God Owes Us Nothing (Reformed Devotional)

07/07/2008 - Alan Kurschner    Imagine if every Evangelical pastor started with that premise in the role of God's grace in our salvation. Imagine if every Evangelical affirmed this with their entire heart. Recently I was listening to a lecture by Dr. Paul Lim on the extent of the atonement. He commented that years ago students approached their grade from the perspective of a zero with the aim of increasing the points to a letter grace of D, C, B, and hopefully an A. He said this is not the case anymore since students today assume that they start with (deserve) an "A" and only the possibility of losing their points or grade level. Dr. Lim's point is obvious: many approach the blood of Christ today assuming that God is obligatory in his grace. And since the blood of Christ is predicated on his love, the same is said of the love of God. It is not demanded; it is freely bestowed -- not on everyone, but to those whom he chooses based on his infinite, wise counsel. The person who demurs that God is free to confer his electing grace on his chosen, cannot with any honesty believe that "God owes us nothing." But if God owes us something (which he does not), why would we think so highly of his love and grace? It would be expected and deserved.

   All of this is a good reason why the term "limited atonement" should probably be jettisoned from the Reformed vocabulary. It suggests that all deserve the atonement (everyone starts with the letter grade "A"), and therefore God "takes away" something that he is obliged to bestow. The reality is everyone starts with an "F", and thus God in his wisdom, freedom, and love, bestows grace to a particular or definite undeserving people.

   It is one thing to say that we are undeserving sinners; it is another to be consistent and apply that to the love and blood of Christ. As it is often said in Reformed circles, we dare not ask for a "fair" God since fairness and justness would require us to suffer for our own sins in eternal perdition. We do not want a fair God, rather our hope is in a merciful God whose willing Son absorbed the wrath on the cross as our glorious substitute.

>If I understand the teachings correct, God decided who he will take back to Himself, and who will be someplace else, before we were born.

>Are there any teachings about what the non-elict are here for?

Good question! I can only turn to that which I hold as the final authority, the bible, for the answer.

First off, I do not deign to know the mind of God, His purposes are His own, but He does speak to us through His word those things He wishes to be made known.

Second, all things are here the way they are so that God will be glorified, and so that those that He has chosen will be redeemed.

Romans 8: 28 And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.

Thus the non-elect are here to fit in that plan. I think it would not be a stretch to suggest that God created the sinful world to to shape and test the faithful and show the need for the savior. But most of all, God created a sinful world to show His glory and love, and so that He could show the greatest love, and that is laying down ones life for another.

Third, God makes man the way He wants, for His purposes. That includes showing His wrath, and even though it might make us squirm, it is justified.

Proverbs 16:
3 Commit your works to the LORD
And your plans will be established.
4 The LORD has made everything for its own purpose,
Even the wicked for the day of evil.
5 Everyone who is proud in heart is an abomination to the LORD;
Assuredly, he will not be unpunished.

Romans 9:20-22
20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it?

21Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?

22What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?

Further verses, and I think the source for Paul can be found in Job 40:2, Isaiah 29:16, Isaiah 45:9, Isaiah 64:8, Jeremiah 18:6, and further brought forth by him in 2 Timothy 2:20. I know, tons of verses, (and I cheated by using Biblegateway for references) but it is repeated over and over throughout the scripture, that God makes man the way he is for God’s plan, and that some are made for earning His wrath.

Some might find that uncomfortable that God has a plan, and that they are not able to input their two cents. Personally I would take anything that God gives as the best and only solution to anything I am facing. God is good and faithful and nothing I can come up with can compare.

I do remember that Calvin was a devotee of Augustine (at least the pronouncements of the latter half of his life).

You ask, "Is man thwarting the will of God?" The resounding answer is Yes." As Feinberg says: "Unfortunantly, some Calvinsts, because of their misunderstanding of God's sovereignty, have denied that humans are free. Yet some of those Calvinists maintaina that we are morally responsible for our sin, while God,, who decreed our sin, is not morally accountable. When asked how this can be true, they respond that it is a paradox that nonetheless must be true because Scripture demands it."

On the one hand the Calvinist says that God has made certain all that ever happens and yet to say that man is responsible for what he does...is nonsense. It must be one or the other. So the Calvinist has to make up his mind. The Calvinist says that the apparent paradox between the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man belongs to the Lord our God and we should leave it there. We ought not probe the secrete council of God, so says Palmer.

Scriptural evidence for man thwarting the will of God. If one gets a Strong's Concordance you will find tht the words, 'will', 'free will', 'freewill', 'free-will' along with related words such as 'voluntary', 'choose', are found nearly 4,000 times in Scripture. The requirement of willing obedience from the heart is a theme that runs all through the Bible' "If ye be willing and obedient.."(Isaih 1:19, "If any man will do this (God's Will)...John 7:7, If thou believest in thine heart"...Acts 8:37. Rather than type them all here is a very tiny sample, Leviticus 22:21-23, Numbers 15:3; Deuteronomy 16:10; Ezre 1:4, Ezra 3:5. Ezra 7: 16; 2 Chronicles 31:14, and on and on and on. You get the picture.

The denial of God's imbueing man with free will is really the question for you. It is not an Arminian concept as you are taught in Calinism. It predates by thousands of years Arminius. You need only go to Genesis where Able brought the firstling of his flock and Cain the fruit of the ground. God had cursed the fruit of the ground but told Cain, "If you do right, if you do right Cain there is a sin offering at the door." But Cain would not do the right thing. He exercised his will and refused to offer to God the blood of a lamb. Eve evercised her free will by taking of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, despite Gods explicit directive not to do so. She thwarted Gods' will. Every time a person sins they are in disobedience of God and goes agains the Will of God.

I will answer your other statement by saying that, Yes, there is a literal Hell. No I am not Jehovas Witness , nor a universalist.

If you tell me what you are confused about I will be glad to answer you.

>You ask, “Is man thwarting the will of God?” The resounding answer is Yes.”

But the scripture says otherwise: Job 34:1 Then Job answered the LORD and said, 2”I know that You can do all things, And that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted.

>As Feinberg says: “Unfortunantly, some Calvinsts, because of their misunderstanding of God’s sovereignty, have denied that humans are free. Yet some of those Calvinists maintaina that we are morally responsible for our sin, while God,, who decreed our sin, is not morally accountable. When asked how this can be true, they respond that it is a paradox that nonetheless must be true because Scripture demands it.”

My guess is that Feinberg and you are unfamiliar with the concept of Compatibilist Free Will. The natural man, pre-Spirit intervention, does not and cannot freely choose the spiritual things for it is simply not in his nature, just as a dog would simply ignore the plate of broccoli. Afterwards, after the “birth from above” our nature is changed, we then do still sin, but still hold to the things spiritual, where before they were foreign to us.

Otherwise who is responsible for the indians deep in the rain forest? They have no ability to hear the gospel, and therefore the blame is placed on God for their damnation?!? That is simply absurd! Man, of course, is responsible for his own actions, and as scripture says,

(Genesis 50:20) “As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive.

Was the sin of Joseph’s brothers accounted as such against them? Yes. Did God still use that sin for His purpose? Yes. God accounted for it, and though it is accounted into the plan, the brothers still did the acts they were justly judged for.

>Scriptural evidence for man thwarting the will of God....”If ye be willing and obedient..”(Isaih 1:19)

I think that if you think that Calvinists think they cannot be disobedient to God you seriously have no clue what you are talking about. The passage promises plenty if the objects are obedient. No problem there. If you think that there is, you might be whacking at strawmen...

John 7:7 might be a miss typing on your part, unless I am missing something esoteric.

And the Acts 8:37 verse? I have no clue with whether or not Philip is going to baptize the Ethiopian if he is not a believer has any bearing either. Perhaps you can show me some other verses?

>Rather than type them all here is a very tiny sample, Leviticus 22:21-23, Numbers 15:3; Deuteronomy 16:10; Ezre 1:4, Ezra 3:5. Ezra 7: 16; 2 Chronicles 31:14, and on and on and on. You get the picture.

I get the picture that those are verses about giving freewill offerings to God. I see no relevance to this issue.

Now I am sorry if you get offended, but I really think you have no clue of which you are talking about. Perhaps a study of Calvinism is in order? I can direct you to some good resources, like calvinistcorner.org. Either that or look deeper into the scriptures for some other verses which might have some relevance? I willingly take correction from the scriptures and always seek a deeper understanding of them.

But the scripture says otherwise: Job 34:1 Then Job answered the LORD and said, 2”I know that You can do all things, And that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted.

Job 34:1 - Furthermore, Elihu answered and said, (2)Hear my worlds, O ye wise men; and give ear unto me, ye that have knowledge.

That is the quote in my Bible. I don't believe the Geneva bible says any different. I do not know where you derived your quote.

Compatibilist Free Will. The natural man, pre-Spirit intervention, does not and cannot freely choose the spiritual things for it is simply not in his nature, just as a dog would simply ignore the plate of broccoli. Afterwards, after the “birth from above” our nature is changed, we then do still sin, but still hold to the things spiritual, where before they were foreign to us.

The notion you offer is the Calvinist distinctive of total depravity. According to Reformed Theology, irresistible grace always leads to regeneration. Always. If God does not irrestibly call you to regeneration in particular and salvation in general, you are inevitably and irreversibly headed to damnation. If such is the case, regeneration is simply not in the divine cards that God has dealt you. As Sproul said; "Most Christians agree that God's work of gegeneration is a work of grace. The issue that divides us is whethere or not this grace is irresistible..". It is not the only issue which divides Christians from Calvinsts, but it is one of the more important ones. Regeneration (born again) is almost always considered in connection with the Calvinist doctrine of total depravity. Calvinist writer Millar J. Erickson says, "Calvinists have insisted if all persons are truly sinners, totally depraved and incapable of responding to God's grace, no one can be converted unless first regenerated." The main thrust of Calvinist teachings is that Regeneration is the immediate cause of FAITH, or, said another way, FAITH is the immediate effect of Regeneration. Stated otherwise, Calvinism teaches that God makes you believe and thus makes you a believer. Palmer says, "God makes me, who did not really want Jesus, want to love Him and believe in Him. You do not (in Calvinism) and cannot believe to be born again,, according to Reform theology. You must be aborn again to believe. You will believe when and because you are born again. In Calvinism Regeneration always comes before faith (in Christ) and faith always follows regeneration. I would quote Piper, MacArthur, Sproul, Boettner, or any of the preemenent Calvinist writers who say the say thing, but will stop for brevitys' sake.

MacArthur says, "Genuine faith is granted by God....faith is granted by God...faith is a supernatural gift of God..it seems, that Paul had in mind [in Ephesians 2"8-9] was the entire process of grace, faith, and salvation as the gift of God....faith is not something just conjoured up by the human will but is a sovereignly granted gift of God.

Perhaps no passage of Scripture is amore heavily relied upon by Calvinists than Ephesians 2:8-9. "By grace you have been saved through faith and that not of ourselves; it [or 'this'] is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast".

New Testament scholar Harold W. Hoehner explains it this way.

Much debate has centered around the demonstrative pronound "this" (tauto-Greek). Though some think it refers back to 'grace' and others believe it refers to 'faith'. Neither of these positions is really valid because the demonstative pronoun is neuter whereas 'grace' and 'faith' are feminine. Also, to refer back to either of these words specifically seems to be redundant. Rather the neuter "touto", as is common, refers to the preceding phrase or clause, (in Eph 1:15 and 3:1 touto, 'this' refers back to the presceding section.Thus it refers back to the concept of "Salvation" (2:4-8), whose basis is grace and means is faith, thus salvation does not have its source in man (it is 'not from yourselves') but rather, it sources is God's Grace for "it is the gift of God". The entire point of the passage is that salvation is by grace versus a salvation of works. It is, however, through faith. To make faith a part of the gift of salvation, as opposed to the means through which we are to receive that gift, is to read into the text that which is not there. It also takes away from the sinner the only means by which he can be saved.

The notions that faith is a gift and regeneration is abefore faith and produces faith are logically necessitated by the Calvinist doctrine and distinctive of total depravity, as Calvinism defines the fallen nature of man.

Whether a Calvinist subscribes to what is called a hard view or a soft view, all Calvinists believe that faith is a gift and only comes with and in Regeneration. Boettner states the following: "Man does not possess the power of self-regeneration, and until this inward change takes place, he cannot be convinced of the truth of the Gospel by any amount of external testimony".

To characterize faith in Christ as "the power of self-regeneration" reflects either a grossly distorted view of faith or a deliberate attempt to misrepresent those who hold that faith in Christ is required for salvation. It is not faith in Christ that justifies, regenerates, or saves anyon, it is God-the object of our faith who justifies, regenerates, and saves all those who beleive. Piper, noted Calvinist writer, states, "...that you believe the cross was intended to give all men the opportunity to save themselves." Calvinist give only lip service to the truth that salvation is conditioned upon and follows faith. THE ORDER of salvation, however, makes this impossible. That is, Calvinist, like all Evangelicals, believe that justification is necessary to salvation and that faith is necessary to justification. They say, however, that FAITH is dependent uon regeneration, which is unconditional and always and immediately resultes in or produces justification and salvation. In reality, the Calvinist is a denial of faith alone in Christ alone for salvation. Calvinsts have traded 'sola fide' for 'nola fide'. The reason they must believe this is because regeneration is before faith and faith is before justificaiton, they can logically say that faith is a consequence of regeneration but a condition of salvation. So, in summary,

If regeneration is requisite to faith and always results in faith,

AND

If faith is requisite to justification and always, inevitably, and imediatley results in justification,

AND

If justification is requisite to and always, inevitably, and imediately results in salvation,

THEN

It must follow that salvation is not conditional upon faith and is an unconditional consequence of regeneration and/or that which leads to regeneration. If salvation comes before faith in Christ and if faith is required for and is prior to justificaiton, then a person is SAVED even before he is justified.

Now, you ask, "Who is responsible for the Indians in the rain forest?" God, who is JUST, MERCIFUL, RIGHTOUS, will be such with these people, just as he is with children. Your reference to the brothers of Joseph seems to point to the obvious, that God can turn evil intention to His own purpose. You and I have no problems or disagreement here.

My references to those scriptures were simply to reveal, from the scriptures, that man has free will and the Bible demonstrates it time after time after time.

Referencing your conclusion that I know nothing of Calvinism, I will simply say, I know a little of Calvinism.

>>But the scripture says otherwise: Job 34:1 Then Job answered the LORD and said, 2”I know that You can do all things, And that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted.
>Job 34:1 - Furthermore, Elihu answered and said, (2)Hear my worlds, O ye wise men; and give ear unto me, ye that have knowledge.

Mea culpa! I mistyped this one... try THIS chapter. It might look something more like this...

In Job 42: 1Then Job answered the LORD and said,
2”I know that You can do all things,
And that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted.

A bit earlier, this one with Elihu speaking...

Job 33: 13”Why do you complain against Him
That He does not give an account of all His doings?
14”Indeed God speaks once,
Or twice, yet no one notices it.
15”In a dream, a vision of the night,
When sound sleep falls on men,
While they slumber in their beds,
16Then He opens the ears of men,
And seals their instruction,
17That He may turn man aside from his conduct,
And keep man from pride;
18He keeps back his soul from the pit,
And his life from passing over into Sheol.

Is is man who is turning away from the pit or man who is opening his own ears?

>The notion you offer is the Calvinist distinctive of total depravity.

Agreed, it addresses an aspect of total depravity. Paul writes of mans inability and even refusal to naturally seek God or do even anything good in God’s eye. (Romans 3: 10-12)

This is shown again in scripture that the natural man does not seek the spiritual things, ( From now on, I will merely direct you to the verses, lest this post become unreadably long... here look to 2 Cor, mostly in the end, but I would read the whole chapter when discussing any verse to get context). God reveals spiritual things through the Spirit, lest we remain those who see spiritual things as foolishness.

>The notions that faith is a gift and regeneration is abefore faith and produces faith are logically necessitated by the Calvinist doctrine and distinctive of total depravity, as Calvinism defines the fallen nature of man.

Faith is a gift, as seen by scripture, as seen in your response (Ephesians 2:7-9.) How do you see that verse?

>If regeneration is requisite to faith and always results in faith,

>AND

>If faith is requisite to justification and always, inevitably, and imediatley results in justification,

>AND

>If justification is requisite to and always, inevitably, and imediately results in salvation,

>THEN

>It must follow that salvation is not conditional upon faith and is an unconditional consequence of regeneration and/or that which leads to regeneration. If salvation comes before faith in Christ and if faith is required for and is prior to justificaiton, then a person is SAVED even before he is justified.

I think this is a fallacy, and though I am not trained nor have I barely brushed against the study of logic, I will try and make this case...

God has His hand on the key of the lawnmower. We do not see the key turn, but the key is the thing that causes the battery to energize the starter, which in turn starts the motor. We are made to mow grass (do Gods work), thus we are saved by our works, for God would not have started us if we were chainsaws (the unregenerate), for His plan is for us to mow. Are we saved by the key? The battery? The electricity? The starter? The engine? The mowing? No, we are saved by God choosing to use us. All the other things are steps that are in the chain that are necessary for salvation, but are not the cause of it. And all are necessary steps, for example without faith, the works will simply not happen. We can sit here and THINK we are doing good works, but without the faith, the motor is not moving.

Thus your chain of events have little bearing, as we are granted each of the steps by God, for His purposes. God does use chainsaws, to stretch the analogy beyond breaking, for His purposes also (See the Assyrians and Babylonians), but they are used, they do their thing (sin) and are thrown away (damned) for doing what they do.

We cannot have faith and not be regenerated, nor justified, nor saved, for they are all one and the same thing: election. Thus to have faith is to be regenerated, to be justified, to be in the state of being sanctified and will be in the state of glorification. It is God’s choosing us out of the mass of the damned that any of this is happening, and it is all part of Gods plan and set forth from before the foundations of the Earth. Thus those that will be saved will have at some part of their lives be moved to fear God and repent, and the chain of events will commence, and will result in glorification. Those coming from traditions where you can lose your salvation reject this, for if I chose God, I can unchose Him.

John 6:37; John 6:44; John 6:59-71; John 10:28-29; Matthew 13:11; Matthew 19:11; Matthew 20:23; Matthew 25:34; 1 Corinthians 2:10; Colossians 1:27; Luke 10:22 (copy and drop into Biblegateway.com for convenience...)

The scripture is rife with support that God chooses and reveals and plans that those He will save are chosen, are granted faith, repentance and will be saved, and that no one, which would include those that are chosen themselves, can snatch them out of His hand.

I am still awaiting good scriptural evidence for your argument. You DO hold to the infallible scripture, do you not? If so, please show me the mistakes in my reading of the preceding verses, so that I might be corrected?

Perhaps also, after showing me your scriptural evidence, you could tell of your traditions, so that we both know where you are coming from and I can see and understand your misgivings of the Reformed traditions?

I also wish to make the disclaimer that Reformed traditions do not save, but only the Gospel does. Of course God is the one that caused me to be able to crave the Gospel... :o) When discussing these matters we must be careful to see that words do not truly encompass the entirety of the matter, and that true understanding is awaiting us on the other side of Glory.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.