1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

God, That's not fair!

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Ian Major, Feb 4, 2004.

  1. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    I searched back through our posts and I admit I could have overlooked something but from what I can tell you never dealt with this Matt. 13 issue fully. I know it might be repeative to you but I am going to continue to press you on this point because it is at the crux of our debate.

    Like the Jews, who were God's elect people, could refuse their calling, so too the other nations (Gentiles), who are also elect, as revealed in the NT, can refuse their calling. God elects people to hear and respond. The gospel is the power of God unto salvation, first brought to the Jew and then the Gentile. The Jew was elected first and then the Gentile.
     
  2. Ian Major

    Ian Major New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2002
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    0
    Eric said
    he and others simply said God makes people think they are elect, and then takes whatever light away from them, just to fulfill them being "vessels of wrath".

    Really? I've never read Calvin or any Calvinist say that. Please give the quote.

    My understanding has always been that man deludes himself into thinking he is elect. He ignores the marks of salvation by which a man can know he is elect or not.

    Some here have said in the past that their "belief" they are elect could be "fallible", and they believed in vain.

    They have the tests by which to ensure the reality of their faith, and the Spirit's witness, so lack of assurance is down to us. We can know for sure.

    If you reject this, you can be accused by those who believe that of rejecting "God's "sovereignty" as "unfair" as well.

    Not sure what you mean by this, Eric.

    The passages on falling away are among the "hard" passages of scripture, so neither side can interpret them without some apparent problems.

    I can't think of any hard problem for the Calvinist regarding those who fall away. For the Arminian, vast swathes of Scripture have to be ignored or got around, eg. the Sheep texts of John's gospel.

    No, we have never said "EITHER sovereignty OR "responsibility"! It is the Calvinists who deny that we have God as sovereign, because of their preconceived DEFINITION of "sovereignty" as "God chooses this one unconditionally, and therefore passes over that one".

    I agree, Arminians like to affirm God's sovereignty - but it is not the sovereignty Calvinists affirm, as you say. BUT your defination of sovereignty stops short of the realm of salvation. God is able, to the Arminian, to do as He pleases in the material world, but not in the spiritual one. Man's free-will has an absolute veto in the matter of salvation.

    If that is the way one can define sovereignty, why not go the whole hog and say God has only certain freedom in the material world as well - that He cannot intervene in the material world in such a way that would pressurize the free-will of man regarding his acceptance or rejection of the gospel. If God brings the terrors of hell before a man, is that not unduly influencing his free-will? Likewise for a sense of His infinite love? No, the Calvinist defination of sovereignty is the only one that is genuine, that answers to the picture of absolute sovereignty Scripture portrays.

    the 400 years of Church history before Augustine first proposed this stuff, where this was never a problem.

    You make a lot of assumptions here.
    For example, That the records we have are complete enough for us to say other disputes never occurred. That is highly questionable. Also, that the church held to free-willism until Augustine. The records we have of the post-apostolic Church are not great for Scriptural proofs. Great errors arose early in the Church, even from otherwise good men. The rise of one-bishop-rule, and the other errors that eventually led to the False Church of Romanism and Orthodoxy, all began in that period. And you presume of course that Augustine was in error in his defence of God's sovereignty in salvation.


    HOW God is "sovereign" in light of man's "responsibility". Your side thought it was more exalting God's glory by teaching that, but all it has done is create confusion. God's eternal realm of decrees, foreknowledge, predestination, etc, (the "how's") is what is beyond our realm, not just the "why's".

    The difference is we can hold both to God's sovereignty in salvation and man's responsibility in it. You cannot. Because you don't understand how a man can be responsible if God is sovereign in salvation, you deny His sovereignty. Calvinists don't know either, but we gladly trust the God of all the earth to do right.

    Still, that's the ETERNAL covenant. Not the "NEW" covenant. The New covenant simply denotes the dispensation in which the Eternal covenant would be more clearly revealed, and the OC dispensation would be superseded. sles, there never would have been anything called an OC. It would have been illusory.

    If the Eternal Covenant is different from the New Covenant, then whose is 'the blood of the everlasting covenant,', Heb.13:20? If it IS Christ's blood, is it not that referred to in Luke 22:20, Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.?

    Of course it is. The New Covenant is the Eternal Covenant. It was Christ's blood that atoned for all the elect of every time, and will never lose its' power.

    The OC was illusory. It at best only provides the pictures of what was to come. As a covenant, it utterly failed to save. It depended on man's free-will.

    Still, that too would be illusory. It is all a predetermined script, and the people have no real choice, as even this "sinful heart" is nothing more than programming.

    Nothing more I can say to you on this, Eric. You are saying that unless you can reconcile God's sovereignty in salvation with man's responsibility, you must reject that sovereignty. I say you must submit to God's greater wisdom, power and holiness, and be like Job.

    We're opposing total inability. You then throw richness in, and say that we should think that is "unfair" too. For that to be true, then we would have to see richness as the same as total inability. But we do not. You are treating it as if they are, in order to make that correlation. Or at least you are trying to forcefit our belief into that. Bt it is not the same at all. Our ultimate premise is not "fairness" anyway, but the plan God has revealed in scripture. It is your side who says we only judge the matter on "fairness". It was you who named this thread, remember.

    Yes, I now know you don't claim Arminianism is 'fair'. I started this thread to point out the inconsistency of Arminianism lambasting Calvinism as being 'unfair', while the same arguments apply to it also. I think I have successfully exposed that.

    The Calvinists are the ones who alway are saying that if God chose people (for that "unconditional" mercy) based on anything about the person, it would violate "no respect of persons".

    You fail to see how God choosing based on a persons 'merit' is different from Him choosing merely to fulfil His purpose that all beings will see salvation is all of Him, not of man. If He chose based on man's righteous decision to follow Him, then that would make salvation of God and man. The fact He chooses mostly weak/foolish/poor to be saved, still allows salvation to be entirely of His will.

    The context of Acts 10:34 is that God is not choosing people based on ethnic group. Class would be the same type of category. But as with class, there were some places that were more disposed to reject the Gospel. Whoever in any race or place who accepted Christ was called "chosen". But we can't say that God more likely chose them because of their race or class. Now, disposition (Acts 13:48) is something truly "from within the person" that causes them to freely reject Christ. So there is your "human responsibility" in light of God's sovereignty. If that's all you maintain, then there really should be no problem. But no, your side would reject that and try to make it really God, but still SAY it was them. You're trying to eat your cake and have it too.

    So, the bottom line for your free-will salvation is the natural inner dispositon of a man. Some folks just have harder hearts than others, and are more likely to reject the gospel. The differnece between the saved (or for the Arminian, the one who remains saved) and the one who perishes is this, one had a better heart than the other. Just naturally. How they come to have this difference of 'inner disposition' you do not say. Were they born with it? Did enviroment or how they were raised produce it?

    Calvinists depend on God to change our evil natures, our hard hearts SO THAT we will respond to the gospel. Any 'disposition' that causes us to believe must come from Him. HE appoints to eternal life/ disposes the heart to eternal life.

    In Him

    Ian
     
  3. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    I agree, Arminians like to affirm God's sovereignty - but it is not the sovereignty Calvinists affirm, as you say. BUT your defination of sovereignty stops short of the realm of salvation. God is able, to the Arminian, to do as He pleases in the material world, but not in the spiritual one. Man's free-will has an absolute veto in the matter of salvation.

    Sorry, I have to comment on this one...

    It's not about God sovereign ability its about his sovereign plan. We all agree God could do anything He wanted. He could have made the rock cry out in worship, but if he doesn't make them do that does that mean He has ceased being sovereign? Of course not. He only ceases being sovereign when He can't accomplish His plan. You believe His plan includes his irresistably causing certain people to worship Him and we believe His plan is to allow whosoever believes to worship Him. His sovereignty is about His plan not merely his ability. I believe there is much more support in scripture for the plan we hold to. You disagree about that plan but it doesn't change the level of God's sovereignity in carrying out whatever plan He has chosen.
     
  4. Ian Major

    Ian Major New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2002
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    0
    Skandelon said
    And those "elect" people who lived before those means were given I suppose were granted other similiarly effectual means to assure their perserverence? I guess you've got it all worked out.

    Yep. [​IMG]

    Can the people he is addressing fall away? According to you, NO. Then the threat that they could fall away is a LIE.

    It would only be a lie if God said they WOULD fall away. You ignore the CONDITION He gave. Had they fulfilled that condition, they would fall away. But being elect they will not fulfil the condition, this warning itself being a means of ensuring that. Nothing 'empty' about that.

    Plus, why would an apostles need to warn the elect if they can't fall away? That is like warning Jesus not to sin. He is God, he can't sin.

    Why did Jesus need an angel to strengthen Him in Gethsemane? MEANS, brother, MEANS.

    1. Why isn't the means of God sovereignly creating within them a new heart enough to ensure their perserverence?

    It could have been, if God willed it so. But He chose to ensure our perseverance by additional means.

    2. Why are some Christians more fruitful than others? Are some better people, more moral, more faithful? Or has God just not done a good enough job changing some into Christlike people?

    Because He has chosen to give more grace to some than others. Our present natures contain both the new and old; it is only His grace that makes us differ from one another, not our innate qualities. 1 Cor.4:7 For who makes you differ from another? And what do you have that you did not receive? Now if you did indeed receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it?

    Actually my stance is not firm on this issue. Like Jacobus Armininus I question this doctrine. Why? Parables like the unforgiving servant whose forgiveness was revolked for being unforgiving himself. Threats of scripture warning believers that they could fall away or be cut off. I don't want to be guilty of giving an immature believer security where scripture doesn't.... However, I don't see how anyone could experience the light of the truth and go back to the darkness and therefore I have to think that those who do "go back" may not have ever really been there in the first place and I hang on to John's passage about those who go from us not being of us. I just wonder if that is not more about teachers instead of believers in general. I question these things and don't want to err in my doctrine. I take it way to seriously.

    OK, I respect your uncertainty on this.

    Could you show me in scripture where and why the Spirit would "greatly move" in people's lives without having the purpose to save them?... I mean why would the Spirit "greatly move" in the life of the reprobates?

    This may be glimpsed by Rom.9: 22What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? The wickedness of man is demonstrated in their refusal of the gospel offer. The clearer the offer, the greater the wickedness is seen to be.

    Nevertheless, you must change your views on Total Depravity if a lost man can worship God. Think about how you apply 1 Cor 2:14, yet you have lost people who fear and worship God, yet they can't accept the gospel message?

    I don't think so. I have seen great changes in men's attitude to God - fear, prayer, joy - but it proved to be temporary, like in the parable of the soils. The Spirit's enlightenment to the truth can produce such temporary change, when it is not accompanied with the gift of a new heart. Total Depravity relates to man's ability to know the truth and to really repent and believe. It does not preclude God giving him some knowledge of the truth.

    I believe God is sovereign enough that he could make certain that someone preached the saving truth to those who feared and worshipped Him, like Lydia and Cornelius, don't you? And what do you know even an Armininan can believe that!!! Why? They chose to worship God and God rewarded them with his saving truth. You CANNOT believe that Lydia or Cornelius were in the Totally Depraved state without changing your doctrine, and I think you know it. This is a perfect example of the Calvinistic misapplication of scripture and apparant contradiction.

    Yes, the Arminian concept of God allows Him that much sovereignty. The Calvinistic one believes He not only sent someone to bring the gospel to Lydia and Cornelius, but that He gave them new hearts to receive it.

    You could be reading a bit more into the text than what it says. It doesn't say that God had to open her heart or she wouldn't have believed. It merely says that He did open her heart. Couldn't it be that he opened her heart through some external means that we don't know about? In the same way you believe God uses external means like threat to cause the elect to perserve, couldn't it be that God used an external means such as the sunset or a life circumstance to open her heart to hear Paul that day? We have to speculate. Either way you can't apply this passage to our original point so lets go back to that and show me where the scripture supports your view.

    God opened her heart. Had her heart not been opened, she would have rejected the gospel. That cries from the text. To suggest as you do that it is merely incidental to the story is so wildly desperate I hardly know what to say! The whole plan of salvation in Scripture is filled with this need for our hearts to be opened by God.

    Why think it could be the emotional rush of a sunset, when our own experience reminds us of how God opened our hearts to believe the gospel. I can speak for myself when I say that the moment came when I suddenly KNEW the gospel to be true. Not with any scientific proofs, but with the inner conviction given by the Spirit that THIS was the truth. Not maybe, but certainly so.


    I searched back through our posts and I admit I could have overlooked something but from what I can tell you never dealt with this Matt. 13 issue fully. I know it might be repeative to you but I am going to continue to press you on this point because it is at the crux of our debate.

    OK, one more time. Matt.13: 10 And the disciples came and said to Him, "Why do You speak to them in parables?"
    11He answered and said to them, "Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. 12For whoever has, to him more will be given, and he will have abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. 13Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.

    The people in view are the reprobate Jews. Your objection to Total Depravity is based on the redundancy, as you see it, of the extra hardening announced here. You say the passage means these Jews could have repented had this extra hardening not occurred, so TD must not be true.

    I have had time to reflect since we first opened the 'hardening' debate. I have found this Matthew passage very helpful.

    Firstly, TD applies to all mankind. The extra hardening mentioned here and in Romans 9-11 applies only to the Jewish nation, and not to all of them. The elect are exempt, Matt.13: 11He answered and said to them, "Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given.Rom.11: 7What then? Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded.

    Secondly, Why would God blind them so, if they were already blind, as TD teaches? The answer lies in the purposes of God for the nation of Israel. This extra hardening is His means of SHOWING that salvation is soley of His grace, not by blood-relationship. HE has decided to leave the majority of the nation in unbelief throughout the ages. The gospel will not have the same effect on them as it will on the Gentile nations. So, humanly speaking, God is blinding/hardening the Jews BEYOND that which is common to man.

    In God's economy, the issue of redundancy does not arise. Matt.13: 12For whoever has, to him more will be given, and he will have abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. Being blind/hard, they are to be made more so, that God's purposes of displaying His grace to Jew and Gentile alike may be fulfilled, Rom.11: 30For as you were once disobedient to God, yet have now obtained mercy through their disobedience, 31even so these also have now been disobedient, that through the mercy shown you they also may obtain mercy. 32For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all. Of His mercy, not of race, that is the lesson behind it all.


    Like the Jews, who were God's elect people, could refuse their calling, so too the other nations (Gentiles), who are also elect, as revealed in the NT, can refuse their calling. God elects people to hear and respond. The gospel is the power of God unto salvation, first brought to the Jew and then the Gentile. The Jew was elected first and then the Gentile.

    There is your key mistake - the Gentile nations are not elect, only the believing Gentiles are. It can be said that the Jewish nation is elect and the Jewish believers are elect - elect for differt things - but that cannot be said of the Gentiles.

    In Him

    Ian
     
  5. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    Wrong. If they can't and he warned that they could, its a lie.

    Would it be a lie for me to say to my son, "If you lie your nose might grow really long." Yes, it is a lie. Why? Because it CANNOT happen. Now, the fear of that happening might prevent him from lying but the threat itself was untrue regardless.

    But you make this passage even more absurd by suggesting that the condition can't happen either, so I guess a better analogy might be: "Son, if you turn yourself into a wooden puppet then your nose will grow longer when you lie." Neither of those things could possibly happen and it is total nonsense not to mention UNTRUE. He can't turn into a wooden puppet and his nose can't grow, so why bring it up??? By your logic it would be to ensure that he doesn't become a puppet. "Son don't do something that is impossible for you to do so that you won't become something that is impossible for you to become." :rolleyes:

    You really have to stretch the clear meaning of God's warnings don't you?

    Its not about God needing something, as if He couldn't have made it without the angel. The angel was a comforter during times of trouble. I wouldn't read anymore into that than what is said.

    Yes, but those additional means are superfulous at best if what you believe about salvation is true. If justification is irresistable and unchangable then any other means to ensure that it remains as such only shows that it wasn't irresistable and unchangable on its own in the first place...unless of course you believe that the threat and the condition are impossiblities making the statement pure nonsense to begin with.

    So it was God's fault that Peter denied him 3 times, sense God didn't grant him enough Grace to overcome? Its God fault when believers don't obey because God didn't grant them all that they need? He has given us all that we need for a life of Godliness. We are responsible to be stewarts of what he has given us. He is not responsible for not giving some people enough of what they need to live a godly life. That is absurd.

    If that is what Paul was addressing in Romans 9:22 then I would be satisfied but its clear from the context that Paul is addressing the fact that the Jews had fitted themselves for destruction in the face of God continued patience and longsuffering toward them.

    But clearly Lydia and Cornelious are not examples of natural men who were experiencing some kind of "temporary" change. They WORSHIPPED GOD. Do lost men have that capasity???

    I believe they, like Abraham, would have been justified by their faith had they never heard the gospel truth, but because they did hear it they will be judged by it.

    Which falsely implies that their old hearts had the ability to fear and worship God, but somehow couldn't possibly understand and recieve the gospel message. That seems very contradictary to me. With their natural hearts they can fear God, which we know is the beginning of wisdom and they can even worship God, which we know God is seeking for, but with that same heart they can't believe God??? Of course that is not what is being communicated here. Lydia was just being shown by God that Paul was His messenger and that she should listen and believe Paul like she already believes God.

    This would be no different than if your father called you on the phone and said I'm sending a man to your house to give you message, so please listen to him. Any my point about the sunrise etc was simply to show that it could have been impressed upon her by some external means and not necessarily an inward, irresistable calling as you presume upon this historical text.

    Now you know what you sound like to me when you try to explain away the empty threats of scripture. [​IMG]

    And I agree that our hearts must be opened by God. What MEANS has God chosen to open our hearts is the question at hand. I believe its the word by which we will be judged.

    You stopped to soon. This is not the most difficult part. Let me quote parallel verse out of Mark 4:

    Notice the part in bold Ian. It tells us exactly what MIGHT have happened had their not been parables and the hardening. Christ is taking the steps necessary to ensure they don't repent and believe before their time. Can't you see that? That wouldn't be necessary if they were born incapable of such things. Can you please deal with that?

    Now to your other points...

    YES!!! Which btw proves that Romans 9 doesn't support the traditional Calvinistic interpretation which applies the hardening to all reprobates in general. Now, you might hold to a different interpretation but I'm just pointing out your divergance from the orthadox Calvinistic position.

    I agree, but I believe the "elect" to be the remnant of Israel whom God has selected to take the message to the world once He accomplished His purpose and ascended into heaven.

    Then the phrase "otherwise they might return and be forgiven" is a lie.

    Just paraphrasing from memory:
    It was granted to the Gentiles to repent and believe.

    The Gentiles did obtain it...

    I will make you who are not a nation into a nation...

    That sounds like he elected the Gentiles as a group, but only those who believe will recieve the blessing of that calling, just as it was with the Jews from the beginning. Abrahams faith was credited to HIM as righteousness.

    God is willing to apply credit to man's account, why can't Calvinists?
     
  6. Eric B

    Eric B Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,838
    Likes Received:
    5
    I am aware it seems unaccountable to some how faith is attributed to the reprobate, seeing that it is declared by Paul to be one of the fruits of election; and yet the difficulty is easily solved: for though none are enlightened into faith...experience shows that the reprobates are sometimes affected in a way similar to the elect, that even in their judgement there is no difference between them....Not that they truly perceive the power of of spiritual grace and the sure light of faith; but the Lord, the better to convict them and leave them without excuse, instill into their minds such a sense of goodness as can be felt without the Spirit of adoption.
    Meanwhile, believers are taught to examine themselves carefully and humbly, lest carnal security creep in and take the place of assurance of faith. We may add, that the reprobate never have any other than a confused sense of grace, laying hold of the shadow rather than the substance, because the Spirit properly seals the forgiveness of sins in the elect only, applying it by special faith to their use. Still, it is correctly said that the reprobate believe God to be propitious to them, inasmuch as they accept the gift of reconciliation, though confusedly and without due discernment...Nor do I even deny that God illumines their minds to this extent, that they recognize his grace; but...the reprobate never obtain to the full extent or to fruition. When he shows himself propitious to them, it is not as if he had truly rescued them from death, and taken them under his protection. He only gives them a manifestation of his present mercy. [?!] In the elect alone he implants the living root of faith, so that they persevere even to the end. Thus we dispose of the objection, that if God truly displays his grace, it must endure for ever. There is nothing inconsistent in this with the fact of his enlightening some with a present sense of grace, which afterwards proves evanescent.

    I therefore deny that they either understand his will considered as immutable, or steadily embrace his truth, inasmuch as they rest satisfied with an evanescent impression; just as a tree not planted deep enough may take root, but will in process of time wither away, though it may for several years not only put forth leaves and flowers, but produce fruit. In short, as by the revolt of the first man, the image of God could be effaced from his mind and soul, so there is nothing strange in His shedding some rays of grace on the reprobate, and afterwards allowing these to be extinguished. There is nothing to prevent him from giving some a slight knowledge of his Gospel and imbuing others thoroughly. Meanwhile, we must remember that however feeble and slender the faith of the elect may be, yet as the Spirit of God is to them a sure earnest and seal of their adoption, the impression once engraven can never be effaced from their hearts, whereas the light which glimmers in the reprobate is afterwards quenched. Nor can it be said that the Spirit therefore deceives, because he does not quicken the seed which lies in their hearts so as to make it ever remain incorruptible as in the elect. I go farther: seeing it is evident, from the doctrine of Scripture and from daily experience, that the reprobate are occasionally impressed with a sense of divine grace, some desire of mutual love must necessarily be excited in their hearts. But as the reprobate have no rooted conviction of the paternal love of God, so they do not in return yield the love of sons, but are led by a kind of mercenary affection. The Spirit of love was given to Christ alone, for the express purpose of conferring this Spirit upon his members; and there can be no doubt that the following words of Paul apply to the elect only: "The love of God is shed abroad in our hearts, by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us," (Rom. 5: 5;) namely, the love which begets that confidence in prayer to which I have above adverted. It hence appears that the faith of some, though not true faith, is NOT mere pretence. They are borne along by some sudden impulse of zeal, and erroneously impose upon themselves, sloth undoubtedly preventing them from examining their hearts with due care. Such probably was the case of those whom John describes as believing on Christ; but of whom he says, "Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men, and needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man," (John 2: 24, 25.) Were it not true that many fall away from the common faith, (I call it common, because there is a great resemblance between temporary and living, everduring faith,) Christ would not have said to his disciples, "If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free," (John 8: 31, 32.) He is addressing those who had embraced his doctrine, and urging them to progress in the faith, lest by their sluggishness they extinguish the light which they have received. Accordingly, Paul claims faith as the peculiar privilege of the elect, intimating that many, from not being properly rooted, fall away, (Tit. 1: 1.) In the same way, in Matthew, our Savior says, "Every plant which my heavenly Father has not planted shall be rooted up," (Matth. 16: 13.) (Calvin, Institutes of the Christian ReligionIII:ii, 11-12, Translation by Henry Beveridge)


    And you go along with this when you answer Skandelon's question: "Could you show me in scripture where and why the Spirit would "greatly move" in people's lives without having the purpose to save them?... I mean why would the Spirit "greatly move" in the life of the reprobates?" with Romans 9, and then added "The Spirit's enlightenment to the truth can produce such temporary change, when it is not accompanied with the gift of a new heart. Total Depravity relates to man's ability to know the truth and to really repent and believe. It does not preclude God giving him some knowledge of the truth".
    Just as Calvin above said, it is to all the more give them "no excuse". To all the more condemn. Sill, then, all that stuff about "only the elect can move towards God" goes out the window. Granted, this interpretation still has the non-elect moving only because God grants them "some" grace, but now rather than God really holding His hands out to people, this doctrine s all the more revealed to be of a game of programming, with salvation and damnation equal goals. That is not good news; ESPECIALLY given that who can know whether they have really been regenerated, or just fooled into thinking so, under this scenario?
    But even those [perceived!] evidences could be apart of this delusion. It's impossible to know for sure.
    In other words, some Calvinists might shrink back from this as too hard, but then the same Rom.9 premise would hold to them too.
     
  7. Ian Major

    Ian Major New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2002
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    0
    Skandelon said
    His sovereignty is about His plan not merely his ability. I believe there is much more support in scripture for the plan we hold to. You disagree about that plan but it doesn't change the level of God's sovereignity in carrying out whatever plan He has chosen.

    OK, I understand your defination of sovereignty: God is limited by man's free-will veto, but He could have chosen not to be, so He is still sovereign. To me that says He could have been sovereign, but He passed on the opportunity. Now He is semi-sovereign.

    It is good for those enquiring into Calvinism/Arminianism to be aware of what Arminians mean when they say they accept the sovereignty of God.

    In Him

    Ian
     
  8. Ian Major

    Ian Major New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2002
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    0
    Skandelon said
    Wrong. If they can't and he warned that they could, its a lie.

    If God had said such a thing, then you would be right. But He actually said IF a man does such and such, then they would die. And that is perfectly true: if a man apostasises, he will perish in hell. The elect cannot, but it is just as true for them as for the reprobate. IF they apostasise, they would perish.

    If I said to my son, 'If you lift that one ton boulder with your bare hands, I'll give you £100', would I be lying, since I have the £100 and I would give it to him IF he did lift the boulder? Just because it is impossible, doesn't make it a lie.

    But on the actual spiritual issue of God warning us so that we will not perish, your analogies completely miss the point: MEANS, MEANS, MEANS. You insist God must immediately save and sanctify the elect without means - but God has chosen to use means. Why? He doesn't say. But all things are for His glory and our good, so it must be better for us to go to heaven via the tribulations of this world. God uses our afflictions to sanctify us. But some of us only have the shortest of lives here; others long and arduous. He uses whatever means He thinks fit for each of us. He is not limited to any means, but He uses what He will on whom He will. The warnings of Scripture are one of those means.


    But you make this passage even more absurd by suggesting that the condition can't happen either, so I guess a better analogy might be: "Son, if you turn yourself into a wooden puppet then your nose will grow longer when you lie." Neither of those things could possibly happen and it is total nonsense not to mention UNTRUE. He can't turn into a wooden puppet and his nose can't grow, so why bring it up??? By your logic it would be to ensure that he doesn't become a puppet. "Son don't do something that is impossible for you to do so that you won't become something that is impossible for you to become."

    Its not about God needing something, as if He couldn't have made it without the angel. The angel was a comforter during times of trouble. I wouldn't read anymore into that than what is said.

    Yes, God doesn't need to use means, but He chooses to when He wants to. He doesn't need for us to hear the warnings of Scripture to keep us from apostasising, but it is His normal means.

    Yes, but those additional means are superfulous at best if what you believe about salvation is true. If justification is irresistable and unchangable then any other means to ensure that it remains as such only shows that it wasn't irresistable and unchangable on its own in the first place...unless of course you believe that the threat and the condition are impossiblities making the statement pure nonsense to begin with.

    See above, under you limiting God to immediate ends.

    So it was God's fault that Peter denied him 3 times, sense God didn't grant him enough Grace to overcome? Its God fault when believers don't obey because God didn't grant them all that they need? He has given us all that we need for a life of Godliness. We are responsible to be stewarts of what he has given us. He is not responsible for not giving some people enough of what they need to live a godly life. That is absurd.

    We certainly have enough grace to keep from sin, and it is not God's responsibility if we do. But in my life I have known more of His grace flowing in when I was about to slip in sin. I had enough before, but I wasn't using it. God could have let me sin, and I would have been responsible. Sometimes He has. But sometimes He has given more grace. Are you saying that all believers have only enough grace to live a godly life? What wretched sinners we would be, dependant on ourselves to always use that grace. No, we need grace upon grace; grace often to use the grace we already have.

    If that is what Paul was addressing in Romans 9:22 then I would be satisfied but its clear from the context that Paul is addressing the fact that the Jews had fitted themselves for destruction in the face of God continued patience and longsuffering toward them.


    We're beginning to go in circles again. 'The vessels of wrath prepared for destruction' are certainly the reprobate, whether Jew or Gentile. God's Spirit certainly strove with them, as He did also the antideluvian reprobates.


    But clearly Lydia and Cornelious are not examples of natural men who were experiencing some kind of "temporary" change. They WORSHIPPED GOD. Do lost men have that capasity???

    No, these folk were not the temporary kind. But there are the fair-weather worshippers, as the parable of the soils points out. Lost men have a capacity to see whatever God causes them to see. But He does not cause all men to see to the same extent, and He only grants full sight to the elect. To truly see the kingdom of God one needs to be born again.

    I believe they, like Abraham, would have been justified by their faith had they never heard the gospel truth, but because they did hear it they will be judged by it.

    You have a defective definition of the gospel. The gospel is God's promise of salvation by His Son. Abraham rejoiced to see Christ's day, and he saw it and was glad, John 6:56.

    Which falsely implies that their old hearts had the ability to fear and worship God, but somehow couldn't possibly understand and recieve the gospel message. That seems very contradictary to me. With their natural hearts they can fear God, which we know is the beginning of wisdom and they can even worship God, which we know God is seeking for, but with that same heart they can't believe God???

    Even demons believe and fear. But even a belief and fear that have been implanted by the Spirit are not enough: we must come to the place of full repentance and faith. Are you telling me you never met folk who had a fear of God, believed He is the one true God, and tried to appease Him by their good works? Were these folk saved men and women? No, not until they abandoned all hope in themselves and put it all in Christ. That is the work of the Holy Spirit.


    And I agree that our hearts must be opened by God. What MEANS has God chosen to open our hearts is the question at hand. I believe its the word by which we will be judged.

    I too believe it is the word, but that word thrust into our hearts by the Holy Spirit. That is the effectual word that gives a new heart, one that gladly obeys the word.

    Notice the part in bold Ian. It tells us exactly what MIGHT have happened had their not been parables and the hardening. Christ is taking the steps necessary to ensure they don't repent and believe before their time. Can't you see that? That wouldn't be necessary if they were born incapable of such things. Can you please deal with that?

    That's what my other points were doing: The answer lies in the purposes of God for the nation of Israel. This extra hardening is His means of SHOWING that salvation is soley of His grace, not by blood-relationship. HE has decided to leave the majority of the nation in unbelief throughout the ages. The gospel will not have the same effect on them as it will on the Gentile nations. So, humanly speaking, God is blinding/hardening the Jews BEYOND that which is common to man. In God's economy, the issue of redundancy does not arise. Matt.13: 12For whoever has, to him more will be given, and he will have abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. Being blind/hard, they are to be made more so, that God's purposes of displaying His grace to Jew and Gentile alike may be fulfilled, Rom.11: 30For as you were once disobedient to God, yet have now obtained mercy through their disobedience, 31even so these also have now been disobedient, that through the mercy shown you they also may obtain mercy. 32For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all. Of His mercy, not of race, that is the lesson behind it all.

    The (majority) of the Jewish nation were being cut-off from the opportunity to repent.

    Then the phrase "otherwise they might return and be forgiven" is a lie.

    Not so, seing they would have been forgiven if they had been granted repentance like the Gentile believers. THAT is the opportunity being withdrawn from them.

    YES!!! Which btw proves that Romans 9 doesn't support the traditional Calvinistic interpretation which applies the hardening to all reprobates in general. Now, you might hold to a different interpretation but I'm just pointing out your divergance from the orthadox Calvinistic position.

    NO!!! Rom.9-11 contains teaching on the special hardening of the Jewish nation, but it establishes first of all the principle of God having mercy on whom He will, and hardening whom He will. Pharaoh was not a Jew. The general rule comes first, then Paul goes on to deal with God's dealing with the Jews. Not only do they share the Total Depravity common to all men, their nation is going to be specially punished with withdrawal from repentance, due to their special sin against the light.

    I agree, but I believe the "elect" to be the remnant of Israel whom God has selected to take the message to the world once He accomplished His purpose and ascended into heaven.

    And I hold the 'elect' to be the saints in every age.

    Just paraphrasing from memory:
    It was granted to the Gentiles to repent and believe. The Gentiles did obtain it... I will make you who are not a nation into a nation...
    That sounds like he elected the Gentiles as a group, but only those who believe will recieve the blessing of that calling, just as it was with the Jews from the beginning. Abrahams faith was credited to HIM as righteousness.

    Sounds nothing like that to me. Sounds to me like He elected Gentiles, not THE Gentiles, just some of them.

    God is willing to apply credit to man's account, why can't Calvinists?

    This Calvinist gladly applies credit to man's account, seeing that credit is for something God Himself imparted. Repentance and faith - the gift of God.

    In Him

    Ian
     
  9. Ian Major

    Ian Major New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2002
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    0
    Eric offered a Calvin quote to show that Calvin believed God deluded the reprobate into thinking they were saved.

    Eric, nothing in that passage suggests such a thing. In fact, here is how Calvin directly answers the charge, ' Nor can it be said that the Spirit therefore deceives, because he does not quicken the seed which lies in their hearts so as to make it ever remain incorruptible as in the elect.

    You highlighted part of this: but the Lord, the better to convict them and leave them without excuse, instill into their minds such a sense of goodness as can be felt without the Spirit of adoption. But this goodness is not a delusion they are saved, but a taste of God's goodness. Knowing something of that makes them even more without excuse.

    Again, look at a passage in which you high-lighted; It hence appears that the faith of some, though not true faith, is NOT mere pretence. They are borne along by some sudden impulse of zeal, and erroneously impose upon themselves, sloth undoubtedly preventing them from examining their hearts with due care.
    IMPOSE UPON THEMSELVES, Eric.

    Granted, this interpretation still has the non-elect moving only because God grants them "some" grace, but now rather than God really holding His hands out to people, this doctrine s all the more revealed to be of a game of programming, with salvation and damnation equal goals. That is not good news; ESPECIALLY given that who can know whether they have really been regenerated, or just fooled into thinking so, under this scenario?

    I leave it between you and God your description of His sovereign grace as 'programming'. But of course it is good news - all who want to may be saved. Every saint can KNOW he is saved. Lack of assurrance is not the proper Christian life. It happens, and we are forced to cry to God to comfort us. He does. We can be just as sure we are saved as we are sure God is, and is the rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.

    In other words, some Calvinists might shrink back from this as too hard, but then the same Rom.9 premise would hold to them too.

    Still not sure of your meaning. What would be too hard? The idea the no-one can really know they are saved? If that is what you mean, I reject it not because it is hard but because Scripture tells us we can know for sure we are saved.

    In Him

    Ian
     
  10. Eric B

    Eric B Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,838
    Likes Received:
    5
    No. Vast swaths of scripture must be restored to their original meaning. For instance, the Calvinists have reinterpreted "Sheep" as "eternally unconditionally elect", when Jesus defines sheep as "those who hear His voice". The elect did not always hear His voice.
    That's not what we (or at least I; I cannot always speak for all others) believe, but that's the way Calvinists like to frame it, because it does not fit their definition of unconditional election and reprobation.
    No, you cannot understand how man can have a free will in choosing, and God still be sovereign, so you deny that we believe God is sovereign. You pose that He MUST choose some and pass over the rest, in order to be "sovereign", and that is IT! That then, becomes all "sovereignty" is about. Then, unfortunately, other free will believers speak in terms that make it seem God is limiting Himself. The problem is, no one can completely understand it, so both sides speculate on how it fits together, and then we spend all the time arguing on which theory fits best.
    Instead, you should submit to God's greater perspective (not trapped in time like we are) and not try to neatly package it and intellectually master it and then present it in the "God plans it and it works out" fashion. That is from our limited frame of reference, not God's.
    I know a lot of errors came into the Church. Right now, in the music forum, there are the ongoing debates about early Christian worship, and I warn that Platonic thought came in with many of the Fathers, so their eachings against instruments and OT lively worship and dancing, for instance, cannot be assumed to be pure New Testament teaching. Just this morning. before making the post on Calvin's statments, I also pointed out how they introduced many of Rome's doctrines.
    Still, in issues like that, the questionable teachings were the ones coming into the Church. In order for Calvinism to be true, then you would have to show that free-will came into the Church like that. (Indeed, many on your side try to claim that, associating free will with Rome, and claiming that the entire Reformation was on this issue, as the debates between Augustine and Pelagius, Paul and the Galatians, and Jesus and the Pharisees!). But instead, we see your doctrine being totally absent. If it was taught, then you would definitely see debates over it, as you did with the other issues. People would have been challenging it, and others defending it (especially if passages like Romans 9 were really aimed at people's "natural" offense at the doctrine of unconditional reprobation as your side asserts. It would have been firecely debated). Instead, we see Augustine first raise the issue purely in reponse to Pelagius, who taught not simply "free will in salvation", but that man was basically good, and can totally reform himself by works. Not "believing", but by just improving himself. So naturally, someone would come and build this doctrine to the opposite extreme to try to totally safeguard against that. That is the way many doctrinal and practical debates start. So it was not some biblical orthodoxy handed down from the apostles. It was a later debate based on speculation,because one side tries to explain it, but goes into total error, and then the other side tries to fix it by counter-explaining. They never should have gone that far in trying to explain how God's timeless ways work.
    Then we shouldn't call it an O.C. It was just a phase of the NC. It wasn't even a picture or shadow of what was to come, because according to you, it was already there all along.

    Christ's blood is the blood of the eternal covenant, and the cup, (in which it is revealed) signifies the beginning of the new covenant. To say, essentially, that there was never any real difference is to deny that there were ever any separate covenant. So once again, there is no real good news over what they had in the Law. God has simply shifted the law of sin and death from a focus on the written code, to a focus on "faith"; both eaually totally out of reach of man, except a select relative few.
    Well, your side has not distinguished "merit" from anything else. Calvinism has said it is about NOTHING in the man. Because in that case, all one would have to do is give up his riches (based on the idea that is out there that poverty in itself mkes one more spiritual or righeous), and then he would become more likely to be chosen. Or maybe it wasthe Primitives who emphasized that. Still, I see them as being more apart of your side on this.
    It is not a better heart of the one who becomes saved, but rather the worse heart of the one who doesn't that makes the difference. And no, you can't say "that still makes the other one 'better' in comparison", because the standard we are judged by is God's infinite holiness, and from there man gets bad and worse, not some better than others.
    Whatever goodness man has did come from God, but man can squelch what wasn't already marred by the fall. The others cannot say they are "better", because they are to look up to God, not down to the others, so that whole issue is moot.
     
  11. Eric B

    Eric B Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,838
    Likes Received:
    5
    Read it again: "for though none are enlightened into faith...experience shows that the reprobates are sometimes affected in a way similar to the elect, that even in their judgement there is no difference between them....Not that they truly perceive the power of of spiritual grace and the sure light of faith...". "Still, it is correctly said that the reprobate believe God to be propitious to them, inasmuch as they accept the gift of reconciliation, though confusedly and without due discernment...Nor do I even deny that God illumines their minds to this extent, that they recognize his grace; but...the reprobate never obtain to the full extent or to fruition. When he shows himself propitious to them, it is not as if he had truly rescued them from death, and taken them under his protection".
    They don't know that they don't perceive the power; how could they when they haven't experienced it? So they follow the instruction to "believe on Christ", and thus think they are saved. Calvin then goes on to say they they were just led by "mercenary affection" (Trying to get something from God— a pardon from Hell, rather than coming to Him out of love for Him). Anyone who has ever received Christ after being warned of Hell or told the benefits of Heaven can fit into this category. Who then can be saved, really? What about your "means" by which God uses the fear of Hell to lead people to salvation? According to this, that is really a disqualifier!
    Of course, Calvin will say that the Spirit is not deceiving, but then just like you all say man is responsible, not God, even though God determined that people would be born in sin, and die in sin, and they had no choice in it at all. This because people just can't admit the dire implications of their theology. So they just chalk it up as some "mystery", and then tell us to just accept it without understanding it, when the Calvinist is the one claiming to be able to understand far more than man is really able. All of this has God working more extensively in damning than in saving.
    No, it's not God's sovereign grace, it's man's corruption of it from trying to explain it so extensively.
    No, God simply didn't give them enough grace. But of course, "the way it works out in time" is the man slacking off. But then that means in time, salvation depends on man's work of persevering. Of course, it is really from God, but still, it is a work. This leads us to:
    We forget that "Whosover calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved". Because Calvinism didn't want that to be in reach of man, it came up with this total inability of.. God must cause man to do that one thing which saves. But now, you have God causing man to do all of this other stuff, and some have gone as far as to have called on the name of the Lord and thought they were saved. But now there is this OTHER thing they must have, which God withholds.
    So then, really you might as well say that salvation is of works, and it is God who grants ability to do the works. Once again, there is no change from the O.C. except that the works are mental instead of physical.
    But if He hasn't granted you the complete grace, then you will eventually fall away; no matter what you may think you know. You don't get the full implications of this theory. Even the other here have admitted they could be wrong!
    Some may think that God giving people partial faith and taking it away is too hard according to their understanding of God's sovereignty. Just like many of you will claim to deny supralapsarianism and double predestination. Those who believe those things accuse those who don't of the same things you accuse us of. Judging only what we think is fair. The same with the debates between you and the Primitives. People are just trying to deeply explain too much, and it just creates more to argue about, and no matter how much scripture each side throws at the other, no one is ever convinced of anything.
     
  12. Gina B

    Gina B Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    16,944
    Likes Received:
    1
    Get your closing arguments in folks, it's almost closing time for this thread.
    Gina
     
  13. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    May I ask why? Is there a rule about a length of a thread?

    If we need to continue it in a new thread, we can.
     
  14. Eric B

    Eric B Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,838
    Likes Received:
    5
    They close at around 20 now. It used to be 10.
     
  15. Ian Major

    Ian Major New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2002
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gina said
    Get your closing arguments in folks, it's almost closing time for this thread.
    and Eric informed
    They close at around 20 now. It used to be 10.

    Oops! Sorry, folks, I didn't realise that.

    We have been around the bush a bit, so I will close the thread here. I'm sure matters arising will be covered in other threads in future.

    Thank you all so much for the exchanges. May they be used to further our growth in grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

    In Him

    Ian
     
Loading...