The basis of God's predestination

R. Berrian (quote) In eternity past the Lord viewed how each human being would respond to His grace.This sounds like salvation by works. Because it is based on what people do and not what God did. This sounds like conditionalism to me. I understand the Bible to say that salvation is a FREE GIFT from God. He gives the gift to whom ever He pleases. Rom. 9:18, Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. In reading on through the text we shall also see that we have no reason to repliest against God. He (God) is the potter and we are the clay. I think sometimes we try to judge scripture, but God did not give us His Word for us to judge. This is why we have so many churches that are (dead) in the SBC. They have left sound Doctrine out of the pulpit and turned the miracle of salvation (new birth) into a decison. I pray that God will rise up men that hold to the Word of God like Spurgeon, Criswell, MacAuther, Pink, Packer,Bunyan,and W E Best.

 

[ January 29, 2002: Message edited by: JAMES2 ]

 

Pastor Larry,

Lewis Sperry Chafer Systematic Theology
Volume three pg. 184

Dr. Chafer-- Late President and Professor of Systematic Theology--Dallas Theological Seminary

CLASSIFICATION OF VIEWS

1. The Extreme Limited Redemptionists ‘This group is sometimes styled the High, or Ultra, Calvinist. It includes the supralapsarians who, as has been seen assert that the decree of divine election stands first in the order of elective decrees--before the decree to create men, before the decree to permit the fall, and before the decree to provide salvation. Such a view could make no place for an unlimited redemption, nor could it encourage the preaching of the gospel to those who, they contend, were reprobated from the beginning.'

2. The Moderate Calvinists Who Are Limited Redemptionists. ‘The appellation Moderate Calvinists, in this instance, is based on their belief that the decree to elect is preceded by the decree to create and the decree to permit the fall. Though they contend for a limited redemption, they make a place for world-wide preaching of the gospel and grant certain concessions not possible to the extreme Calvinists.

3 The Moderate Calvinists Who Are Unlimited Redemptionists. ‘The men who belong to this school of interpretation defend all of the five points of Calvinism excepting one, namely, "Limited Atonement," or what has been termed "the weakest point in the Calvinistic system of doctrine." This form of moderate Calvinism is more the belief of Bible expositors than of the theologians, which fact is doubtless due to the truth that the Bible, taken in its natural terminology and apart from those strained interpretations which are required to defend a theory, seems to teach an unlimited atonement. Men in this group believe that Christ died actually and fully for all men of this age alike, that God has ordained that the gospel be preached to all for whom Christ died, and that through the proclamation of the gospel He will exercise His sovereign power in saving His elect. . . .'

4. The Arminians ‘ . . . Arminians hold that Christ's death was for all men alike, and that it secures for everyone a measure of common grace whereby all are able to believe if they will. Men are, according to this view, subject to divine judgment only on the ground of their wilful rejection of Christ's salvation.' [End of quotes from Dr. Chafer].


Ray says,

As I mentioned in a previous post, I never met a Calvinist who did not believe limited atonement. Apparently, there are some who hold to ‘unlimited redemption.' These people would agree with number 3 above. These hybrid Calvinists are those who have strayed from " Calvin's Institutes." My guess would be that they believe that Christ died for all people, but bottom line--He still selects to eternal life, who He chooses. As I review this, all Calvinists are Limited Redemptionists. I say this because even for group 3 there is really no human opportunity for the non-elect to ever obtain salvation by grace.

The Calvinists that I have known were for the most part Supralapsarian, Calvinists. Beyond this group there are those who are noted under number 2 and 3.

I believe the Biblical view of atonement is that Christ died for all of His humanity. Men and women are dead in trespasses and sins and are lost also because of the Adamic nature within. Human beings cannot themselves contribute to their own salvation because there is nothing good within to offer oneself to God. The Holy Spirit does, however, go before the lost soul [some say Prevenient Grace or Common Grace] to bring that person to the knowledge of His plan of salvation. Every Christian would affirm that the Holy Spirit must minister to the lost person before that individual will respond to the claims of the Gospel. Personally, I do not like these designated words Prevenient Grace or Common Grace because I believe the word and experience of Grace should be circumscribed only in relation to the saints. The Spirit of God draws a person to Christ so he or she through believing can find eternal salvation. Those who never hear the plan of salvation or reject it remain in a lost condition and worthy of everlasting punishment.

Dr. Berrian

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As I mentioned in a previous post, I never met a Calvinist who did not believe limited atonement.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is not what you said. You said you never met a Calvinist who believed that the atonement was sufficient for all. Clearly you are wrong on that account. However, more to the point, there is no true Christian who does not believe in limited atonement as I have already shown.

I am not sure what your point quoting Chafer is. His categories are not all that helpful and are somewhat misleading but it certainly has nothing to do with this discussion.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I believe the Biblical view of atonement is that Christ died for all of His humanity.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is a sense in which this is certainly true. However, it fails to deal with the reality of Scripture, the meaning of propitiation, and the teaching regarding the atonement. As I previously recommended, Murray is very good on this point of the atonement. You should avail yourself of his work in order to flesh out your understanding on this issue.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Human beings cannot themselves contribute to their own salvation because there is nothing good within to offer oneself to God.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But then you turn around and contradict yourself by saying that man chooses God. This two are incompatible. Either man has nothing to offer within to offer himself to God or he has the good which exists in the ability to make a wise choice to choose God.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Prevenient Grace or Common Grace<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your lack of knowledge is showing again. Prevenient grace and common grace are two entirely separate entities. They are not the same and should not be confused. Prevenient grace is the unbiblical idea that all people have within them the grace to respond apart from the unilateral work of God (something you clearly refuted above). Common grace is that grace stemming from the atonement that affects all men, such as when God causes it to rain on the just and the unjust alike.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The Spirit of God draws a person to Christ so he or she through believing can find eternal salvation. Those who never hear the plan of salvation or reject it remain in a lost condition and worthy of everlasting punishment. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Careful … you are sounding like a Calvinist. No Calvinist ever said it better. However, once again, you are wholly inconsistent with the point you have previously been arguing.

 

Pastor Larry,

You are correct that Prevenient Grace and Common Grace are different. The Moody Hanbook of Theology speaks of Common Grace as 'God's unmerited favor to all humankind in providing sunshine, rainfall, food, and clothing. It may also denote God's withholding judgment and restraining sin. p. 636.

Just because a theologian is not a Five Point Calvinist does not mean that his scholarship or theology is weak. It merely means that his perspective is the other view and may be more Biblically correct than yours. Sounds like some of the people who post may be a hairs breath away from being closed minded. If one does not know the other persons view thoroughly, he will never know if his is correct.

Look how many people thought Esau was ordained to Hell, [Romans 9] when, in fact, he still is listed among the saints in Hebrews chapter eleven. Dr. Merrill C. Tenney holds to this position also. A scholar from Harvard . . .

"Ray"

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
If one does not know the other persons view thoroughly, he will never know if his is correct. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And this is why I try to point out when you have misrepresented or misunderstood the "other person's view."

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Look how many people thought Esau was ordained to Hell, [Romans 9] when, in fact, he still is listed among the saints in Hebrews chapter eleven. Dr. Merrill C. Tenney holds to this position also. A scholar from Harvard . . .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You brought this up earlier and I asked for the passage in Heb 11 where Esau is listed among the saints. Tenney may hold this position but it is far from explicit in this text. It merely says that Jacob and Esau were blessed. Hebrews 12 is the explicit commetn on Esau naming him as a godless and immoral person. I would always read the obscure (Heb 11) in light of the clear (Heb 12).

 

Some people who study the Bible try to build a case against Esau as though he were the worst sinner imaginable. They say Esau was a fornicator and cried his eyes out, but apparently, found no forgiveness from the Lord. [Hebrews 12:16 &17] This concept of God, as to refusing Esau's plea for Divine forgiveness is off the scope as to even being a possibility. The simple promise to any Christian is if we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us, even poor, old Esau. [I John 1:9] The bottom line to this idea is a misappropriation of Scripture; wrong interpretation. This was an unenlightened attempt to put Esau in Hell; I'll bet he is looking down and smiling at this one. Has any Christian on this board ever been refused Divine absolution after requesting forgiveness?

Jacob, the saint, had two children each, from maids who were servants of Rachael and Leah. Bilhah birthed Dan and Naphtali, and Zilpah brought into this world Gad and Asher. If my math serves me well, I think he fornicated at least four times. Any questions?

What makes Jacob's problem even worse, if not spiritually fatal is that we are never told that he even asked for Divine forgiveness. If you are an Arminian you might believe that because of this clear impropriety, he might have gone to Hell in the hour of his death. If you are a Calvinist you probably believe ‘once saved always saved.' Because of your view that Esau went to Hell because of his fornication, I guess the only thing to believe is that Jacob ended up in destruction also. Right?

The superlative interpretation is that both men were saved, because of Hebrews 11:13 & 39 which indicates that ‘ . . . all these died in faith or . . . all these obtained a good report through faith,' not via unconditional election.

Come out of the shadows;this is not obscure, this is clear.

"Ray"

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Human beings cannot themselves contribute to their own salvation because there is nothing good within to offer oneself to God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But then you turn around and contradict yourself by saying that man chooses God. This two are incompatible. Either man has nothing to offer within to offer himself to God or he has the good which exists in the ability to make a wise choice to choose God.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is not contradictory when you don't see our choice as some "good" we "offer" to God. The Bible never classifies a choice for God as a good work. That was entirely made up for the sake of this argument.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
Some people who study the Bible try to build a case against Esau as though he were the worst sinner imaginable.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Scripture is clear. It tells us that he was godless and immoral, not having the holiness without which no man shall see the Lord, and clearly in the category of those who "will not inherit the kingdom of God." Simply put, Esau is classified in Scripture as one who was not saved. You simply cannot ignore the texts you don't like.

What then was the seeking for repentance? Probably looking for a way to get his birthright back that he sold (cf Bruce [NICNT], and Morris [EBC]). That is what he was upset about. He, like everyone else, could not undo the choices he made in life. The text does not indicate that it was a spiritual repentance. It could have been the kind of sorrow Paul was warning about in 2 Cor 7.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Jacob, the saint, had two children each, from maids who were servants of Rachael and Leah. Bilhah birthed Dan and Naphtali, and Zilpah brought into this world Gad and Asher. If my math serves me well, I think he fornicated at least four times. Any questions? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First, what relevance is this? Second, how do you fornicate with a wife? These relationships are one of husband and wife (cf. Gen 29:4, 9). Again, a close adherence to the text of Scripture would serve you well in these discussion.

Furthemore, in Hebrews 11, Jacob is described as having faith. Say what you want, but that is never said about Esau.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The superlative interpretation is that both men were saved, because of Hebrews 11:13 & 39 which indicates that ‘ . . . all these died in faith or . . . all these obtained a good report through faith,' not via unconditional election. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Finally to the crux of the issue, Jacob and Esau are not the subject of "these all died in faith." The verse reads that "by faith, Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau concerning their future." NOtice that the faith here is attributed to Isaac, not Jacob and Esau. Notice the next verse where "by faith Jacob ... " Nowhere in Heb 11 is Esau said to have faith.

You have shown once again an inability to deal with the text. You simply cannot do that. The text says what it does. If you don't like what it says, change your views; don't change Scripture.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Come out of the shadows;this is not obscure, this is clear.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I have demonstrated above. The text of Scripture is the rule of doctrine. You have clearly contradicted it.

Scripture does not attribute saving faith to Esau. Scripture clearly attributes actions to Esau which mark him as one who will not inherit the kingdom of God. You deny this. As you say, it is clear.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Eric B:
It is not contradictory when you don't see our choice as some "good" we "offer" to God. The Bible never classifies a choice for God as a good work. That was entirely made up for the sake of this argument.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What choice can a dead man make? Did Lazarus choose to come out of the tomb?

Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.

The very faith one exercises is a gift from God. If one generated their own faith, they would be working for salvation. It would be a work, God would say "well done" and reward the lost sinner, and man would be the author of salvation, not God.

What part of grace don't you understand?

2 Tim. 2:25b (ESV)
..God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth

[ January 29, 2002: Message edited by: Chris Temple ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> What choice can a dead man make? Did Lazarus choose to come out of the tomb?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're comparing a physically dead (i.e., unconscious) person with a spiritually dead (but still conscious) person. That is one of the problems in the argument. They don't match.
And "faith as a gift" we have debated before. Salvation by grace is the gift, contrasted with works. Not faith as a work contrasted with faith as a gift.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> It would be a work, God would say "well done" and reward the lost sinner, and man would be the author of salvation, not God. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Non-sequitur necessitas

 

Nine pages is enough, OK?

This one is closed now.