Now he has asked me to discuss some of the other Calvanistic points. I'm not really sure if I am up to this task, since I have never debated or done anything like this before. But I know what I believe, and will attempt to defend WHY.
Their five basic teachings are these:
Total depravity
Unconditional election
Limited atonement
Irresistible grace
Perseverance of the saints.
Now I have to admit that I am not completely aware of what all these things mean or include. So, Adam, you're going to have to tell me what you believe, and I will answer. I wish to first discuss the I. Irresistible grace. I believe this is the point where some Calvanists would include the teaching that faith is a gift from God, rather than a response of man. Is this correct?
And others, as always, feel free to add your thoughts and questions into this discussion. Please!
Also, keep in mind "Kc's rules of Debate" so we conduct this in a Christ-like manner.
There is also a very interesting discussion going on over at Ron's place about whether the Bible was written for believers or unbelievers. Feel free to join in there as well.
************************************
Totally off the subject--Isn't this interesting?
| Your Blog Should Be Green |
 |
76 comments:
It seems the King has left the building. ;-)
It does seem that way...
I find it curious that you would start with the 'I'. I prefer the 'P' myself, but 'I' is good as well.
Let me first state what Irresistable Grace DOES NOT teach. Therefore reliving any fallacious arguments that may appear based upon faulty understanding.
IR does not teach that the call of the Spirit is not rejected ever. Everyone recognizes that while men may hear the call to repent and believe, the gospel, not all men respond. While they may be called by the Spirit and the Word to believe on Christ, most resist and reject.
Therefore pointing to the mass of pagans that have resisted the call of the Spirit does not in any way discredit the Reformed teaching.
So we see that the gospel call is extended to all, but all do not receive. Why then do some receive and some do not?
If we were left alone none would receive as none are able. We are born dead, we are unable to please God. Paul says that the mind-set of the flesh is hostile to God because it does not submit to God's law, for it is unable to do so (Rom. 8:7). (This is the Scriptural idea of Total Depravity - man is unable to come to Christ).
Why then do we have some responding and some not? If all men are unable to respond to God, why would some somehow be able to?
Enter the blessed Spirit. He quickens the person. They were previously dead and unable to respond to the call, but He has made them alive and fully capable. He has given them the ability to come to faith. He has regenerated them.
Now, while most cannot come to Christ because they are dead, the regenerate can because they have been made alive. Hence the answer to the question as to why some can and some cannot.
But you will ask if all have been regenerated, of which you must respond no, if you were to be Scriptural; no where will you find the regeneration of the masses, only of the elect. But there is another option available.
Some non-Calvinist have conceived of a 'prevenient grace' doctrine. While all men are dead and unable to respond to God (this you cannot deny, it is Scriptural). The non-Calvinist is unwilling to say that God has restrictively given the ability to only a select few, only an elect.
Therefore, the non-Calvinist says that God has extended a grace to all mankind. It is not the grace by which the man becomes regenerate, but it is the grace by which man is able to respond to Christ. While all men were unable, God's prevenient grace applied to all making all men able to respond to Christ and therefore responsible to do so.
Let us not argue for prevenient grace of not right now. Let us simply follow a line of thought.
Let us assume for a minute that all men are capable of responding to Christ (God has bestowed a prevenient grace upon all).
We then still have a question. If all men can come to Christ, and yet most do not, what hinders them? We cannot any longer say that it is their depravity, their inability, as we have established (by prevenient grace, that all men have been given this ability).
Of course both the Calvinist and the non-Calvinist will say that it is the stubborn will of the foolish pagan that keeps him from accepting.
But we must consider something else. According to Peter God wants all men to come to Him. God desires that all men repent and be saved.
Therefore we have God desiring to save all men, and yet all men stubbornly refusing the offer.
We either have two options. Either the will of the man is stronger than the desire of God, or the desire of God is not as inclusive as we had first assumed.
The first option of course strikes horror into the heart of any Scripturally read person. God is impotent against something? There is something stronger than God? God wants something but some powerful force exerts itself against the desires of God? Clearly antithetical to the omnipotent God.
Therefore, we will not allow ourselves to say that God cannot overcome the will of these men. We cannot say that the will of these men is so strong that God cannot have His desire. We should never say that God stands by wanting the salvation of all men, but He is forced (by the stubborn will of man), to settle for only those that would come to Him.
What then of the second option? What if we were to say, as the Calvinist does, that God does not want 'all men' to come to Him (as in all mankind), His desire for 'all-men' to come to repentance is a desire for all His children to come to repentance, all His elect ('all men' qualified).
The non-Calvinist will find this appalling. God, in their opinion, does want all men to come to Christ, desiring that every single human being would come to repentance. This they cannot deny.
But what then are we left with? The fact that God extends His gospel message, all men CAN respond, all men do not respond because of their stubborn wills, and yet God COULD overcome their stubborn wills and tear down every obstacle that would hinder them from responding. He could knock everyone off of their horse or blind their eyes and compel them so mightily to come to His love.
So, if we are not to take the Calvinist interpretation of 'all-men' we are left with a God that desires for all men to be saved, and has within His power the ability to do so, and yet for some strange reason He does not.
God wants something to be done, He can do it, and yet He does not. The non-Calvinist is left with a giant mystery as to why God does not accomplish this blessedness of having salvation upon all. He is left with an idea that questions the love of God.
However, the Calvinist hasn't a problem. God can accomplish salvation for people, nothing stands in His way, He desires that the people be saved, and therefore He gets exactly what He wants - salvation for His people.
Let us attempt to make this less abstract and more personal.
We know that both Peter and Judas denied the LORD. We know as well that the LORD predicted both of their denials. Therefore we have Christ having knowledge that both would deny Him and that both would fall.
But we have a strange thing happening. In Luke 22:31 we have Jesus telling Peter that Satan has requested his (Peter's) soul. 'Simon, Simon, look out! Satan has asked to sift you like wheat. But I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail.'
Now that is wonderful. Peter was going to fall, Satan wanted Peter's soul, but Christ intervened and stopped Satan. Christ prayed that Peter's faith not fail, and it did not.
What about Judas?
If Christ could have prayed and saved one of His disciples from the snares of the evil one, why did He not likewise do the same for Judas? Why did He not intervene for Judas and protect his 'faith from failing'?
If we deny Irresistable Grace we are left with God wanting something, being able to get that something, and yet not doing that something. God wanting to bring salvation to all mankind, God having the ability to accomplish salvation for all mankind, and yet God not accomplishing salvation for all mankind.
If however, we acknowledge Irresistable Grace, we have God wanting salvation for His elect, God having the ability to accomplish salvation for His elect, and God bringing salvation to His elect.
- It is not an option to say that God cannot overcome the wills of man (given God's omnipotence). To do so would fall into the camp of the Open Theist or Progressive Theists. You cannot say that He cannot overcome them, you perhaps could say that He chooses not to. Of which you are left with a bigger problem. If He can overcome their wills, and therefore guarantee salvation to all, why does He not?
- It is not an option either to say that God wants salvation for all mankind. To do so would to mean that God has the ability to accomplish His desire, and yet He does not. It denies the obviously blatant Scriptural testimony of Job when he says that 'I know that You can do anything and no plan of Yours can be thwarted.' (Job 42:2).
- It is likewise disturbing to think that God wanted to have all men come to repentance, and therefore wanted Judas to repent, and had the ability to save Judas (as He did Peter), but He chose not to. We are either left with God being unable (of which we dismissed earlier), or God not wanting to of which conflicts with Him wanting to.
I am so sorry for the length, I kind of love the topic of my LORD.
HOLY CRAP! That is very long...really sorry I am. HAHA
wow i cant belive i just read that whole comment. i have a question and i really dont have the answers to all of them so please inform me.
where does peter say "God wants all men to come to Him. God desires that all men repent and be saved?"
actually thats my only question though i will comment. i am under the impression that god has chosen some of us and not all of us, and he does not change our will but draws us close to him. to change our will would be to control us like machines, though ive always been under the impression we had free will (hence eve and the tree).
i have more but thats not really why im here. i mainly just wanna thank you kristi for your always encouraging and enjoyable comments. i had an awesome bible study today on the beatitudes, and being humble. it sorta made me look at what happened last week and realize it happened because i thought i could handle things. a good lesson in giving things to the lord. i dont feel great but i do feel better and your comments always help:). thanks again!
btw i wanna know what color my blog should be....so send me the right link:P
Yes, I had attempted to see what color my blog would be as well...the links was poo.
JBB, as for the verse in Peter,
2Pe 3:9 The Lord does not delay His promise, as some understand delay, but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance.
and as for God changing our wills,
Phi 2:13 For it is God who is working in you, enabling you both to will and to act for His good purpose.
It is not so much that He changes our wills, but He enables us TO WILL ourselves to Him. Without His regeneration/enabling we would not, of our own depravity, will ourselves to Him.
In truth our wills are not free, they are bound by sin. We will that which our sinful natures desires.
Then God comes and liberates us, only then making our wills free to incline ourselves toward Him.
Now you're talking "freed will" and I can get on board with that! I don't think most Calvinist will agree with you, at least that's my experience, but hey, who cares! (grin)
okay. WOW. First of all, I want to say the link for the color of your blog is fixed. sorry about that.
Adam, very, very well-though out, and well-written. (But I didn't expect any less!) Surprisingly, I agree with about 90 percent of what you said.
The part I'm struggling with is that you believe a person is regenerated, or quickened BEFORE they accept Christ. It is my belief that accepting Christ's gift of salvation ("coming to faith")is what regenerates.
So, I must ask you this question, When is a person regenerated? Is it right after they hear the gospel message? Then the Holy Spirit regenerates them, and then they believe? Or is it that they are born regenerate because they are one of the elect? I don't understand this part.
In response to the will of man, you say that because God desires for all men to be saved, that if it were possible for all to be saved, He should overcome man's will so that he would be saved.
I believe that yes, God does desire for all to be saved. And yes, it is possible for all to be saved. But God created man with a choice. God is not going to MAKE anyone go to heaven. He made it possible, and extends to offer to drink of the everlasting water. (Revelation 22:17) It's like a water faucet. God's grace is the pipe that brings the water to us. (The water of course being salvation.) And it is our faith that actually turns the faucet on, so we may partake.
I have more to say about the Judas/Peter thing, but work is screaming at me right now, so I will have to come back to that later. Thanks
KC, you would be suprised at how many calvinist do believe in 'freed will'. No Calvinist that I know of would say that man has 'freewill' in the sense of 'freechoice'...but all would recognize that the will is freed from the bondage of sin by Christ, this is Scriptural.
Kristi,
I cannot tell you a specific time when one is regenerated. I would not claim that the elect are born regenerate. But I would say that regeneration is necessary before one can come to faith. For this we may have to discuss Total Depravity. TD teaches that men CANNOT come to faith because they are depraved, they are unable. Therefore, they need to be regenerated so as to make them ABLE to come to faith.
About the will of man I would say this.
I do not participate in confrontational evangelism. I believe it to be wrong. There is a mind-set that I have that doesn't allow me to participate in it. There are things that I completely disagree with that it promotes.
If I was ever to participate in this method of evangelism, I would first have to be shown that it was effective. I would have to be shown that it was good. I would have to have my thinking changed and my opinion changed concerning it. I would have to be persuaded of its fruitfullness.
The same is true of people that do not accept Christ. Some cannot come to Christ because they have been hurt by a Christian. Some cannot because their reasoning forbids them to. Some cannot because they have never been told the Gospel.
There are certain things within people's life that forbid them from coming to Christ. Certain mindsets that will not allow them to. If they ever were to come to Christ, they would have to be persuaded that it was true and that coming to Christ was the right thing that they needed to do.
Christ knows these obstacles that are within people's lives. He knows what mindsets are fallacious that they hold. He knows which opinions they hold that forbid their coming to Him.
He could, as it is within His power, overcome these obstacles by persuading them effectively. Paul required a blinding light and a force to knock him down. It is told of Muslims who come to the Christian faith because they see visions of Jesus, or have dreams of God. Gideon required signs of God (the story of the fleece) for him to believe the LORD's word.
My point is that God knows exactly what it will take within everyone's life for them to finally believe. He knows exactly what sign is required. Some people do not need to have a blinding light or a talking donkey for them to believe, they could just have a child singing a song or a mother's consistent prayer and they would come to faith (Augustine). They could have the words of a pagan professor who has absolutely nothing to do with Christ (Dr. Streett) that would persuade them of the truth of the gospel. Everyone has one thing that would assure them, or persuade them beyond doubt to have faith in Christ.
And God knows this one thing. He knows what He must do to persuade completely those that are without Him.
And yet He does not do that. If God knew that John Doe would believe if He only saw a sign or a miracle, why would God not do that sign or miracle so as to have John Doe believe?
Understand my point? If God truly wants everyone to be saved, why does He not do everything within His power, short of making them robots, to have them come to saving faith?
It is possible for even us to persuade someone completely of something. I can, even here, attempt to show you with Scripture why Calvinism is true. I can overcome every obstacle that stands in your way by showing you that those obstacles, those objections, are unfounded. I can take all your verses and explain why they do not teach that Calvinism is false. I can persuade you with Scripture that Calvinism is true.
If I were to do so, you would have come to belief in Calvinism. I would have persuaded you by taking away the obstacles.
Multiply that by a billion. God knows all the objections that one has to coming to faith in Him. He can, just like I can, persuade effectively the truth of the gospel...and yet He does not.
You must then answer why.
Adam how do you define will and does choice relate to will? I’ve got a suspicion this may be another problem in terminology. What does persuade mean?
Sofyst,
Very well written. (I hope that you plan to go to Seminary. It seems you have a gift. Keep studying and practicing.) You mentioned Judas and Peter, and I was also thinking of Jacob and Esau. He loved Jacob and not Esau.
I would think that a lot of Calvinist would agree with "freed will." That seems to fall in line with Scripture. As for free will, my husband/pastor Sunday(doing a series on Genesis)said that before the fall, Adam had free will, but after the fall no one does until regeneration by the Holy Spirit. That was interesting. I realize that even the greatest theologians cannot figure out the mystery of free will. That if God is omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, how can there be free will? As the Westminster Confession of Faith Shorter Catechism, question #7 states: "What are the decrees of God? The decrees of God are his eternal purpose, according to the counsel of his will, whereby, for his own glory, he hath foreordained whatsoever comes to pass." Then in a conversation with another pastor, Grover Gunn,he stated that after conversion think of will as "free agency." God knows what you're going to choose because he's sovereign. But because we believe and are freed from the bondage of sin, we can choose to sin or not to sin. We are still at war with our flesh, although saved from damnation. We still choose...but God knows what we'll do. Freed will. I like that.
Adam,
First, about Peter and Judas, you said
"Christ prayed that Peter's faith not fail, and it did not... Why did He not intervene for Judas and protect his 'faith from failing'?"
I believe the answer here is because Peter had faith and Judas did not. There was no faith to protect in Judas' case. Peter had already professed his faith in the Son of God in Matthew 16:16 "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God." So, Christ was praying that Peter would not lose his faith when he failed His LORD by denying Him.
Luke 22:3 mentions that Satan entered into Judas, and I believe there is a verse somewhere (I cannot find it) that refers to Judas as a "son of perdition." So we know he did not have faith in Christ.
But that brings us to your final question of if God wants all men to be saved, that would include Judas, why didn't He do something to cause Judas to believe, since He already knows what it would take?
Well, there are some people, that no matter what God did, short of overpowering their will, would simply not respond in faith. Remember the story of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16? The rich man in the torments of hades cried out to Father Abraham, asking if Lazarus could just go back to his families' house--that's all it would take for them to believe. (That is one of the most convincing things I could think of--a person come back from the dead with the truth of the torments of hades?)
But what did Abraham reply? "They have Moses and the prophets, let them hear them." (vs. 29) The rich man replied, "Not so, Father Abraham, but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent." And Abraham's response, "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." (vs. 30-31)
I believe the teaching here is that if a person does not respond in faith to what he does have, God will not keep trying to convince him. Either you respond in faith to God, or you reject Him.
Judas walked and talked with the Son of God for three years. If that wasn't enough to cause him to have faith in the LORD, then why would God try further? Judas obviously would not respond in faith, and God is under no obligation to try to make him.
God has given all of mankind and inborn knowledge of His existence (John 1:9), creation (Romans 1:20), His Son (John 3:16), and His Word (II Tim. 2:16). People of faith will respond to these things, and seek more truth, which God will bring to them. People without faith, will reject them and be condemned by their unbelief. (John 3:18).
You know, I really think we actually believe very close to the same thing. What I would call "not a person of faith" you would call "not one of God's elect."
Polly and Pastor Timothy. Welcome. Thanks for adding your thoughts.
This would be my understanding;
"Effectual calling is the work of god's almighty power and grace, whereby (out of his free and special love to his creation, and from nothing in them moving him thereunto) he doth, in his accepted time, invited and draw them to Jesus Christ, byt His word and Spirit; mercifly enlightening their minds, renewing and powerfully determining, so as they (although in themselves dead in sin) are hereby made able to freely answer his call, and to accept and embrace the grace offered and conveyed therein becoming elect as joint heirs with Christ, whereas they that yet refuse have no other hope.
Kristi,
You said this,
[I believe the teaching here is that if a person does not respond in faith to what he does have, God will not keep trying to convince him. Either you respond in faith to God, or you reject Him.]
This really does not answer the question at hand. Why would God not keep trying to convince them? It would seem to me that if God really wanted them to come to faith so badly, He would do everything to get them there. Are you then telling me that God stops? Or worse, gives up?
You said further here,
[Judas walked and talked with the Son of God for three years. If that wasn't enough to cause him to have faith in the LORD, then why would God try further? Judas obviously would not respond in faith, and God is under no obligation to try to make him.]
The reason God would try further, and the reason that God IS under obligation, is the desire of God. If God truly wanted to save Judas, why would He stop trying, and what makes you think His own desire is not an obligation?
Think of the parallel. Your child is drowning. You have reached forth your hand to attempt to save them, they knock it back. You throw them a life preserver, they push it away. Are you then going to tell me that you, wanting to save their life, are going to scream to them 'Very well, have it your way, DROWN!' Or would you, recognizing that they are not in sound mind or are just plain mad, going to stop at nothing to save them?
Likewise, God knows the torment of Hell (He created it). He likewise knows that His creature Judas is drowning and going there. He tries to save Judas, Judas rejects the offer. He wants Judas to be saved, Judas does not want to be saved.
Are you then positing that God is going to just stand back and say 'Very well then, have it your way die for an eternity'?
I do believe that it would behoove God to do whatever, even if it means denying Judas choice in the matter, and saving him despite himself.
Or would we have God recognizing Judas' choice and decision above it all. God sees that His only options are to either save Judas, without Judas' consent, or let Judas burn for an eternity.
Are you then telling me that God sees Judas' choice (which is obviously the wrong one) as more important, more valuable, than Judas' life?
I do believe this is a necessary repurcussion of this idea that you are positing.
KC, I define will as that by which the mind chooses. It is the mechanism, if you will, that does follows through with the choice. It is the car that is going down the different paths. There are two paths (two choices) and the machine (will) that goes does either. I think that this definition will run into difficulty later, but I think it to be sufficient for now.
And when I say persuade, I mean the very thing as I am attempting to do here. I am attempting to persuad y'all of the truth of IG.
I am attempting to cast down all arguments you have against it. I am attempting to alieve any inhibitions you have towards it. I am attempting to kill any misnomers you have over it.
I am likewise attempting to make an apology for it. I am laying out the facts and attempting to show you their validity and why this doctrine is truth.
This is what I mean by persuade.
God can, as He does, alieve any inhibitions that we have about coming to Christ, so that we do put our faith in Him. He does show all arguments against His love to be futile, so that we embrace it. He does do away with all misnomers about His name, so that we bow before it.
He likewise shows us the truth of Hisself by laying all the facts (or what is needed at least) before us. He shows Himself through the creation. He shows Himself through His Son.
He persuades us of the truth.
But all are not persuaded (obviously), why then does He stop trying?
The only reason I would stop trying to persuade y'all is because I am inadaquete and unable to know deep down what is really keeping you from this truth. Perhaps you have a loved one who was completely against Calvinism, and thereore you respect their opinion greatly. Perhaps you cannot fathom God this way, and therefore cannot believe it. I cannot know these things, and therefore I am limited on my persuasion.
However, God does know ALL THINGS and therefore knows exactly what stands in the way of men coming to faith. And yet, from a purely objective point of view, God does not seem to act upon this knowledge. He does not seem to tear down these barriers. He leaves them up despite His desire to have them gone (as some would posit).
This I truly cannot understand.
God wants all men to be saved, and yet He does not do everything within His power to save them.
Polly, thank you for your compliments.
I am probably not going to seminary (may though). I am currently at a Bible College (the Criswell College) and will finish here with my BA in Biblical Studies and my MA in Philosophical Theology. I will then most likely go to a secular university and get my PhD in Philosophy. I will, if God allows, get a second Doctorate, but am not sure where or in what. It may be at a seminary, who knows.
I do not know why this did not come to me sooner? I mean, I knew what bookmarks were, and I somewhat assumed what their purpose was, but it finally hit me like a Patmos-esque revelation. They are so I do not have to go searching through my comments upon my site just to get back to this site where I can follow the discussion!!!
Seriously, I have been way too blonde. I would always search and search for when you would make comments on my site just so that I could follow the links back here and follow the conversations.
Then it dawned on me that I should just bookmark it and save myself a little trouble.
Hopefully though either Serminary or University will help me with my problem of lacking all manner of common sense.
Hopefully.
I will not try to persuade you. I will only give you what I have, accept what you offer and trust God to give us understanding.
Reason is that by which the mind chooses. What the mind finds reasonable is accepted in the heart. Will is then the determination to accomplish the intent of the heart.
I had never heard of Calvinism before I was converted. I didn’t know it by name for many years after although I had heard of those who understood election as you do. I have no prejudice and I am equally persuaded of the truth. I have offered much scripture concerning the order and meaning of repentance on your site. I hope we will discuss them some day. The scripture is the basis of all my understanding and I will admit it is not full, yet what I accept must satisfy it. You need only give me understanding in the scripture to cast down my arguments. It is all I can offer as well. You already know my limited perception of His perfection in both power and mercy and yes, God is longsuffering, not willing that any should perish. If the scripture is true and He is not willing therefore who is if not man himself by virtue of foolish pride? The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart. This offering is made, not taken.
LOL Adam!! You are so funny. After that last comment, you strike me as one of those guys who are extremely intellectual, book-learned, and philosophically unchallenged, yet lacking any and all form of common sense for practical things!
Anyways, back to the serious stuff. Using your drowning illustration--if the person drowning continues to resist and reject, thrashing about and trying to save himself, he will drown--even if the rescuer jumps in and tries to save him. The one being rescued must give up trying to swim on his own, and allow himself to be rescued. You can't save someone who doesn't put their faith in you to save them.
Yes, God wanted to save Judas, and He would have if Judas had responded in faith. See, just because God DESIRES something, doesn't mean He will make it happen. Consider several examples:
God wanted to destroy the nation of Israel and make a nation out of Moses. But because of Moses' CHOICE to pray to the contrary, God did not do this.
God wanted Lot and his wife to flee Sodam and Gomorrah and never look back. Lot's wife CHOSE to look back, and suffered the consequences.
God wants to give all of His children the desires of their heart, but we must CHOOSE to delight ourselves in Him.
God wants to withhold nothing good from us, but we must CHOOSE to walk uprightly.
God wants us to be vessels unto honor, but we must CHOOSE to depart from iniquity.
God wants all to be saved, but they must CHOOSE to accept His free gift by faith.
See, just because God desires a certain thing doesn't mean that He has to make it happen in order to be God. Man must respond. Man must choose. These are the ideas I am getting at.
Salvation is a free gift, extended to all in the mighty hand of God, made available through the blood of his Son. He has sent the Holy Spirit into the world, to convict men of sin, righteousness, and judgment--always pointing to that free gift, and urging men to accept it. Then, man must make that all-important choice, and reach out and take it in faith.
Kristi,
I thought I had responded earlier, but it did not appear on your blog.
Adam you had a great question: Why then do we have some responding and some not? If all men are unable to respond to God, why would some somehow be able to?
The answer is our free will. We all have the free will to do what we desire. What's more, God will not work above our will. He is gracious enough to allow us to experience the consequences of our decisions. This is one serious subject! Sorry, but I have been out of town. I am leaving again in the morning, but I will try to post something between Wed. and Fri.
[Salvation is a free gift, extended to all in the mighty hand of God, made available through the blood of his Son. He has sent the Holy Spirit into the world, to convict men of sin, righteousness, and judgment--always pointing to that free gift, and urging men to accept it. Then, man must make that all-important choice, and reach out and take it in faith.]
This I would have no problem saying. Salvation is offered to all, that is, in my opinion, why the reprobate are further damned after having rejected it.
[God wanted to destroy the nation of Israel and make a nation out of Moses. But because of Moses' CHOICE to pray to the contrary, God did not do this.]
So the maddam has open theistic inclinations?
Sorry, that was low.
What I mean is that you will have a hard time proving from thsi text (Exo. 32) that God did not get what He wanted.
The text simply has a statement by the LORD. The LORD says to Moses that He is going to destroy the people, Moses responds with humility and repentance for the people, the LORD then 'changed His mind' about the disaster He would bring upon His people.
It would do you well to consider the debate that has recently took place regarding this issue. I do not think it is much of a widely held view, but it was in past years.
The view is called Open Theism, it is the belief that God does not know the future. God is, for all technical purposes, merely a human with supernatural powers. He is within time, He is bound by time, and He suffers the pains of time (suprise, remorse).
They would argue, as you are here, that God repeatedly makes predictions or plans to do things, but has His plans thwarted. They would argue that God changes His mind considerably and repeatedly.
This view has not been held by Historical Christianity, therefore you must question this Kristi. If we must take a paranthetical discussion to combat the influences of Open Theism within your presuppostions then I am quite willing. But I urge you reconsider.
The Scriptures are very clear, our LORD does not change, He does not repent, He does not relent, His mind is sure and not quickly changing, there is turning of shadow with Him.
If we consider again the account given in Exoduz 32 (and therefore all others by example), we have the LORD wanting a response of Moses, and the LORD acting to get that response.
The LORD wanted Moses to be repentive for His people. He wanted Moses to provide Himself as intercessor for the people. The LORD knew that Moses needed to realize this. The LORD knew that Moses would realize this if the LORD were to threaten the people. Therefore, He did threaten the people. He threatened them with death because of their rebellion, and He knew that Moses would respond with repentance. He got His response.
It can be comperable to the LORD's use of miracles or signs. There are many reasons why signs and miracles are done. One reason is to show God's glory (John 9).
So, just as God wanted a response from Moses (repentance); so He wanted a response out of the people witness to the miracles (astonishment, amazement, worship). Just as God acted to bring about that response with Moses (threatening the people); so He acted to bring about the response from the people witness to the miracle (He performed the miracles). Moses does indeed act with the expected response, as do the people witness to the miracles.
If considered in this way we understand that it is not God's plan being thwarted or His desires be crushed. It is rather His overarching plan that includes His threat.
We cannot look at it from a limited viewpoint of how it temporally seems that God did not get His way. With an Almighty Sovereign this is not recommended.
One final point of urging for this though. You speak so much about God wanting to get something and yet not getting it. Does this not strike terror into your heart? I mean, God may want to save you, but what if He doesn't get what He wants? The minute you set yourself up to understand God as a risk-taker or an 'allpowerful' God that hasn't the power to get what He wants, then you take away the assurance that we have, as Christians, in a God who is capable of accomplishing what He wants.
Ron, you must remember that not everyone is convinced of this 'freewill' of which you speak. Not everyone believes it is true. [raises hand] No doubt I do believe in the freedwill of man, but the ability of man to choose with liberty what he will do, I find this unlikely. We can discuss freewill if you want, but I think you need to attempt to answer the question with an answer that is not so debateable.
Adam, you said
The Scriptures are very clear, our LORD does not change, He does not repent, He does not relent, His mind is sure and not quickly changing, there is turning of shadow with Him.
If we consider again the account given in Exodus 32 (and therefore all others by example), we have the LORD wanting a response of Moses, and the LORD acting to get that response.
I completely 100% agree with the statements above. I have never heard of Open Theism before, but from what you say, I would definitely not align myself with that camp, so I must have expressed myself not so accurately.
In all the examples I mentioned (we'll throw the Moses one out, since that wasn't a very good choice) that was exactly my point, that God was looking for a response. My point was not that God doesn't get what He wants, but rather He does what He does sometimes to get a response from us. Would you agree with that?
He didn't automatically remove Lot and his wife--He wanted them to respond. He doesn't make us delight ourselves in Him--He wants us to respond in that way. He doesn't chose some of His children to walk uprightly, and some not to--He wants all of His children to walk uprightly. He shapes us all into usable vessels, but we choose whether we will be unto honor or unto dishonor by our choice to depart from iniquity or participate in it.
I hope you see my point. God acts, we respond. I believe salvation is no different. God acted in sending His Son to die for us. We must respond in faith. Do you agree with this?
My point was not that God doesn't get what He wants, but rather He does what He does sometimes to get a response from us. Would you agree with that?
I would answer most definately that God does do what He does sometimes to get a response from us.
But I would ask you, knowing that your point wasn't necessarily that God doesn't get what He wants, I would ask, does God always get the response He wants?
I hope you see my point. God acts, we respond. I believe salvation is no different. God acted in sending His Son to die for us. We must respond in faith. Do you agree with this?
I woudl agree that we must respond in faith. I would not agree however that God sending His son was all that He did.
For each individual person, God sent His son, and then moved within their lives differently.
I mentioned the muslims who come to faith because they have dreams/visions of Jesus.
I've mentioned repeatedly Paul who came to faith because he was knocked off his horse and blinded.
I could mention myself who came to faith as a little child.
If I was knocked off my horse and blinded as a little child, I would not have come to faith, I would have cried.
If I saw a vision or had a dream, I would not come to faith, I would be weirded out.
Some people require different measures to come to faith. Would you deny this? Or would you say that God acts in the exact same way to bring everyone to Him?
If you would say that God acts in different ways for different people, I would then ask if you think God knows exactly which way He must act to get a specific response?
Did God not know that given who Moses was, his personality required God to threaten the people he loved?
Did God not know that given who I am, my personality, as a child, would have required nothing more than being told quite plainly about Him?
God knows exactly what is required, given the person's personality, for them to come to Christ. Would you deny this?
Adam, "Does God always get the response He wants?" This is a difficult question. Just looking at it on the surface, I would say "no" because sometimes we resist and reject His prodding.
But then since God is omniscient, He knows what response we will give, and has already fit that into His plan. Since His plan is what He wants, then we'd have to say that response was in His plan, and therefore would be what He wanted. hhmmm... not totally sure what I think about that yet.
Some people require different measures to come to faith. Would you deny this? Or would you say that God acts in the exact same way to bring everyone to Him?
No, I would not deny this. God definitely works in different ways according to each individual.
Okay, we have established that
1. God knows what it would take for every person to be saved.
2. God does not do "that thing" (whatever it may be) for everyone.
So, are you saying that God only works in the lives of the elect to bring them to Him?
Is it possible for one of the elect to reject God's working in his life and be lost?
I would suspect that Adam's answers to the statements & questions would be:
(1.)Obviously yes
(2.)Definitely not
(1.)Yes
(2.)No
excuse me for butting in, but take a look back at all the comments. One person uses multiple texts, and those in context (although I might add, not the best for this particular debate), while others are spouting unsubstantiated statements as though they actually mean something. Well done Adam.
Read the Gospel of John several times through with what Adam has presented to you in mind. Keep in mind "How God Converts The Human Soul" as you read about each of the miracles, and the discourses, and the very words & prayers of Jesus. In chapter 10 He will tell you 'who' He would die for. In chapter 6 He will tell you 'who' SHALL come to Him, as well as "how" that will happen. But, they didn't like this teaching then either, and walked with Him no more. They didn't have ears to hear. They were dead!
Look at the blind man in chapter 9. Why was he born blind ? God did it (Does He knit us together in the womb or not?) so that He would be glorified & made known!
In John 3 Jesus tells Nicodemus
(1.)You must be born again. This comes first, and you can't control it. It (the New Birth) is a sovereign unilateral act. See verse 8, and the analogy Jesus makes between the wind (sovereign in physical action) and the Holy Spirit (sovereign in Spiritual action; John 6:63)
THEN.....using the pole/serpent analogy...
(2.) He tells the sinner on whom "the wind has blown" to look upon the Saviour and be saved.
In Ephesians 2, it DOESN'T say when you have believed in Christ, He quickens (makes alive)you, NO, it says "while you were DEAD in transgressions..." is when He 'made you alive'.
Back in John 3, Jesus says that no one can SEE the kingdom unless he is 'born again'. One can not "see" (understand) spiritual things until he is born again (1 Cor. 2:14, and Romans 8:7). That is why Jesus tells Nicodemus that when one is born again, he will then look upon the Saviour on the cross with understanding and be healed (saved)!
Think of this when reading about the 'woman at the well', the lame/Bethesda, and the blind/Siloam, and Lazarus. In the case of the blind man, he had been blind (physically) from birth, just as we are blind/dead (spiritually) from birth. The Saviour (whom scripture says "quickens whom He will") heals him physically, true...but that wasn't the only miracle for that man that day! He was "made alive" as the 'wind blew' upon him. Think about it, this blind man who because of his handicap probably had no significant education, was now being grilled by the 'Pharisee Phd's' and had simple yet incredible wisdom to answer with didn't he. Then when these pharisees were confronted with his answers, they 'cast him out'. This one whom they reviled & rejected, they cast out of the synagogue...into the waiting arms of THE ONE who was reviled & rejected!
THEN....This man on whom 'the wind had blown',and who could NOW see (physically & spiritually)
said, "Where is He Lord, that I might believe on Him?"
Jesus reveals Himself to him, and he believes!!
You will find that these 7 miracles each reveal "How God Converts the Human Soul".
Don't argue with "I feel", or "this means to ME", for quite frankly, what it means TO YOU isn't relevant. What IT MEANS (period) is. Be a workman rightly dividing the Word of Truth, and thus being "fully persuaded in your own mind",....not somebody elses subjective whimsy.
grateful for grace,
The DOGpreacher
BTW...here are 3 passages (although there are a lot more) I can never get any one to actually deal with.
(1.)John 6:37-45
(2.)John 10:26
(3.)Matthew 13:10-17
Graced,
The DOGpreacher
I will respond to DOG preacher's comments later...but for now,
Kristi,
You said,
Okay, we have established that
1. God knows what it would take for every person to be saved.
2. God does not do "that thing" (whatever it may be) for everyone.
So, are you saying that God only works in the lives of the elect to bring them to Him?
Yes, this is exactly what I have been trying to show. God does know exactly what it takes for every person to be saved, and yet God does not do that thing for everyone.
It would seem common sense that if I knew exactly what I must do to achieve a goal that I desired, that I would then do that which was required. If I wanted to gain a car, and the only way for me to do so was to buy it, then I would buy it.
I do not understand any other conclusion that we can arrive at.
Perhaps you can.
I take those two propositions and conclude as you have rightly assumed that I conclude. But, you, how would you conclude?
Given this:
1. God knows what it would take for every person to be saved.
2. God does not do "that thing" (whatever it may be) for everyone.
What would your conclusion be as to why God does not do that thing?
DOGpreacher I will be happy to study all of those passages with you. Would you prefer my blog or yours? ;-)
dogpreacher, I don't know where you came to your conclusions that I am arguing with unsubstantiated statements, and my feelings, because I have been using Scripture just as much as Adam has. But you're entitled to your own opinion and you obviously gave it.
Anyways, Adam,
I understand your conclusion and it is logical.
So, tell me this:
If God only works in the lives of the elect to bring them to Him, why do we see God working in the lives of people who resist and resist, and never come to Him? That's why I asked that second question, "Is it possible for one of the elect to never accept the gift of salvation?"
Also, why would there be so many invitations to "whosoever" if not everyone can accept?
And why would our LORD have commanded us to go to every creature with the gospel? Why not just rely on Him to do the work to bring His elect to Himself?
Please explain these to me, and then I will decide on my conclusion.
Please explain these to me, and then I will decide on my conclusion.
I feel like you're the judge and I'm attempting to make my case.
Perhaps I am like the Scriptural attorney that KC always says I am...
Hopefully, I can show you the truth here. I don't won't to say that I hope to be convincing; as if I am not telling truth, then my convincing is sin. Therefore, I hope that I can now express to you the truth that bids farewell to all objections that your mind may conceive.
If God only works in the lives of the elect to bring them to Him, why do we see God working in the lives of people who resist and resist, and never come to Him? That's why I asked that second question, "Is it possible for one of the elect to never accept the gift of salvation?"
Quick question, how do you know God IS working in their lives?
I mean, I can assume when God is working in a Christian's life, but even then, I truly do not know if it is a struggle between God and the person, or the person and the person.
How do you know?
Also, why would there be so many invitations to "whosoever" if not everyone can accept?
I have a club. Whoever joins my club gets a cookie.
By me making that incredibly simple statement, did I by any means say that ANYONE can join my club? Or did I simply say that whoever does gets something?
When we see in Scripture the statement whosoever believes, this should mean the same thing, it does mean the same thing.
It is not saying anyone can, but it is saying whoever does gets eternal life.
It can be reworded as such.
Those that believe, get eternal life.
All that believe, get eternal life.
Everyone that believes, gets eternal life.
All these things do not speak of who can or cannot believe, they merely state the obvious. Those that do believe, get eternal life.
In other words, whoever does believe, gets eternal life.
Kapiche?
And why would our LORD have commanded us to go to every creature with the gospel? Why not just rely on Him to do the work to bring His elect to Himself?
Why did Moses have to strike the rock when God told Him to? Why did He not sit back and let God make the water come out on His own? I mean, it was all God's doing anyway, God made water come out of the rock. Why then did Moses have to do anything?
Simple answer - because God told Him to.
God made the water come out of the rock, but God did it THROUGH Moses.
God saves the elect, but God does it THROUGH the preaching of the gospel.
We could of course sit back and say that God's elect will be saved no matter what. If they truly are elect, then God will get His children. I mean that is logical.
BUT it is disobedient. God did not say go save the elect, He simply said go preach. It matters not whether God uses our preaching or not to get His elect. We could spend an entire lifetime of preaching the gospel and absolutely no elect come back to God.
But that doesn't matter. All that does matter is that we obeyed our LORD by doing what He said to do - preach the gospel.
I hope that helps.
The court is now in recess why the Honorable Kristi makes her verdict. ;)
Meanwhile, I shall go grab a chai...
“Those that believe, get eternal life.
All that believe, get eternal life.
Everyone that believes, gets eternal life.”
When we see in Scripture the statement whosoever believes, this should mean the same thing, it does mean the same thing.”
Everyone agrees.
The determination of “who wills what” and “who is responsible for what” eventually comes down to the scriptural definition of “believe”.
“All these things do not speak of who can or cannot believe, they merely state the obvious. Those that do believe, get eternal life.”
The Calvinist doctrine of IG and election rest on this same definition.
In order to for IG to be valid the spirit birth must precede repentance. That is why I’ve asked for an examination of those scriptures that pertain to repentance.
KC, I understand what you are saying. However, I think you are somewhat mistaken.
When people read 'whosoever believes...', they interpret this to be speaking of who can or cannot believe. They do not understand it rightly to speaking of not the qulification of belief (or necessity of belief), but rather the outcome of belief.
This was made obvious by Kristi's question regarding it.
However, I do believe that you are correct when you say that it all boils down to the idea of whether regeneration proceeds faith or vice versa.
I do not think it always boils down to such, but I believe that for us, and our conversation, it does.
We can tackle this from the issue of Total Depravity. This specific doctrine teaches that man cannot, in his dead state, have faith.
Would you want to go that route?
Consider a few things first.
If you have time there is a host of articles of which speak of this matter. You may find some greats that you prefer (Spurgeon, Hodge).
http://monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/regeneration.html
But also consider some texts.
One of those listening was a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul's message (Acts 16:14).
"No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him (Mat 11:27).
And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth…(2 Tim 2:24-25)
But we can discuss this topic more fully.
Adam, all of your answers are very good and make sense.
The only part I'm still confused about is what Kc brought up about the spiritual birth (regeneration) occuring before salvation.
If the Holy Spirit regenerates a person so that they will be able to believe, doesn't that negate the individual's choice to reject? The only choice they have now is to believe--which in turn, negates the essence of the word "choice".
Now, back to my conclusion concerning our two established points.
1. God knows what it would take for every person to be saved.
2. God does not do "that thing" (whatever it may be) for everyone.
What would your conclusion be as to why God does not do that thing?
When we delve into the realm of "why does God" it gets very tricky, because we all know that we're attempting to explain an infinite Being with our finite minds. So we have to be careful about making concret statements regarding God's behavior. But at the same time, God does want us to get to know Him, and this is a good exercise in that endeavor.
Anyways God has attributes that limit each other. For example, God desires companionship. That's partly why He created humans. So why don't we all just live with Him in heaven? Well, because He's also holy, which prevents anything sinful from entering His presence. His holiness limits His desire for companionship.
What I'm getting at is that God desires all men to be saved, but He also has higher plans and desires which limit that desire. Now I definitely cannot claim to know what these are, but it could possibly have to do with Him wanting glory.
Maybe He knows that He will get more glory in the end when all those souls who rejected Him in this lifetime bow the knee to Him confessing that He is LORD.
Maybe he gets more glory in this lifetime when we Christians are salt and light to the lost, than He would if everyone were saved.
I know this is kinda far out, but it's possible, right? =)
Adam that approach will be fine but I don’t think we’ll find much difference there if any. I’m still more than willing to go down that path and many others with you. ;-)
"If the Holy Spirit regenerates a person so that they will be able to believe, doesn't that negate the individual's choice to reject? The only choice they have now is to believe--which in turn, negates the essence of the word "choice"."
If I am right, this is Irresistible Grace. (Adam?)
I don't believe, until the action of the Holy Spirit, that we do have a choice to believe or not to believe. We are dead in our trespasses and sins. (Eph. 2:1) We won’t, can’t and don’t choose Christ. Common grace (God’s restraining Hand) keeps us as unbelievers from living out all the sins we are capable of. Special grace (effectual calling (saving grace) goes out only to believers...those He predestined from the foundations of the world. (Rom. 8:28-30, Eph. 1:4-6 and Eph. 1:11-12) The Holy Spirit acts in the hearts of all He calls. When He calls those He foreknew, it is not possible for them to reject Him. To the future believer/elect, that grace is irresistible, not because of themselves, but because of the Holy Spirit. You could say based on Eph 1:4-14 that He calls us for His own pleasure, for His own glory. He didn’t have to call any of us out of our filthy sin and damnation, but He did so because it pleased Him.
Why then are we to preach the gospel to the world?
Because we don’t know who the elect will be. And He told us to. The preached Word is the means that the Holy Spirit uses to call believers to Himself. It is also used to edify, instruct, rebuke and correct the saints, calling them to repentance when they sin. Forget “relevant messages.” If the sermon does not have the gospel of Jesus Christ, it is not at all relevant. Pastors are not called to preach “relevant messages,” but COMMANDED to preach the Word of God. (This is a hot point with me. I get emotional…Well, Ok…irate when preachers do not preach the Word. It’s just what Paul warned Timothy of. Ooooh, I just want to take 2 Timothy 4:1-5 run to the pulpit and smack it in their face. Don’t give me “The A, B, C’s of what Jesus means to me.” But, I have to remember Whose and who I am, though sometimes I REALLY like what John Calvin did in such cases. Others with more authority and wisdom…and self-control… than I must do that rebuking.)
My husband says that we should lock all new Calvinists in a closet for 5 years until they mellow out a little.
I hope that doesn’t mean blogging too. I have two more years to go!J
On a side note:
Kristi,
I always had a problem with free will, too. I just couldn’t find it anywhere, but told we had free will.
Where does Scripture say that man has free will? It doesn’t. What I find instead is just the opposite. That rocked my world. It was humbling to realize just how awful I was, just how holy and perfect Christ is, and how much I didn’t deserve His sacrifice for me. And then after all that, I couldn’t have chosen Him I was that sinful and corrupt and dead. He chose me instead. Me. Didn’t He know what all I did? Yes, and He did it because it was His choice and pleasure. I think that Him making the choice and not me, makes my salvation even more miraculous.
Thanks for letting me write.
Blessings.
Ms. Polly what Pastor Timothy said caused me to nearly split my side laughing and I think it could be applied to all believers. ;-)
I seem to see an inference that the Holy Spirit must be in-dwelling in a person before it can reveal to that person their fallen condition. If that were the case then indeed regeneration would be required prior to belief. I see the Spirit working outside the person while they are yet dead in sin to reveal this to them in order their will be freed from the bondage of sin that they might repent.
Polly, thanks so much for sharing that! What you say does make sense, but like Kc said, well....just re-read his last comment, because I completely agree. =)
(And Polly, I totally share your frustration with preachers who do not preach the Word, or the Gospel. I've never thought of smacking them in the face with my Bible, =) but I do get angry.)
KC, what approach then would you advocate? If there are no disagreements concerning the Radical Corruption of Man (to use your flower rather than mine), then how could you say that man can come to faith without a work of the Spirit? Without a renewing of the person? Both your rose and my tulip teach that man is unable, of His own accord, to come to Christ. He is unable to submit to the will of God. He is unable to respond to the calls of God. He is DEAD! He needs to be called out of His tomb, He needs His heart to be given new bloods, etc. He is unable, just as a cadaver (sp?) to respond to anything of the spiritual nature.
If we agree with this, then we of necessity agree that man CANNOT come to faith until he is first regenerated.
Perhaps though our flowers are truly more different than I had assumed. Pity, I wanted you to share in the blessedness of the TULIP...:)
What Polly said was beautiful, I concur greatly.
Kristi,
If the Holy Spirit regenerates a person so that they will be able to believe, doesn't that negate the individual's choice to reject? The only choice they have now is to believe--which in turn, negates the essence of the word "choice".
Uh huh. Yes, it does.
Just as a person hasn't a choice to believe prior to being regenerate. They are unable to sumbit themselves to God's law (Rom. 8:7) and they are dead. Just as Lazarus, because of his death, was unable to come out of the tomb. He needed to be given life before he could do anything.
I recognize completely that this would signify that the unbeliever prior to conversion hasn't a choice in the matter, they are just lost, they can't choose otherwise. And the believer, after regeneration, hasn't a choice in the matter, they must believe. But I fail to see the problem with this...I for some reason, do not exault choice as something that mighty. I do not understand why it is viewed as the sine qua none of the Christian faith.
Now, concerning your denial of God's simplicity. You state repeatedly that not only are there different parts of God, but that these parts are sometimes at odds with each other.
First, let us discuss the parts. I would recognize that this argument may not be that convincing given the Trinity, but nonetheless I find it prety convincing, perhaps you would as well.
If there are parts of God (His love seperated from His justice seperated from His mercy), then this would mean that given God's infinite nature, there would have to be an infinite number of parts. Not only is there God's love, and likewise His justice and mercy, but a whole host of other 'parts' ad infinitum...
Now, concerning this war you create within the nature of God. Do you honestly think that this does justice to the perfection of God? I sometimes am fickle and must laugh at myself. I want to pray, but I likewise want to blog. I want to give money at chapel, but I likewise want to eat out for lunch. Do you think that God goes through this same thing? He sits there, as I, debating between His different desires or wants attempting to see which one is the better?
Let me attempt to explain to you God's 'attributes'. They are not truly different 'attributes' of God, there is but one attribute, that being God. God is God.
We do not understand God's love opposite of His mercy, nor His justice without His wrath. We cannot study His wrath without seeing it in light of His love.
Therefore it is not that God has love and has justice and has mercy and has wrath. But that God has loving just merciful wrath, and wrathful merciful loving justice. Understand?
You must interpret God in light of God. His love is just and it is wrathful.
Granted it may be displayed to different people in different ways. God does come in different ways (burning bush, angel of the LORD, Jesus). But the common characteristic is that of being God.
God may appear to be loving to His children, and this may be the only side they know. They only know of a loving God. But what they do not see is that in order for His love to be portrayed to them, for Him to be a loving God, He must be a wrathful God, of which He is. We may not experience His wrath, because we are not the object of His wrath (Christ stepped in the way). But from the same mouth that the love comes, so comes the wrath. We do not have the force of this wrath, or the sweet perfume of it upon us, because we have Christ 'filtering' it out if you will.
There are not opposites within God, there are not conflicting interest, nor battling attributes.
God is God. Completely unified in who He is.
Polly, perhaps we could discuss freewill.
While I say I disagree with freewill, I nonetheless do believe in freewill. :)
(You'll learn to speak sofyst eventually).
But I would be mui interested in your thoughts on the topic.
sofyst@msn.com
sankyou.
Silly Adam, he is not dead! He is spiritually dead! ;-)
Seriously he has a mind and a will. That will is to serve the flesh. Repentance is the turning of that will from sin and faith is turning to God.
Will you still love me if I only like roses? (hehe)
Adam, you've done an excellent job once again of answering my questions.
I'm going to have to take some time out and really study this idea that we have no choice in salvation. To be quite honest, I don't like the idea at all--maybe because of my own pride, maybe because it goes against what I've been taught my whole life, maybe because it's not completely true. I don't know.
I have no other points or "arguments" I can bring up. You've done a very convincing job. Now I have do decide what to do with the evidence.
Kc, I don't know how you've managed to stay a non-Calvanist with this convincing "attorney" around!!! How do you do it? Is there something I'm missing here? How can I better prove our point of view?
Kristi only my limited knowledge of scripture prevents me. But you must decide for yourself...or perhaps that decision is out of your hands. ;-)
Take all the time you need. We have eternity.
KC,
Seriously he has a mind and a will. That will is to serve the flesh. Repentance is the turning of that will from sin and faith is turning to God.
Answer me this my friend. You say the will is still alive (recognizing the Spirit is dead), and you say that repentance is the turning of that will from sin; so tell me, what makes your will better? Why did your will turn and others have not? What makes you so different? so special?
Kristi only my limited knowledge of scripture prevents me. But you must decide for yourself...or perhaps that decision is out of your hands. ;-)
Cute...
The same thing that makes you so special. You believe in Jesus as Christ. ;-)
Okay that was a low blow. I apologize. Seriously.
But to answer your first question, “What makes your will better?” Nothing. As I offered elsewhere even Judas saw he was condemned and repented. Again though the difference is in the spirit birth, which is by grace through faith. The grace to see the condemnation was present, the faith to accept the Savior was not.
Judas did not repent in the sense of repentance necessary for faith, I think you know that given your final statement.
But I still do not understand what you are saying.
You are recognizing that the Spirit is dead. You are likewise saying that the mind and will are alive (or at least functional; I would hope you recognize at least that they are tainted).
So we have all mankind with a dead spirit and a mind and will. We likewise have no difference in any of these people. I would posit that there is a difference (some have been regenerated), but you would say this doesn't come until after faith.
Why then do you, and I, and Kristi accept when others do not?
If it is a matter of the mind accepting these things then we would have to say that we have a better mind. Or at least a more astute mind, as we recognized the truth and therefore repented.
If is is a matter of the will, because as you said repentance is turning of that will toward God, I do not understand what makes my will more inclined to turn toward God whereas others are not.
There must be some difference. We cannot say that two equally alive wills presented with the same information can do different actions. There must be some variable that would make one more inclined and the other less...
Yes, it is called faith. From the time we are born, circumstances and experiences shape our heart and prepare us to either accept God by faith or reject Him.
The (and here’s your favorite word) choice to believe God is the only difference. Throughout the scripture that is the only difference. The entire chapter of Hebrews 11 is devoted to this but I will offer these NASB verses that clearly illustrate my point;
24By faith Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter,
25choosing rather to endure ill-treatment with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin,
26 considering the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt; for he was looking to the reward.
The grace that brings repentance is universal;
11For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Titus 2:11 (KJV)
But not all men belive.
Those who do are not condemned, those that don’t are condemned already. The sequence is repent and be converted. I offered that evidence on your site.
Kristi, faith is the result or the means that the will takes. Repentance and faith are almost synonymous. While we can think of them seperately (just as we can think of Jesus as seperate from the Spirit), in reality they cannot be seperated. One cannot have faith (turning to God) without having repentance (turning from sin), and vice versa.
Therefore when I ask the quesion, saying faith does not answer it.
I asked what is different in KC's will than in the lost persons. KC's will is moved to have repentance. The unbeliever's is not. What then makes KC's will more inclined.
KC, choice, in this instance, would be synonymous with or with repentance.
If repentance is the turning of the will towards God. Then we can likewise say that this act of repentance (turning to God) is a choice on the part of the one repenting.
You chose (in your opinion) to repent. You turned your will to God.
But this still does not answer my question. What makes you different so that you would choose? What makes you more inclined?
If we say that you chose, we must say that there is something different in you or else we say that your choice is capricious.
If we have two people, both of the same spiritual status, both of the same mental capacity, both of the same will, and one chooses Christ and one does not, then we have to either say that something changed within the one prior to their choice, or we must say that the choice was simply capricious. It is as random as the coin landing on heads one time and tails the next.
The grace that brings repentance is universal;
11For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Titus 2:11 (KJV)
But not all men belive.
Those who do are not condemned, those that don’t are condemned already. The sequence is repent and be converted. I offered that evidence on your site.
The grace that brings salvation to all men has appeared.
We must consider this in context. Who is the 'all people'. Paul goes on to say, 'instructing US', 'while WE wait', and even more telling,
'He gave Himself for US to redeem US from all lawlessness and to cleanse for Himself a SPECIAL PEOPLE, eager to do good works.'
Who is the 'all people', I would say Paul defines it quite clearly, it is the 'us and we'.
But that is a debate for another time.
Adam you already know this but I am compelled to tell you again before these witnesses. I understand your position and have great respect for it and especially for you. I pray God will bless us to share many more studies and that is honestly how I feel about debating with you. It is always much more a study than a debate and you can’t know how much I appreciate that.
You know we sofysts equivocate often. When I say debate I mean argue and study and discuss and commune. They are all synonymous with me. I learn best when I am debating/arguing/studying/discussing/communing with another. I have enough discussion with myself (I always win).
So I think the feelings are mutual.
Kristi,
please forgive me if it seemed as though I was attacking you earlier. This was not my attention at all. In fact, I was not trying to single out any one. You were one of the few commentators (at that time) who DID use scripture,...but one of the things I said was, "scripture...and THAT in CONTEXT".
PRESUPPOSITIONS
We all have them. That's not bad, in and of itself. What is harmful to us is when we will not hold our presuppositions UP & OUT at arms length, and let the Light of God's Word decide whether they stand or fall. If a true searching study of God's Word validates our presupposition-GREAT! If it (serious study) does not validate our presupposition-GREAT!
Either way...God through His Word affirms your understanding, OR gives understanding to you in the area you are studying!
Adam, you are an inspiration to an 'old' preacher like myself. Continue to 'rightly divide'.
Polly, wonderful commentary. It is obvious that the understanding of the precious doctrines of grace have "burst" upon your soul.
Seriously, Kristi, if I had only one piece of advice to give on this subject that I feel would be of the greatest help, it is this...
Purchase the commentary on the Gospel of John (by A.W. Pink). I believe with this book and your Bible, the Gospel of John will come alive like never before. It did for me, and I had been out of school and preaching for several years.
BTW...in case anybody throws in 2 Peter 3:9 as an arguement against 'election', LOOK in context at WHO the writer is talking to, and all of a sudden, this is one of the strongest texts FOR sovereign election!
ALSO....one shouldn't be STARTING with ANY of the letters of the TULIP acrostic.
ALL of these 'letters' will be easily understood, WHEN the FIRST thing to be studied and understood is God's sovereignty (in all things).
There are incredible video series on this very subject!
"Word Pictures/CrossTV"
370W. Camino Gardens Blvd.
Boca Raton, FL 33432
1 (877) CrossTV
www.CrossTV.com
This is a huge video library on a multiplicity of doctrines, of which there is NOTHING close to on the market today (that I am aware of). The 2 series (within this library) that I am recommending on this topic are:
(1)The Sovereignty Of God.(16 hrs.)
(2)How God Converts The Human Soul
(14 hrs.)
Another GREAT series is:
The Workman Series: "How To Rightly Interpret Scripture"
(32 hrs.)
Grateful for Grace,
The DOGpreacher
P.S. No one has dealt with those 3 passages yet...
Hmm, could it be that the Pastor is suspecting something?
And you can ask us how Kc and I met:-)
God's Grace.
Adam, could it be an individual's personality, his circumstances and experiences up to that time in his life when he hears the Gosple message that have molded his will to accept in faith? And others personality, circumstances and experiences have molded his will, when he hears the message, to reject?
Dogpreacher, I greatly appreciate the clarification and admonition. Yes, I did think you were kind of attacking me earlier, but now I see that was a mistake. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Okay, so Pastor Timothy and Polly, how did you meet?
Kc and Corry, what's your story?
Kristi,
Another book to look at is Chosen by God, written by R.C. Sproul.
How people meet makes for great reading! Goodness what a great time that was. It's fun to remember it all.
It is a long story, but I’d love to tell it if you don’t mind the length.
I am the E-Babe. The good Pastor and I met on the…INTERNET! GASP!!!
We could have met in 1995 at my sister’s wedding, but I wasn’t a believer and he was, and that’s just never a good idea. That whole equally yoked thing. Well, life went on. As it does when one makes a bunch of huge mistakes. (That’s a whole other story.) I came to know the Lord in 2000. In 2002, my sister’s mother in law told Timothy to add me to his email list, because I would like the articles he was writing for a local news paper. I immediately had to check him out, and I found out a lot about him…from my sister, her mother-in-law (Yenta) and I found his church website (which had pictures J ) He wrote for the newspaper as well as pastoring a PCA church in Arkansas.
Well, being the quite verbose, and often opinionated teacher, I wrote back, knowing by this time he was no psycho, a very important point. We were pen pals for the longest time. He was in Arkansas and I was in Texas. There came a point where he wanted to meet me. He had no idea of what I looked like, so Yenta sent a picture of my from my sister’s wedding in 1995. I’ve uh changed since then. But I knew about the picture and sent him another…much better and recent. We met in July 2002 and he decided that since I liked him there was something wrong with me and I “was toast.” (When they are 41 and single there’s usually a reason. J) Until I let it slip to Yenta, by way of my sister, that my father was going to set me up with this doctor he knew. Dad thought Timothy was being wishy-washy. Timothy didn’t like the idea of me going out with the doctor at all. Funny huh? So we decided that we wouldn’t decide anything at all about “us” until say December. Needless to say by October, I was no longer toast.
We were having Monday night date night on the phone, watching football. Ok, he was watching football, I was channel surfing. He had satellite and I didn’t. My TV was 8 seconds faster than his. I knew the fumbles before he did. Mid October, he flew me to Arkansas to meet his congregation. When he picked me up from the Memphis airport, he kept asking me if I knew so-in-so. And I just didn’t, being very newly Reformed. Not wanting him to think I was…stupid, I was determined to start being creative with my answers. We happened to drive past this HUGE Baptist church on our way to NE Arkansas from Memphis. He asked if I knew of Adrian Rodgers. Nothing registered. So I asked… “Is he any kin to Roy?” I know, bad. He laughed. He is still laughing. He still tells that story.
By the end of October, he told me that I could get the dress and start planning the wedding, but he wasn’t going to propose over the phone. I need to point out that at this point, my father DID NOT like Timothy. Timothy asked Dad if he could fly me to Arkansas and he replied that I was 30 years old and I could make up my own mind and that he didn’t like that Timothy was being wishy-washy in his “courtship” of me. So, I went. Dad didn’t come around to liking Timothy UNTIL George. George is a fellow colleague of my father’s whom Dad respects. George and Timothy were in the same Bible study as Yenta back in 95ish, in his seminary days. Dad asked George what he thought of Timothy. And George replied that he couldn’t find a better man for a son-in-law than Timothy.
That’s all it took. Complete turn around. Timothy was going to ask my father for my hand. But Dad took care of that for him. I smarted off one day when they were speaking about red wine on the phone. Dad said, “What do you do with girls like that?” Timothy replied “You marry them off.” Dad responded “Well, in that case you have my permission.” I think I got the dress two weeks later, still not quite engaged. It was more like engaged to be engaged. Timothy came to visit my parents for Thanksgiving. He proposed the day before. It was amazing. He and my parents worked it all out. We went to a restaurant and sat in a section all by ourselves. We didn’t order all at once, which was odd. After each time part of our meal was brought out, the waitress brought out 3 red roses, attached with a love note. When the 3rd set came out, the lady said there were no more roses in the back for me. Then Timothy asked me what was so special about 9 roses. I didn’t know! I though and thought. We hadn’t even known each other 9 months. Then I saw the back of my father’s head. I couldn’t believe it. Why were they there? They were supposed to go to some Mexican Food restaurant. My mother rounded the corner with the last three roses. On that love note was the proposal. Timothy couldn’t get down on one knee because my father was on the other side of him. But, at that point, I was glad he was beside me. After all, NE Arkansas is a long way away. What a way to receive your first dozen roses! We were married in March 2003 and I moved to Arkansas from Texas. The Lord has since given us a beautiful little boy and moved us to even farther away from Texas. But I’m with Timothy and I wouldn’t have it any other way.
These long distant e-mail things do really work, especially when the Lord’s involved.
Adam, could it be an individual's personality, his circumstances and experiences up to that time in his life when he hears the Gosple message that have molded his will to accept in faith? And others personality, circumstances and experiences have molded his will, when he hears the message, to reject?
Oh no doubt, but would you really be willing to say this?
I personally, do not know if I agree with this, but I cannot see how you would agree with this.
I mean if we have person A, who has his personality (of which he cannot really change) and his experiences (of which he really cannot change) mold him into accepting the gospel, then this is great.
The problem comes when we have person B, who has his personality (of which he cannot really change) and his experience (of which he really cannot change) mold him into rejecting the gospel.
Does not person B somewaht have an excuse? You cannot change your experiences, and if he has had experiences that make him where he would reject the gospel, isn't that somewaht unfair?
It is like having a little child who has been attacked by dogs repeatedly (his experience), and therefore afraid of dogs (his personality), punished because he does not want to go up and hug a dog.
Polly, that's a wonderful story. Thanks for sharing!! God always has a pland so much better than what we could ever imagine!!
Adam, I love how you can take what I say and make it sound exceedingly stupid, even to me! =) (I know that's not your intent, but it makes me laugh every time!)
To answer this though, I see what you mean. What I proposed does seem to take the choice out of the question, which I so desparately keep fighting to keep in the scenario. I will have to rethink this.
i hate to go back to the begining of the convo but i had to do some research. after reading the beginging of second peter, and the whole third chaper, and a discussion with my pastor something was made clear to me. go does not want to save every one. the letter its self is to a group of christians and it says in verse 1:1 "...To those who have recieived a faith of the same kind as ours, by th erighteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ." after the discussion and the rereading of the book it seems fairly clear to me that when he says "...but is patient towards you, not wishing for any to parish but for all to come to repentance." he is not talking about every man, but about gods chosen people, thouse who "..have received a faith of the same kind as ours..." all this talk of us our selves rejecting or accepting the gospel seems far away from the truth of us being chosen by god, set apart as aliens on this earth. it doesnt have to do with our personality, circumstances, or anything else. to be honest i dont know where all these ideas came from and im not going to read through 67 post to find out. i would say the truth we our looking for is probably not found in a open debate (as fun as the often are [and that comment is not laced with sarcasm i really love to debate]) but will be found the in word of god.
It's 4AM eastern. I can't sleep. Something to do with how I shouldn't eat some of the things I do. So instead of keeping poor Timothy awake, I decided to write instead of laundry. This topic may have already been discussed, but then again it is 4AM.
I was thinking that this debate revolves around two issues. They keep coming back around, hence the revolving. (At 4AM that's a funny joke.)I may come back and read this later on today and realize that this is utter nonsense. Please realize that too. =)
One is: Who causes man's repentence man or God?
How can man repent when he can't see his sin because of his sin?
How can man repent on his own without the action of the Holy Spirit regenerating his heart?
What comes first belief or repentence?
Does repentence cause belief?
Man cannot redeem himself, it took Chirst to come along and rescue us. We were so bad, we didn't even know we were in need of rescue. We as unbelievers didn't think there was anything wrong with us. Why would we even think about needing Christ? We have ourselves. It takes the Holy Spirit moving in our hearts for us to realize that we're sinners in need of repentence or we're going to fry. The Holy Spirit quickens our hearts, to make them alive. Because of this action of the Holy Spirit, we believe and we want to repent.
If you don't believe, how are you going to know you're a sinner in need of repentence?
Two:
I've been thinking about choice and free will. Drum roll please. We're not going to be able to understand how it works in our life. The answer to it is faith. Some how God will work it out. It's like the Trinity...that three in one thing. How does that work? No one knows, we just have to have faith it does becuase the Bible says it does. Faith. How did God just speak the world into creation? I don't know. The Bible says He did, so He did. 6 days. Ok, I can deal with that: He is God. If He can make man from dirt, and the world from not even nothing, He can make the world in 6 days. It wouldn't be a problem. Faith. He says it and I believe it. The thing is, borrowing from Steven Curtis Chapman, God is God and I am not. I may not understand everything, and that is really Ok. Not a real post-modern thought in the information age. We're not going to know everything. God does. It's the same with free will, freed will, choice, etc. It is a part of God's character that we may not be able to understand, but have to take in faith.
My Wonderful 4 AM Analogy:
Irresitable Grace: What makes it irresistible?
Hot Dogs. (4AM remember.)
You are starving to death. You've been in class all day and realized how hungry you are. You go to the cafeteria and the only choice they have is hot dogs. You're not going to not eat, you're starving. Starving is not even an option. You will eat. So, what do you choose: the hot dogs. Nothing else seems better food in this world than the hot dogs. Dripping with chili, mustard, cheese. The best food in the world. Your stomach growls, and you take the hot dogs.
With Irresistible Grace, you're not going to want to make another choice. His Grace is the only choice you see; the only choice you want to see. He knew you were going to be His. You choose His grace because He chose you to choose His grace when He gave it.
Hot dogs or um...hot dogs? I'll take the hot dogs. For a believer there's only one choice. The Holy Spirit has moved, you've repented, you're going to choose to believe. That's the options: belief. Would the Holy Spirit move in someone's heart to make them believe and them not believe? Is man's will greater than God's? The grace we receive is irresistible because there's no way we're going to resist it.
How long is this? Eeeps. I seem to be writing a lot here lately. Then it is 4:56 now. And quite obviously, I am not asleep. You guys may be after reading this. (Another funny joke when it's 4 AM...well now 5AM.)
Polly is great. Never have I heard the grace of God compared to hotdogs. I love the analogy though.
Ms. Polly I concur with Adam. I really like your approach to understanding this.
Correct me if I err but it seems we all agree that regeneration begins with the spirit birth. Calvinist accept that the spirit birth is, by necessity prior, to repentance based on, at least in part, the logic that the dead cannot see. We ROSES accept that the spirit birth is by necessity the consequence of a conception, that being done by grace through faith. Roses understand repentance to be a decision made once God has freed their will. Calvinist perceive repentance as the completed act of turning from sin to living by faith. Roses hold that the Spirit of God prepares us to receive Christ by “causing” us to come to repentance. Calvinist hold that repentance is consequential having received Christ. This makes the scriptural meaning and order of repentance and belief paramount to each of our theologies.
I think I can safely say we all agree that the work of the Holy Spirit in the man is the cause. The need is created by sin and our sinful condition is revealed by His Spirit. I think we have problems agreeing on the definition of repentance and regeneration and consequently, who it is that repents. These disagreements are not easily resolved because they too are consequential being biased by the related doctrines of IG and free will.
I will continue the hot dog analogy simply because I find it a “delicious” approach to perceiving freed will. (hehe)
Roses would say God brought you to the point where you could eat or go hungry and that some simply refuse to eat anything that’s not prepared the way they want it and God doesn't force you to eat it. ;-)
DOGpreacher:
"P.S. No one has dealt with those 3 passages yet..."
I promise I will address each one and further that we'll disagree! (grin) I have several threads at the moment that are keeping me busy but I really love to study the scripture and especially with those whose understanding differs from mine. ;-)
BTW Did you get the Email I sent on adding links to your page?
This is where my ponderings have brought me so far:
Do the Calvanists here really believe that God is so cruel and unjust as to send people to burn forever in Hell, when they never even had a choice to believe?
Why would He say in John 3:18, "he who believes not is condemned already becuase he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God" if it is impossible to believe? This greatly conflicts with God's character.
Again, John 3:36, "He that believes not shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him." Some of the saddest words in the Bible--and you are saying that they don't even have the chance or opportunity to see life?
Why would Jesus have warned about hell so much if it is not even avoidable for those who will go there?
its not exactally an answer to your pondering kristi, but is a thought. theres a book by Richard Wurmbrand called Tortured for Christ. i wont fill you in on all the background but i recomend the book. in it he talks about a couple he met, who lived in communist russia and had never been exposed to a biblical teaching, yet they believed in the god who created the thumb. thats how they saw it. the thumb was so useful the only way we could have got it is if some one made it. and they believed in that some one, though they did not have all the details. when exposed to biblical teachings they knew immidiatly that this was what they had already belived with out knowing it. i dont know if that helps but its an intresting thought on people who have never been exposed to biblical teachings.
Do the Calvanists here really believe that God is so cruel and unjust as to send people to burn forever in Hell, when they never even had a choice to believe?
Let us consider the facts my friend.
God creates man and gives him a beautiful garden.
God tells to do whatever he wants except eat of a specific tree.
God tells him if he does eat of this tree, he will die. Pretty simple. If a then b kind of thing. Like if you stab yourself it will hurt, or stare at the sun too long you will go blind. God says if you eat of the tree you will die.
Man eats of the tree.
God says, very well then, you die.
God told the man what would happen. Man knew that if he did a, then b would happen.
BUT YOU say that God should not do what He said He would do. You say that even though God did say that man will die if he eats of the tree, God should really ignore what He said and give man a second chance. You say that God is unfair and cruel if God does not do exactly what He said He would do. You say that even though God said He would do b if a happens, God should change what He said He would do and really do c.
And you think this is right?
The fact is that God is perfectly just in sending ANYONE to hell. God is under no obligation to give anyone a second chance. He is not obliged by any reason or motive to give the way of salvation to ANYONE. Man sinned, God told man that if he sinned he would die, therefore God is perfectly JUST in doing exactly what He said He would do.
Fairness is getting exactly what you deserve. Man deserves hell. God gives man hell. God is perfectly fair in giving man hell.
HOWEVER! God is not only just and fair, but He is merciful as well.
It would have been perfectly just and fair of God to let the entire human race die in their sins because of their sin toward Him. But God decided to allow His mercy to shine through. He decided to be merciful to some, allowing some a way out.
It is not unfair that God sends people to Hell, they deserve it. It is mercy that we are talking about when we say that ANYONE does not get what they deserve.
For you to say that it is unjust and cruel of God to send people to hell is for you to question the entire reading of the Scripture. It is not only we Calvinist that say that man deserves hell, you, as a Bible believer, should say the same. It is not only we Calvinist that say it is not cruel of God to give man Hell, you, as a Bible believer, should say the same thing.
To say that it is unfair or unjust or cruel of God to give man hell is to question the Scripture, not Calvinism.
Why would He say in John 3:18, "he who believes not is condemned already becuase he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God" if it is impossible to believe? This greatly conflicts with God's character.
Perhaps you can help my confusion here. We understand from Scripture that man is condemned because of his sin towards God. That is, if Jesus would have never died, man would have still been condemned because man still sinned against God. In fact this is the very reason why Jesus did die.
Therefore John simply says that those who do not believe, are condemned already. I mean it is a common sense thought. It is like saying that those Americans who do not become French are already American. Or those people who do not cut off their arms, already have their arms.
Those people who do not believe, are already condemned.
John doesn't even say anything about who can or cannot. That fact does not even entire into the conversation. Simply put, everyone is condemned already, in otherwords, everyone who doesn't believe is already condemned.
Again, John 3:36, "He that believes not shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him." Some of the saddest words in the Bible--and you are saying that they don't even have the chance or opportunity to see life?
I am saying that they do not even deserve a chance. They sinned against God. He told them that they would die if they sin. They did it nonetheless. They deserved exactly what they get.
If you tell a child not to do something or else you will spank them, and then they do it. Are you really going to tell me that you are being unfair in doing exactly what you said you would do? Would not the child think of you less, or think of you as dishonest if you say you are going to do one thing and yet you do another?
I am saying that no man deserves a chance or an opportunity to life. If you can find within Scripture ANYWHERE where it says that man DESERVES salvation, I will recant my Calvinism.
Well, Adam, actually there is this verse over in Hezekiah.... j/k =)
But seriously, I agree with you totally. We all deserve Hell. And God is just to send sinners there.
Our only difference of opinion would again be, that you believe He extends His mercy to a select few. I believe He extends His mercy to all, but only few accept it.
Yes, Adam and Eve died spiritually in the garden, and they deserved it because of their sin. But in God's mercy, He gave them a temporary covering, and a promise of a coming Redeemer--which when they believed in faith, they were made alive once again.
I believe this choice to believe is given to all.
Adam, I think we have come to a pretty good understanding of each other's beliefs, with only a few differences, and you have answered most of my questions about Irresistable Grace. Now, if you'd like, we can move on to the P. Either you post something or I will, but I'm sick of scrolling down through 75 comments!!!
One final word. Despite Adam and Eve's sin within the garden, and their completely deserving the punishment of death that they did get, God, in His abundant mercy, covered them.
Let us then thank God for His mercy. Let us NEVER then attempt to bastardize His mercy by telling God where and where He should not be merciful. If He chooses to be merciful to Adam and not to Cain, sobeit. If to Jacob and no Esau, it is His right. We can NEVER tell God when He should or should not be merciful.
Afterall, He is the one who says, 'I will show mercy to whom I show mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.' His mercy is His peroggative.
If you have not learned that through our discussion, if you still think that God HAS to show mercy to anyone, or that anyone DESERVES mercy, then I have failed miserably.
Other than that we're peachy.
Um...I think it would be best if you post something concerning your understanding of Perserverance of the Saints. I like to say preservation of the saints, it is more asthetically pleasing to me. :)
Post your questions, your understanding, your dislikes of this doctrine, and we shall proceed from there...
But you must be commended for having 75 comments upon your site. WOW!
kc....I got the e-mail, and am having problems withit still. I will give you a call. Thanks.
I agree with Polly on her reccomendation of "Chosen By God" by R.C. Sproul. Excellent first book on this subject.
I pastor a Baptist Church, and the reccomendations I make to people also include: "Beyond 5 Points (Reisinger), Commentary/Ephesians (James Boice), Sovereignty Of God (A.W. Pink), & Willing To Believe (Sproul).
As I said before, there is NOTHING that compares with "Gospel Of John" (A.W. Pink). IF ONE diligently studies John, along with reading this commentary, you will never be the same again!
I think this makes 79! Fun stuff.
Dogpreacher, those books you recommended really are good. If you guys ever get the chance anything by 19th century Anglican bishop J.C. Ryle is wonderful, too. His writing on the Gospel of John is fantastic. We are having a Bible study in our home on Luke, using Ryle's commentaries on Luke ae well.
Yes, I love Bishop Ryles book "Holiness". If that one doesn't bring conviction that drops us to our knees...nothing will.
If you want something VERY deep on the subject being discussed...
"The Reformed Doctrine Of Predestination" by Lorraine Boettner.
Graced,
Gregg
Post a Comment