – called the false assurance, false hope, or evanescent grace. It totally makes sense if God hates most people to wonder if he hates me too. It’s been written about by Calvin, Bunyan, Pink, Cowper, Piper, and other Calvinists. In the case of Cowper, he actually believed that he wasn’t elect, and spent most of his later life despairing over the matter.
Thanks Kevin.
Though as I see it it’s more that just a “problem among Calvinists”, I’ve been to a couple of Roman Catholic funerals lately (and another tomorrow) and they have false assurance, false hope based on what their priest tells them; actually any manmade religion person would have, wouldn’t they.
But then I guess their teachings don’t include the fact that while we are all sinners and therefore deserved the wrath of God upon us and God would not be just if He let us get away with it, He, in His mercy and grace took the punishment Himself for His elect through the death of Jesus on the cross and therefore legally can forgive us and therefore not have to punish us. That’s the Gospel that, isn’t it?
I wonder sometimes on the bit about God hating people. What’s the alternative? We’re all sinners, God is Holy, what else could He do? It’s like being surprised that someone who goes for a swim gets wet. What’s more of a surprise to me is that God decided to love some of us.
The gospel is the “good news” that Jesus died for all, and that those who believe in him are saved. There is security in knowing the heart of God – that he loves every person, including an unworthy and sinful person like myself.
That security simply doesn’t exist in Calvinism, because in Calvinism I can’t know if I’m elect, or if God has destined me to be an object of wrath. God’s heart can’t be known. Even if I think he died for me, it could be that God is giving a false hope. Calvin said it like this: “Experience shows that the reprobate are sometimes affected in a way so similar to the elect that even in their own judgment there is no difference between them.”
The other side of that Kevin is that in the Calvinist model once you know you’re saved you know you’re saved. Even if you go through some hard times and make some dreadful mistakes you know your salvation is secure; even if your rewards in heaven may be slim pickings.
The other side for an Arminian is that his salvation is dependant on himself. There may be security in believing God loves everyone but man’s heart is sinful and that’s really what he’s dependant on; his salvation depends on having truly repented and having his heart maintaining that repentance because apparently salvation can be lost.
“Experience shows that the reprobate are sometimes affected in a way so similar to the elect that even in their own judgment there is no difference between them”. True, and I believe is covered in the parable of the wheat being the seed that lands on shallow ground.
“The gospel is the “good news” that Jesus **died for all**, and that those who believe in him are saved”. (emphasis mine)
So did Jesus die for the people who died before Him and who didn’t believe in Him?
Like OT saints? Yes, I think so. People before Christ can still be saved by him based on how they responded to the truth they did possess.
Yeah Kevin, salvation IMO doesn’t change between the OT and NT either; though the question I was asking (and I’ll get specific to make things clearer) did Jesus die for people like Nadab and Abihu and Pharaoh and Goliath and Er and the Kings Nabad and Asa and Omri etc.?
Yes, the world includes them too.
Thanks Kevin.
May I start with a little humour? If ever you’re throwing a party somewhere and you’re running a bar tab let me know; I’ll buy the place first. See I’ll charge you for drinks people never drink and even drinks for people who don’t turn up.
But your answer is consistant with what I understand about your theology so let’s first look at one man, Pharoah. Are you saying that Jesus suffered for him even though it was known at the time of the crucifixion to be completely unnecessary? And now if we expand things a bit and guess that only 10% of OT people went to heaven yet Jesus suffered for everyone, then that would mean that God had Jesus suffer 10 times the amount He needed to for OT people.
Is that what you believe?
Adrian,
I believe scripture teaches that Jesus died for all, and that those who believe are saved. I think your argument here is a misunderstanding of the nature of Jesus’ sacrifice, and actually inadvertently minimizes what he accomplished, by implying his suffering wasn’t enough to provide for all.
Jesus’ suffering would have been the same had he just died for one of our race, or for all of our race, because sin came from one man, and redemption came from one man. “Just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.” Romans 5:8.
BTW, most Calvinists agree with this view – that Jesus’ suffering was of infinite value. The Canons of Dort section 2 article 3 states “This death of God’s Son is the only and entirely complete sacrifice and satisfaction for sins; it is of infinite value and worth, more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world”. So even for Calvinists, most do not think the atonement is limited in the sense of Jesus’ suffering.
For my thoughts on Pharaoh, see here.
Thank you Kevin, I enjoy “talking” with you as bring another side of things for me to see and consider.
Thought Dort immediately after your quote says
“This death is of such great value and worth for the reason that the person who suffered it is—as was necessary to be our Savior—not only a true and perfectly holy human, but also the only begotten Son of God, of the same eternal and infinite essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit”, i.e it’s value is in the one who suffered, not the ones suffered for because later () it says “all people are conceived in sin and are born children of wrath, unfit for any saving good, inclined to evil, dead in their sins, and slaves to sin” which I hope you agree with but you don’t agree with the next bit “Without the grace of the regenerating Holy Spirit they are neither willing nor able to return to God, to reform their distorted nature, or even to dispose themselves to such reform”.
God bless,
Adrian
Arminians believe in the necessity of prevenient grace, otherwise no one would seek after God. But we think it’s universal, and resistible.
The important thing is that people still get saved despite other’s differences in the mechanics of it.
Churchill, I’m sorry that you found the post in poor taste. It is intended as a light hearted way of pointing out some of the absurdities of Calvinism. If you’ll notice, most of the answers are things that Calvinists actually do believe. Examples:The revealed / secret will of GodGeneral / effectual callGod showing love by “passing by” the reprobate.Defining “all” different ways.Etc…Frankly, I find these teachings of Calvinism to absurd and un-Biblical. This is my way of pointing it out.BTW, your comment comes across as pretty vicious and condescending in its own right.
Speaking of the secret vs revealed will of God, I've made a new xtranormal video (not intended to portray real life believers of course =): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrqs-aLfjYo&feature=channelToo bad xtranormal doesn't let me load my own mp3's. Otherwise, I would use the "Mac vs PC" tune.
Nice True Hope. BTW, the Calvinist dude looks a little like Wesley. :)
That’s funny!Your Old School Calvinist Friend,James
Thanks Rev!
Dude! That was so funny! My faves were the Matthew 23 and Romans 11…the bonus question was just priceless.
Thanks J.C. :)
Hilarious! This made me LOL:"An unbiased reading of the text shows that the first all refers to everyone and the second all refers to only the elect."
Pingback: Traduções Crédulas: Um quiz para seus amigos calvinistas! | credulo
No problem! By the way, my best apologies but I have made this in a hurry. Anyway, many thanks!
Here in Brazil, there are very few Arminian blogs, and I am translating many posts from foreign blogs.
Also: please put a Search Engine. It was not easy to find this post!
Thanks for the recommendation, I added a search option to the right.
Reblogged this on Arminian Theology.
Reblogged this on The Truth About the Gospel.
Interesting…I consider myself a Calvinist (though probably a 4-point Calvinist who doesn’t insist on absolute predestination of everything and believes in libertarian free will to some extent; but I also believe in total depravity, monergistic salvation, unconditional election, and perseverance of the saints), and I got 25 points on this quiz, thus proving its inaccuracy. But…of course…I realize it was a joke. I used to be a frequent visitor of Tominthebox (before it went dead), which is a Reformed satire site, so I can’t really blame you guys for doing the same thing!
Thanks for stopping by Qyamay. :)
I agree with Qyamay above. I believe in the Calvinist doctrine of predestination. I took the above test and had no problems. It is all a matter of how you interpret the texts. One example is the question,
John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
Q: God loves what?
A. The world
B. The elect.
C. His glory.
Again this is a matter of how you interpret the word world here. I assume you would interpret the word world, to mean everyone in the world. However, if this is the correct interpretation the text would read,
For God so loved everyone in the world, that He gave His only Son that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. Now this would be fine, but you would have to carry this interpretation on to verse 17, which would then read,
For God did not send His Son to condemn everyone in the world, but to save everyone in the world.
If this is the correct interpretation, then it would seem that, Jesus failed to accomplish what He set out to do, which was to save everyone in the world. However if you interpret the word world to mean God’s creation, this problem is avoided. Paul himself says the whole of creation groans in anticipation of redemption. In this way the text could read,
For God so loved His creation, that He gave His only Son that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. Verse 17 would then read,
For God did not send His Son to condemn His creation, but to save His creation.
In this way Jesus would not fail in what He set out to accomplish, rather He would be successful in saving the creation through God’s elect.
Sounds like you answered “B”. You get one point. :)
Actually I did not answer “B”. My answer was one you did not give, which was His creation. In other words God so love His creation (not the elect), and He found a way to save His creation, through the elect. In the same way He saved His creation during the flood, He saved His creation, (which He could have totally wiped out) through one family. So then the human race was saved through the family of Noah, now go read the story of Noah and his family after the flood, to see if they deserved to be preserved.
Well, it pretty much works out the same, I’ll give you zero points for your answer if it makes you feel better. :)
Interesting logic Jack Hanley. Jesus did not fail, he did EXACTLY what he set out to do,he made the way, salvation is open to all, it was a perfect sacrifice. Any how, the logic you are using is called eisegesis. That is when you have a premise -in your case a heretical doctrine- and you then inject that INTO the text to make it read the way you want it to read. On the other hand, exegegis, the proper way to interpret scripture, is reading the text and drawing OUT OF it what the text actually reads. An example is your mishandling of the Greek, -world = kosmos, creation = ktisis, now they both start with the letter kappa and end with the letter sigma, yet all similarity ends there, they are different words and completely different concepts. You see, we simply don’t get to have a private interpretation of scripture. The ‘Jesus must have failed’ difficulty you propose, does not exist, it is a straw-man argument inserted INTO debate in order to bring about false conclusions.
Now if anyone has issue as to why ‘calvinism’ is marked as heresy, I will explain.
1) it mischaracterises the God who is revealed throughout the rest of the entirety of scripture.
2) it is based on isolated verse fragments and half passages, most all taken out of context and wholly isolated from the greater context of the whole of scripture
3) it’s main proponents also introduced and/or taught many other clear heresies – Mary Worship/Imaculate Conception, hell fo runbaptised infants, ‘holy’ war, rejection of Apostolic teaching/practise as archaic, the marriage bed as unholy and debased [all sex as sin], purgatory after death [a form of universalism], prayers for the dead, SOLE authority to forgive sins ONLY in the Roman church, monasticism, persecution (including murder) of ‘heretics’ etc etc – Augustine,
And conducted themselves as unregenerate, forced church attendance, forced baptism, forced ‘eucharist’ participation, mandatory home inspections [color and quantity of clothing, the number of dishes permissible at a meal, were specified by law. Child beheaded for striking a parent, woman jailed for having hair of ‘immoral’ height] caused 58 people to be executed ranging in age from 16 to 80 yrs old [notably Michael Servetus] with forced public attendance, exiling of 76 people, – Calvin. Issued orders of execution for those who dared question his theology, persecution and seizing property of Jews – Luther
Plotting murders of church officials and heads of state and praising the deeds. – Knox
Merciless persecution of Anabaptists and others with imprisonment, torture, banishment and death [drowning, burning, beheading] -Zwingli
4) Calvinism is almost exactly, with the exception of being packaged in ‘christianese’ language, the same as ancient gnostic, Greek olympian and manichaen fatalist pagan philosphies/theologies, there is no difference. This makes it a very serious matter. It’s not really an ‘agree to disagree’ matter particularly in that it hinders if not outright opposes soul winning.
Part of the purpose in my last post, specifically relating to point 3 of my conclusion, is that the early promoters of the doctrines known today as ‘calvinism’ either/or produced other clear heresy and/or were clearly unregenerate. This makes ANY theology introduced, taught or promoted by them highly suspect and the proof-texts and logic behind them subject to even closer scrutiny than would be warranted in normal Berean practise.
Thanks for the comments arielreliable. I agree that Calvinists are in error, but also accept them as brothers in Christ. Thankfully most of them are inconsistent, and don’t take their theology to its logical conclusion. I’m also suspicious of any Calvinist writings (especially Piper). Some are better than others, it kinda depends on how committed and focused they are are on TULIP.
Agree! Though on theoretical level Calvinism seems to be close to blasphemy, in real life there are some proponents of this teaching whom I cannot consider but the true men of God (for example, Paul Washer or Martyn Lloyd-Jones). For me, that remains a mystery.
arielreliable, point 3) is Catholicism not Calvinism. Where are you getting your info from?
You have misinterpreted those verses. Verse 17 says, “…that the world MIGHT be saved through Him.” In other words, Jesus died to give everyone a bona-fide opportunity to be saved.
The world cannot refer solely to the elect because verses 16-17 clearly state that some would not believe, which is untrue of the elect.
You’re preaching to the choir. :)
Probably it sounds to some Calvinist folks like an atheist-style mockery, but, to speak frankly, guys: what else, except an almost comic absurdity, essentially remains from such a theology, when all that human pathos and frowing seriousness are actually removed? Love needs neither pinky-charismatical, nor coldly-puritan “strengthening”. And when I personally see something of that kind, I sincerely begin to doubt if there is love at all.
As a Calvinist of many decades I only got 24.
I skipped the Romans 11:32 question as the A answer sounded a bit Universalist to me.
And well done on the Bonus Round. You have Jesus knocking on the door of a church which is correct.
But one for you:
Acts 13:48 And as many as were appointed to eternal life believed
Q: Who believed?
A: Those who decided “that sounds good” and so chose to;
B: Well many are called but few chosen so anyone chosen would have and others decided to believe by themselves;
C: Those whom God appointed to eternal life.
The word “appointed” (Tasso in Greek) can also be translated as “disposed”, or “yielded to”. So I’d go with “as many as were disposed to eternal life believed.” And even if we go with appointed, we need not assume Calvinistic predestination. For example,the same word is in Acts 14:23, and is not used to describe predestination. “Paul and Barnabas appointed elders…”
Interesting, “(a)s a Calvinist of many decades I … got 24” in your quiz (90+%), i.e. I agreed with what is written in scripture in spite of what some *think* Calvinists think yet you get a 100% fail on the grounds that “that scripture doesn’t actually mean that” (something Calvinists get accused of saying).
I think this indicates scope to learn from each other.
The problem is that you haven’t asked, “Who is appointed unto eternal life?” The answer to that question is found in I John, “Whosever believeth that Jesus Christ is the Son of God hath eternal life.” God has appointed the recipients of eternal life based upon their faith to receive it.
gloopey1, a question if I may as the intended question depends on your answer:
When did “God … appoint.. the recipients of eternal life”?
Before the foundation of the Earth, God determined that whosoever would believe the Gospel would be saved.
Where does the Bible say that gloopey1? Mine says “Long before he laid down earth’s foundations, he had us in mind, had settled on us as the focus of his love, to be made whole and holy by his love” (Eph 1:4 MSG). [Yes I know J3:16 which literally translated is apparently “So for loved the God the world that the his son of him the only begotten he gave, that all the believing ones on him not may perish but may have life eternal” but we have to qualify this with J6:44 which says “No one can come to me (and become one of the believing ones [implied …adg]) unless the Father who sent me draws them, and (if the Father draws them to me [implied …adg]) I will raise them (who the Father drew to me [implied …adg]) up at the last day”]
Our sermon was in Isa 43 today and one bit read has God saying “My chosen people. The people whom I formed for Myself” (Is 43:20b:21). Should this not be more like “The people who chose me. The people who attached themselves to me” if your thinking is correct?
Adrian, it’s interesting the Message omits “in him” for Eph 1:4. The ESV states “he chose us in him before the foundation of the world.” Election is about Christ, not us. We are not chosen, Christ is the chosen one, and when we believe we also become chosen in him. Ep 1:13 states “In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit”.
Sorry gloopy1 I forgot to ask:
You said “God determined that whosoever would believe the Gospel would be saved” but their names were written in the Lamb’s Book of Life at that time weren’t they? (Revelation 13:8 – And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.)
Kevin, if “Election is about Christ, not us. We are not chosen, Christ is the chosen one” should the Gospels say:
Unless the Lord had shortened those days, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the JESUS, whom He chose, He shortened the days. Mk 13:20
And then He will send forth the angels, and will gather together JESUS from the four winds, from the farthest end of the earth to the farthest end of heaven. Mk 13:27
now, will not God bring about justice for JESUS who cry(s) to Him day and night, and will He delay long over them? Luke 18:7
Who will bring a charge against JESUS? God is the one who justifies; Rom 3:33
Adrian, replace “Jesus” with “Those who are in Christ”, and those verses are correct. We tend to make election about ourselves individually. But election is God’s choice of a group of people who believe in his son. If we are in Christ, we participate in his election. “Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus”. Rom 8:1 “
“But election is God’s choice of a group of people who believe in his son”
well lets run with that Keven because part of my previous question remains unanswered.
When were their names written in the Lamb’s Book of Life?
Adrian, As Gloopy said, before the foundation of the earth God determined that whosoever believed would be saved. The book of life corresponds to those who believe in Christ and persevere. Arminians believe God knows the future without causing it.
Thanks Kevin, but again “When were their names written in that book, the Book of Life?”
Adrian, I already answered that. Before the foundation of the earth. The book of life corresponds to those who God knew would believe and persevere in Christ. The question of when the names were written is not in dispute between Calvinists and Arminians. Both agree it was before the creation of the world.
“Both agree it was before the creation of the world”.
Thanks, sorry I obviously didn’t look hard enough as I didn’t find where you wrote that before when I looked.
As the names Adrian and Keven are written into the Book of Life then at some point in time they were yet to be written there but God could write them there because as you say “God knows the future”.
But at that point of time there was no creation; the universe wasn’t there yet; so did God write down our names because He had to or because He choose to? I.E. Was there only one possible creation that God could make (that He HAD to make actually), or did God get a choice in what He would create?
Adrian, God could actualize may different worlds, but there is nothing for him to know about a world and how he will interact with it until after he decides to create it. God’s foreknowledge is contingent on our eventual existence. If we didn’t exist, there would be nothing for him to know about us.
For more on that, see this post. https://wesleyanarminian.wordpress.com/2011/11/23/an-explanation-of-simple-foreknowledge/
As I say in that post, the order looks like this:
Calvinism
1) God meticulously decrees what will happen in the world that he intends to create.
2) God creates.
Arminianism
1) God decides to create.
2) God has exhaustive foreknowledge about everything that is going to happen.
So are you saying that “God decides to create” and then says “Oops!” because it is then and only then that He finds our what a mess He’s created and that it will cost Him the death of His Only Begotten Son to fix it up? [sounds that way to me]
Sorry for multi posts but will probably be off-line for a bit so asking this while I remember
You say “God could actualize may different worlds”.
Given that He actualized this one; full of sin; costing Him His Son; resulting in billions suffering in Hell for eternity; does that mean He made a mistake?
Adrian, you ask if God made a mistake. No, he fully accomplished his purpose. His goal was to make a world of free creatures who he could love and who would freely love him back without coercion. It was certainly costly though. Genuine love always is.
CS Lewis said it like this:
God has made it a rule for Himself that He won’t alter people’s character by force. He can and will alter them – but only if the people will let Him. In that way He has really and truly limited His power. Sometimes we wonder why He has done so, or even wish that He hadn’t. But apparently He thinks it worth doing. He would rather have a world of free beings, with all its risks, than a world of people who did right like machines because they couldn’t do anything else. The more we succeed in imagining what a world of perfect automatic beings would be like, the more, I think, we shall see His wisdom. (The trouble with X).
Hi again Kevin.
I made my last comment expecting it to be a few days before I could reply and it turned out longer. No worries it helps.
Because of that I had time to get the idea for a response, develop that idea into something I was happy with and plan how to implement that idea. Actually the family went through that sequence a lot over the last week, my sister and I planning a funeral (even with a Plan B of me starting the service if the priest was late); one daughter arranged family accommodationd; one rescheduled her clients to get a day and a half off etc.
Humans do it all the time and it’s why we’ve developed to the point we have; (I wouldn’t be doing this if someone hadn’t thought up the idea of an internet) and it’s what makes us different from animals.
But you seem to be saying that before the beginning this was an attribute that God didn’t have, that somehow this ability only exists because mankind exists. I find this strange.
BTW again there is the mention of “free beings” vs “people who did right like machines because they couldn’t do anything else” which shows that like so many others CS Lewis doesn’t understand reformed theology. One way if putting it is to reverse things, we have “people who reject God because that is the natural thing for a man enslaved to sin to do” vs “one who has been set free from sin by the power of the Holy Spirit and so now naturally chooses God”.
The main thing this quiz proves is that you know very little about reformed theology
How so?
Reblogged this on Bjorkbloggen.
For more Calvinist satire may I humbly recommend my blog series on the New Calvinist Bible: http://wp.me/p4crgp-4
I’ll check it out. :)
True, the logical conclusion leads to heresy, but MOST calvinists don’t take it that far. The pastor of the church (SBC) I attend is a Calvinist, most of his preaching is pretty solid. Paul Washer etc, really good teacher, I’m actually reading “The Gospel’s Power and Message”, at least it’s sitting on the bed table, waiting to be read….Those that do take it to it’s extreme are the mystery, I was reading a website where the pastor of a church in MO claims his church does not have altar calls or engage in ANY missions work. His reasoning; nothing they do will have any effect on people getting saved, it’s just senseless. He gives a long drawn out argument ( http://www.victorybaptist.us/show.wc?msgaltarcall ) that has *some* basis in fact, but rambles off into heresy. The ‘every eye closed, every head bowed’ method with the soft music etc are really man made devices. But, if faith comes by hearing and you’ve just finished preaching, -you’d best give an invitation to those who the Holy Spirit convicted and might be asking “What must I do to be saved?” IMHO
Adrian, did you read it? #3 was AUGUSTINE first –
“…Mary Worship/Imaculate Conception, hell for unbaptised infants, ‘holy’ war, rejection of Apostolic teaching/practise as archaic, the marriage bed as unholy and debased [all sex as sin], purgatory after death [a form of universalism], prayers for the dead, SOLE authority to forgive sins ONLY in the Roman church, monasticism, persecution (including murder) of ‘heretics’ etc etc – Augustine…”
Then in turn, Calvin, Luther, Knox and Zwingli.
An interesting point though, considering these ‘calvinistic’ doctrines rest soley on Augustine and his pagan philosophies as their originator – how does one take ANY of the teachings of a popish dogmatist and find any use for them? It’s like giving Hitler points because he produced the Volkswagen. Beyond the blasphemy inherent in much of the TULIP, Calvin, Luther and Zwingli all subscribed to one form or another of Mary worship, Calvin and Luther vacillated about the damnation of unbaptised children, although Augustine was the loudest voice in this, it originated with Fulgentius, another catholic and contemporary of Augustine. Calvin, Luther, Knox, Zwingli et al, all taught the persecution (banishment and/or murder) of ‘heretics’ (their version). They all, believed, practised and promoted ‘holy war’ etc. Definitely all romish doctrine which they appropriated from Augustine. I don’t make this stuff up.
How long have you been around arielreliable? Have you ever seen how long it takes to change things. An example to start with.
My church has only had two pastors, the founding one and the one he passed the church to a couple of weeks before he passed away. When the second pastor took over the church the congregation was pulling in all directions and his first goal was to get us all moving the same way. Even though the church had only existed some 30 years this took about 7 years.
By the time Luther and Calvin came on the scene the Roman church had been around for about 15 hundred years. Do you really expect them to change everything they were taught immediately?
Luther recognised that justification was by faith, a major breakthrough after centuries of thinking justification was by works and trying to buy one’s way into heaven through indulgences.
Where Calvin agrees with Augustine (and perhaps what you should concentrate on) is in the rejection of Pelaganism and Semipelagianism. As illustrated here http://calvinisticcartoons.blogspot.com.au/2014/07/after-fall.html these “teachings” say that man’s spirit was only injured by sin and is not dead as God said in Genesis that it would be.
So two things trying to be said here: 1) change is progressive, there was no “big bang” restoring Christianity from the errors of Rome, as always with God it was one step at a time; and 2) the Reformers started from within the Roman church so you should expect them to still think “Romish” except for the bit they reformed. With the reformers look at the changes they made, not the changes God left for later people to make.
I lost my reply
Don’t you hat it when that happens. It happened to me a day ago, I clicked “Post Comment” and the response was something like “Can’t post your comment”. Going back and forward in the windows I could see it but if I touched it it disappeared. I finally screen printed it and reentered it.
Adrian, While it is true that years of Catholic/Augustinian heresy might seem difficult to rightly circumvent, all of these men were astute Bible teachers and authorities…
These men had a lifetime to search the scripture…more than enough time to get it right.
Scrolling through things and saw the link to “A Quiz For Your Arminian Friends” (http://reformed-theology.org/html/issue05/quiz.htm) and this post:
How I See It
March 12, 2014 at 7:07 pm
P.S. How did you go on the Calvinist version of the quiz?
Did you ever respond to that, I’d like to see your answers.
Pingback: A Summary of Arminian Theology/the Biblical Doctrines of Grace and a Fun Quiz | The Wartburg Watch 2016