[...] ht: Tullian Tchividjian [...]

"It's just too gracious for you"

And THAT my friends, is the issue I have with a lot of Lutherans. I know it's painting with a broad brush, but I have so far not met one who isn't totally impressed with his own humility. Who isn't completely prideful about how much he understands grace, and how everyone else is not as good as they are. I'd apologize for stereotyping, but if I just meet ONE who defies the description, I'd think about it.

Heather,
No need to apologize. If it's any consolation I get perturbed as well.
We each defend our positions vigorously... sometimes to a fault in my case. I've been the giver and recipient of insults... so I have no excuses.
Most of the bloggers here seem to argue from the Calvinists viewpoint so I can understand your frustration... me being a young Lutheran many of the points of Calvin can be insulting... though he has some really good points in his Institutes.
All that to say... don't take it too personally. I think we may all be surprised. Much grace my friend.

@Mitchell Hammonds: Well, I apologize to you. I figured if I said something like that someone would be just a little perturbed, and I'd be sorry. And I am, but I've just run into it a lot.

I love the Gospel too, and I also think it's really good news, and to be told repeatedly (and this is exclusively by Lutherans) that I don't actually love it as much as they do...well, it gets a little old. I'll keep my eyes and heart open, but I have only met extremely prideful people involved in the Lutheran church. And they usually say things like Steve above "It's just too gracious for you." Or this one, "So be it. Have faith in your faith. Thank you, Lord Jesus for saving ME, on the cross, and in MY Baptism.I’ll never have to look inward for my assurance. Thanks to what our Lord has commanded." (Emphasis mine) Implication being: We have faith in our faith, and Jesus hasn't really saved us. And if we get to heaven at all it will be by the skin of our teeth.

I just personally find that a little insulting. And it's not the first time I've come across it. And you are probably right and I'm probably wrong. And I'm probably being too defensive, but it's tough enough being a Christian without other Christians beating you down. It just seems to me...

Heather,
I have just recently left the Southern Baptist denomination and currently attend a Lutheran Church for exactly the opposite reason you mention. I think the Lutheran's actually display a humility unknown that is remarkably... unremarkable. They actually do not put much emphasis on there own ability to even be humble. I think the hard thing to understand about true Lutherans is their understanding of the Gospel hits the ears as really good news. And their doctrine of living in the left hand kingdom is very down to earth.

good discussions, we need to help each other with the understanding of the Word of God.

It's just too gracious for you.

You are defending the self, against what God does in Baptism.

So be it. Have faith in your faith.

Thank you, Lord Jesus for saving me, on the cross, and in my Baptism.

I'll never have to look inward for my assurance. Thanks to what our Lord has commanded.

On that note, I'll leave you...for now :D

Romans 6 says “baptized into the death”. Romans 6 does not say
“baptized by the Spirit into the death". Romans 6 does not say that what "the church" (any church?) does with water is election. Romans 6 does not say that what "the church" does with water places those watered into Christ's death. Nor does Romans 6 teach that some of those "baptized into Christ's death" can subsequently lose their salvation by intentional sins that put them back under the law.

Romans 6:7 “For one who has died has been justified from sin. 8 Now
since we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death NO LONGER has dominion over him. 10For the death he died HE DIED TO SIN once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. 11So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.12Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions. 13 Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness. 14For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.”

Christ was never under grace and is still not under grace. Christ was under the law because of the imputed sins of the elect. Romans 6 is about Christ’s condemnation by the law and His death as satisfaction of that law. Christ after His resurrection is no longer under law.

The death of the justified elect is that VERY SAME legal death. The
resurrection of the justified elect in Romans 6 is the result and
evidence of that justification from being under law.

Christ was never under the power of sin in the sense of being unable not to sin. Christ was always unable to sin. The only way Christ was ever under the power of sin is by being under the guilt of sin. The guilt of the elect’s sin was legally transferred by God to Christ.

Christ’s death to sin was death to the guilt of sin, and since the
elect are united with a death like his, the death of the elect is also a death to the guilt of sin. And this is what Romans 6:7 teaches: “For one who has died has been justified from sin.”

Yet many commentators tell us that “set free from sin” must mean the elect’s transformation by grace and by the Spirit so that the
justified elect cannot habitually sin (or so their new nature cannot sin) They tell us that justification was in chapter five and that chapter six must be about something "more" if it’s to be a "real" answer to the question “why not sin?”.

But Christ was never under the power of habitual sin or any sin, and the death of the elect is like His death.

Romans 6:10, “For the death He died He died to sin.” When the
justified elect consider themselves dead to sin and alive to God, they think of themselves as dead to the guilt of sin. Death to the guilt of sin means legal life before God.

Romans 6:14 does not say, For sin shall not be your master, because
the church has baptized you with water. Nor does it say that sin shall not be your master because the Holy Spirit along with the water baptism has changed you so that you sin now only occasionally and always with repentance.

Romans 6:14 says, “For sin shall not by your master, because you are not under law but under grace.” Christ died to purchase every
blessing, including the giving of the Spirit to the elect and their
believing the true gospel. But it is not believing which frees the
elect from the guilt of sin. It’s being legally joined to Christ's
death by imputation that frees the justified elect from guilt.

Herman Ridderbos wrote "Paul-An Outline of His Theology": see sec.65
Baptism as a means of salvation.
It made my head hurt but I read it through: here is an excerpt I pulled out. he said:
Although there is no intention of detracting from the once-for-all and definitive nature of Christ's death on the cross, yet the idea is evidently this, that the event of Christ's death (and not merely its redemptive significance)in one way or another extends to baptism so that one can as yet die and be buried in it with Christ himself. And this sacramental "form" of the once-for-all death of Christ is then said to be noted in Rom.6:5
But the fundamental error of this view is that baptism is not the moment or the place of dying together, etc., with Christ. If this were so, Christ would continue to die, if not anew, yet in mysterio, ....

What is the meaning of Matt.3:15? There has never been but one way of salvation, and that way is grace. It is not grace plus works that saves, but grace alone produces salvation. Rom.11:16 It is not Jesus Christ plus baptism that saves.Matt.11:6 but Christ alone is Savior Luke19:10 The old testament saints are saved by the same grace. As Moses said nothing about baptism, so Paul did not associate baptism with Christ for salvation as so many claim.Acts26:22,23 W.E.Best

As I said, I'm familiar with the Lutheran view on the sacraments. I don't think it makes any sense and it minimizes grace and Christ's work and maximizes you, but if you want to think of it as completely opposite than sure. I'll just never see it that way.

I'm also familiar with the fact that you think yours is "the better way" and we're two steps away from hell-fire. I just want you to know that I would call you a brother in Christ, and when we BOTH are in heaven and y'all DON'T have a higher place than the rest of us, I won't hold it against you. ;-)

For the record there is no such thing as a Baptist/Calvinist.

Heather,

I'll make the exact same point to you that I just made to Stephen.
When Christ commands that we do something such as Baptize or receive His Supper, or preach and teach about Him...then it is NOT a work that we do, but a work that He does...for us.

Because of this work...for us...by Christ...we can have REAL assurance and do not have to go mucking around inside our own head and hearts for the asurance of our salvation.

Believe me, I was raised a Roman Catholic and then went to non-denominational Baptist/Calvinistic Christianity for a long time. I found no real assurance in those traditions. Not that those folks are not Christians. I'm not saying that at all. All I am saying is that there is a better way.

Stephen,

Nothing could be further from truth of what I (or we Lutherans) believe.

God commands that we do it. He also commands that we preach and teach about Him. We wouldn't say then, that when we prach and teach about Jesus and someone hears the gospel that then is OUR work. Far from it.

With respect to that gospel Word, God commands that we go about it in particular ways (Matthew 28). But make NO mistake it. It is solely His doing. He creates faith in the hearing of His Word and He gives the Holy Spirit and the forgiveness of sins in Baptism.

If you are able (sometime), Stephen, listen to the class (above a few comments) on Baptism. I do think my pastor explains it a bit better than I do.

Steve M, I think your language is a little conflating. You say God saves in baptism, and don't know why people can't understand that "God acts for us" in that act. This is actually the symbolic view of baptism (I think many Presbys and Baptists have a similar baptism theology of what baptism actually does, though the timing is disagreed upon), that in Rom 6 and Col 2 God is acting apart from the works of man (see the comparison of a "circumcision made without hands/of the heart" to baptism). In the Lutheran and/or Catholic views, it sounds a whole lot more like Man acting for God, as the parents/pastor act to cause the salvation in the baptismal act.

Steve, I'm not sure if you are purposefully evading what I'm saying or not...but when you said you were Lutheran, it made a little more sense. I wish I could listen to the thing, but I don't have sound on this computer. It's ok, I actually know what the Lutheran view of baptism is. I don't believe it, but that's fine.

All of my siblings were infants too. The OPC does infant baptism, so I don't have a problem with that. I also don't think the form matters. That wasn't my point at all...

I think all that matters is Christ's death on the cross, if you want to add more works into that, it's up to you. I think the Lutherans are fine people, and I know very many godly men and women in the the Lutheran church. I also would go crazy if I was a part of it because nothing you guys say every makes sense, but if that makes you happy. I think you should go for it.

Steve: You said "you shouldn't CHANGE the words of Scripture to match your preconceived notions"...I think you should also not misconstrue the meaning of those words. If I understand correctly what you are saying, and I don't think I do. Then you are the one changing the meaning of the scriptures to fit YOUR preconceived notions.

God baptized you. Really? So, you've seen God...in the shape of your pastor. How did that work? Did He take over your pastor's body? Did He stand behind your pastor? What exactly do you mean? Forgive me for my cheek, but I really don't know what you are talking about. I mean, yes, God led you to be baptized. He's already accomplished your salvation. Baptism sealed the deal. Baptism made public before other believers that you belong to Him. Also, I DO believe He is in the water, in a spiritual manner. But baptism does not save you. If so, there was no reason for Christ.

I'm defending God's grace against people who would claim that glory for themselves (which is what you are doing). I am claiming that it is ONLY by Christ's death (God's grace) that we are saved. Nothing else. And this is where I get confused Steve, and I'm not sure if we're just having a language issue or what. Cause you are saying that salvation is outside of us too...yet, somehow salvation is from baptism.

I find God's grace worth defending.

I Peter 3:20 "because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. 21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.

Look at the context. Not by water, through water. The water killed all those not in the ark. Jesus is the ark. Jesus was killed for those in Jesus. We can say this in two ways. Jesus was killed instead of those who are in Jesus. Or saying the same thing a different way: those in Jesus got killed by the law when Jesus got killed by the law.

Please study the context. Don't forget the resurrection. Don't forget faith. Don't forget the antithesis: "not the removal of the dirt from the body."

Steve, not a big deal, but I think you mixed up a reference

Galatians 4:4 says "But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law...

I think you meant:
Galatians 3:26--"for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God,
THROUGH FAITH 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28  There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

I Corinthians 1:28 "God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, 29 so that no human being would boast in the presence of God. 30 And BECAUSE OF HIM YOU ARE IN Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, 31 so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”

I certainly agree that Romans 6 is talking about something which has actually taken place. Indeed, that is why I questioned if the "baptism" of Romans 6 is water. The main point of Romans 6 is about a legal "indicative" which has taken place. Not, do stuff to get free from sin, but rather, you are free from sin. Actually, really, legally.

I agree with Steve that this is not something in our hearts. Of course I disagree with Lutherans about the water being the instrument which creates this reality. But independently of what we believe about what water baptism, we should be able to agree that Romans 6 is talking about an actual indicative created by God, not by us.

I do wonder if Steve and I would agree on the nature of that indicative. Does he identify the "baptism" with "election" and the work of the Holy Spirit cleansing from original corruption? I think the text is about the Father placing the elect "into the death of Christ". The death of Christ was outside us, not inside us. I am not really sure where Steve comes out on that one.

Of course there are other remaining questions. Does it really matter if you and the person who baptized you with water agrees with Steve's account of water baptism? Or did God do water baptism to you no matter what you two thought about it?

I guess one way to avoid being a Donatist is to say that water baptism works even on Jews who accept it to avoid being killed by Protestants.

Mark McC.,

You really shouldn't CHANGE the words of Scripture to match your preconceived notions.

1st Peter 3:20 says that "they were saved THROUGH WATER"

___________

Keep struggling with the grace of God. He has done it. Everything.

I'm off to work. Be back later today.

Heather, and others,

This is fairly lengthy (about an hour long), but it is a really good, down to earth, explanation of the Lutheran understanding of Baptism:

http://theoldadam.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/baptism-free-will-and-other-good-stuff.mp3

I think there may be some things in here that will help you to understand why we believe the way we do about Baptism...whether you might agree with it...or not.

Heather,

I didn't stand. I was 3 months old. It matters not how, or how much water is applied...it is the Word that is attached to the water that is the most important part.

Can God save apart from Baptism? Certainly He can! We agree with that. But He can also save in Baptism, and He has decided to do that (that's why Jesus commanded it).

Martin Luther, Catechism: "We are not so much concerned to know whether the person baptized believes or not; for on that account Baptism does not become invalid; but everything depends upon the Word and command of God. This now is perhaps somewhat acute but it rests entirely upon what I have said, that Baptism is nothing else than water and the Word of God in and with each other, that is when the Word is added to the water, Baptism is valid, even though faith be wanting. Now, Baptism does not become invalid even though it be wrongly received or employed; since it is not bound to our faith, but to the Word.

"For even though a Jew should to-day come dishonestly and with evil
purpose, and we should baptize him in all good faith, we must say that his baptism is nevertheless genuine. For here is the water together with the Word of God. even though he does not receive it as he should, just as those who unworthily go to the Sacrament receive the true Sacrament even though they do not believe."

I Peter 3:21--Baptism, which corresponds to this (not being saved by water but through water in Noah's ark) now saves you, NOT AS A REMOVAL OF WATER FROM THE BODY but as an ANSWER OF A GOOD CONSCIENCE, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Like Romans 6, I Peter is about identification with Jesus Christ. Even if it causes us suffering, our identification is with "He Himself who bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we HAVING DIED TO SIN, would live to righteousness.

Then how were people who weren't baptized, saved?

Ok, when you were baptized, did you stand in front of a church, while your pastor used water either to sprinkle or immerse you?

Mark McC.,

Yes, I did mix up those Galatian passages. Thanks for the correction. The old bean is fading when it comes to memorizing these texts.

Mark, I'm not forgetting the resurrection...that also happens in Baptism as well. Also Romans 6.

Heather,

In Acts 2:38 the text says that we receive the forgiveness of our sins and the Holy Spirit, in Baptism. From that, I would definitely say that God is the One who does the Baptizing. God never orders us to do anything where He isn't actually the One doing it. He provides what He commands.

This was my 2 minute pit stop at home...now I'm off again to do some chores.


I'll be back. This is fun! And I appreciate the stimulating and very important discussion! Thanks!

@Mitchell: I agree with everything you said, except for not caring about the WCF and Augsburg. I care about those because it's part of our history, and strong Christians who have come before me cared enough to put them together. Let's not lose our history, shall we? Other than that, I agreed with everything else. I know this is hard for you to believe (for whatever reason) but I too hope hell is as populated with as few as possible. I too believe that it is important to get the gospel out into the ears of all who are present. I too don't believe in stripping away confidence (unless maybe it's a false confidence) or worrying people over whether or not they are elect. IF you believe in Jesus Christ's saving work THAN He has already died for you, and CHOSEN you. It's extremely simple and magnificent.

Paul St.,

The old sinful self is put to death..."in Baptism". (Romans 6)

In Baptism we are "given the forgiveness of sins and the Holy Spirit..." (Acts 2:38)

We have "put on Christ, in our Baptisms." (Galatians 4:4)


What people hate about God acting for us, in Baptism...is the graciousness of it. Then what 'we do' (our wills, our decision, our faith) does not account for anything.


_________


I find it very odd...very odd, indeed, that many Christians believe that Christ is present and living inside of their hearts...but yet they also believe that He could not be present in a bowl of water accompanied by His Word.

So odd.

Mark McC.,

Here it is, Romans 6 3,4:

"Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him BY BAPTISM into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life."

This is not symbolic language. St. Paul was no dummy. If he wanted sybolism he would have used it. He speaks of something that has actually taken place in your Baptism.

@Steve
We are considered righteous before baptism/just as Noah was righteous before the flood. It is an outward sign to the world of what happens in us. See Acts 9:17,18

Heather,

I didn't choose to be baptized. I was brought to the font and God Baptized me.

What are you trying to defend, Heather, that you would war against the grace of God in that which He Himself commanded be done to us, and that we should do to others?

I'm trying to defend God's will for sinners...His grace...His ability to act for us BEFORE we can decide anything for ourselves.

I just can't see what it is that you are defending that is worth defending.

@Steve, yes, I recognize that you ripped a verse out of context to support what you believe.
If one believes that baptism saves them than one is on the "religious rat wheel of self." You, Steve, and I, Heather, chose to be baptized. So, we, out of the goodness of us, chose God. See how that's a problem?
I believe that Christ died for me before I was even BORN! And what's more there was nothing in me that was good, actually it was all bad, but He still saved me. I'm amazed by that, AND it's totally outside "myself".

Heather,

"Biblical truths?"

I just quoted Scripture that says Baptism 'does save'.

We believe that Christ does the Baptizing (not us). So He is in it. Acting for us...before we could act for ourselves. God gives us what He commands. He makes us perfect. Washes us clean.

I love this theology, not just because it is biblical (it is), but because of the reasons that we believe God commanded Baptism and His Supper. To keep us off the religious rat-wheel of 'self'...and to give us real assurance in what HE HAS DONE.

Thanks, Heather.

more Smeaton on Romans 6: "We need to ask, then, what Paul means by these expressions that he uses, on which he makes his point so strongly (verse 12): “dying with Christ”, “dying to sin”, “buried with Christ”, “crucified with Christ”. One particular verse of Scripture will give us a key to the meaning of the above phrases: For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. 2 Corinthians 5:14

In this passage, Paul uses two expressions interchangeably; that is, “He died for all”, and “all died in Him.” He is describing the same thing from two different points of view. The first of these expressions describes the vicarious death of Christ as an objective fact. The second phrase speaks of the same great transaction, in terms that indicate that the elect too have done it.

So then, we may either say, “Christ died for us”, or “we died in Him.” Both are true. We can equally affirm that He was crucified for us, or we were co-crucified with Him. We are not referring here to two acts-one on Christ’s side and another on ours. Rather,we have but one public representative, corporate act performed by the Son of God, in which we share as truly as if we had accomplished the atonement ourselves.

It is a mistake to not carry Romans 5 into Romans 6. If we carry the thought of the representative character of the two Adams from the one chapter into the other, then the difficulty vanishes. There have been but two men in the world, with the two families of which they are the heads; there have been just two public representatives.

The idea of Christ being Surety for the elect and His atonement as the act of “one for many”, run through this entire section of Romans. But the passage we are studying (Romans 6:1-8) contains one difference as compared with other passages, and that is that here we are described as doing what our representative did.

Let us notice the expressions used in Romans 6:1-8: It is said that
“we died to sin (verse 2). This phrase frequently occurs in the writings of Paul and it always alludes, not to an inward deliverance from sin, but to the Christian’s objective relation. It means that we are legally dead to sin in Jesus Christ.

This is made very clear by two other expressions occurring in the section. The first of these passages applies the same language to the Lord Himself; for He is said to have died to sin once (verse 10). Now the only sense in which the Sinless One can be regarded as dying to sin, is that of dying to its guilt, or to the condemning power which goes along with sin, and which must run its course wherever sin has been committed. He died to the guilt of sin when it was laid on Him. He certainly did not die to sins indwelling power.

The second of these phrases shows that this dying was the meritorious cause of our justification. “He that is dead has been justified from sin” (verse 7). The justification of the Christian is thus based on his co-dying with Christ; that is, we are said to have died when Christ died, and to have done what Christ did.

Christ’s death to sin belongs to the elect, and is as much theirs as if they had born the penalty ourselves. And the justification by which they are forgiven and accepted has no other foundation. It is noteworthy that Romans 5 describes all this in the third person, whereas Romans 6 describes it in the first person, and from our own share in it.

This passage does not set forth anything done by us, but something done on our account, or for our sake, by a Surety, in whose performance we participate.

It might be asked, “can’t we understand that these statements designate two separate actions, one done by Christ, and a similar or parallel one by us?” NO. The acts are not two, but one, described from two different points of view.

But what is the old man that is said to be co-crucified with the Lord? Does not this refer to our inward corruption? NO it does not. Such an explanation is untenable, as it would make the expression synonymous with the next clause which is not only bad theology but also inept reasoning."

Smeaton, the Apostles' Doctrine of the Atonement---Romans 6:1-5 says that the justified elect have been crucified with Christ,
which tells us that their standing has changed from being “in Adam”
(with its curse and condemnation) to being “in Christ” (with all of
its blessings and benefits).

"To bring even more clarity to the mind of his readers, Paul says we were baptized into His death (verse 3). Christ is presented to us as laden with sin , and satisfying divine justice; and baptism, as a symbolical representation, shows our connection with Him, or rather our participation in that great corporate act which Jesus did on the cross, in the place of all His people.

"We are seen as having done what He did, and to have done what He did, and to have undergone what He underwent, to satisfy divine justice. The symbol of baptism teaches this, and Paul tells us the fact that it was a baptism into His death, an emblem of oneness with Christ, or fellowship with Him in His death to sin (verse 10).

"The death was the price of the life. The one was the cause, the other was the unfailing reward or consequence. The apostle declares that not only was the death of Christ a substitution in the place of His people, but that the consequences of it being a substitutionary death are that His people can be said to have done what He did. And, because of their oneness with Him, they are discharged from sin as a master."

@Steve: We must hold to biblical truths. The truth is all we need is to be perfect. The only way we can be is through Christ's death and resurrection. Baptism is highly important, but it doesn't save. It is a symbol of what we experience partaking in the death and resurrection of Christ. It is also more than symbolic, it is sacrament. So, on a spiritual level we really ARE dying to ourselves and being resurrected. It is an integral part of salvation, but it does not save. Christ only saves us. This has to be true because there will be many saved people in heaven, who haven't been baptized. Perhaps we are saying the same thing?

Heather,

"Baptism now saves you..." 1st Peter

Galatians 4:4 (I believe) says that "those who have been baptized have put on Christ." And Acts 2:38 says that "in baptism you are given the forgiveness of sins and the Holy Spirit. And the promise is to you AND your children."

It's not the water, alone, but the Word of God attached to the water that makes Baptism effective. Like with Naamen. The water didn't heal him...but the water with God's promise attached to it.

Does God save apart from Baptism? Yes! But He has also decided to save IN Baptism.

Thanks, Heather.

Heather,

Jesus is IN Baptism. He IS Baptism. What does 1st Peter say about Baptism? Hint: "Baptism now saves you..."

Do we not believe the Bible when it says that "Christ died for the whole world."? He did.

But not everyone hears and comes to faith. Why? That is God's business. Only He can anwer that.

We must hold to Biblical truths and NOT try and resolve every tension according to our reason and our will. This is where Calvin went off the rails (at times), and where he spent some time trying to unravel Luther.

Taking what Romans says, seriously, is the challenge. Are we willing to let God be God? Or are we to try and resolves everything according to our humanistic reason?

Read Romans 6 again. But look at it Christocentrically. Christ kills...and saves, in Baptism. St. Paul is not using word games. He knew the words "represents", and "symbolizes" ...but he doesn't use those words.

________________________

I must say that I am very pleasantly surprised with the turn of the discussion. Now WE are getting somewhere. Now WE are getting at the MEAT of the matter...and the heavy lifting in Romans. Thank you for that.

@Steve: Ok, I'll wait for them.

Heather,

I made a couple of decent (methinks) comments with respect to your questions. But I think they both went into moderation mode for some reason.

I'll give it a little while, and if they have disappeared then I will do them again.

great job, very informational article.

get daily devotional at http://rhapsody-of-realities.blogspot.com

Westminster Confession, Chapter 3: VI.
Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.

Chapter 8, V.
The Lord Jesus, by his perfect obedience, and sacrifice of himself, which he, through the eternal Spirit, once offered up to God, hath fully satisfied the justice of His Father; and purchased, not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the Father hath given unto him.

I only answer with scripture not my opinion because I know I am human and fallible and can be subject to my own interpretation. As far as baptism goes- the bible answers in the following scriptures.

“And this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also – not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” I Peter 3:21

After this, Jesus and his disciples went out into the Judean countryside, where he spent some time with them, and baptized. John 3:22

They came to John and said to him, “Rabbi, that man who was with you on the other side of the Jordan—the one you testified about—look, he is baptizing, and everyone is going to him.” John 3:26

As for Jesus dying for the world:

"He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world. 1 John 2:2

And good old John 3:16
"For God so greatly loved and dearly prized the world that He [even] gave up His only begotten ([a]unique) Son, so that whoever believes in (trusts in, clings to, relies on) Him shall not perish (come to destruction, be lost) but have eternal (everlasting) life."

Hope this helps.

Our job... specifically the pastor's job...is to get the Gospel out of our mouth into the ears of those who are present. Not strip away the confidence of away from those who begin to wonder whether they are elect or not.
I could care less what your WFC or Augsburg Confession says. Impart confidence in what has been done for all and put a clamp on who is elect. Predestination and election are biblical... from God's perspective not ours. I hope hell is populated with as few as possible.

@Steve: So...baptism saves you? Great! Who needs Jesus? I've been saved by the power of...some water.
Why don't we just round up our non Christian friends and co-workers and force them into the baptismal font. After all, that's all you need.
I can't believe that you actually believe this, so I'm waiting for a better explanation.

Mark,

That what Baptism is...with water. Just about every context in the New Testament that refers to Baptism, is speaking about a water Baptism.

When Jesus was Baptized, there was no water? It's not the water...but the Word attached to the water that makes it powerful and effective.

Got to head out to church (Midweek Lenten service). I'm pretty sure that I will hear (somewhere in the sermon) how God had adopted me and made me His own in my Baptism. Thanks be to God!

________________________________

Just one more thing before I head out the door...

When Jesus commanded that we "go...and baptize...." (Matthew 28)...are you saying that Jesus was commanding us humans to give people the Holy Spirit? Could we even do that? Or was He commanding us to baptize with water and the Word? I think he said as much didn't he? "In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit".

OK...nuff for now.

Steve, are you saying that those "the church" (whatever that is)
baptizes with water become elect? Romans 6 has no water in it.

Romans 8:33--"Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is
God who justifies".

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 would
continue, not because of works but because of him who calls—"

According to this text, the way to say "grace alone" is to say “for
the elect alone”. Romans makes a connection between “not because of works” and election. When evangelicals attempt to leave out the “for the elect alone” and discuss the gospel without talking about election, mostly all they can say is “not because of works but because of faith alone”.

Even if you believe the falsehood that Christ died for every sinner, most evangelicals won't challenge your view, but in select Sunday School classes they will explain a more precise view of things which you might want to add on to what you already believe without needing to repent of the falsehood about Christ dying for everyone..

Romans 1:16, “the gospel is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes." The truth needs to be proclaimed to all sinners, even those who are tired of it. Of course the good news of election is only good news for the elect, but we don’t know who the elect are until after they have believed the truth.

If the object of the faith alone is a gospel which says that Christ
died for everybody but that faith is some kind of condition which
makes the death work, then this faith alone is not in the true Christ. Election is God’s idea. This idea goes along with the idea of not works. 9:11: “In order that God’s election would continue, not because of works.”

Romans 11: 5, “So too at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. But if it by grace, it is no longer by works; otherwise grace would be no more grace.”

Doesn’t the apostle Paul understand that you can say “not by works “ without talking about election? Why doesn’t he just say: “by faith and not by works”? Why does he bring in this idea of an elect remnant? Paul writes about election in order to explain what he means by faith. Paul does not regard faith as a substitute for works. God imputes the righteousness revealed in the gospel to a person justified by the gospel. The “it” which is imputed by God to Abraham is the obedient bloody death of Christ Jesus for the elect alone.


Calvin, 21:4.
I wish it to be received as a general rule, that the secret things of God are not to be scrutinized, and that those which he has revealed are not to be overlooked, lest we may, on the one hand, be chargeable with curiosity, and, on the other, with ingratitude. For it has been shrewdly observed by Augustine (de Genesi ad Literam, Lib. 5), that we can safely follow Scripture, which walks softly, as with a mother's step, in accommodation to our weakness. Those, however, who are so cautious and timid, that they would bury all mention of predestination in order that it may not trouble weak minds, with what color, pray, will they cloak their arrogance, when they indirectly charge God with a want of due consideration, in not having foreseen a danger for which they imagine that they prudently provide? Whoever, therefore, throws obloquy on the doctrine of predestination, openly brings a charge against God, as having inconsiderately allowed something to escapefrom him which is injurious to the Church."

@Steve: No, please....go there. I would like to go there. I'd love to hear where you are going with this.

Plus, can you please quote the verse that says "Christ died for the sins of the whole world"? Did He then fail in His mission, since obviously some do go to hell.

Y'all realize that we (Calvinists) don't claim to know WHO the elect are, just that there ARE elect people in the world, right?

I too, get a little tired of hearing about "the elect".

Is that the message? Isn't the message, "Christ died for the sins of the whole world"? And that means 'you'!

That is biblical. Yes, I know that the Bible also speaks of the elect. I tried in vain to show how Paul tells us one way that God has decided to elect us (Romans 6)...but nobody wants to go there.
I thank God that I have found a church that does want to go there.

I hardly think that Jesus commanded us to baptize and be baptized, so that we could gin up enough faith to believe in without something tangible to grab hold of (that God has done for us) . The we don't have to have faith in 'our faith'...but we can actually have faith in God. It's a great way to get some assurance, instead of looking inward.

But then, this has never been widely accepted doctrine and I don't expect it will ever be. It checks our generous 'reason' at the door. And we just aren't very pleased about that.

I just hope you read the posts before, where we talked about
Romans! "He who did not spare his own Son but gave Him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? Who shall bring any charge against God's elect?" Romans 8:32-33

A rational discussion of Romans involves questions asking who the "us" is and who the "all" is and who the "elect" is. How can we know the news is good, if we don't know what the news is?

Capon is an universalist who thinks that Christ died for everybody and that everybody will be saved and given all things.

Those of us who agree with the Westminster Confession think that the elect are the all us, and that all of them will be saved and given all things.

But the bad news is taught by the many "evangelicals" who teach that Christ died for many who will not be saved and who will not be given all things. These folks do not locate the good news in what Christ did on the cross. They locate it elsewhere, either in their "little bit of freewill" or in their partial obedience to God's law. These folks turn the gospel into a law, and in the meanwhile deny that Christ's death completely satisfied God's law for the elect. Or for anybody.

@Mitchell, sooo....never actually read the WCF, huh? You know it doesn't actually SAY who is in and who is out, right? You also know that it isn't the "test of faith," right? You further know that there is no "test of faith," right? And it might help to know, that no one here is "obsessed" with who is in and who is out. Research before you type, would be my suggestion.

All who will may come to Him and believe the Good News... rather than all who the WCF says will or can. If you hear it... it is for you.
I swear! Some people are absolutely obsessed with knowing who's in and who's out.
I suppose the WCF is the "test of faith" for some over and above believing.

Here is an excellent 1 minute daily devotion on Romans (this morning):

1minutedailyword.com

amen. May the Lord continue to work mightily through His Word and in teachings of His Word (e.g even Jesus Plus Nothing Equals Everything 12-02-07-gtysermon 80-329.). May His gospel come to us all not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction.1 Thess 1:5

Romans 3:3 "What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? 4 By no means! Let God be true though everyone were a liar, as it is written, “That you may be justified in your words, and prevail when you are judged.” 5 But if our unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, what shall we say? That God is unrighteous to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way.) 6 By no means! For then how could God judge the world? 7 But if through my lie God’s truth abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? 8 And why not do evil that good may come?—as some people slanderously charge us with saying. Their condemnation is just.

The truth of Romans is not only God’s sovereignty but also God’s righteousness. This means that the gospel is not only about the justification of the elect sinner but also about the justification of God.

God is justified in justifying the elect sinner because 1. Christ died because of the imputed guilt of that elect sinner and 2. God then righteously counted (constituted) that elect sinner to legally share in that death. It doesn’t look just. The elect sinners go free. Christ, who did not sin, died. This is why we are tempted to say that the whole thing is only about God’s sovereignty and then tell people to shut their mouths and ask no questions.

But the Bible itself does not take that attitude. The Bible does not say it's too complicated. The Bible justifies God. Romans 9 explains that it is inappropriate for the clay to sit in negative judgment on the maker. Romans 6 deals with the objection that God justifying sinners will cause sinners to rationalize their sins, so that they not only say that their sins were predestined but also that they say that more sins result in more grace.

The Romans 6 answer is more sin does not get the elect more grace, because all those God justly justifies have all the grace any other elect person has. If you have grace, then you are justified from sin, and if you don’t have grace, you are a sinner “free from righteousness” (6:20). This is simple enough, but those in rebellion against God's way get angry about it.

While unbelievers trust in God to help them to sin less, those who have been delivered to the gospel know that there are only two kind of sinners, —guilty sinners and justified sinners .

We were wrong. God was right and God is still right. It is not only a matter of “might makes right” or “sovereignty always wins”. Yes, it is grace to some sinners and not to others, but still it is just for God to do it, because of what Christ did in his obedience even unto death. As Isaiah 53 explains, the righteous servant will be satisfied. God will be just to Christ. And God is just to justify elect sinners for the sake of Christ.

If we ever get to thinking that God is only being sovereign but not being fair to everybody, then we show that God has not yet called us by His gospel. We need to learn to confess that the way God acts and judges is just.

Getting in a dispute with the true God shows us just how ignorant we have become! Romans 3:5—God is the righteous judge of us. God is not only “the boss of us”.

God takes sides with Himself. God takes sides against sinners. And the only sinners that God justifies are the elect who God has placed into the death of Christ.

Pastor
Romans ch.10 has been my favorite. It is the gospel in a nutshell. ... that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in thine heart that God hath raised Him from the death thou shalt be saved... Rom.10:9,10

I just wanted you to know that your series on Galatians helped inspire me to write this post, "Discouragement and Women"
http://www.gospelgrace.net/2012/03/20/discouragement-and-women/

Thank you for reminding me that "it is finished!"

The ultimate way we can tell people that the gospel is “outside of
you” is to tell them that the gospel they MUST believe excludes even this believing as the condition of salvation. The only condition of salvation for the elect is Christ’s death for the elect.

No debated language about the objectivity of “covenants” or “sacraments” should be allowed to obscure this gospel truth. Unless you are an universalist like Capon is (nothing confused about the fact that Capon is) OR you preach that Christ died only for the elect (as taught by the Westminster Confession), no matter how
sacramental or “covenantal” you are, you will end up encouraging people to make faith into that little something that makes the difference between life and death!

Do we believe that the glory of God in the gospel means that all for whom Christ died will certainly be saved. Or is that doctrine too “rationalistic” for us? Would that doctrine perhaps take the grace of God out of the hands of those who hand out the “means of grace” and locate grace with the Father who has chosen a people and given them to Christ? (Romans 11:4-6)

Election is God’s love. When the Bible talks about God’s love, it talks about propitiation. I John 4:10, “In this is love, not that we have loved God but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” If all we only stipulate that the appeasement of wrath will not work without our faith, then it’s not enough to add on that God sent His son to purchase our faith. The nature of the cross as a propitiation will not be proclaimed.

A propitiation for the elect which is also the same thing for the non-elect, amounts to nothing. We have to know we believe the gospel, before we can know if we are elect. Knowing our election before we believe is impossible. Knowing our election is NOT our warrant to believe. But this is no excuse for leaving the Bible doctrine of election out of the doctrine of propitiation by Christ’s death there and then on the cross.

We can and should teach the doctrine of election. The Bible doctrine of election does not teach unbelievers that they are elect, nor does the Bible doctrine of election teach unbelievers that they can find out if they are elect without or before believing,

Propitiation is not INSIDE the person who is elect, loved by God. Nor is the propitiation in the Roman Mass. Once, and then Christ sat down at the right hand in heaven.

We must not confuse the propitiation with God's legal application of the propitiation. Romans 6 teaches that God in time places the elect into the death of Christ, and there is a resulting transition from wrath to favor. Free from righteousness, then free from sin, not under the law. But this is legal application of the atonement, not the atonement itself. This is God’s imputation, not regeneration and transformation.

I've led at least 6 small groups through a very slow study of Romans. It has never ended except that people either got mad and stormed out or were so transformed that they seem to be a completely different person. At one point I took over a youth group, where they had been doing stupid youth encounter group fun activity drivel. I told them it would be slow, plodding, difficult, and life-changing, and they loved it, before the church pulled it back to youth group crap.

Romans is the cornerstone of scripture. You don't interpret everything else and then come to Romans. You start at romans, because if the way you interpret everything else is out os whack with it, you pretty much have the whole thing wrong. Nothing has transformed me personally like studying the book of Romans, and I go back to it daily. Ask my wife, I can't believe she puts up with such obsession, except that she is similarly obsessed! In fact, when we first met, she wanted to get together, in college. I told her, sure, let's meet at 6 AM and study Romans, and she actually did it. That was over 25 years ago. So romantic! Romans is where Paul explains grace through Christ crucified, soup to nuts, and how it works in history and in daily life and in fellowship.

I have acquaintances who dabble in the Messianic Christian movement, which can be OK, but they flirt with the law. They all hate Romans, in some cases they want to label Paul a heretic. I'm saying, you may want to rethink that, fool! Why throw away your freedom???

As far as Capon and universalism, here is a quote from him:

“For example, who is in heaven? People think it is good guys. There is nobody in heaven but forgiven sinners because there was nobody available to go to heaven except forgiven sinners and there is nobody in hell except forgiven sinners. The difference is that in heaven they accept the forgiveness, in hell they reject it. That’s it.”

Doesn’t sound like universalism to me. Maybe it depends on your notion of universalism.

Want a bigger challenge? Don't just read it. Memorize it. If you don't find yourself crying for yourself, your friends, your country, humanity itself or all of the above, I'd be surprised.

Repeating our sins as you memorize, builds humility like nothing I've seen before. I continue to be amazed by God's grace.

Great comments.

I would dare people to take Romans seriously.

Especially the hard parts. The parts that go against our human reason. These are the parts where assurance can be had.

Romans 6, for example. Take it seriosly. Believe it. Against all your best 'reason'. And then trust what God has done for you in your Baptism...and return to that truth each day for assurance.For everything else, everywhere else that you might look for some assurance, has already been put to death with Christ on that cross.

Kathy - you're right. I almost forgot this was really about how great Romans is. Romans is an awesome part of scripture - YAY!!!! It has changed my life more than any other written thing. That's all I'm going to say for now.

The unstoppability of Romans combined with the powderkeg of Galatians combined in my life to create a Grace Tsunami!

Romans IS unstoppable.

Except when Paul tells us EXACTLY what happens to us in Baptism (Romans 6).

Then it is very stoppable.

In fact it is downright invisable.

I would say the atonement was "universal" in that it was "for all." When people ask if I'm a Calvinist I respond "First give me a verse and I'll tell you whether I am or not." But if the atonement isn't "for all" one has to wonder was the death of Christ "For me specifically." This is where Calvin (as I understand him) lost me. If it is only for some and not others then one has to question the validity of the atonement "for them personally." Conversely, this is where Martin Luther's views absolutely rang true as good news... "It is for you specifically" when you hear it.
I have maintained, to my friends that can't stand Calvin, that he really wanted believers to have assurance. He speaks of it much in his Institutes. But where Luther pointed one toward the "Good News" and believing (through Word and Sacrament), Calvin seems to point us, eventually, back to ourselves.
I've been confused before though... just my take!

Hey Gary,

As my friend Dane Ortlund says about Capon, "Capon seems to have been a mildly eccentric man, and he has an awful (and awfully confused) understanding of the atonement, one which flirts with universalism. So, as with anyone, one must swallow the meat and spit out the bones. But I am loving this guy. Gospel defibrillation!"

Well put, I think!

That book pushes the envelope of grace to the extreme; and maybe past orthodoxy. I believe Capon was a universalist. Nevertheless, it was a good challenge to this failed legalist.

It was through the study of Romans I was able to more fully surrender to God and embrace his sovereignty which brought me great peace. It's what helped me let go of thinking I had anything to do with my salvation which is amazingly freeing. Considering we all deserve God's wrath (hell) this comment helped me to understand election; "election (God's mercy) didn't put anyone into hell but kept a vast number out of hell." Without it no one would have the hope of heaven.

I have a feeling this (comments) is going to be a 3 pager. :o)

Philippians 3:18-19 "For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: whose end is destruction, whose god is their belly, and whose glory is their shame-who set their minds on earthly things.”

Notice Paul’s concern, his anguish, not only for those being persecuted, but also for those who are lost and are persecuting.
Yes, opposition to the gospel has been predestined. Yes, God has excluded some sinners from salvation before they ever did anything bad (Romans 9). But that does not mean that God works in the means of the death of the non-elect in an identical way as God works in the means of salvation.

Nor does it mean that those who believe the true gospel should be indifferent about those who are ignorant or unsubmitted to the gospel. We can’t say that “it makes no difference to me if you walk choose to reject the God who chooses.”

Love does not mean agreeing up front that people we talk to are saved. But it does mean talking about the gospel. The reason I insist on talking about the gospel to the enemies of the cross is not only a macho thing to convince myself again that I believe the gospel or to persuade myself that I have courage. I must talk abut the gospel because the gospel is the only way that other people can be saved. Romans 1:16; I Cor 1:18. The doctrine of the gospel is itself the message with God’s power to save.

According to Phil 3:18-19, those who remain enemies of the cross will perish. Only God can save anybody, and God has not promised to save anybody without teaching that person the gospel. The promise of God is to as many as God will call”. Acts 2:39.

God calls by the gospel. Not all who are externally called by the gospel are effectively called by God. But all who are effectually called by God are called by the gospel. (Romans 10:14-17).

The only way we can tell if our works are good fruit (instead of fruit unto death) is to make our calling and election sure. (II Peter 1) By what gospel were you called? Did the gospel you claim be called by talk about the good news of election?

@Jim, don't be too embarrassed. I'm just one of those nerds who actually likes reading about these things. But ok, as far as I can tell hyper-Calvinism would be saying you could TELL who the people are who are saved and who weren't saved. Or you think God will save whomever He wills, so you don't need to evangelize. Or say that God in no way loves the non-elect. A lot of people make that same mistake. The reason it is confusing is because people who believe in double predestination, don't call it that. They just call it predestination. But there are Calvinists who believe God predestines some for salvation, and don't believe He predestines others for hell. That actually makes no sense to me (and honestly sounds like they are making excuses for God), but both fit in the Calvinist camp.

@Mark said (actually immediately after what you just quoted), "The only condition of salvation for the elect is Christ’s death for the elect." So, while, he clearly thinks a working knowledge of predestination is highly, highly, HIGHLY important, he does say the only condition that must be met for salvation (justification) is Christ's death. I think you and I would agree.

It might be a little creepy to think God predestines people to hell, but it's something I believe myself. And Mark and I aren't alone. John Piper and R.C. Sproul and St. Augustine also believed in double predestination. On the surface though, I do agree with your comments. It IS a mystery, and sometimes it's wonderful and sometimes it's terrifying. But we agree that we worship a loving and a just God. Somehow men and women are saved, and somehow men and women go to hell. I don't understand it and Mark and you don't understand it. But from my reading of scripture (and from the work of better and smarter people than I), I can't possibly believe anything other than (double) predestination. Somehow we ARE allowed choice, yet somehow God has already chosen.

You ask what I would tell the frazzled young mother. (I question this, are you saying young women don't understand theology?...I'm being funny, I know you weren't saying that ;-) If she is a believer, I would tell her that the death of Christ is the only thing she needs for salvation. What @Mark was saying was the only way we can get people to believe that the gospel (or salvation) is "outside of them" is to say, "You have to believe this (that the death of Christ is the only thing you need for salvation) but you aren't saved by believing that. Does that clear up that statement or just muddy the waters.

Apologies for the agonizingly long reply.

@Heather, I know. As I said, I am an uneducated nobody. I was right to hesitate to respond. I should have waited until I could reach for my "Essential Christian Doctrines" book to look up the difference between hyper-calvinism and double predestination. I'm not being sarcastic either, I mean it. What exactly IS hyper-calvinism then anyway? I snoozed through that part when I was listening to my course on the history of theology. My ignorance in some of these matters is truly embarrassing. If I could do it all over again I would probably go to bible college or seminary, but that isn't going to happen now, I am older and I can't even afford to send my children to college.

I still think it is a mystery, whatever Mark McCulley's right pigeonhole word is. It is creepy to start thinking that God predestines people to hell. It is creepy to think that we are completely and utterly divested of all free will, and that on the Spiritual side we arrive at the same place as the atheist neuroscientists, we are puppets and robots. I CHOOSE to think that things are a little more complicated than that, that I am, in Christ, a real person, and that complexity is a part of grace.

I am truly fine with healthy and strong disagreements on this, but when it starts to get to the place where a perfection of understanding of election and predestination has become a requirement for justification, my alarms go off. I really am opposed to hanging that stone around people's necks. I've heard this from unsuspecting people: "I want to believe in grace, but it seems so hard to understand!" That statement from a layman is a really awful thing. If the hard-core calvinists are NOT saying this, if they are espousing the simple gospel of Christ and Him crucified, then maybe they ought to cool their jets a little. Let's review what was said:

"The ultimate way we can tell people that the gospel is “outside of you” is to tell them that the gospel they MUST believe excludes even this believing as the condition of salvation."

Well, it sounds pretty obligatory to me. We MUST believe that ... what now? That believing isn't required, but we MUST believe that not believing is the right belief? What? My eternal felicity hangs on THIS? I resist. What do you tell the young mother who is so frazzled she can't even remember how to complete a sentence, much less digest all of this complex calvinist ideology? I totally love my calvinist brothers and sisters in Christ, and I have immensely benefitted from many many things they have to say. Some of this goes too far though.

@Jim, I'm pretty sure @Mark is a Calvinist who believes in double predestination and not a hyper-Calvinist. (For the record John Calvin was fuzzy on this issue, but leaned toward double predestination from what he understood from scripture)
Your definition of hyper-Calvinism is incorrect. Many people THINK this is the definition, but it's not. "Hyper" in this sense is to be understood as "excessive." So, a hyper-Calvinist is one who exceeds the bounds of Calvinism. I see nothing in Mark's comment that leads me to believe he's outside the bounds of Calvinism.

OK Mark, I'll bite. I know I shouldn't. I forgot to pray against temptation this morning or something.

You are a hyper-calvinist. You are implying that God creates people who He knows He intends to sentence to everlasting hell. He predestines them to it, there is not a thing to be done. There is no place for faith. There is not even the tiniest human decision to say yes to God, no free will whatsoever. There would seem to be no place for evangelism in your conception.

Yet, in romans 9:18-21, he proclaims a very strong predestination kind of stance, and then how does he explain it? He doesn't! He simply says, who are you to answer to God? He goes on in Romans 11:33-36 to explain that it is an unsearchable mystery. So if I say, "but we must have faith!" And you say, "yes, but even faith is a predetermined gift, Ephesians 2:8!"

I will say yes, but Christ says we should knock and the door will be opened. It is God who draws me, who gives me the power to knock. How does this ultimately work? It is spelled out in Scripture, in romans in fact. It is a MYSTERY, and this relation between the free will and predestination is unsearchable.

Furthermore, it is cruel and wrong to equate grace with complex doctrines such as predestination and election, because these things are very difficult to understand, in fact they are spelled out in scripture to be unsearchable. Grace is tied to Christ and Him crucified, through whom I am forgiven at great cost.

You are certainly free to hold your hyper-calvinist views, but you must allow that justification and grace are based on Christ, and the exact mechanisms of how we come to believe it are purposefully crafted to be unsearchable, so you cannot take away my or anyone else's freedoms in Christ because we do not agree with your hyper-calvinism. I personally will not bow the knee.

You come among us all determined to know nothing except election and imputation. Many are confused by these things, and you make God out to the unintelligent and babes to be evil and mean. I am sure you don't mean it to be so, yet you speak with extreme authority, as correcting us all. I am an uneducated nobody, but I am standing here correcting you. There really is mystery here, it is no copout, there is scripture saying so. Go back and rethink your approach.