Apparently there is one thing God can't do.

But Blackaby addresses your last two sentences above with his statement that "In our natural human state we do not seek God on our own initiative." page 51, Experiencing God.

"God takes the initiative, he chooses us, loves us, and reveals His eternal purposes for our lives." page 51 Experiencing God.

I'm not trying to say that Blackaby is a Calvinist. In fact I asked him personally if that were the case and he said he preferred to be called a Biblicist.

Would you agree with Blackaby that God takes the initiative in Salvation? And more so than in a generic or universal sense but in a particular sense?

 

I totally and completely agree with both of these statements. I don't know any "Arminian" who doesn't.

First, how do you know Blackaby meant it in a "particular sense" in the way Calvinists do?

Secondly, of course I believe God takes the initiative in salvation. Who doesn't?

I just don't understand people who believe that the incarnation of the Christ, His death, burial and resurrection, the sending of the Holy Spirit, the inspiration of the Holy Scripture brought by divinely appointed messengers is seen as insufficent for bringing men to salvation. You must add to all these things the one thing that you believe is what makes all these other things powerful enough to take effect and that is the "effectual calling." A doctrine that the scripture never expounds upon, yet it is the central crux of what determines man's final destiny and the power of all these other very thoroughly explained acts of God.

It just seems that a doctrine so important would have been expounded upon to some level. I mean the scripture spends so much time speaking about faith and the call of the gospel yet in your system these things mean very little in comparison to the effectual call, yet this call is virtually unaddressed in scripture. And the texts used to support this doctrine are very brief and vague and certainly could be taken in more than one way. That intrigues me. </font>[/QUOTE]The whole discussion intrigues me as well. When I finish my taxes today I will take it up again.

 

Hello again, BaptistBoard members!

I'm happy to say that this is my favorite section of the BaptistBoard, and I am learning a lot from the discussions that take place here.
Being still very much a student in this topic area, I don't want to add anything that might not contribute something of value to the present discussion. So hopefully this comment will make a contribution.

Arguments like the ones being introduced and discussed in this thread are confusing because they don't make explicit the distinctions that might (help to) solve the difficulties that arise in the discussions.
It may be the case that a distinction has to be made, for example, between what God wills or desires to actually occur in the world, and what He desires humans in general to do. Even if we assume that humans are themselves the cause of the choices they make, God still has the power and knowledge to intervene and counteract any human choice. So, in a sense, God allows what He desires (to allow). But, at the same time, He desires that we should only obey His commandments and never violate His laws. Thus, a distinction between the two senses of "desire" is required here.

Another issue that seems to require a distinction to clarify matters is the one concerning God causing things to occur by preordination (or "predestination"?) and His causing things to occur by sovereign intervention. God has "caused", by preordination, all events before He created the universe, but He has only personally caused some of those events by intervention.

That leads to another area that seems to require a distinction, viz., that which concerns the way God's power works in our lives to bring us to salvation. I believe that its probably alright to say things like, "the Gospel has power in itself to bring us to salvation", because it seems unlikely that God would create us with an inherent tendency to reject Him and to reject truth in general. But in this case, the Gospel's "power" would be the result of the way humans were originally designed to respond upon receiving it.
But in addition to this, God can "intervene" and alter the circumstances in the lives of people so that they will desire salvation. Therefore, we may need to make this distinction in the way God acts to bring about salvation explicit as well.

Finally, there seems to be a need to clarify the concept of "free will". (This issue has been addressed briefly above by another poster.) I'm a determinist, so I don't really believe in the existence of "free will" other than that possessed by God Himself. But in most of these kinds of discussions, the freedom to do whatever one desires can have more than one meaning. Sometimes it can mean that one has the ability to do literally anything. The (various) meanings of "free will" thus need to be provided at the outset of any discussion of it.

There may be more areas that require distinctions, but I can only think of the ones above right now.

I have to run.

 

That is not the two wills that most scholars embrace. Be careful not to confuse this. Most scholars embrace a moral will (that which is in perfect accordance with his nature) and a decreed will (that which he has decreed to take place). Permissive vs sovereign is not really the kind of wills that are being talked about in most discussions.

 

Thanks for your corrections and clarification. Unfortunately (for me) I'm often not familiar enough with theological terminology to make my points clear. I think I understand your point in the quote above, that Romans 9 refers to nations. But Romans 9:17 does mention Pharoah, an individual. How does that square with the view that Romans 9 refers to nations and not to individuals? How are we to interpret that verse?

 

Yes, it does. thanks.
I admit to being puzzled about how moral agents (angels as well as people) fall into sin after being originally created by a Holy God without a propensity to sin. God can be completely kind and gracious to some people, and they will still come to despise any mention of God and His Holiness. God can allow everyone to "hear" the gospel and there will still be those who reject it.

But in another sense, God knew before He created the universe, which people would not choose to follow Christ after "hearing" the gospel. So, in this sense, He does/did predetermine who would be saved. Does this seem reasonable?

 

Finally, Brother Skandalon, something we agree on, God did not elect any person according to his foreknowledge.

Now, show me how that Israel is to be compared to a pagan nation?

I don't understand that comparison.

Bro Dallas

 

Brother Skandelon:

ME:Then why doesnt everyone get saved that is exposed to the most powerful external factor-the Word of God? Have we not all the same nature?

YOU:There are two possible answers to your question:

1. Because God didn't want them to be saved.

or

2. Because they didn't want to leave behind their sin so they could be saved.


ME: If it is number 2, then why doesnt everyone end up in this position since we all have the same nature?

Also, what about a third possibility-they didnt want to leave behind their sins and God passed them over, thereby leaving them in their natural condition, "as brute beasts" (Jude 1:10).

Saved by grace,

Brother Joe

 

Brother Skandelon,

I never got an answer to this post from you, thus I am posting it again.

ME:ME: I too do not believe God directly causes all external factors, but I do believe he permits all external factors to occur. Do you? And IF YES, then wouldnt it also hold true (according to your belief) that God must WILL TO PERMIT a sufficient amount of external factors in one individuals life to accomplish a change in their desires therby allowing them to choose to be saved, but on the flip side it must also be concluded that God also WILLS NOT TO PERMIT another individual to be exposed to these very same external factors (which had they been exposed to them it would have resulted in them accepting Christ)? (Excuse the very long run on and poorly phrased sentece.)

Saved by grace,

Brother Joe

 

Brother Skandelon:


YOU:Which answer is biblical?

***************THE FIRST PROOF TEXT YOU GAVE:"The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. 1 Peter 3:9"*********


MY RESPONSE: The key in this verse hinges on WHO Peter is referring to when he uses the word "US."
Remember, "Peter is fond of speaking of the elect as a special group of people. I think what he is saying here is that God does not will that any of us (the elect) perish. If that is his meaning, then the text would...be one more strong passage in favor of predstination" (Sproul, Chosen By God)
"For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 2 Tim 2:4


************THE SECOND PROOF TEXT YOU GAVE: "For God so loved the world..." Jn 3:16***********


MY RESPONSE: I have already addressed my interpretation to this verse (one that you yourself seemed to even indicate may be feasable I may add). Nevertheless, here it is again "Michael Gowens in Basic Bible doctrine,"The Jews had for 1500 years, had a corner on God. They were privy to... special revelation to which the Gentiles had no claim. The exclusiveness of religious privelage in the Old Testament had caused many Jewish people (as well as Gentile people) to conclude that God would never bless, love, or save anyone but the Jews. A fundamental need existed in the early church, therefore, to emphasize the international scope of the gospel.Language such as,"There is neither Jew nor Greek, bond or free, male or female" must be understood in terms of hte radical cultural change that Christianity had introduced into a previously racially biased and religiously segregated world. To the Jews, this was "a big pill to swallow." (Remember how shocked Peter was when God revealed to him that the gentiles were to be included in the offer of salvation in the book of Acts?) The basic message of the early church was simply this: "God has a people among the Gentiles as well as the Jews. The Jewish Messiah, Jesus Christ the Lord, is also the Gentile savior and now, since he has come, God has made the good news of salvation, which was once restricted to the Jews alone, available to his people among the Gentiles as well, so that now, both Jew and Gentile may worship and serve God in a new coventant"

Take for example this passage, "And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." (1 John 2:2)

"The world for whom Christ died cannot mean the entire human family. It must refer to the universality of the elect (people from every tribe and nation) OR TO THE INCLUSION OF GENTILES IN ADDITION TO THE WORLD OF JEWS. It was a jew who wrote that Jesus did not die merely for OUR sins but for the sins of the whole world. Does the word OUR refer to believers or believing Jews? We must remember that one of the cardinal points of the New Testament concerned the inclusion of the Gentiles in Gods' plan of salvation" (Sproul, Chosen By God)


*********THE THIRD PROOF TEXT YOU GAVEs 36:7 -
"How precious is your unfailing love, O God! All humanity finds shelter in the shadow of your wings."***********************


MY RESPONSE: Brother Skandelon,I do not see how you can believe this verse refers to or proves God's universal love fall all mankind to be saved. If it is interpreted as referring to salvation when it states "ALL HUMANITY finds shelter in the shadow of your wings" we would be forced to conclude that all humanity is going to heaven and become a universalist and also that the bible contradicts itself when it states that people will go to Hell. I sincerly doubt people will end up in Hell who found eternal shelter in God's wings, dont you?

I think the logical interpretation of this verse is to view it as a reference to common grace to all mankind, not eternal life. It is similar to when Christ stated "for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. "(Matthew 5:45) It is simply saying all humanity benefits from God's creation, to draw anything beyond this creates contradiction.


******THE FOURTH PROOF TEXT YOU PROVIDED: John 23:37
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones God's messengers! How often I have wanted to gather your children together as a hen protects her chicks beneath her wings, but you wouldn't let me. "*************


MY RESPONSE: Brother Skandelon, I find it amazing that you would highly critize others on this forum for constantly using Romans 9 because it refers to the Jews and is a unique circumstance, and yet you do the same to prove your doctrine.

Finally, while admittedly there exist verses that on the surface study appear to support the universal will for God to save all humanity, to be fair it is worth pointing out that there are many verses that imply the opposite. Here are but a few:

"even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed" (1 Peter 2:8)

"The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil." (Proverbs 16:4)

Brother Skandelon,What is your explanation for these passages above? Further, if you believe God loves every human being (elect sinner and nonelect sinner alike ) and wants them all to be saved, how do you reconcile such passages that clearly state otherwise:

"The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou HATEST all workers of iniquity.
6 Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing: the LORD will abhor the bloody and deceitful man.
7 But as for me, I will come into thy house in the multitude of thy mercy: and in thy fear will I worship toward thy holy temple" (Psalm 5:5-7)

And again,

"5 The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul HATETH." (Psalm 11:5)

Do you mean to tell me the Lord wants to send people to heaven AND LOVES people he hates (remember you quoted John 3:16 as proof God loves and wills all to be saved?) Love and hate are opposites.

Saved by grace,

Brother Joe

 

Yes. The fact that there can be two different answers on this matter seems to point to the need to keep the two points of view distinct.

But even from the non-biblical perspective, where God is viewed as the creator of a world that would eventually contain temptations, God would still not be "personally responsible" for the temptation of anyone to do evil.

However, I do believe that God knew that He would be creating a world that would contain temptations before He created it.

[ April 17, 2004, 12:23 AM: Message edited by: jpbrooks ]